CAP English Data
Elizabeth Bates (1947-2003)
UC San Diego
| Participants: || 11 |
| Type of Study: || naturalistic |
| Location: || USA |
| Media type: || audio |
| DOI: || doi:10.21415/T5532D |
This is the English segment of the CAP (Comparative Aphasia Project). No media files are available for these transcripts.
All of the data were collected using a common procedure, which is the “given-new” picture description task of
MacWhinney and Bates (1978). This procedure was varied only slightly to allow the aphasic participants to see
three pictures in a series at once. Participants saw nine sets of pictorial stimuli that could be described in
terms of simple sentences. For example, Series 2 consists of three pictures of the same boy, which can be described by these sentences:
- A boy is running.
- A boy is skiing.
- A boy is swimming.
In this listing, these abbreviations are used for the major elements of a sentence: S=subject, V=verb, O=object,
L=object of the locative preposition, and I=indirect object. The three pictures in each series are called frames.
For example, (a) is the first frame, (b) is the second frame, and (c) is the third frame.
In this particular series, the subject increases in givenness across the frames whereas the verb increases in newness.
In Series 6 and 7, the verb is taken to include both the copular and the locative preposition.
(In Hungarian, the locative is a postposition or suffix rather than a preposition.)
The order of the nine series of pictures was randomized. Following each series, a picture of a
common object such as a bottle or a sailboat was inserted. This was done to break up any set (Einstellung) effects.
Participants were examined individually. Each participant was seated next to the experimenter at a table.
The participants were told that they would be asked to tell about what they saw in some pictures. The experimenter
showed the pictures in groups of three, varying the placement of particular pictures left, middle, and right across
participants. Two probes were used: “Tell me about this picture,” and “What’s happening in this picture?”
Use of the two probes was also randomized. Each session was tape recorded in its entirety.
|1 ||S V A ||bear (mouse, bunny) is crying.
|2 ||S V A ||boy is running (swimming, skiing).
|3 ||S V O ||A monkey (squirrel, bunny) is eating a banana.
|4 ||S V O ||A boy is kissing (hugging, kicking) a dog.
|5 ||S V O ||A girl is eating an apple (cookie, ice cream).
|6 ||S V L ||A dog is in (on, under) a car.
|7 ||S V L ||A cat is on a table (bed, chair).
|8 ||S V O I || A lady is giving a present (truck, mouse) to a girl.
|9 ||S V O I ||A cat is giving a flower to a boy (bunny, dog).
All participants were right-handed. All aphasic participants had left lateral lesions. The transcripts in the CHILDES
database are from either Broca’s aphasics, Wernicke aphasics, or anomics. The characterization of these syndromes is as follows:
Broca’s aphasics are nonfluent patients, displaying an abnormal reduction in utterance length and sentence complexity,
with marked errors of omission or substitution in grammatical morphology.
Wernicke’s aphasics are patients suffering from marked comprehension deficits, despite fluent or hyper-fluent
speech with an apparently normal melodic line; these patients are expected to display serious word-finding difficulties,
usually with semantic and/or phonological paraphasias and occasional paragrammatisms.
Anomics are fluent patients, with apparently normal comprehension abilities in free conversation, suffering primarily
from word-finding problems (in the absence of severe paraphasias or paragrammatism).
Patients were referred for testing by neurologists and speech pathologists at the respective research sites, with
one of the above diagnoses. In support of each classification, we were provided with neurological records
(including CT scans in many cases), together with the results of standard aphasia batteries that were used at
the respective research sites, such as the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination in the United States and the
Aachen Aphasia Battery in Europe. To eliminate the possibility that a patient
had changed status since the diagnosis provided at referral, patients were all screened in a biographical
interview ad-ministered and recorded prior to testing. In addition, we excluded all patients with one or more of the following conditions:
Patient groups were defined within each language according to their fit to a prototype used by neurologists and speech pathologists
in that community. For example, a prototypic Broca’s aphasic would show reduced fluency and phrase length, and a tendency
toward omission of functors. Hence patients were matched across languages only in the sense that they represented different
degrees of deviation from a prototype developed out of observed variation within each language group. This permitted
comparison of the “best” and the “worst” patients across languages, as well as those who fit the mean.
- history of multiple strokes,
- significant hearing and/or visual disabilities,
- severe gross motor disabilities,
- severe motor-speech involvement such that less than 50% of the participant’s speech attempts were intelligible, or
- evidence that participant was neurologically or physically unstable and/or less than 3 months post onset.
|File ||Sex ||Onset ||Test Lag ||Etiology ||Ed. Occupation
|B1-71 ||M ||58 ||2 years ||CVA ||12 telephone engineer
|B2-73 ||M ||31 ||1 year ||CVA ||16 engineer
|B3-76 ||M ||61 ||5 years ||CVA ||- telephone repair
|B4-66 ||M ||43 ||8 years ||CVA ||18 accountant
|B5-74 ||M ||33 ||3 years ||Trauma ||15 electronics
|B6-72 ||M ||44 ||1 year ||CVA ||- -
|W1-82 ||M ||47 ||2 months ||CVA ||16 insurance
|W2-83 ||M ||81 ||1 year ||CVA ||- build. maintenance
|W3-84 ||M ||56 ||1 month ||CVA 11 ||-
|W4-81 ||M ||53 ||1 year ||CVA 16 ||parish priest
|W5-85 ||M ||61 ||3 weeks ||CVA 18 ||army colonel
Publications using these data should cite one or more of these studies:
- Bates, E., Friederici, A., & Wulfeck, B. (1987a). Grammatical morphology in aphasia: Evidence from three languages. Cortex, 23, 545–574.
- Bates, E., Friederici, A., & Wulfeck, B. (1987b). Sentence comprehension in aphasia: A cross-linguistic study. Brain and Language, 32, 19–67.
- Bates, E., Friederici, A., Wulfeck, B., & Juarez, L. (1988). On the preservation of word order in aphasia: Cross-linguistic evidence. Brain and Language, 33, 323–364.
- Bates, E., Hamby, S., & Zurif, E. (1983). The effects of focal brain damage on pragmatic expression. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 59–84.
- Bates, E., & Wulfeck, B. (1989a). Comparative aphasiology: A crosslinguistic approach to language breakdown. Aphasiology, 3, 11–142.
- Bates, E., & Wulfeck, B. (1989b). Crosslinguistic studies of aphasia. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing, (pp. 328–374). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1978). Sentential devices for conveying givenness and newness: A cross-cultural developmental study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 539–558.
- Wulfeck, B., Bates, E., Juarez, L., Opie, M., Friederici, A., MacWhinney, B., & Zurif, E. (1989). Pragmatics in aphasia: Crosslinguistic evidence. Language and Speech, 32, 315–336.
In accordance with TalkBank rules, any use of data from this corpus must be accompanied by at least one of the above references.