Universita` di Milano-Bicocca, ItalyAvailable online 29 July 2004IntroductionMass nouns like milk or salt usually refer to substances, whereascount nouns like dish or chair denote objects (Quine, 1960). This se-mantic difference between mass and count nouns also has a syntacticcounterpart(seeGillon,1992):massnounsinthesingularformcanonlybe modifiedby quantifiers that do not enumerate (e.g., some milk, muchsalt), whereas count nouns can be used with quantifiers that enumerate(e.g.,eachdish,onechair).Inviewofthefactthatmassandcountnounscan be differentiated either syntactically or semantically, it is of partic-ular interest to investigate semantic and syntacticprocessing in patientswithlanguagedifficultiesbycontrastingmassandcountnouns.Todate,neuropsychological findings on this distinction are still scarce (Gross-man, Mickanin, Onishi, & Hughes, 1995; Semenza, Mondini, & Mari-nelli, 1997; Vigliocco, Vison, Martin, & Garrett, 1999).Two studies are reported here conducted with Italian-speakingpatients with language disorders performing both a syntactic and asemantic task involving mass and count nouns. Study 1 describes theperformance of an aphasic patient (GA) and results are discussed andcompared to those of the aphasic patient described by Semenza et al.(1997). Study 2 reports multiple single-case data from Alzheimer’sdisease (AD) patients to investigate their ability to process mass/countsemantics and mass/count syntax, compared to their general syntacticand semantic capacities. If the mass/count distinction reflects the or-ganization of the lexical-semantic system, a differential performance onthe mass/count semantic and syntactic distinctions will be found.Materials and procedureThe experimental stimuli included 12 mass and 12 count nouns inthe singular form, matched for number of syllables and familiarity.Two experimental tasks were carried out: a semantic judgment taskand a syntactic judgment task. In both tasks a pair of four-wordsentences was presented. In the semantic task, patients had to select thesentence with the appropriate predicative adjective (e.g., This mouse isplentiful*/This mouse is big; The snow is abundant/The snow is large*).In this task, the right choice signals the ability to distinguish the ‘no-tional’ difference between objects and substances (i.e., count and massnouns). In the syntactic task, patients had to judge the correctness ofthe quantifier used in the sentence (e.g., He caught much mouse*/Hecaught one mouse; It fell some snow/It fell one snow*). This task impliesa syntactic judgment, i.e., the matching of a noun with a quantifier thatdoes or does not enumerate. In both tasks, the 24 pairs of experimentalmass/count stimuli were randomized and intermixed with 64 pairs offiller sentencesfeaturing other types of semantic or syntactic violations.ResultsThe performance of 12 controls, matched for age and educationwith the patients, provided the normative data (i.e., cut-off values).Study 1The aphasic patient (GA) showed deficits exclusively in the syn-tactic task (Table 1A). More specifically, he showed difficulties withfiller items, but his performance on mass/count syntactic items wasflawless. Moreover, he also showed an impaired performance in thesyntactic tasks of an external linguistic battery (Miceli, Laudanna,Burani, & Capasso, 1994). These results suggest that despite markedsyntactic difficulties GA was able to use the syntactic rules that un-derlie mass/count nouns.Study 2Three AD patients were tested with a two-month follow-up (Table1B). In the first assessment, patient SL showed semantic difficultieswith fillers only, but in the second assessment her semantic deficit alsoinvolved mass nouns. Patient FR first showed a deficit in processingmass-noun and filler sentences both semantically and syntactically,while preserving correct judgment on sentences involving count nouns.Two months later, the disorder also involved count nouns. In the firstevaluation, patient CF showed a selective difficulty with mass nounsin the semantic task only. She maintained the same profile in thefollow-up.DiscussionThese data corroborate the hypothesis of the specificity of mass/count noun rules and allowed to compare semantic and syntacticprocessing in aphasia and during the evolution of dementia.Brain and Language 91 (2004) 138–139www.elsevier.com/locate/b&l
Read full abstract