Talk:Agrammatism

Agrammatism is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Medicine: Neurology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

note[edit]

This article claims that agrammatism is linked with jargon aphasia, which is news to me. As I understood it, jargon was much more common in syndromes like Wernicke's aphasia, whereas agrammatism usually refers to cases like Broca's aphasia. The reference provided describes a patient with jargon aphasia, but doesn't seem to mention agrammatism. Moreover, the jargon aphasia article claims that "speech is fluent and effortless with intact syntax and grammar," which is not agrammatism at all. I'm tempted to remove the claim, but I'm by no means an expert on this topic. Thoughts? Masily box 00:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masily box. Agrammatism is different than phonological access problem that exists in the jargon aphasia case cited. I am very much tempted to omit this part. Does anyone disagree?

Bastiaanse et al.[edit]

It seems the recent contributions to this article (substantial expansion) have been made by someone from that research group. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, First, I agree with that claim. comparing the feb. 2011 edition reveals it. the entire article is very lacking in clinical- and cognitive neuropsychological evidence, style, findings. it doesn't even say if it is a syndrome or a symptom. in the (newest) text books (eg. gazzaniga et. al 2008 or the Oxfort handbook of psycholinguistics) it is considered a symptom (basically associated with broca's aphasia). as such, there is no point in half of the research described as there isn't any way to infer to healthy population (not even one double dissociation is mentioned). anyways, style such as "Probably Bastiaanse et al. (subm.) hold the key" isn't what you would expect from wiki, considering that even text books or (rival) review articles don't write such decisive claims ... a quick check reveales that that Friedman has more cites than the other guy ( Bastiaanse) anyway the article should be returned to the Jan. 11 ontil someone can deal with it . I'm an MA student in Cog. sci. and linguistics, and I don't like stupid theories such as most of the ones described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.213.215 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agrammatism in catalan[edit]

the header makes it look like one of the central points of agrammatism research. well, it's not and the first sentence proves it: "there is little written...". i have removed the header and moved it into the general section, which used to be the "early history" (spanning from 1887 to -probably- Chomskian UG, haha), but it may be better to actually delete the whole thing, imho. really, this article is a mess. Muflon 83 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agrammatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]