BRAIN
AND
LANGUAGE
8,
Experimentally
19-24 (1979)
Induced WOLFGANG
Phonological
Paraphasias
U. DRESSLER
Universitiit
Wien
A motor aphasic patient had to repeat word lists that contained, among other things, words with the sequences r - r - I and I - I - r. These sequences were often repeated as 1 - r - I (anticipatory distant assimilation) and r - I - r (same type, but less frequently), respectively. These assimilations violate the cross-over constraint (or relevancy condition or adjacency principle) and thus represent another instance of a flagrant contradiction between pathological and normal (natural) phonological processes.
Aphasiological studies of syntactic and lexical disturbances very often comprise experimental investigations which include tests with multiple choices. Typically, the investigator starts with a hypothesis about which types of errors might occur and how they would fit into a theory of aphasia and/or syntax (or lexicon). When drawing up the plan for an experiment, he calculates possible errors of the patient and how the actual errors would be described, quantified, and interpreted. On the other hand, phonological investigations usually either rely on errors made in spontaneous speech or on repetition tests which include words of varying difficulty where errors are largely unpredictable; often deviations from the target word can be analyzed in more than one way, even on the linguistic level of analysis (cf. Dressler, 1975b). The investigation reported here starts with a very specific linguistic hypothesis (embedded into a current patholinguistic claim) which is then experimentally tested. Consequences for the theory of phonological disturbances in aphasia are discussed. It is explicitly claimed by Wurzel & Bottcher (1975) and implicitly assumed by other phonologists that all phonological substitutions made by aphasic patients in “literal paraphasias” can be identified with subA preliminary version of this paper can be found in Dressler (1975a). I thank Dr. Karl Gloning for his help in finding adequate patients. Requests for reprints should be sent to Professor W. Dressler, lnstitut fur Sprachwissenschaft, Liechtensteinstrasse 46-A. A-1090, Vienna, Austria. 19 0093-934X/79/040019-06$02.00/0 Copyright 0 1979 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
20
WOLFGANG
U. DRESSLER
stitutions in the phonology of natural languages (i.e., in phonological competence). Such substitutions of the synchronic phonology of a language are subject to universal restrictions, one of which will be discussed here: the relevancy condition (Jensen, 1974) or cross-over constraint (Howard, 1975), a variant formulation called the adjacency principle which we may describe for our purpose as follows. In a phonological substitution process where phonemes of a certain class affect phonemes of the same class, in the direct or indirect neighborhood of the affecting phoneme, no phoneme of the same class may intervene between the affecting phoneme and the affected phoneme. For example, in Turkish vowel harmony (a perseveratory distant assimilation), the quality of the vowel in suffixes follows that of the next stem-vowel before it: e.g., the accusatives of the place-names izmir, Ankara, Burdur are fzmir-i, Ankara -yf (with a high central vowel corresponding to central a), Burdur-u, and of &tan/ml the accusative is htanbul-u, but not *Istanbul-Z (i.e., the nearest stem-vowel [in this case u] is relevant for the choice of the vowel of the accusative ending). A hypothetical, but incorrect form *htanbul-i, would violate the cross-over constraint, since phonemes of the same class (a,u) intervene between the affecting phoneme (word initial i) and the affected phoneme of the accusative ending. Thus the synchronic principle of the cross-over constraint accounts for the correctness of hanbul-u and the incorrectness of *Istanbul-i in Turkish (and in a parallel way for other languages with vowel harmony or phonological umlaut). Aphasic patients produce many distant assimilations. Wurzel & Biittcher’s claim (1975) would imply that these pathological substitutions also respect the cross-over constraint (relevancy condition). This can be tested with patients who are sufficiently prolific in errors of distant assimilations. Testwords must have the structure (1) WAXAYBZ and (2) WAXBYBZ where A and B are the tested phonemes, and W,X,Y,Z are sets of phonemes different from A and B. If distant assimilations occur and produce paraphasias of Type 1 (WAXBYBZ) and 2 (WAXAYBZ), then the cross-over constraint is respected, if they result in (1) WBXAYBZ and (2) WAXBYAZ, then the cross-over constraint is violated. Paraphasias of the type WAXAYAZ and WBXBYZ are irrelevant, since they could be produced with the observation or violation of the cross-over constraint. In 1974 and 1975 I worked with a patient who was prolific in distant assimilations (P.H., male, 35years-old, leather worker, motor aphasia after an accident in 1964, treated by K. Gloning since 1974. Since then he has improved considerably). For the study reported here, the patient was given a repetition task. In order to avoid learning effects, test lists were given in intervals of two or more months. In these test lists, A and B of the above formulae were represented by various closely related phonemes;
INDUCED
PHONOLOGICAL
21
PARAPHASIAS
for quantification the liquids 1 and r proved to be best. The patient was able to perceive the phonemic difference in a perception test: he identified Lampe “lamp” and Rampe “ramp” without a single error. Context-free (paradigmatic) substitutions of /I/ and lrl and vice-versa were very rare: Blumen “flowers” + [‘bru:gmen] Raumschiff “space-ship” + [‘laom’sIfj Glushuus
“glass-house” --, [‘gra:shaos] “grass-house”
(where a lexical factor might play a role). Thus we are entitled to interpret the following, very frequent substitutions as syntagmatic (contextsensitive) ones. Distant assimilations (as syntagmatic substitutions) were studied in the sequences of three liquids and showed the following types. Of all the paraphasias, the cross-over constraint was not violated only in the paraphasia GroJ’rudel “greatherd” += [‘gros:slU’bIdl] (i.e., Y- Y- 1 + r - I- 1). In the following data correct repetitions will be also given (and, of course, must be counted as nonviolations of the cross-over constraint). The cross-over constraint was violated in: (l)r-r-l-l-r-1:
“scroll” + [‘sllftrOla] (twice), [Slll Preiskontrolle “price control” + [‘plaenkOn’trOla, bl], correct twice. Korporul “corporal” + [lOkO’ra:l]. Richtstruhl “directed beam” + [‘lIct’Stra:l] (six times), correct twice. Brennstruhl “flaming beam” + [blen, bl], correct twice; correct repetitions occurred of rechtsradikal (once), Groj’rudel (twice, for our purpose also the paraphasia [‘gro:slU’bIdl] may be added, see above), Tretroller. Questionable and radical word substitutions were not counted. Schrifrolle
Altogether 14 violations, 10 nonviolations of the cross-over constraint (i.e., one paraphasia and nine correct repetitions) throughout all repetitions. (2) 1 - I- r + r - I- r: Luutlehre
“phonetics”
-+ [‘raot’le:ra] (twice), correct once.
Lilienkrunz “wreath of lilies” + [ri]. Correct: kulkulieren (three times), lilurot (twice), Zuhlenlehre (twice), Lichtlehre (three times).
Altogether: three violations, 11 nonviolations of the cross-over constraint (correct repetitions in this case). ’ e.e. incomplete distant assimilation
repetition
of the beginning of the word, which nevertheless
s”r- r - I --* ~“1.
shows the
22
WOLFGANG
U. DRESSLER
Thus I found only one case of a relevant distant assimilation (paraphasia) which respected the cross-over constraint, but 17 cases with its violation. The compounds were correctly repeated 20 times. Therefore we can conclude that in the event of paraphasias which involved a distant assimilation the cross-over constraint was almost never respected. Against this conclusion one might object that some of these errors might be interpreted as distant dissimilations (e.g., of 1 - 1 + r - I). This objection can be countered with the following statistics of assimilations and dissimilations in sequences of two liquids made by the same patient (numbers=instances of preservation, dissimilation, or assimilation). r - r preserved: 17, dissimilated to 1 -r: $3, to r - 1: 1 l-l-“53, -“- to r -1: $3, to I- r: fiI r-l-“11, assimilated to 1 - 1: 20 1 - r - ” - 19, - ” - to r - r: 6
If we compare syntagmatic substitutions within sequences of two liquids with those within sequences of three liquids, then we find the following parallels: (1) anticipatory assimilations of r - I+ 1 - 1 and of r - r - l+ 1 - r - 1 were frequent. (2) anticipatory assimilations of 1 - r + r - r and of I- 1 - r + r - I- r were much rarer.
Based on these analogies we may infer a third parallelism: (3) Only one distant dissimilation occurred in sequences of two liquids, therefore we may safely assume that only very few instances ofr - r - I+ I- r - 1 and of 1 - 1 - r + r - 1 - r should be interpreted as dissimilations. This conclusion is supported by my data from other Austrian (and Breton and American) aphasic patients which contained extremely few instances of distant dissimilations. Therefore the above analysis of distant assimilations violating the cross-over constraint is justified. P.H. violated the cross-over constraint also in cases of distant metathesis of I- r - r + r - r - 1: Lilienkranz, + [‘ri:gl’glants]. Vollkornbrot “whole-meal-bread” -+ [‘fOrnkonk’lo:t]. Lehrerkreis “teachers circle” + [‘rE:r ‘klaes].
Here metathesis happened between liquids which occur in stressed syllables. Thus we may say that (in accordance with findings in slips of the tongue? similarity of syllabic and rhythmic positions is a trigger of distant substitutions which overcome the cross-over constraint. Anticipatory assimilations violating the cross-over constraint occurred 2 Cf. Meringer & Mayer (1895: 23, 52ff), Meringer 91, 97ff, 126, 142, 176ff, 208, 213, 228).
(1908: 22, 34f), Fromkin
(1973: 18, 20,
INDUCED
PHONOLOGICAL
PARAPHASIAS
23
in the repetition of different sequences as well: n - n - 1 -+ I- n - - 1, where [n, 1] belong to the class of sonorants. Niihnadef “sewing needle” + [‘le:‘na:dl, ‘le:n’la:dl], nachtwundlerisch “somnabulistic” -+ [‘laxt’vaftErUrJ]. Class of occlusives: velar-velar-dental + dental- velar - dental: kriegsmiide “war-weary” + [‘tri:ks’my:da]. Perseveratory distant assimilations are rarer than anticipatory ones. Here the cross-over constraint was respected in r - I - 1 -+ r - r - I in: Realitiitenhiindler
rotlila “red lilac” + [‘ro:trIla], “real estate dealer” + l’rE:an’te:tn’hEntla],
but violated only once in I - r - r + I - r - 1: Lukritzenbrei
“licorice pap” --+ [la’krItsn’bla].
Thus the cross-over constraint seems to play a certain role in perseveratory distant assimilations, whereas it is irrelevant in anticipatory distant assimilations. This might cause us to assume a recency effect as the underlying psychological mechanism.3 Differences in distant assimilations between aphasia and natural languages are: (1) the violation of the cross-over constraint, (2) distant assimilations in aphasia occur very frequently with whole syllables (rhythmic repetition of syllables) and with consonants (called consonant harmony by Moessner & Pilch 1971, p. 400), and seem to be very rare with vowels, whereas natural languages show almost no instances of consonant harmony (Beeler 1970) in contrast to very frequent vowel harmony (e.g., Turkish, see above). However, both characteristics of aphasic distant substitutions occur in slips of the tongue (e.g., Fromkin 1973, p. 245 B.25). In both domains, substitutions are good evidence for extended levels of planning, in the sense of preactivation (anticipation) and postactivation (perseveration), see Lecours & Lhermitte (1969, p. 223). Here aphasic errors can be interpreted as exaggerations of normal speech errors (performance). Therefore it is not true (against Wurzel & Boettcher 1975) that all consonant substitutions in aphasia are identical with natural consonant substitution processes of natural languages (i.e., of competence). REFERENCES Beeler, M. S. 1970. Sibilant harmony in Chumash. Inrernarional Journal of American Linguistics, 36, 14-17. Dressier, W. 1975a. Provozierte Paraphasien. Wiener Linguistische Gazette, lO/ll, 3-7. 3 Since patients use such complicated compounds very rarely in spontaneous speech, and
sincesuchcompoundsare very difficult to represent in pictures, this study had to rely on repetition tests.
24
WOLFGANG U. DRESSLER
Dressier, W. 1975b. Aphasie und Theorie der Phonologie. Incontri linguistici, 1, 9-20. Fromkin, V. (Ed). 1973. Speech errors ns linguistic evidence. The Hague: Mouton. Howard, I. 1975. Can the “elsewhere condition” get anywhere? Language, 51, 109-127. Jensen, J. T. 1974. A constraint on variables in phonology. Language 50, 675-686. Lecours, A. R., & Lhermitte, F. 1969. Phonemic paraphasias. Cortex, 5, 193-228. Meringer, R. 1908. Aus dem Leben der Sprache. Berlin: Rohr. Meringer, R., & Mayer, K. 1895. Versprechen und Verlesen. Stuttgart: Goeschen. Moessner, A., & Pilch, H. 1971. Phonematisch-syntaktische Aphasie. Folia linguistica, 5, 394-409. Wurzel, W. U., & Boettcher, R. 1975. Konsonantencluster: Phonologische Komplexitat und aphatische Storungen. To appear in M. Bierwisch (Ed). Psychologische Aspekte sprachlicher Strukturkomponenten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
AND
LANGUAGE
8,
Experimentally
19-24 (1979)
Induced WOLFGANG
Phonological
Paraphasias
U. DRESSLER
Universitiit
Wien
A motor aphasic patient had to repeat word lists that contained, among other things, words with the sequences r - r - I and I - I - r. These sequences were often repeated as 1 - r - I (anticipatory distant assimilation) and r - I - r (same type, but less frequently), respectively. These assimilations violate the cross-over constraint (or relevancy condition or adjacency principle) and thus represent another instance of a flagrant contradiction between pathological and normal (natural) phonological processes.
Aphasiological studies of syntactic and lexical disturbances very often comprise experimental investigations which include tests with multiple choices. Typically, the investigator starts with a hypothesis about which types of errors might occur and how they would fit into a theory of aphasia and/or syntax (or lexicon). When drawing up the plan for an experiment, he calculates possible errors of the patient and how the actual errors would be described, quantified, and interpreted. On the other hand, phonological investigations usually either rely on errors made in spontaneous speech or on repetition tests which include words of varying difficulty where errors are largely unpredictable; often deviations from the target word can be analyzed in more than one way, even on the linguistic level of analysis (cf. Dressler, 1975b). The investigation reported here starts with a very specific linguistic hypothesis (embedded into a current patholinguistic claim) which is then experimentally tested. Consequences for the theory of phonological disturbances in aphasia are discussed. It is explicitly claimed by Wurzel & Bottcher (1975) and implicitly assumed by other phonologists that all phonological substitutions made by aphasic patients in “literal paraphasias” can be identified with subA preliminary version of this paper can be found in Dressler (1975a). I thank Dr. Karl Gloning for his help in finding adequate patients. Requests for reprints should be sent to Professor W. Dressler, lnstitut fur Sprachwissenschaft, Liechtensteinstrasse 46-A. A-1090, Vienna, Austria. 19 0093-934X/79/040019-06$02.00/0 Copyright 0 1979 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
20
WOLFGANG
U. DRESSLER
stitutions in the phonology of natural languages (i.e., in phonological competence). Such substitutions of the synchronic phonology of a language are subject to universal restrictions, one of which will be discussed here: the relevancy condition (Jensen, 1974) or cross-over constraint (Howard, 1975), a variant formulation called the adjacency principle which we may describe for our purpose as follows. In a phonological substitution process where phonemes of a certain class affect phonemes of the same class, in the direct or indirect neighborhood of the affecting phoneme, no phoneme of the same class may intervene between the affecting phoneme and the affected phoneme. For example, in Turkish vowel harmony (a perseveratory distant assimilation), the quality of the vowel in suffixes follows that of the next stem-vowel before it: e.g., the accusatives of the place-names izmir, Ankara, Burdur are fzmir-i, Ankara -yf (with a high central vowel corresponding to central a), Burdur-u, and of &tan/ml the accusative is htanbul-u, but not *Istanbul-Z (i.e., the nearest stem-vowel [in this case u] is relevant for the choice of the vowel of the accusative ending). A hypothetical, but incorrect form *htanbul-i, would violate the cross-over constraint, since phonemes of the same class (a,u) intervene between the affecting phoneme (word initial i) and the affected phoneme of the accusative ending. Thus the synchronic principle of the cross-over constraint accounts for the correctness of hanbul-u and the incorrectness of *Istanbul-i in Turkish (and in a parallel way for other languages with vowel harmony or phonological umlaut). Aphasic patients produce many distant assimilations. Wurzel & Biittcher’s claim (1975) would imply that these pathological substitutions also respect the cross-over constraint (relevancy condition). This can be tested with patients who are sufficiently prolific in errors of distant assimilations. Testwords must have the structure (1) WAXAYBZ and (2) WAXBYBZ where A and B are the tested phonemes, and W,X,Y,Z are sets of phonemes different from A and B. If distant assimilations occur and produce paraphasias of Type 1 (WAXBYBZ) and 2 (WAXAYBZ), then the cross-over constraint is respected, if they result in (1) WBXAYBZ and (2) WAXBYAZ, then the cross-over constraint is violated. Paraphasias of the type WAXAYAZ and WBXBYZ are irrelevant, since they could be produced with the observation or violation of the cross-over constraint. In 1974 and 1975 I worked with a patient who was prolific in distant assimilations (P.H., male, 35years-old, leather worker, motor aphasia after an accident in 1964, treated by K. Gloning since 1974. Since then he has improved considerably). For the study reported here, the patient was given a repetition task. In order to avoid learning effects, test lists were given in intervals of two or more months. In these test lists, A and B of the above formulae were represented by various closely related phonemes;
INDUCED
PHONOLOGICAL
21
PARAPHASIAS
for quantification the liquids 1 and r proved to be best. The patient was able to perceive the phonemic difference in a perception test: he identified Lampe “lamp” and Rampe “ramp” without a single error. Context-free (paradigmatic) substitutions of /I/ and lrl and vice-versa were very rare: Blumen “flowers” + [‘bru:gmen] Raumschiff “space-ship” + [‘laom’sIfj Glushuus
“glass-house” --, [‘gra:shaos] “grass-house”
(where a lexical factor might play a role). Thus we are entitled to interpret the following, very frequent substitutions as syntagmatic (contextsensitive) ones. Distant assimilations (as syntagmatic substitutions) were studied in the sequences of three liquids and showed the following types. Of all the paraphasias, the cross-over constraint was not violated only in the paraphasia GroJ’rudel “greatherd” += [‘gros:slU’bIdl] (i.e., Y- Y- 1 + r - I- 1). In the following data correct repetitions will be also given (and, of course, must be counted as nonviolations of the cross-over constraint). The cross-over constraint was violated in: (l)r-r-l-l-r-1:
“scroll” + [‘sllftrOla] (twice), [Slll Preiskontrolle “price control” + [‘plaenkOn’trOla, bl], correct twice. Korporul “corporal” + [lOkO’ra:l]. Richtstruhl “directed beam” + [‘lIct’Stra:l] (six times), correct twice. Brennstruhl “flaming beam” + [blen, bl], correct twice; correct repetitions occurred of rechtsradikal (once), Groj’rudel (twice, for our purpose also the paraphasia [‘gro:slU’bIdl] may be added, see above), Tretroller. Questionable and radical word substitutions were not counted. Schrifrolle
Altogether 14 violations, 10 nonviolations of the cross-over constraint (i.e., one paraphasia and nine correct repetitions) throughout all repetitions. (2) 1 - I- r + r - I- r: Luutlehre
“phonetics”
-+ [‘raot’le:ra] (twice), correct once.
Lilienkrunz “wreath of lilies” + [ri]. Correct: kulkulieren (three times), lilurot (twice), Zuhlenlehre (twice), Lichtlehre (three times).
Altogether: three violations, 11 nonviolations of the cross-over constraint (correct repetitions in this case). ’ e.e. incomplete distant assimilation
repetition
of the beginning of the word, which nevertheless
s”r- r - I --* ~“1.
shows the
22
WOLFGANG
U. DRESSLER
Thus I found only one case of a relevant distant assimilation (paraphasia) which respected the cross-over constraint, but 17 cases with its violation. The compounds were correctly repeated 20 times. Therefore we can conclude that in the event of paraphasias which involved a distant assimilation the cross-over constraint was almost never respected. Against this conclusion one might object that some of these errors might be interpreted as distant dissimilations (e.g., of 1 - 1 + r - I). This objection can be countered with the following statistics of assimilations and dissimilations in sequences of two liquids made by the same patient (numbers=instances of preservation, dissimilation, or assimilation). r - r preserved: 17, dissimilated to 1 -r: $3, to r - 1: 1 l-l-“53, -“- to r -1: $3, to I- r: fiI r-l-“11, assimilated to 1 - 1: 20 1 - r - ” - 19, - ” - to r - r: 6
If we compare syntagmatic substitutions within sequences of two liquids with those within sequences of three liquids, then we find the following parallels: (1) anticipatory assimilations of r - I+ 1 - 1 and of r - r - l+ 1 - r - 1 were frequent. (2) anticipatory assimilations of 1 - r + r - r and of I- 1 - r + r - I- r were much rarer.
Based on these analogies we may infer a third parallelism: (3) Only one distant dissimilation occurred in sequences of two liquids, therefore we may safely assume that only very few instances ofr - r - I+ I- r - 1 and of 1 - 1 - r + r - 1 - r should be interpreted as dissimilations. This conclusion is supported by my data from other Austrian (and Breton and American) aphasic patients which contained extremely few instances of distant dissimilations. Therefore the above analysis of distant assimilations violating the cross-over constraint is justified. P.H. violated the cross-over constraint also in cases of distant metathesis of I- r - r + r - r - 1: Lilienkranz, + [‘ri:gl’glants]. Vollkornbrot “whole-meal-bread” -+ [‘fOrnkonk’lo:t]. Lehrerkreis “teachers circle” + [‘rE:r ‘klaes].
Here metathesis happened between liquids which occur in stressed syllables. Thus we may say that (in accordance with findings in slips of the tongue? similarity of syllabic and rhythmic positions is a trigger of distant substitutions which overcome the cross-over constraint. Anticipatory assimilations violating the cross-over constraint occurred 2 Cf. Meringer & Mayer (1895: 23, 52ff), Meringer 91, 97ff, 126, 142, 176ff, 208, 213, 228).
(1908: 22, 34f), Fromkin
(1973: 18, 20,
INDUCED
PHONOLOGICAL
PARAPHASIAS
23
in the repetition of different sequences as well: n - n - 1 -+ I- n - - 1, where [n, 1] belong to the class of sonorants. Niihnadef “sewing needle” + [‘le:‘na:dl, ‘le:n’la:dl], nachtwundlerisch “somnabulistic” -+ [‘laxt’vaftErUrJ]. Class of occlusives: velar-velar-dental + dental- velar - dental: kriegsmiide “war-weary” + [‘tri:ks’my:da]. Perseveratory distant assimilations are rarer than anticipatory ones. Here the cross-over constraint was respected in r - I - 1 -+ r - r - I in: Realitiitenhiindler
rotlila “red lilac” + [‘ro:trIla], “real estate dealer” + l’rE:an’te:tn’hEntla],
but violated only once in I - r - r + I - r - 1: Lukritzenbrei
“licorice pap” --+ [la’krItsn’bla].
Thus the cross-over constraint seems to play a certain role in perseveratory distant assimilations, whereas it is irrelevant in anticipatory distant assimilations. This might cause us to assume a recency effect as the underlying psychological mechanism.3 Differences in distant assimilations between aphasia and natural languages are: (1) the violation of the cross-over constraint, (2) distant assimilations in aphasia occur very frequently with whole syllables (rhythmic repetition of syllables) and with consonants (called consonant harmony by Moessner & Pilch 1971, p. 400), and seem to be very rare with vowels, whereas natural languages show almost no instances of consonant harmony (Beeler 1970) in contrast to very frequent vowel harmony (e.g., Turkish, see above). However, both characteristics of aphasic distant substitutions occur in slips of the tongue (e.g., Fromkin 1973, p. 245 B.25). In both domains, substitutions are good evidence for extended levels of planning, in the sense of preactivation (anticipation) and postactivation (perseveration), see Lecours & Lhermitte (1969, p. 223). Here aphasic errors can be interpreted as exaggerations of normal speech errors (performance). Therefore it is not true (against Wurzel & Boettcher 1975) that all consonant substitutions in aphasia are identical with natural consonant substitution processes of natural languages (i.e., of competence). REFERENCES Beeler, M. S. 1970. Sibilant harmony in Chumash. Inrernarional Journal of American Linguistics, 36, 14-17. Dressier, W. 1975a. Provozierte Paraphasien. Wiener Linguistische Gazette, lO/ll, 3-7. 3 Since patients use such complicated compounds very rarely in spontaneous speech, and
sincesuchcompoundsare very difficult to represent in pictures, this study had to rely on repetition tests.
24
WOLFGANG U. DRESSLER
Dressier, W. 1975b. Aphasie und Theorie der Phonologie. Incontri linguistici, 1, 9-20. Fromkin, V. (Ed). 1973. Speech errors ns linguistic evidence. The Hague: Mouton. Howard, I. 1975. Can the “elsewhere condition” get anywhere? Language, 51, 109-127. Jensen, J. T. 1974. A constraint on variables in phonology. Language 50, 675-686. Lecours, A. R., & Lhermitte, F. 1969. Phonemic paraphasias. Cortex, 5, 193-228. Meringer, R. 1908. Aus dem Leben der Sprache. Berlin: Rohr. Meringer, R., & Mayer, K. 1895. Versprechen und Verlesen. Stuttgart: Goeschen. Moessner, A., & Pilch, H. 1971. Phonematisch-syntaktische Aphasie. Folia linguistica, 5, 394-409. Wurzel, W. U., & Boettcher, R. 1975. Konsonantencluster: Phonologische Komplexitat und aphatische Storungen. To appear in M. Bierwisch (Ed). Psychologische Aspekte sprachlicher Strukturkomponenten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
