A seleção de pacientes em estudos lingüísticos sobre o agramatismo e a afasia de Broca: problemas e soluções para o debate sobre estudos de caso e de grupo

Abstract

Since the beginning of linguistic aphasiology studies, the validity of grouping aphasics for research purposes has been widely debated. Some authors criticize group studies because they believe there is too much variation among individuals performance and consider the criteria used for grouping patients together to be subjective and pre-theoretical, since those are usually defined by clinical impressions and are not linguistically grounded. Under these assumptions they judge the case studies to be the only adequate methodology (Badecker e Caramazza, 1985, 1991). On the opposite direction, there are some authors who support group studies as they believe that solely this methodology could account for the variation, which would be impossible on case studies, in which the identification of exceptionalities on individuals performance is unattainable (Caplan, 1986; Zurif, Swinney e Fodor, 1991). In spite of this debate, there are only a few authors who actually look for solutions to the main cause of the conflict, which may also be considered as one of the major flaws in this field of study. The criteria of patients selection commonly applied in the studies are theoretically antiquated and can even vary depending on each author s objectives (Caplan, 1995). The goal of this dissertation is to demonstrate the need for a reevaluation of these criteria. With this intention in mind, we undertook an investigation of four (traditionally classified) Broca s aphasics comprehension on two experimental tasks which measured their performance on active and passive sentences, as well as in subject, object and in situ object WH questions. The results of these experiments allowed us to demonstrate how a problematic patients selection hinders the development of this field of study, as it makes both case and group studies biased, increasing the theoretical disagreements among the authors. Thus, conversely to what is generally done, we carried out an evaluation of the patients performances without assuming those problematic, pre-established classification criteria, which relieves our work from the problems found on case or group studies, since we assumed an initial linguistic characterization of the patients, considering their results on active and passive sentences, instead of the clinical one. As a result, we noticed that through this different way of analyzing patients performance it is possible to get information concerning the deficit and the organization of the linguistic system, without needing to be compromised with case or group views in a traditional way