Talk:Agrammatism

note
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)

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.
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)

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)

agrammatism in catalan
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added tag to http://seneca.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/reports/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921210714/http://webs2002.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/pdf/Martinez_Ferreiro.pdf to http://webs2002.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/pdf/Martinez_Ferreiro.pdf

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

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