Perhaps jargon could be used in general to mean that the listener hasn't understood the meaning that the speaker intended. In this sense, calling a chair 'an engine' could be considered jargon - if we are being very broad.
However, 'unrelated paraphasia' better describes this particular use of aphasic language. The fact is, the person with the language disorder does have some access to their lexicon. They are able to retrieve a word from their lexicon, and also create an appropriate phonological plan. The problem is, that the word they retrieved is incorrect.
Saying that a person speaks 'jargon' to me makes it sound like they are saying a completely made up word - neologisms. This indicates a problem at the phonological level, not the lexicon level.
So, to me, saying that this particular speaker, when calling a chair an engine, is using jargon does two things:
1. It makes their aphasia seem worse than it is - they are able to access their lexicon, and they are able to create a phonological plan.
2. It makes their problem seem different from what it may be - the use of neologisms (this is what I would call 'jargon') indicates a problem at the phonological level. The use of semantic/unrelated paraphasias indicates a problem at the level of the lexicon.
So, let us say that Fromkin is using jargon to mean that the intended meaning is not the one potrayed to the listener. If the aphasic person said 'engine', the listener would not relate this to 'chair'.
However, the more common use of jargon in speech pathology refers to non-words. It is an important stage in childhood speech. Children are said to be using 'jargon' when they use language which isn't as immature as babbling ('bababa', 'dadada', 'gabada' etc) and it usually follows the same intonation and syllable structure as the target language. However, it isn't actual words that they use - it is jargon words. The use of jargon words, however, indicates that the child is close to becoming verbal.
Last edited by Linguist__; 24-Jan-2010 at 04:54.
After having a quick search around the internet I think 'jargon aphasia' is what is more commonly known as 'Wernicke's aphasia', and what I'd call 'fluent aphasia.
Jargon to me refers to words that are made up. They will be somewhat like words in the target language, but the word will have no meaning.
As for aphasia vs. dysphasia, they mean the same thing. In a dictionary, 'Aphasia' will be given as 'a total loss of communication as a result of brain damage'; 'dysphasia' will be given as 'impairment of communication as a result of brain damage'. To me, there is no such thing as 'total loss of communication'. All people with aphasia will be able to communicate at some level. Language does not simply disappear. So, aphasia and dysphasia are the same thing. Aphasia is more commonly used, here in the UK at least.
People with fluent/Wernicke's aphasia are often able to understand pragmatic uses of language. They will discern meaning from intonation, facial expression, gesture etc, despite being able to understand the language, and still be able to communicate something. Think of a time where you've been in a country where you don't know the language, but have had to communicate. Communication wasn't impossible - gestures are really quite successful at showing meaning.
I think it might be appropriate to link to a video of a fluent aphasia client to illustrate some of the points that have been made:
YouTube - Wernicke's Aphasia
Examples of jargon words used by the female speaker would be 'avarmant', 'triangland', and so on. It is clear that she doesn't comprehend language, however, it is also clear that there isn't a total loss of communication. Her tone and intonation is left intact - it seems obvious to me that she is increasingly distressed at her problem through the tone of her voice. Also, some things she says indicate this: "I just don't sorry what you're doing and you just saving and walking and walking around here."
The male speaker is interesting. All of his words are jargon (apart from cigarette, for whatever strange reason). Notice, however, that despite the fact they are made up words, they often have some relation to the target word. Almost all are the correct number of syllables. Calling 'matches' a 'cigarette bokt' shows the semantic relation to cigarettes - a word the speaker can say successfully. Also, calling 'pen' a 'lined' shows some semantic relationship. In the repitition tasks especially, the speaker uses phonemes that are in the target word a lot of the time.
To me, this is what jargon is. Using words that do not exist in the language, but that have some relation - phonological usually - to real words.
Last edited by Linguist__; 24-Jan-2010 at 05:35.
Can I ask a question?
According to you, dear Linguist, Wernike's aphasia called fluent aphasia; How about Broca's aphasia? As I uderstood if Broka was damaged it would cause problem in performance- fluent in speaking and writing. Why do you call the wernike's aphasia as "fluent aphasia"? Can you help me?
I should point out that 'fluent' here has nothing to do with 'fluent' as in, "I am fluent in English, French, and Italian, but only a beginner in Spanish." Fluent means that the speech is unbroken, with no obvious pauses and hesitations. Perhaps that is where your confusion lies.
Also, keep in mind that a person with Wernicke's aphasia cannot comprehend language, including their own. When a person with this type of aphasia talks, they are not able to correct mistakes as a normal speaker would, as they understand just as little of their own speech as they do of others' speech.
Compare this with, say, conduction aphasia, where the speaker has similar characteristics in comprehension problems as Wernike's aphasia, but they are much more aware of their problem in what they hear. They often try to correct their speech. A person with Wernicke's aphasia does not try to correct their speech.
So, keeping in mind the definition of 'fluent' I gave earlier, Broca's aphasia is under a type of aphasia called 'non-fluent aphasia'. Here, comprehension is retained and production is limited. The person with Broca's aphasia is said to have non-fluent speech - many pauses, long hesitations etc.
I hope this clears up your doubts. The reason why I opt for 'non-fluent' aphasia and 'fluent' aphasia as opposed to 'Broca's' and 'Wernicke's' aphasia respectively is that it is all too easy to assume that if a patient is diagnosed with 'Broca's aphasia', then that patient has a lesion in Broca's area. The same with Wernicke's aphasia - the diagnosis may make one assume the lesion is in Wernicke's area. I have said in a previous post that the terms 'Broca's aphasia' and 'Wernicke's aphasia' do not describe areas of brain lesions, merely speech characteristics. To make this clear, I tend to avoid these words and go for 'fluent' and 'non-fluent'.
I would also like to mention the use of the word 'aphasic' here. I have been using it along with you in this thread, but really I should have been more consistent from the beginning. 'Aphasic' is an adjective, not a noun. It can be used as a noun, but it somewhat dehumanises the person with aphasia. Perhaps traditionally in medicine, diseases were 'more important' than the people, but that has very much changed. These days, medicine is very much about treating people with diseases. As such, referring to a person as 'an aphasic' focuses on the disease, rather than the person, and generally should be avoided. This isn't true of all conditions, yet. There is no problem in calling someone 'a diabetic', however, the nature of aphasia makes it a more sensitive disorder, perhaps. There is no real harm in saying 'an aphasic', but it would be better put as 'an aphasic person' or 'a person with aphasia'. Rant over.
Thank you so much for your help.