Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T07:48:11.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Residual Normality and the issue of language profiles in Williams syndrome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2003

Csaba Pléh
Affiliation:
Center for Cognitive Science, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, and Department of Neuropsychology and Psycholinguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Müegyetem Rkp 9 R 203 H-111, Hungarypleh@itm.bme.hu
Ágnes Lukács
Affiliation:
Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciencesalukacs@nytud.hu
Mihály Racsmány
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Bristol, and Department of Psychology, University of Szegedracsmany@edpsy.u-szeged.hu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

One of the debated issues regarding Residual Normality (RN) is frequency sensitivity in Williams syndrome (WS). We present some data on frequency sensitivity in Hungarian WS subjects. Based on vocabulary measures, we suggest that instead of the across-the-board frequency insensitivity proposed by some, a higher frequency threshold characterizes these subjects’performance. Results from a category fluency task show that whereas frequency sensitivity in WS is in line with controls, error patterns imply a qualitatively distinct, looser categorical organization. Regarding the much-debated issue of morphological overgeneralizations, our data suggest that frequency sensitivity cuts across the divisions proposed by dual-process theories. In general, some of the frequency effects are the same as in typically developing populations, but with a delayed pattern. Frequency may be interpreted as supporting RN, but in WS it operates with higher thresholds that might be a general processing feature of WS individuals.

Type
Brief Report
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press