ABSTRACT Writing has long been considered to be dependent on speaking. However, modality-specific dissociations between written and spoken word production imply that word production is supported by distinct neural mechanisms in writing, which can be impaired or spared regardless of the intactness of spoken word production. Rapp et al. (2015). Modality and morphology: What we write may not be what we say. Psychological Science, 26, 892–902 documented a double dissociation where problems with regular inflections were selectively restricted to writing or speaking. We report on two English-speaking aphasic individuals who exhibit this same modality-specific dissociation of inflectional processing, replicating the original findings. We expand on Rapp et al.’s study by examining whether the dissociations observed with regular inflections extend to other morphological forms, such as derivation and irregular inflection. Results showed that the dissociation holds for derivation; however, both participants were impaired with irregular inflections in both output modalities. Implications of these findings for morphological processing and the independence of the orthographic system are discussed.

中文翻译：

---

形态学是如何特定于模态的？

摘要长期以来，写作一直被认为依赖于口语。然而，书面和口语产生之间特定于模态的分离意味着文字产生受到写作中不同神经机制的支持，无论口语产生的完整性如何，都可能受到损害或幸免。拉普等人。(2015)。模态和形态：我们写的可能不是我们说的。Psychological Science, 26, 892-902 记录了双重分离，其中定期变化的问题被选择性地限制在写作或口语中。我们报告了两个说英语的失语症患者，他们表现出这种相同的屈折加工特定模态分离，复制了原始发现。我们扩展了 Rapp 等人。的研究通过检查观察到的规则拐点的分离是否扩展到其他形态形式，例如派生和不规则拐点。结果表明，解离对于推导成立；然而，两名参与者都因两种输出方式的不规则变化而受损。讨论了这些发现对形态处理和正字法系统独立性的影响。