Several models of comprehension deficits in agrammatic aphasia rely heavily on linear considerations in the assignment of thematic roles to structural positions (e.g., the Trace-Deletion Hypothesis, the Mapping Hypothesis, and the Argument-Linking Hypothesis). These accounts predict that constructions in languages with rules that affect syntactic structure but preserve relative linear order should be unimpaired. Other models [e.g., the Double-Dependency Hypothesis, (DDH)] do not resort to linearity but are purely structural in conception and therefore should be immune to word-order effects. We tested linear and nonlinear accounts with scrambling structures in Korean and topicalization structures in Spanish. The results are very clear. The (nonlinear) DDH is entirely compatible with the evidence, but the linear accounts are not.
