Department of Language and Communication Science, City University, London, UK.
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2011 Jan-Feb;46(1):48-62. doi: 10.3109/13682822.2010.484845. Epub 2010 Jul 26.
The majority of the world's population is bilingual. Yet, therapy studies involving bilingual people with aphasia are rare and have produced conflicting results. One recent study suggested that therapy can assist word retrieval in bilingual aphasia, with effects generalizing to related words in the untreated language. However, this cross-linguistic generalisation only occurred into the person's stronger language (L1). While indicative, these findings were derived from just three participants, and only one received therapy in both languages.
This study addressed the following questions. Do bilingual people with aphasia respond to naming therapy techniques developed for the monolingual population? Do languages respond differently to therapy and, if so, are gains influenced by language dominance? Does cross-linguistic generalisation occur and does this depend on the therapy approach? Is cross-linguistic generalisation more likely following treatment in L2 or L1?
METHODS & PROCEDURES: The study involved five aphasic participants who were bilingual in English and Bengali. Testing showed that their severity and dominance patterns varied, so the study adopted a case series rather than a group design. Each person received two phases of naming therapy, one in Bengali and one in English. Each phase treated two groups of words with semantic and phonological tasks, respectively. The effects of therapy were measured with a picture-naming task involving both treated and untreated (control) items. This was administered in both languages on four occasions: two pre-therapy, one immediately post-therapy and one 4 weeks after therapy had ceased. Testing and therapy in Bengali was administered by bilingual co-workers.
OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Four of the five participants made significant gains from at least one episode of therapy. Benefits arose in both languages and from both semantic and phonological tasks. There were three instances of cross-linguistic generalisation, which occurred when items had been treated in the person's dominant language using semantic tasks.
CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that 'typical' naming treatments can be effective for some bilingual people with aphasia, with both L1 and L2 benefiting. It offers evidence of cross-linguistic generalisation, and suggests that this is most likely to arise from semantic therapy approaches. In contrast to some results in the academic literature, the direction of generalisation was from LI to L2. The theoretical implications of these findings are considered. Finally, the results support the use of bilingual co-workers in therapy delivery.
世界上大多数人都是双语者。然而,涉及双语失语症患者的治疗研究很少,且得出的结果相互矛盾。最近的一项研究表明,治疗可以帮助双语失语症患者恢复单词检索能力,且这种效果可以在未治疗的语言中推广到相关词汇。然而,这种跨语言的泛化仅发生在患者的母语(L1)中。尽管这些发现具有指示性,但它们仅来自于三个参与者,且只有一个人在两种语言中接受了治疗。
本研究旨在回答以下问题。失语症的双语者是否对为单语人群开发的命名治疗技术有反应?语言对治疗的反应是否不同,如果是,那么增益是否受语言优势的影响?是否会发生跨语言的泛化,这种泛化是否取决于治疗方法?在 L2 或 L1 中进行治疗后,跨语言的泛化是否更有可能发生?
该研究涉及五名患有英语和孟加拉语双语的失语症患者。测试表明,他们的严重程度和优势模式各不相同,因此该研究采用了病例系列而非组设计。每个人都接受了两个命名治疗阶段,一个阶段是孟加拉语,另一个阶段是英语。每个阶段都使用语义和语音任务分别治疗两组单词。治疗效果通过一个涉及治疗和未治疗(对照)项目的图片命名任务来衡量。该任务在四种情况下进行:两次治疗前、一次治疗后即刻和一次治疗停止后 4 周。孟加拉语的测试和治疗由双语同事进行。
五名参与者中有四名至少从一次治疗中获得了显著的收益。收益出现在两种语言中,并且来自语义和语音任务。有三个跨语言泛化的例子,这是在患者的主导语言中使用语义任务治疗项目时发生的。
本研究表明,“典型”的命名治疗对一些患有失语症的双语者可能是有效的,L1 和 L2 都能受益。它提供了跨语言泛化的证据,并表明这最有可能来自语义治疗方法。与学术文献中的一些结果相反,泛化的方向是从 L1 到 L2。考虑了这些发现的理论意义。最后,结果支持在治疗中使用双语同事。