No abstract

In many parts of the world, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are frequently called upon to assess aphasia in bilingual speakers, or in speakers of languages of which they have little or no knowledge. One of the strategies that SLPs employ in these situations is to involve an interpreter in the assessment process. Three authentic interpreter-mediated aphasia assessments were analysed for the present study, which aimed to determine the degree to which the content validity of the individual tests was compromised in the process of their administration through an interpreter. Findings reveal that content validity was frequently weakened either at the point of administration of the test or at the point at which responses were reported back by the interpreter to the SLP. Based on these findings, it is argued that the conduct of interpreter-mediated aphasia assessments needs to be fundamentally re-thought to take account of the limitations inherent in the interpreting process. To this end, this study presents a number of practical recommendations for the involvement of interpreters in aphasia assessments, with a view to making optimal use of existing assessment materials and enhancing the quality of diagnostic information to emerge from such clinical sessions.

Using discourse analytical methods, this article examines the interactional accomplishment of trust. Focusing on a case study drawn from a corpus of 28 surgical consultations collected in a gastro-intestinal clinic, it traces the trust-building process in a specific, communicatively challenging encounter where the patient is seeking a second opinion following an operation that she deems unsuccessful. Discourse analytical findings make visible the doctor’s strategic interactional work to build interpersonal trust with the patient and to regain her trust in the surgical profession. This work extends beyond interaction with the patient to include dictation of a letter to the referring doctor in the patient’s presence. Close analysis of the encounter reveals how this co-constructed consultation letter is deployed to strengthen the fragile patient–doctor trust engendered thus far. The article therefore provides insights into the discursive processes of trust building that could potentially be of considerable practical relevance to the medical profession.

No abstract

No abstract