Effect of treatment for bilingual individuals with aphasia: A systematic review of the evidence

Integrated narrative analysis in multilingual aphasia: The relationship among narrative structure, grammaticality, and fluency

“…Cross-language generalisation has been reported in the literature (see Faroqi-Shah, Frymark, Mullen, & Wang, 2010;Kohnert, 2009) but not in all cases, and mostly for treated items and tasks (Edmonds & Kiran, 2006); for example, cross-language generalisation has been examined for translation equivalents of the treated items and related untreated items (e.g., Edmonds & Kiran, 2006;Kohnert, 2004). In terms of the direction of cross-language benefit, cross-language effects to the first-acquired language (here L1; Hebrew) have not always been found in the literature (e.g., Filiputti, Tavano, Vorano, de Luca, & Fabbro, 2002;Miertsch, Meisel, & Isel, 2009).…”

Language intervention in French–English bilingual aphasia: Evidence of limited therapy transfer

“…As therapy may potentially affect more than one domain, a comprehensive test is required to capture change across a range of tasks and modalities. Given the relatively small number of bilingual treatment studies that exist (see Faroqi-Shah et al, 2010;Kohnert, 2009) and the need to compare results across different language pairs, it is important that such a test is available in as many languages as possible. The Bilingual Aphasia Test (Paradis & Libben, 1987) provides an equivalent comprehensive standardised language assessment test that has been translated into more than 65 languages.…”

Language specificity of lexical-phonological therapy in bilingual aphasia: A clinical and electrophysiological study

“…Since the majority of the world's population is becoming bilingual, the number of bilingual aphasic patients is rapidly growing (Faroqi-Shah, Frymark, Mullen, & Wang, 2010). However, the optimal language rehabilitation strategy for bilingual aphasic patients remains unclear.…”

“…Despite the fact that conducting therapy in both languages has been advanced to facilitate language recovery (Ansaldo, Marcotte, Scherer, & Raboyeau, 2008;Kohnert, 2004), the general trend in aphasia rehabilitation still favours "monolingual" therapies (i.e., a therapy in one language) for the following reasons: (1) bilingual therapy has been argued to confuse the patient and lead to an increase in code mixing or code switching or that improvement occurs in only one of the treated languages (Edmonds & Kiran, 2006;Kiran, Sandberg, Gray, Ascenso, & Kester, 2013); (2) bilingual therapy can often not be provided due to practical limitations, and (3) based on evidence that in bilinguals the two languages usually share the same lexical and morphosyntactic representations (Gollan, Montoya, FennemaNotestine, & Morris, 2005), unilingual therapy may be the optimal approach to improve both languages in bilingual aphasic patients because crosslanguage treatment generalisation effects (CLG) should occur (Faroqi-Shah et al, 2010;Kohnert, 2009).…”

“…The Revised Hierarchical model enables even more specific predictions on the CLG, induced by unilingual phonological therapy: since the different languages have different although interconnected lexicons with stronger associations from L2 to L1, a phonological therapy in L2 is more likely to generalise to L1 compared to therapy in L1. In addition, since the lexicon interacts with semantic representations, lexico-semantic processing should also be improved with phonological therapy and in turn improve the global score of clinical aphasia assessment (Faroqi-Shah et al, 2010;Kroll & Stewart, 1994).…”