Language intervention in Arabic–English bilingual aphasia: A case study

Knoph, Monica I. Koumanidi

doi:10.1080/02687038.2013.832139

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are consistent with a cross-linguistic generalisation of treatment gains reported in the literature (e.g. Edmonds and Kiran, 2006; Goral et al, 2010; Knoph, 2013; Kohnert, 2004; Kurland and Falcon, 2011) and lend strong support to the suggestion that cross-linguistic transfer is more likely to occur in languages of comparable proficiency (Edmonds and Kiran, 2006; Goral, 2012), possibly due to non-selective activation of bilinguals’ languages of high proficiency (e.g. Dijkstra et al, 2000; Kroll, Bobb, Misra and Guo, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In contrast, many of the studies that reported cross-language generalisation found it between languages of varying linguistic distance (e.g. Bengali and English in Croft et al 2011; Arabic and English in Knoph, 2013)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Several research studies have reported robust cross-language generalisation (e.g. Kiran and Iakupova, 2011; Knoph, 2013; Kurland and Falcon, 2011), whereas others have reported limited or non-existent change in the untreated language (Abutalebi, Della Rosa, Tettamanti, Green, and Kappa, 2009; Keane and Kiran, 2015; Meinzer, Obleser, Flaisch, Eulitz, and Rockstroh, 2007; Miller Amberber, 2012). It is also common for such treatment studies to report cross-language generalisation in some, but not all, outcome measures (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few studies have reported untreated aspects, such as overall test scores and severity levels (e.g. Knoph, 2013; Miller Amberber, 2012), or generalisation to connected speech production (Altman et al, 2012; Knoph et al, 2015). Particularly little is known about change in overall efficiency of language production, especially in mild aphasia, among bilingual individuals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, it has been suggested that cross-language generalisation is more likely to be observed between languages of comparable proficiency (Edmonds and Kiran, 2006; Goral, 2012), and from a weaker language to a stronger language (Edmonds and Kiran, 2006) or from a stronger language to a weaker one (Goral, 2012; Miertsch et al, 2009), and several studies have demonstrated that proficiency had little predicting value on cross-language effects (Knoph, 2013; Knoph et al, 2015). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The role of language proficiency and linguistic distance in cross-linguistic treatment effects in aphasia

Conner

Goral

Anema

et al. 2018

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current findings from intervention in bilingual aphasia are inconclusive regarding the extent to which levels of language proficiency and degree of linguistic distance between treated and non-treated languages influence cross-language generalisation and changes in levels of language activation and inhibition following treatment. In this study we enrolled a 65-year-old multilingual speaker with aphasia and administered treatment in his L1, Dutch. We assessed pre- and post-treatment performance for 7 of his languages, 5 of high proficiency and 2 of lower proficiency. We asked whether treatment in L1 would generalise to his other languages or increase interference among them. Forty hours of treatment were completed over the course of five weeks. Each language was tested three times at pre-treatment and at post-treatment. Testing included measures of narrative production, answering questions, picture description and question generation. Dependent measures examined language efficiency, defined as Correct Information Units/min. as well as language mixing, defined as proportion of code-mixed whole words. We found that our participant’s improved efficiency in Dutch was mirrored by parallel improvement in the four languages of high proficiency, English, German, Italian, and French. In contrast, in his languages of lower proficiency, Norwegian and Spanish, improved efficiency was limited. An increase in code-mixing was noted in Spanish, but not in Norwegian. We interpret the increased code-mixing in Spanish as indication of heightened inhibition following improvement in a language of close linguistic proximity, Italian. We conclude that an interaction of language proficiency and linguistic similarity affects cross-language generalisation following intervention in multilingual aphasia.

show abstract