Recovery of naming and discourse production: A bilingual anomic case study

Abstract

Background: Differential language recovery in bilingual speakers with aphasia is of interest for theoretical reasons. One issue concerns the interaction between languages (L1–L2), word class (noun versus verb), and language task (naming versus discourse production in recovery). No study has examined this issue in Chinese speakers with aphasia who speak two dialects such as Cantonese and Mandarin that have different phonological and syntactic properties.

Aims: We compared the patterns of confrontation naming and discourse production in YF, a Cantonese–Mandarin speaker with a chronic mild anomic aphasia after stroke. Our prediction was that there would be an interaction between the language, word class, and language task.

Methods & Procedures: Naming was examined in Cantonese (L1) and Mandarin (L2) with an adaptation of the Object and Action Naming Battery (Druks & Masterson, 2000). Discourse production in L1 and L2 was analysed with the Quantitative Production Analysis (Berndt, Wayland, Rochon, Saffran, & Schwartz, 2000) and Conversation Analysis Profile for People with Aphasia (Whitworth, Perkins, & Lesser, 1997).

Outcomes & Results: There were no significant differences in object and action naming or in discourse production between dialects. However there was an effect of word class on naming in L2, with object naming better than action naming in Mandarin, but not in Cantonese (L1).

Conclusions: Word class had an effect on recovery in YF's less-dominant language as in other cases of bilingual aphasia. The interaction between word class and language status in a Cantonese–Mandarin speaker suggests that this pattern of recovery is robust across languages.

Keywords:

• Cross-linguistic
• Lexical retrieval
• Verbs and nouns
• Discourse production

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank YF and Mr Lyndon Chia for their enthusiastic participation in the study.

Notes

¹The term dialect will be used throughout to refer to different divisions of the Chinese language. The word fangyan (regional tongues) is commonly used to describe different members of the Chinese language. Fangyan has been translated as “dialects” in English. However, it is important to note the term dialect has multiple meanings in English and we use the term to refer to two different divisions of the Chinese language.

²Patient JPG suffered from primary progressive aphasia with severe language impairment.

³Mandarin examples are written in pinyin, and Cantonese examples are transcribed using the Romanisation system, jyutping, developed by the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.

⁴Speech therapy services were only provided in Cantonese due to the lack of bilingual (Mandarin) aphasia therapy services in the Community Rehabilitation Network.

⁵Tasks on confrontation naming and narrative were not selected since YF would be tested in these areas using OAB, QPA, and CAPPA in this study.