COMPARATIVE APHASIOLOGY - A CROSS-LINGUISTIC APPROACH TO LANGUAGE BREAKDOWN
COMPARATIVE APHASIOLOGY - A CROSS-LINGUISTIC APPROACH TO LANGUAGE BREAKDOWN
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/02687038908248981
复制
发表时间：
1989-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
WULFECK, B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
BATES, E;WULFECK, B
保罗·布罗卡是法国人。卡尔·韦尼克是德国人。从亚历山大·卢里亚身边走过的大批受伤士兵几乎都是以俄语为母语的人。如果我们追溯得足够远，我们会发现，早在英语出现之前，人类就意识到语言障碍和大脑损伤之间的关系（参见埃德蒙·史密斯纸草，奥尼尔，1980年）。尽管如此，在过去的30年里，失语症的研究一直由讲英语的研究者和他们的讲英语的患者主导（Goodglass 1968，Head 1926，Saffran，Schwartz和Marin 1980，Alfref和Caramazza 1976;一些重要的例外情况见帕拉迪斯1987和Menn和Obler，出版中）。虽然取得了一些重大进展，但我们为英国中心主义付出了代价。具体来说，在我们目前的数据库中，语言特异性内容和通用机制之间存在混淆，导致失语症的理论受到英语事实的严重影响，英语的霸权也对临床实践的几个方面产生了影响。第一，英语诊断工具非常成功（被广泛引用），有时几乎不加修改就被引入其他语言。这些仪器往往错过关键的事实，使失语症从一种语言到另一种不同。第二，英语标准的误用，明显不同的语言，导致失语症学家之间的沟通不畅，从不同的语言社区，和误解的研究结果。第三，由于我们对语言症状的跨语言差异缺乏了解，对双语患者的诊断和干预一直受到阻碍。第四，也是最后一点，我们的研究以及其他比较失语症学家的研究所揭示的跨语言差异，导致我们得出这样的结论：失语症患者保留的语言特异性知识比我们预想的要多得多。这一结论迫使我们重新分析失语症的症状，重点是访问的问题，而不是语言知识的损失。在这种解释下，失语症患者的言语/语言治疗应侧重于围绕访问问题的方法，利用潜在的语言知识，以实现更有效的沟通的替代手段。
Paul Broca was a Frenchman. Carl Wernicke was German. The legions of wounded soldiers that filed past Alexander Luria were almost all native speakers of Russian. And if we go back far enough, we find that mankind was aware of a relationship between language impairment and brain damage long before the English language came into existence (cf the Edmund Smith Papyrus, O’Neil, 1980). Nevertheless, for the last three decades the study of aphasia has been dominated by English-speaking investigators and their English-speaking patients (Goodglass 1968, Head 1926, Saffran, Schwartz and Marin 1980, Zurif and Caramazza 1976; for some important exceptions see Paradis 1987 and Menn and Obler, in press). Although some significant advances have been made, we have paid a price for our anglocentrism. Specifically, there is a confound in our current database between language-specific content and universal mechanisms, resulting in theories of aphasia that are heavily flavoured by the facts of English.The hegemony of English has also had an impact on several aspects of clinical practice. First, English-language diagnostic instruments have been so successful (and so widely cited) that they are sometimes imported into other languages with little modification. These instruments often miss crucial facts that make aphasia different from one language to another. Second, the misapplication of English standards to markedly different languages has resulted in miscommunication among aphasiologists from different language communities, and misinterpretation of research findings. Third, diagnosis and intervention with bilingual clients has been held back by our lack of understanding of cross-linguistic differences in language symptoms. Fourth and finally, the cross-linguistic differences revealed in our research, and that of other comparative aphasiologists, lead to the conclusion that aphasic patients retain far more language-specific knowledge than we might have otherwise foreseen. This conclusion forces us to re-analyse aphasic symptoms, focusing on problems of access rather than loss of linguistic knowledge. Under this interpretation, speech/language therapy with the aphasic patient should focus on ways around the access problem, alternative means for exploiting underlying linguistic knowledge to achieve more effective communication.