A Systemic-Dynamic Lurian Approach to Aphasia by B. K.Friedgut - Article Example

Aphasic in bilinguals is a complex problem influenced by internal and external factors such as localization, "switch" interaction, suppression of a native language and a specific role of the right hemisphere of the brain. Questions specific to bilingual aphasia are added to those stemming from aphasia in general, such as whether aphasia is a general cognitive deficit or a language-specific impairment; whether it is a unitary phenomenon or admits of multiple syndromes; whether it is a deficit of competence or performance; and whether modality-specific deficits are aphasic symptoms.

Theoretical positions on these issues will have consequences for hypotheses about bilingual aphasia and/or the representation of two languages in one brain. Some authors, for example, argue that patients are not aphasic unless their competence is impaired. Competence is considered not to be impaired when a deficit is not equally manifested in all modalities or when a patient undergoes spontaneous recovery. Moreover, because it is assumed that competence is common to both languages if a bilingual is agrammatic for some aspect of the grammar in one of his languages, it is predicted that she or he will be agrammatic for those same components of the grammar in the other language ( Scholes, 1984).

Thus, what recovers spontaneously in unilingual and bilinguals as well as what is differentially deficient in bilinguals is not considered a result of impaired competence but of loss of access through some defective performance mechanism. Such a position, therefore, holds that any bilingual patient exhibiting nonparallel recovery is not aphasic. The unstated assumption behind the argument is the role of primary education and background of a person. Whether or not teachers call students aphasic who have lost the use of one of their languages or who have differential post morbid proficiency in each language, it is of interest to the neuropsychology of language in general and of bilingualism in particular to examine whether nonparallel deficits do indeed occur, and if so, to investigate the mechanisms responsible for differential, successive, selective, antagonistic, and mixed recoveries.

The article is well-structured and is based on substantial research and data analysis. A researcher gives special attention to the systemic-dynamic approach and their age, proficiency, and motivation among students. The researcher uses inductive reasoning using specific examples and data. The arguments and claims are well-supported and explained. The researcher underlines that there is no a priori reason to reject the possibility that each language might be subserved by its own competence, namely, that each grammar might be separately stored and/or processed.

There is indeed no clinical evidence that there is only one underlying neurolinguistic competence for both languages, that is to say, one common neural substrate for language, undifferentiated as to specific language. If it can be shown that specific alterations incompetence occur in one language and not in the other, then it is not unreasonable to assume that each language is subserved by different neurofunctional substrates. Further systematic investigations, based on large numbers of successive unselected cases.