This article was downloaded by:[Canadian Research Knowledge Network]

On: 13 June 2008

Access Details: [subscription number 783016891]
Publisher: Informa Healthcare
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713736271

Interpreters and language assessment: Confrontation

naming and interpreting
Maria Kambanaros a; Willem van Steenbrugge a
a
Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, School of Medicine Flinders
University Adelaide Australia.
Online Publication Date: 01 December 2004
To cite this Article: Kambanaros, Maria and van Steenbrugge, Willem (2004)
'Interpreters and language assessment: Confrontation naming and interpreting',
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 6:4, 247 252
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/14417040400010009
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14417040400010009

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:38 13 June 2008

Advances in SpeechLanguage Pathology, Vol. 6, No. 4, December 2004, pp. 247 252

Interpreters and language assessment: Confrontation naming and

interpreting

MARIA KAMBANAROS1,2 & WILLEM VAN STEENBRUGGE1

1

Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, 2Department of
Speech and Language Therapy, School of Health and Welfare, Technological and Educational Institute, Patras, Greece

Abstract
There has been an increase in issues regarding the involvement of interpreters in the assessment of language disorders in
bilingual individuals. Most publications focus on overall issues, such as the respective roles of the speech pathologist and
interpreter, the need for teamwork, the need to share information about the assessment methods and materials used, and the
need for a three stage process of brieng, interaction and debrieng. The current article stresses the need for speech
pathologists to share more of their professional knowledge with the interpreter, specically knowledge about typical responses
and behaviours of clients that form essential data or evidence in the diagnosis of a particular disorder, for example bilingual
aphasia. This point is illustrated by a small case study of translated responses of a bilingual individual with aphasia during
confrontation naming in the native language.

Introduction
Previous publications on the use of interpreters
during the assessment and diagnosis of the language
and communicative impairments of bilingual clients
have mainly focussed on general issues concerning
the respective roles of speech pathologists and
interpreters, and procedures to improve the effectiveness of working with interpreters (see below).
The main aim of this paper is to stress that speech
pathologists should not only provide interpreters
with information about the aims, materials, methods,
and procedures etc. that will be used during the
assessment, but they should also share more specic
information about the evidence and data on which
assessment and diagnosis are based, i.e., likely
behaviours and responses by the client. This will be
illustrated on the basis of naming errors in the native
language made by a 58 year-old Greek-English client
with aphasia who was assessed on a non-standard
object naming test. The clinician was assisted by an
accredited, professional interpreter with previous
experience interpreting during aphasia assessments.
Providing the most appropriate services for bilingual individuals with aphasia is a major challenge
facing speech pathologists in multilingual and multicultural societies like Australia. Like most western
countries, Australia is faced with a greying popula-

tion, including its migrant population. An increasing

number of culturally diverse and bilingual individuals are ageing (Hugo, 1999) which puts them at a
greater risk of suffering from age-related, acquired
language disorders such as dementia or aphasia.
Consequently, there will be a steady increase in the
number of bilingual clients with aphasia who require
the services of speech pathologists for assessment,
diagnosis and treatment of their communicative
difculties in one or both of their languages.
A previous survey of speech pathology departments of the major hospitals in Australia suggested
that between 15.8 and 22 percent of their clients with
aphasia were bilingual (Whitworth & Sjardin, 1993).
Assessment of the bilingual clients native or rst
language (L1) is also warranted since a substantial
number of bilingual clients with aphasia may have
had poor command of English before the stroke. For
instance in the 1996 ABS Census, approximately 24
% of Italian, 32 % of Greek, 44 % of Vietnamese,
and 45 % of Chinese speakers are reported not to
speak English well or not to speak English at all
(Hugo, 1999). Therefore, there is general acceptance
among speech pathologists that assessing bilingual
clients in one language (L2) only does not reliably
reect the precise nature of the acquired language
disorder, nor the clients actual (i.e., bilingual)
communicative abilities and impairments (Baker,

Correspondence: Dr Willem van Steenbrugge Department of Speech Pathology/ School of Medicine, Flinders University of South Australia, FMC level 7E,
PO Box 2100, Adelaide SA 5100. Tel: + 61 8 8204 5956. Fax: + 61 8 8204 5935. E-mail: willem.vansteenbrugge@inders.edu.au
ISSN 1441-7049 print/ISSN 1742-9528 online # The Speech Pathology Association of Australia Limited
Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/14417040400010009

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:38 13 June 2008

248

M. Kambanaros & W. van Steenbrugge

1995). Given the relatively small number of bilingual

speech pathologists in Australia (Hand et al., 2000),
most bilingual clients will be assessed in their native
language by monolingual, English-speaking speech
pathologists with the assistance of professional or
family-based interpreters. Roger (1998) reported
that a large number of Australian speech pathologists, approximately 95%, used either a family
member or a professional interpreter to translate
the English assessments into the clients L1. Therefore, there has been an increase in the interest in
clinical practice relating to bilingual language assessment and the use of professional interpreters by
monolingual speech pathologists (e.g., Baker, 1995;
Clark, 1998; Isaac, 2002; Isaac & Hand, 1996;
Kambanaros, 2002; Langdon, 2002; Langdon &
Cheng, 2002; Langdon & Quintanar-Sarellana,
2003; Roberts, 1998, 2001; Van Steenbrugge,
2000). Most publications mainly focus on general
recommendations and guidelines for best practice to
enable speech pathologists to work more effectively
with interpreters, including:
.

General issues regarding intercultural health

care and speech pathology, covering important
issues such as: Perceptions, beliefs and attitudes towards health care, disease and
communication disorders which are inuenced
by the clients, and clinicians, cultural background (e.g., Fuller, 2003; Olthuis & van
Heteren, 2003; Isaac 2002).
Necessity for the speech pathologist and interpreter to work as a team. For example, the
speech pathologist and interpreter should prepare for the bilingual assessment and share
information about the purpose of the bilingual
assessment, they should observe each others
verbal and nonverbal communication to guard
the clarity of the message(s) to the bilingual
clients and to each other (see Langdon &
Quintanar-Sarellana, 2003).
Respective roles and responsibilities of speech
pathologists and interpreters. For instance, the
speech pathologist should understand the
important aspects of bilingual language processing, as well as be familiar with the
methods and processes involved in assessing
and diagnosing communicative and language
impairments in bilingual clients. The speech
pathologist is also considered to be in control
of the assessment, and should brief the
interpreter about the aims, language tasks,
and procedures used in the bilingual assessment. Furthermore, the interpreter will expect
the speech pathologist to stipulate the required
method of interpreting (see below), and to
provide relevant background information
about the clients and their specic aetiology
(Isaac, 2002; Langdon & Quintanar-Sarellana,
2003). Speech pathologists often ask inter-

preters for their analysis and opinion about the

appropriateness or the deviations from the
norm of language used by the client compared
to the clients language community (Clark,
1998). However, this is not intrinsically part of
the brief, role or responsibility of the interpreter. Many interpreters are reluctant to
provide this information as volunteering judgements about the clients use of their native
language might be perceived as incompatible
with their professional code of ethics (AUSIT,
1996). Instead, interpreters are often more
comfortable with their prescribed role as: (1)
the interviewer or the clients main communicative partner, (2) a professional guided by
the clinician, and (3) as the mediator and
informant of any cultural differences or
culturally sensitive issues (Faust & Drickey,
1986; see Isaac, 2002). However, accredited
Interpreters in Australia will be less comfortable with a fourth role mentioned by these
authors which is the interpreter as the clients
advocate and asking questions on behalf of the
client. Bound by their Code of Ethics with an
emphasis on upholding impartiality and accuracy in the interpretation and translation,
Australian interpreters will perceive their
prime role as facilitator of communication
rather than client advocate. Therefore, it is
unlikely that they will ask questions or provide
suggestions which are not initiated by the
client (or the clinician for that matter).
Interpreters are also expected to have strong
language skills in the two languages and to
understand the two cultures to enable them to
translate from one language into the other. Generally, one of two interpreting methods is applied:
simultaneous interpreting, i.e., translating what is
being said in the one language into the other
language at the same time as the client or clinician
is speaking or consecutive interpreting, i.e., translating from one language into the other after the
speaker has nished (Isaac, 2002; Langdon &
Quintanar-Sarellana, 2003). Consecutive interpreting can take many forms, including word-for-word
interpreting, sentence-by-sentence interpreting or
summary interpreting. Word-for-word interpreting
is often deemed to be inappropriate for communication across two languages, as it makes it
difcult for the interpreter to convey both the
content and intent of the message or the utterance(s). Thus, sentence-by-sentence or summary
interpreting is often recommended as the most
appropriate style (Isaac, 2002). On the other hand,
specic tasks during a language assessment, such
as word comprehension and production or sentence comprehension and production in the native
language will lend themselves for word-for-word
interpreting.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:38 13 June 2008

Interpreters and language assessment

Specic strategies for working more effectively with
interpreters
Apart from overall strategies to facilitate a team
approach, such as establishing rapport, consideration
of the sensitivities around cultural differences,
sensitivity towards verbal and nonverbal communication, acknowledgement and respect of each
others specic roles and expertise etc., there is also
a need for a three stage process of (pre-assessment)
brieng, interaction and (post-assessment) debriefing (BID) to ensure more positive outcomes of
bilingual language assessments that involve the
participation of professional interpreters (Langdon
& Quintanar-Sarellana, 2003).
It is now widely accepted that a pre-assessment
brieng should be organised between the speech
pathologist and interpreter. Isaac (2002, p. 94)
provides a sensible list of issues that should be
addressed, ranging from the overall aims and
objectives of the bilingual language assessment, i.e.,
session goals, to preparing the interpreter for unfamiliar physical presentations of some of the clients.
The main aim of the current paper is to
demonstrate that the pre-assessment brieng with
the interpreter should also include a specic discussion
about typical verbal and non-verbal responses by
bilingual clients specically those responses which
speech pathologists commonly use in the diagnosis.
This point will be illustrated on the basis of naming
errors in the native language made by a 58 year old
Greek-English client with aphasia who was assessed
on a non-standard object naming test. The clinician
was assisted by an accredited, professional interpreter with limited experience interpreting during
aphasia assessments. The session was conducted in
the presence of a bilingual, Greek-English speaking,
speech pathologist (the rst author).
Confrontation naming was selected because this
relatively simple language task seems to lend itself
best for word-for-word translation of the clients
correct and incorrect responses from the native
language (L1) into the second language (L2).
Furthermore, there is often little ambiguity about
the correct (L1 and L2) target word during
confrontation naming.
Case study
TK was a 58-year old male who had migrated from
Greece with his parents at the age of fourteen. He
suffered a left fronto-parietal CVA in July 2001. He
reported that he had been uent in Greek and
English before his stroke, but that he had no formal
English education. English had been his primary
language since his migration to Australia. TK was
married to a non-Greek speaking wife and owned a
restaurant in rural Australia. Family members conrmed that he was conversationally uent in both
Greek and English before the stroke.

249

TK was assessed by a monolingual, English

speaking speech pathologist with the assistance of a
professional Greek-English interpreter who was
asked to translate the Greek responses into English.
The speech pathologist had limited experience
assessing bilingual clients with an acquired language
disorder. The interpreter had limited previous
experience of interpreting during a language assessment of bilingual aphasia. The speech pathologist
and interpreter had not worked together before, and
as the interpreter arrived late for the session, there
was little time for a comprehensive pre-session
brieng, and no time to go over the picture materials
and discuss correct target responses in Greek.
TK was assessed on the English and Greek version
(translated by the Psychology Department of the
University of Ioannina, Greece) of the Boston
Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) (Goodglass & Kaplan, 1983). These two BDAE assessments were conducted by a Greek-English bilingual
speech pathologist in two separate sessions. TKs
overall residual language ability as reected in the
BDAE rating scales for conversational language was
very similar in Greek and English.
TKs residual naming ability was further investigated in both languages to assess the level of
language breakdown during confrontation naming.
The non-standard naming task reported below was
part of a more comprehensive language assessment
to determine the nature of the underlying naming
impairment in Greek and English (Kay, Lesser, &
Coltheart, 1992). The Greek non-standard naming
task was administered by a monolingual, Englishspeaking speech pathologist using a Greek-English,
accredited interpreter. The interpreter was instructed to conduct a word-for-word translation
during this task. The Greek responses were translated into the most appropriate English equivalents,
i.e., the meaning of the Greek word was translated
into English. The translated responses were orthographically transcribed by the monolingual speech
pathologist.
TKs naming performance was very poor in his
native language (4 items correct). However, his
naming errors were of particular interest with
respect to the aims of the current study. They
comprised code switches (6), circumlocutions (5),
semantic substitutions (3), and phonological substitutions (5). Examples of the naming errors are
displayed in Table I.
Although a substantial number of erroneous
responses in Greek comprised phonological errors,
for instance phonemic substitutions: skili for skini
and metathesis: vraka for varka, these erroneous
responses were translated according to their
meaning, dog and underwear respectively.
Consequently, these responses were initially classied as semantic paraphasias and (semantically)
unrelated paraphasias. Generally, the presence of
semantic errors are considered to provide further

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:38 13 June 2008

250

M. Kambanaros & W. van Steenbrugge

Table I. Examples of TKs naming errors on the Greek naming test and their translations by the interpreter.
Target

Response

Error

skini
(rope) *
pipa
(pipe)
porta
(door)
varka
(boat)
ziwaria
(scales)
roloi
(watch)
pisina
(pool)
tilefono
(telephone)
kremastra
(coat-hanger)
sidero
(iron)
tigani
(fry-pan)
stiftis
(juice extractor)
potistiri
(watering can)
skoupa
(broom)
skala
(ladder)
sfougari
(sponge)
katsarola
(saucepan)

skili
(dog) #
tsipa
(skin)
prota
(rst)
vraka
(underwear)
siwana
(quietly)
ora
(time)
nero
(water)
milas
(speak)
vazis ta rouha
(put the clothes)
patas ta rouha
(press the clothes)
vazis avga
(put eggs)
gia lemoni
(for lemons)
gia louloudia
(for owers)
skoupa
(broom)
skala
(ladder)
sfougari
(sponge)
katsarola
(saucepan)

phoneme substitution

Target
wandi
(glove)
vourtsa
(brush)
aetos
(kite)
bota
(boot)
amaksi
(car)
tripani
(drill)

Responses (code switches) Error

gland
code switch plus phoneme substitution

phoneme substitution and addition

metathesis
metathesis
phoneme substitution (2x) and phoneme omission
semantic substitution
semantic substitution
semantic substitution
circumlocution/ description
circumlocution/ description
circumlocution/ description
circumlocution/ description
circumlocution/ description
no error/ correct
no error/ correct
no error/ correct
no error/ correct

push

code switch plus phoneme substitution / deletion

sky

code switch plus semantic substitution

legs

code switch plus semantic substitution

caro

code switch plus Greek sufx error (sing. Neuter)

drilli

code switch plus Greek sufx error (sing. Neuter)

* English translation between brackets underneath # translation by interpreter.

evidence in support of the diagnosis of a moderate to

severe lexical-semantic impairment at the level of the
semantic system (Kay et al., 1992).
However as shown in Table I, a substantial
number of erroneous responses during naming
were phonologically and not semantically related
to the Greek target word. Phonological errors are
usually interpreted as (supporting) evidence for a
language breakdown when retrieving the phonological word form (Nickels, 1997). The phonological
relationship between TKs responses and the target
words was not picked up by the interpreter who
was translating the meaning of the Greek words.

Consequently, the monolingual speech pathologist,

relying on the translated responses, originally
assumed that these responses were semantic paraphasias, albeit that some errors were considered to
be well off-target, for instance vraka (underwear)
for varka (boat).
The clients performance, the translations, and the
analysis of the erroneous responses were subsequently discussed between the monolingual and
bilingual speech pathologist after the session, during
which the phonological relationship between Greek
target word and some of the responses was pointed
out.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:38 13 June 2008

Interpreters and language assessment

Discussion
Previous publications on the involvement of interpreters during the assessment of bilingual language
impairments stress the need for a three stage process
(BID) of pre-assessment brieng, interaction and
post-assessment debrieng with the interpreter
(Langdon & Quintanar-Sarellana, 2003). Suggestions about the content of the brieng centre mostly
on general conditions surrounding the assessment,
such as reviewing the respective roles of the speech
pathologist and the interpreter, the required interpreting method, the assessment methods and specic
materials used, information about the clients background and medical history (Isaac, 2002; Langdon &
Quintanar-Sarellana, 2003).
The main aim of the current paper was to
demonstrate that the brieng should also include a
more specic discussion of the evidence or data
speech pathologists commonly rely on to arrive at a
diagnosis of the language impairment in question.
This was illustrated in a simple naming task in a case
of bilingual aphasia, in which the dominant naming
errors were incorrectly categorised as semantic rather
than phonological paraphasias. Confrontation naming was selected because this relatively simple
language task seems to lend itself best for word-forword translation of the clients correct and incorrect
responses from the native language (L1) into the
second language (L2). Furthermore, there is often
little ambiguity about the correct (L1 and L2) target
word during confrontation naming.
The majority of TKs incorrect responses were
phonologically related to the Greek target word.
This case study with a representative sample of
TKs responses showed that these responses could
be easily misinterpreted and misclassied if the
interpreter is unaware of responses often made by
clients with aphasia. This is particularly the case
when the interpreter is unaware of the fact that
responses from clients with aphasia are frequently
either phonologically or semantically related to the
correct target word. As the phonological nature of
most of TKs errors was not identied, it was
virtually impossible for the speech pathologist to
accurately diagnose the nature of the underlying
naming impairment for Greek. This may lead to a
misinterpretation of the true nature of the underlying naming impairment in one (or both) of the
bilingual individuals languages. As Paradis (2001)
acknowledged, there is the real danger of misdiagnosis if aphasic symptoms are not correctly
identied in both languages. TKs naming problem
in Greek was considered to arise at the lexicalsemantic level given the fact that a large number of
his naming errors were categorised as semantically
unrelated to the target. However, as most errors
were phonological in nature, it is more likely that
the level of language breakdown occurred at the
phonological level.

251

This small case study shows the difculty faced by

the monolingual speech pathologist in accurately
diagnosing TKs underlying naming impairment and
consequently, select the most appropriate therapy
approach for the remediation of his naming difculty. Previous studies have shown that the efcacy
of the remediation of naming problems might be
dependent upon the nature of the underlying
impairment and matching a therapy approach, either
phonologically or lexical-semantically based (see
Nickels, 2002, for a review).
The examples of TKs responses in the Greek
naming task and their translations presented in this
paper show that a misclassication of the errors made
by bilingual clients can easily arise, even during
consecutive word-for-word translation in a naming
task. The likelihood of such misclassication of
errors is greater when there is a lack of knowledge
and information about aphasic behaviours on the
part of the interpreter. Of course, the lack of
experience on the part of the speech pathologist
and the interpreter would also have been contributing factors in this case study.
Interpreters are bound by their professional code
of ethics (AUSIT, 1996) to not alter, make
additions to or omit anything; but to relay
accurately and completely everything that is said;
and to convey the whole message, i.e., provide no
summary of statements but to render a meaningbased interpretation of what was said. Consequently,
interpreters usually focus on the content of the
message and pragmatic inferences rather than the
appropriateness of grammar, lexical-semantics or
phonology. Often, this style of interpreting will
match the speech pathologists aims, for instance
when assessing the (residual) communicative abilities
of bilingual clients. However, this style of interpreting may not be appropriate in specic language tasks
as was illustrated by the current case study.
The different aims and goals of specic language
tasks should be addressed in a pre-assessment
brieng with the interpreter. In addition, the speech
pathologist should share and discuss information
about typical error patterns and other correct and
deviant (language) behaviours of the client, in
particular those that are important in the diagnosis
of the specic language disorder, e.g., aphasia.
Providing this information will also make interpreting easier for interpreters as they will gain a better
understanding of when to focus on content and
intent of the clients message during interpreting and
when to focus on the specic linguistic features of the
correct and incorrect responses. Any discussion
about the quality of the clients responses with the
speech pathologist is best undertaken during a
debrieng session shortly after the assessment.
Working effectively with the interpreter(s) is
essential for all speech pathologists when assessing
and diagnosing bilingual clients with specic language disorders, e.g., (bilingual) aphasia. A good

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:38 13 June 2008

252

M. Kambanaros & W. van Steenbrugge

working relationship is, among other things, dependent on the willingness to share essential information
and professional knowledge as well as the implementation of good work practices for successful
interaction, such as the implementation of the three
stage (BID) process (Langdon & Quintanar-Sarellana, 2003) consisting of brieng, interaction and
debrieng when assessing bilingual clients with a
language disorder. Anticipated linguistic errors and
other behaviours made by language disordered
bilingual clients, e.g., clients with bilingual aphasia,
should also be addressed in the brieng (and
debrieng) sessions with the interpreter.
In summary, the current case study highlights the
need for a pre-assessment brieng session between
the clinician and the interpreter during which the
aims and purpose of the assessment are explained. As
stressed above, it is suggested that clinicians should
also provide interpreters with specic, detailed
information about common responses by bilingual
individuals (with aphasia or other language and
speech disorders), and the importance of these
responses in the diagnosis and management of
disorders like bilingual aphasia.

References
Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators Inc. (AUSIT)
(1996). Code of ethics for interpreters and translators.
Baker, R. (1995). Communicative needs and bilingualism in
elderly Australians of six ethnic backgrounds. Australian
Journal on Ageing, 14, 81 88.
Clark, E. (1998). Interpreters and speech pathologists: Some ethnographic data. Paper presented at the Critical Link 2 Conference.
Toronto. www.critical.link.org/proceedingscl2/4.pdf.
Faust, S. & Drikey, R. (1986). Working with interpreters. The
Journal of Family Practice, 22, 131 138.
Fuller, J. (2003). Intercultural health care as reective negotiated
practice. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25, 781 97.
Goodglass, H., & Kaplan, E. (1983). The Assessment of Aphasia and
Related Disorders, 2nd edn. Lea and Febiger: Philadelphia.
Hand, L., OSullivan, P., Plumer, K., Gupta, J., Mackaway, K.,
Young, W., Costello, M., Whitty, C., & Mahananda, P.
(2000). Resources for culturally diverse populations: A Sydney
survey. Proceedings of the 2000 Speech Pathology Australia
National Conference. Adelaide.
Hugo, G. (1999). Atlas of Australian people, 1996 census: National
overview. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Isaac, K., & Hand, L. (1996). Interpreter-mediated interactions in

speech pathology: Problems and solutions. Australian Communication Quarterly, 12, 32 36.
Isaac, K. (2002). Speech pathology in cultural and linguistic diversity.
London and Philadelphia. Whurr Publishers.
Kay, J., Lesser, R., & Coltheart, M. (1992). Psycholinguistic
assessments of language processing (PALPA). Hove: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Kambanaros, M. (2002). Naming errors in bilingual aphasia:
Implications for assessment and treatment. Poster presented
at the 10th International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference.
Brisbane.
Langdon, H. (2002). Communicating effectively with clients
during a speech-language pathologist/interpreter conference:
Results of a Survey. Contemporary Issues in Communication
Science and Disorders, 29, 17 34.
Langdon, H., & Cheng, L. L. (2002). Collaborating with interpreters
and translators: A guide for communication disorders professionals.
Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
Langdon, H., & Quintanar-Sarellana, R. (2003). Roles and
responsibilities of the interpreter in interactions with speechlanguage pathologists, parents, and students. Seminars in
Speech and Language, 24, 235 244.
Nickels, L. (1997), Spoken word production and its breakdown in
aphasia. Hove: Psychology Press.
Nickels, L. (2002). Therapy for naming disorders: Revisiting,
revising, and reviewing. Aphasiology, 16, 935 979.
Olthuis, G., & van Heteren, G. (2003). Multicultural health care
in practice. An empirical exploration of multicultural care in
The Netherlands. Health Care Analysis, 11, 199 206.
Paradis, M. (2001). Bilingual and polyglot aphasia. In R. S.
Berndt (Ed.), Handbook of neuropsychology, 2nd edn. (pp. 69
91). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Roberts, P. M. (1998). Clinical research needs and issues in
bilingual aphasia. Aphasiology, 12, 119 130.
Roberts, P. M. (2001). Aphasia assessment and treatment for
bilingual and culturally diverse patients. In R. Chapey (Ed.),
Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic
communication disorders, 4th edn. (pp. 208 230). Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Williams.
Roger, P. (1998). Bilingual aphasia: The central importance of
social and cultural factors in clinically oriented research.
Aphasiology, 12, 134 138.
Van Steenbrugge, W. (2000). The Need for clinical research in
bilingual aphasia. In C. Lind (Ed.), Research, reect, renew:
Proceedings of the 2000 Speech Pathology Australia national
conference (pp. 133 141). Adelaide.
Whitworth, A., & Sjardin, H. (1993). The Bilingual person with
aphasia-The Australian Context. In D. Lafond, Y. Joanette, J.
Ponzio, R. Degiovani, & M. Taylor-Sarno (Eds.), Living with
aphasia: Psychological issues (pp. 129 150). San Diego:
Singular Publishing Group.