Communication and connection: Valuing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives
www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.auJCPSLP
Volume 19, Number 1 2017
27
literature, little has been written about the challenges faced
when the aphasia clinician encounters different varieties
of their own language – for the purposes of this paper -
English. For many years now, different varieties of English
have been acknowledged as valid variants of English rather
than sub-standard versions of English. It is becoming
increasingly common to hear reference to British English,
American English, Australian English, Singaporean English,
with systematic phonological, grammatical and semantic
variations acknowledged as characterising particular
types. However, while the dominant form of English is
often discussed, for example, in the media of a country,
relatively little is heard of the non-dominant (non-standard)
varieties. This paper explores this issue in the Australian
context, contrasting Standard Australian English (SAE) with
another variety within Australia, Aboriginal English (AE), and
examines implications for the assessment and treatment of
Aboriginal Australians with aphasia.
Eades (2004) defines Aboriginal English as “the name
given to dialects of English spoken by Aboriginal people
throughout Australia, which differ from Standard Australian
English (SAE) in grammar, phonology, lexicon, semantics
and pragmatics” (p.491). Variation ranges from the
“heaviest” (i.e., most different from SAE) in remote areas
to relatively “light” in urban/metropolitan areas. While
according to the 2011 Australian census, “English” is the
only language used by 83% of Indigenous people across
Australia (ABS, 2011), this finding could be misinterpreted
because of the failure to distinguish between Aboriginal
English and Standard Australian English.
Issues related to language difference are significant for
clinical aphasiology practice in Australia, given the high
incidence of stroke and other forms of brain damage
in Aboriginal Australians (and hence the potential for
aphasia) (Katzenellenbogen et al., 2010; Jamieson,
Harrison, & Berry, 2008). The age at onset of stroke for
Aboriginal Australians is significantly younger than their
non-Aboriginal counterparts (Katzenellenbogen et al.,
2010; Katzenellenbogen et al., 2016), and Aboriginal
stroke patients are also more likely to be dependent at
discharge compared to non-Aboriginal patients (Kilkenny,
Harris, Ritchie, Price, & Cadhilac, 2012). Higher incidence
of stroke exists in the context of higher risk factors and
co-morbidities in Aboriginal Australians, i.e., hypertension,
diabetes, cardiovascular disease (Australian Institute of
Health and Welfare, 2016). This situation exists in the
context of a relative lack of knowledge about this group,
with only a few published studies to date exploring
This paper discusses the notion of language
difference related to aphasia assessment and
treatment in the context of differences
between Standard Australian English and
Aboriginal English. While cross-cultural and
cross-linguistic differences and their effects
on clinical approaches have been an
important focus of discussion in the field of
aphasiology due to the increasing diversity of
clinical populations, literature related to
language variation within the one language is
sparse. This paper discusses Aboriginal
English, a dialect of English that differs from
Standard Australian English, in relation to
conceptual-cultural frameworks, and social-
pragmatic patterns of language use in
Aboriginal Australians, along with their
potential impact on clinical practice. Aspects
such as grammatical and lexical features of
Aboriginal English, event and story schemas,
and pragmatic features serve to highlight
differences between Aboriginal English and
Standard Australian English. Reference to the
variety of Aboriginal languages will also be
made, along with discussion of interpreting
issues. Variations described in the paper are
highlighted in terms of their significance for
potential misdiagnosis of pathological
patterns of language use and the careful
consideration required to accurately assess
communicative competence in non-dominant
languages and dialects.
I
nter-cultural assessment and treatment presents
numerous challenges to speech-language pathologists
around the world. Clinicians must face issues such as
dealing with languages other than their own, assessing
what is “normal” and “pathological” against a background
of cross-cultural pragmatic differences, and attempts
to assess and treat with (and sometimes without) the
assistance of interpreters or culturally/linguistically
appropriate tools. Though discussion of explicit cross-
cultural and cross-linguistic issues can be found in the
Assessment and treatment
of aphasia in Aboriginal
Australians
Linguistic considerations and broader implications for
cross-cultural practice.
Elizabeth Armstrong, Graham McKay, and Deborah Hersh
Elizabeth
Armstrong,
Graham McKay,
and Deborah
Hersh
THIS ARTICLE
HAS BEEN
PEER-
REVIEWED
KEYWORDS
ABORIGINAL
ABORIGINAL
ENGLISH
CROSS-
CULTURAL
PRACTICE
DIALECT
INDIGENOUS