Previous Page  29 / 60 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 29 / 60 Next Page
Page Background

Communication and connection: Valuing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au

JCPSLP

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