Search

Background: Deficits of executive function (EF) have been proposed as all or part of the underlying mechanisms of language impairment in at least some types of aphasia. Executive functions also play a role in the recovery process. There is evidence that bilingual persons have some executive functioning advantages compared to monolingual persons. In this paper we combine two lines of recent investigation in order to explore the relationship between executive function and conversational strategies in bilingual aphasia. Aims: The aim of this preliminary research was to compare the executive functioning profiles of bilingual individuals to those of monolingual participants with aphasia. A further aim was to examine evidence in the conversational samples of the participants in relation to the application of a range of executive skills and to link cognitive and conversational profiles using Barkley's (1997) model of executive functions. Methods & Procedures: The performance of two bilingual individuals with aphasia on a test battery of executive function tests was compared with that of eight monolingual persons (seven with aphasia and one with right hemisphere damage). The test battery included measures of behavioural inhibition, working memory, problem solving, and reconstitution. The presence or absence of executive features in the conversational samples of the participants was judged by four raters using conversational analysis methods. Outcomes & Results: Significant differences were found between the scores of the bilingual participants and those of the monolingual participants on measures of behavioural inhibition, working memory, planning and problem solving, and reconstitution. The bilingual participants' scores were mostly within normal limits and suggested well-retained executive functions. Conversation analysis showed evidence of differential application of these executive functions to conversational management. Regardless of severity or type of aphasia, the bilingual participants showed evidence of good topic management, repair, and flexibility compared to the monolingual participants. Conclusions: The results are interpreted in relation to current issues in bilingualism. Our preliminary findings shed light on differential approaches to assessment, therapy, and choice of language for bilingual aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]