1. What is bilingualism? One of the most commonly discussed and debated dis- tinctions drawn in relation to individual bilingualism in the early literature is that between so called compound and co- ordinate bilingualism. Compound bilingualism refers to the first language (L1) and the second language (L2) both being learned at the same time before the age of six. Each language is often spoken by either parent. Coordinate bilingualism, on the other hand, occurs when L2 is learned before puberty. Weinreich elaborates on this theory by adding the dimension of mental representation of language in three different kinds of bilingualism. The third kind according to Weinreich is sub- coordinate bilingualism which is when the L1 is dominant and the person thinks in L1 and translates into L2. Weinreich’s disposition is that in coordinate bilingualism words in different languages with the same meaning have different mental representations, whereas in compound bilingualism words in different languages with the same meaning share the same mental representation. What is bilingualism? One of the most commonly discussed and debated dis- tinctions drawn in relation to individual bilingualism in the early literature is that between so called compound and co- ordinate bilingualism. Compound bilingualism refers to the first language (L1) and the second language (L2) both being learned at the same time before the age of six. Each language is often spoken by either parent. Coordinate bilingualism, on the other hand, occurs when L2 is learned before puberty. Weinreich elaborates on this theory by adding the dimension of mental representation of language in three different kinds of bilingualism. The third kind according to Weinreich is sub- coordinate bilingualism which is when the L1 is dominant and the person thinks in L1 and translates into L2. Weinreich’s disposition is that in coordinate bilingualism words in different languages with the same meaning have different mental representations, whereas in compound bilingualism words in different languages with the same meaning share the same mental representation. Japanese English Tamil Swedish Icelandic Chinese Russian Dutch Arabic German Finnish Swahili Sigrún Gunnarsdóttir, Susanna Whitling

2. Aphasia in bilingualism The general assumption that all languages of a bilingual or a polyglot subject are localized in common language areas is supported by several neurologists (including S. Freud, A. Pick, O. Pötzl, M. Minkowski, and W. Penfield). The questions scientists want to solve are why recovery patterns differ so much across patients and why one language recovers better than another. A study that brought about the discussion of bilingual aphasia is one of Scoresby-Jackson from 1867. His disposition was that Broca’s area was responsible for the representation of a subject’s mother tongue, whereas the portions anterior to Broca’s area were responsible for foreign language acquisition. Switching and mixing are two disorders that seem to be typical of bilingual aphasics. A patient tends to switch between the two languages alternating the verbal expressions. The patient may also mix linguistic elements from the two languages within a single sentence. A bilingual aphasic may also experience translation disorders. They may experience inability to translate, spontaneous translation (need to translate everything that is said), translation without comprehension and paradoxical translation (when a patient can only translate into L2 – a language he/she cannot speak spontaneously). The fact that translation disorders, mixing and switching only occur in multilingual patients is just an impression. Indeed, mixing, switching, and abnormal translation are simply much more apparent when different languages are involved, but they also occur in monolinguals, only with different evident features. Actually, all verbal functions that are present in a bilingual individual are mirrored in a monolingual speaker. Bilinguals switch and mix languages, while monolinguals switch and mix registers; bilinguals translate from one language into another, while monolinguals may paraphrase from one register to another. Aphasia in bilingualism The general assumption that all languages of a bilingual or a polyglot subject are localized in common language areas is supported by several neurologists (including S. Freud, A. Pick, O. Pötzl, M. Minkowski, and W. Penfield). The questions scientists want to solve are why recovery patterns differ so much across patients and why one language recovers better than another. A study that brought about the discussion of bilingual aphasia is one of Scoresby-Jackson from 1867. His disposition was that Broca’s area was responsible for the representation of a subject’s mother tongue, whereas the portions anterior to Broca’s area were responsible for foreign language acquisition. Switching and mixing are two disorders that seem to be typical of bilingual aphasics. A patient tends to switch between the two languages alternating the verbal expressions. The patient may also mix linguistic elements from the two languages within a single sentence. A bilingual aphasic may also experience translation disorders. They may experience inability to translate, spontaneous translation (need to translate everything that is said), translation without comprehension and paradoxical translation (when a patient can only translate into L2 – a language he/she cannot speak spontaneously). The fact that translation disorders, mixing and switching only occur in multilingual patients is just an impression. Indeed, mixing, switching, and abnormal translation are simply much more apparent when different languages are involved, but they also occur in monolinguals, only with different evident features. Actually, all verbal functions that are present in a bilingual individual are mirrored in a monolingual speaker. Bilinguals switch and mix languages, while monolinguals switch and mix registers; bilinguals translate from one language into another, while monolinguals may paraphrase from one register to another.

3. Theories on recovery 1) Pitres claims that a patient that has suffered a lesion doesn’t have to start from scratch when recovering the lost language because the language that is not available is not lost – only inhibited. 2) Minkowski supported Pitres’ theories on polyglot aphasia. That is the assumption that it isn’t necessary to assume the existence of separate centers in the brain responsible for each language. 3) These thoughts were not only those of Pitres and Minkowski but also Freud, Pötzl and Paradis suggest that when a language is not available, it isn’t because its neural substrates have been destroyed but because its system has been weakened. Theories on recovery 1) Pitres claims that a patient that has suffered a lesion doesn’t have to start from scratch when recovering the lost language because the language that is not available is not lost – only inhibited. 2) Minkowski supported Pitres’ theories on polyglot aphasia. That is the assumption that it isn’t necessary to assume the existence of separate centers in the brain responsible for each language. 3) These thoughts were not only those of Pitres and Minkowski but also Freud, Pötzl and Paradis suggest that when a language is not available, it isn’t because its neural substrates have been destroyed but because its system has been weakened. ‘‘If we assume no spatially separate centers or areas in the cortex for the different languages, but instead assume that within the same area, the same elements are active, though in different combinations and interacting with a differential linguistic constellation, it is easy to explain the phenomena occurring in polyglot aphasia in terms of the interaction of such a large set of factors’’ (Minkowski, 1927, p. 229)

4. References http:// psych.umb.edu/faculty/adams/fall2003/paper2/bilingual%20brain.pdf http:// content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=89083&Ausgabe=231457&ProduktNr=223840&filename=89083.pdf Ahlsén, Elisabeth Introduction to Neurolinguistics John Benjamins Publishing Company. USA, 2006. 4) Paradis identified six recovery patterns. Languages can, according to him, be affected in the following ways: Parallel recovery: both languages are impaired and restored at the same rate. Differential recovery: the two languages are not recovered to the same extent. Selective recovery: occurs when one language is not recovered. Antagonistic recovery: one language recovers to a certain extent first and it starts regressing when the other language begins to recover. Successive recovery: two languages may eventually recover but recovery of the second language may only begin after the first has recovered, which is called successive recovery of one language after the other. Recovery of one language follows recovery in the other. Mixed recovery: involves inappropriate and unrestricted blending of the languages. 5) Pitres, Ribot and Minkowski all attempt to explain what Ahlsén in her book Introduction to Neurolinguistics calls dissociated recovery. According to Pitres the most familiar language is the one less impaired and the one to recover first. Ribot claims L1 to be less impaired and to recover first. Minkowski on the other hand indicates the language with the strongest emotional association to be less impaired and to recover first. 4) Paradis identified six recovery patterns. Languages can, according to him, be affected in the following ways: Parallel recovery: both languages are impaired and restored at the same rate. Differential recovery: the two languages are not recovered to the same extent. Selective recovery: occurs when one language is not recovered. Antagonistic recovery: one language recovers to a certain extent first and it starts regressing when the other language begins to recover. Successive recovery: two languages may eventually recover but recovery of the second language may only begin after the first has recovered, which is called successive recovery of one language after the other. Recovery of one language follows recovery in the other. Mixed recovery: involves inappropriate and unrestricted blending of the languages. 5) Pitres, Ribot and Minkowski all attempt to explain what Ahlsén in her book Introduction to Neurolinguistics calls dissociated recovery. According to Pitres the most familiar language is the one less impaired and the one to recover first. Ribot claims L1 to be less impaired and to recover first. Minkowski on the other hand indicates the language with the strongest emotional association to be less impaired and to recover first.