Encyclopedia - Keith, B. (Ed.). (2006). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. (2 ed.)(B2 - Bilingualism and aphasia).pdf - LINGUISTICS - havocslasher

12 Bilingualism

Grosjean F (1985). ‘The bilingual as a competent but

specific speaker-hearer.’ Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development 6, 467–477.

Gumperz J J (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hansegard N E (1975). ‘Tvasprakighet eller havsprakighet?’

Invandrare och Minoriteter 3, 7–13.

Harding E & Riley P (1986). The bilingual family.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haugen E (1977). ‘Norm and deviation in bilingual

communities.’ In Hornby P (ed.) Bilingualism: psycho-

logical, social and educational implications. New York:

Academic Press.

Hummel K (1986). ‘Memory for bilingual prose.’ In Vaid J

(ed.) Language processing in bilinguals: psycholinguistic

and neurolinguistic perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Kolers P & Gonzalez E (1980). ‘Memory for words, syno-

nyms and translation.’ Journal of Experimental Psychol-

ogy: Human Learning and Memory 6, 53–65.

Kroll J & Stewart E (1994). ‘Category interference in trans-

lation and picture naming: evidence for asymmetric con-

nections between bilingual memory representations.’

Journal of Memory and Language 33, 149–174.

Lanza E (1997). Language mixing in infant bilingualism.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Laurie S S (1890). Lectures on language and linguistic meth-

od in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Le Page R & Tabouret-Keller A (1985). Acts of identity:

Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Li W & Zhu H (2001). ‘Development of code-switching

and L1 attrition in L2 setting.’ In Almgren M, Barrena A,

Ezeizabarrena M-J, Idiazabal I & MacWhinney B (eds.)

Research on child language acquisition. Somerville, MA:

Cascadilla Press. 174–187.

Mackey W F (1962). ‘The description of bilingualism.’

Canadian Journal of Linguistics 7, 51–85.

MacNamara J (1967). ‘The linguistic independence of bilin-

guals.’ Journal of Verbal Leaning and Verbal Behaviour

6, 729–736.

MacNamara J & Kushnir S (1971). ‘The linguistic indepen-

dence of bilinguals: the input switch.’ Journal of Verbal

Leaning and Verbal Behaviour 10, 480–487.

Meisel J M (1989). ‘Early differentiation of languages in

bilingual children.’ In Hyltenstam K & Obler L (eds.)

Bilingualism across the lifespan: aspects of acquisition,

maturity and loss. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. 13–40.

Milroy J & Milroy L (1985). Authority in language.

London: Routledge.

Muller N (1990). ‘Developing two gender assignment sys-

tems simultaneously.’ In Meisel J (ed.) Two first lan-

guages. Dordrecht: Foris. 193–236.

Paradis J & Gensee F (1996). ‘Syntactic acquisition in bilin-

gual children.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition

18, 1–25.

Pfaff C & Savas T (1988). ‘Language development in a

bilingual setting.’ Paper presented at the 4th Turkish

Linguistics Conference, Ankara.

Potter M C, So K-F, VonEchardt B & Feldman L B (1984).

‘Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and

more proficient bilinguals.’ Journal of Verbal Learning

and Verbal Behaviour 23, 23–38.

Romaine S (1995). Bilingualism (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Saer D J (1923). ‘An inquiry into the effect of bilingualism

upon the intelligence of young children.’ Journal of

Experimental Psychology 6, 232–240, 266–274.

Skutnabb-Kangas T (1981). Bilingualism or not: the educa-

tion of minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Vihman M (1985). ‘Language differentiation by the bilin-

gual infant.’ Journal of Child Language 12, 297–324.

Volterra V & Taeschner T (1978). ‘The acquisition and

development of language by bilingual children.’ Journal

of Child Language 5, 311–326.

Weinreich U (1953). Languages in contact: findings

and problems. New York: The Linguistic Circle of

New York.

Zhu H & Dodd B (eds.) (2006). Phonological development

and disorder: a multilingual perspective. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Bilingualism and Aphasia

P C M Wong, Northwestern University, Evanston,

IL, USA

proficient in the languages they know, often profi-

ciency and use depend on the social/functional

situations (e.g., work vs. family settings). Thus, it

has been argued that bilinguals are not truly ‘two

monolinguals in one person’ but are holistic, unique,

and specific speaker–hearers (Grosjean, 1989). In

the case of aphasia (language deficits as a result of

brain damage), the various languages can be affected

and recovered differently. Consequently, assessing

and rehabilitating bilingual aphasics warrant con-

siderations that are different from (or additional to)

those associated with monolingual aphasics.

Bilingual individuals, sometimes referred to as multi-

linguals or polyglots, are broadly defined as individ-

uals who know (and use) two or more languages.

These individuals possibly acquire (or are still acquir-

ing) the two or more languages at different times in

their lives and use these languages at different levels

of proficiency. Although the term ‘perfect bilingual’

has been used to refer to individuals who are equally

12 Bilingualism

Grosjean F (1985). ‘The bilingual as a competent but

specific speaker-hearer.’ Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development 6, 467–477.

Gumperz J J (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hansegard N E (1975). ‘Tvasprakighet eller havsprakighet?’

Invandrare och Minoriteter 3, 7–13.

Harding E & Riley P (1986). The bilingual family.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haugen E (1977). ‘Norm and deviation in bilingual

communities.’ In Hornby P (ed.) Bilingualism: psycho-

logical, social and educational implications. New York:

Academic Press.

Hummel K (1986). ‘Memory for bilingual prose.’ In Vaid J

(ed.) Language processing in bilinguals: psycholinguistic

and neurolinguistic perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Kolers P & Gonzalez E (1980). ‘Memory for words, syno-

nyms and translation.’ Journal of Experimental Psychol-

ogy: Human Learning and Memory 6, 53–65.

Kroll J & Stewart E (1994). ‘Category interference in trans-

lation and picture naming: evidence for asymmetric con-

nections between bilingual memory representations.’

Journal of Memory and Language 33, 149–174.

Lanza E (1997). Language mixing in infant bilingualism.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Laurie S S (1890). Lectures on language and linguistic meth-

od in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Le Page R & Tabouret-Keller A (1985). Acts of identity:

Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Li W & Zhu H (2001). ‘Development of code-switching

and L1 attrition in L2 setting.’ In Almgren M, Barrena A,

Ezeizabarrena M-J, Idiazabal I & MacWhinney B (eds.)

Research on child language acquisition. Somerville, MA:

Cascadilla Press. 174–187.

Mackey W F (1962). ‘The description of bilingualism.’

Canadian Journal of Linguistics 7, 51–85.

MacNamara J (1967). ‘The linguistic independence of bilin-

guals.’ Journal of Verbal Leaning and Verbal Behaviour

6, 729–736.

MacNamara J & Kushnir S (1971). ‘The linguistic indepen-

dence of bilinguals: the input switch.’ Journal of Verbal

Leaning and Verbal Behaviour 10, 480–487.

Meisel J M (1989). ‘Early differentiation of languages in

bilingual children.’ In Hyltenstam K & Obler L (eds.)

Bilingualism across the lifespan: aspects of acquisition,

maturity and loss. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. 13–40.

Milroy J & Milroy L (1985). Authority in language.

London: Routledge.

Muller N (1990). ‘Developing two gender assignment sys-

tems simultaneously.’ In Meisel J (ed.) Two first lan-

guages. Dordrecht: Foris. 193–236.

Paradis J & Gensee F (1996). ‘Syntactic acquisition in bilin-

gual children.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition

18, 1–25.

Pfaff C & Savas T (1988). ‘Language development in a

bilingual setting.’ Paper presented at the 4th Turkish

Linguistics Conference, Ankara.

Potter M C, So K-F, VonEchardt B & Feldman L B (1984).

‘Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and

more proficient bilinguals.’ Journal of Verbal Learning

and Verbal Behaviour 23, 23–38.

Romaine S (1995). Bilingualism (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Saer D J (1923). ‘An inquiry into the effect of bilingualism

upon the intelligence of young children.’ Journal of

Experimental Psychology 6, 232–240, 266–274.

Skutnabb-Kangas T (1981). Bilingualism or not: the educa-

tion of minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Vihman M (1985). ‘Language differentiation by the bilin-

gual infant.’ Journal of Child Language 12, 297–324.

Volterra V & Taeschner T (1978). ‘The acquisition and

development of language by bilingual children.’ Journal

of Child Language 5, 311–326.

Weinreich U (1953). Languages in contact: findings

and problems. New York: The Linguistic Circle of

New York.

Zhu H & Dodd B (eds.) (2006). Phonological development

and disorder: a multilingual perspective. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Bilingualism and Aphasia

P C M Wong, Northwestern University, Evanston,

IL, USA

proficient in the languages they know, often profi-

ciency and use depend on the social/functional

situations (e.g., work vs. family settings). Thus, it

has been argued that bilinguals are not truly ‘two

monolinguals in one person’ but are holistic, unique,

and specific speaker–hearers (Grosjean, 1989). In

the case of aphasia (language deficits as a result of

brain damage), the various languages can be affected

and recovered differently. Consequently, assessing

and rehabilitating bilingual aphasics warrant con-

siderations that are different from (or additional to)

those associated with monolingual aphasics.

Bilingual individuals, sometimes referred to as multi-

linguals or polyglots, are broadly defined as individ-

uals who know (and use) two or more languages.

These individuals possibly acquire (or are still acquir-

ing) the two or more languages at different times in

their lives and use these languages at different levels

of proficiency. Although the term ‘perfect bilingual’

has been used to refer to individuals who are equally

Bilingualism and Aphasia 13

Bilingualism and the Brain

In order to better understand how neurological inju-

ries may affect the linguistic abilities of individuals

who speak more than one language, it is important to

consider how multiple languages may be organized in

the brain. Traditionally, the debate has been centered

on ‘language laterality’ or ‘hemispheric specializa-

tion’; that is, whether one side of the brain (the left

side) is mostly responsible for both languages, wheth-

er the right hemisphere contributes in the case of

bilinguals more so than in monolinguals, and whether

one hemisphere contributes mostly to only one lan-

guage (Paradis, 1990). Although the issue of laterality

has some bearing on predicting the presence or ab-

sence of aphasia as a result of brain injury, it only

considers the brain in very gross neuroanatomic terms

(i.e., left and right hemispheres). Recently, the precise

neuroanatomic circuits within and across cerebral

hemispheres have been considered, as have other

structures in the nervous system, along with factors

such as language use, age of acquisition, proficiency,

and level and medium of exposure, which potentially

have more extensive clinical implications. Recent

neuroimaging studies, although involving only isola-

ted linguistic tasks, suggest that attained proficiency

and the age of language acquisition may be deter-

mining factors in whether the two languages are

subserved by the same neural circuits. Wong et al .

(2005) found that even though both native

Mandarin-speaking and English-speaking adults

(who do not speak Mandarin) were able to discrimi-

nate Mandarin lexical tone patterns, a feature of the

Mandarin language, the two groups used regions near

the inferior frontal gyrus but in opposite hemispheres

when doing so, presumably due to their

corresponding attained proficiency or lack thereof in

Mandarin.

Kim et al . (1997) found that early but not late

bilinguals showed spatially overlapping brain activa-

tions in the left inferior frontal gyrus associated with

sentence generation in first (L1) and second (L2) lan-

guages. Late bilinguals also showed activation in the

left inferior frontal gyrus, but the centers of activation

were further apart relative to the early bilinguals.

However, since early bilinguals tend to have a higher

level of proficiency in both languages, other studies

have suggested that attained proficiency might be the

most important factor in determining whether or not

the two languages are subserved by the same neural

circuit (Perani et al ., 1998; for a review, see Abutalebi

et al ., 2001). Converging evidence on brain and bilin-

gualism is being built and shows great promise for the

effective assessment and rehabilitation of bilingual

aphasics, especially when combined with existing

knowledge in the neurobiology of monolingual

aphasia. For example, studies suggest that perilesional

areas may be recruited in aphasia recovery (Warburton

et al ., 1999). If, as Kim et al .(1997)suggested,L1and

L2 in late bilinguals (who likely speak L2 with rela-

tively low proficiency) are in the same gross neuro-

anatomic region but nonoverlapping, then one

language may be associated with the perilesional

areas, areas that surround the injured area, in certain

instances of brain injury (i.e., one language might be

more preserved). Consequently, relying on these

perilesional areas (and the less disrupted language) in

rehabilitation of these individuals might be more pro-

ductive than rehabilitation of their early bilingual or

even monolingual counterparts whose injury might

have caused disruption of all language(s) they speak.

It is important to note that although some ideas

have been proposed (Green and Price, 2001), little

evidence exists to support one rehabilitation strategy

over another in bilingual aphasia.

Types of Bilingual Aphasias and Patterns

of Recovery

Different types of bilingual aphasia, as well as differ-

ent patterns of recovery, have been reported, involv-

ing not only speaking and understanding speech but

also reading and writing (Streifler and Hofman,

1976). In addition to cases in which the two or

more languages are equally impaired, it has been

reported that some individuals showed selective

aphasia in which signs of aphasia were evident in

one language but not the other (Paradis & Goldblum,

1989). Differential aphasia has also been reported

where different types of aphasia were shown in dif-

ferent languages (Albert and Obler, 1978; Silverberg

and Gordon, 1979) – for example, conduction apha-

sia in one language and global aphasia in another.

In addition, some individuals showed involuntary

blending of grammatical elements (e.g., syntactic

and morphologic units) of two languages (Glonig &

Glonig, 1965; Perecman, 1984) – for example, com-

bining syllables of two languages, thus creating a new

word (Paradis, 1998). This is different from ‘code

switching,’ which involves the alternative use of two

or more languages in the same conversation (Milroy

and Myusken, 1995). Code switching can function to

convey emotional content, to emphasize or clarify the

references being made, and to quote (De Fina, 1989),

and it is considered to be an important aspect of

normal bilingual discourse in many communities

(Heller, 1995). Patterns of code switching were also

found to be different between bilingual aphasics and

normal individuals (De Santi et al ., 1995; Mu˜ oz

et al ., 1999).

14 Bilingualism and Aphasia

It has been suggested that the degree and type of

linguistic impairments in bilingual aphasics may be

specific to the structures of the language. For exam-

ple, it has been found that although Mandarin–

Cantonese bilinguals showed impairment in the

production of lexical tones (pitch patterns used to

contrast word meaning), a greater degree of deficit

was found in Cantonese production, possibly because

Cantonese contains six tonal contrasts, whereas

Mandarin contains only four (Lim and Douglas,

2000). In Friulian–Italian bilingual aphasics, the

most frequently made errors in Friulian but not Ital-

ian involved the omission of the second obligatory

pronoun, which is a typical feature of Friulian but not

Italian (Fabbro and Frau, 2001). In other words, a

type of linguistic impairment may not be apparent in

one language because it does not occur as often (or at

all) in that language. This also reinforces the idea of

assessing multiple languages in bilingual aphasic

individuals because impairments in one language do

not necessarily predict the same impairments in the

other.

With regard to patterns of recovery, as well as

improvements in both languages in terms of compa-

rable rate and extent (parallel recovery), individuals

show the following kinds of recovery: selective recov-

ery, when only one language improves; successive

recovery, when one language improves before the

other language; or differential recovery, when one

language improves more so than the other. Most

interestingly, some individuals show antagonistic

recovery, namely improvement in one language but

deterioration in another (Paradis and Goldblum,

1989). Some even demonstrate alternating antago-

nism, in which the improvement–deterioration pat-

tern of the two languages alternates (Paradis et al .,

1982). It has also been reported that some individuals

showed paradoxical recovery, namely when the

patient recovered a ‘dead’ language – that is, a lan-

guage the individual once had some knowledge of

but had never used it premorbidly for ordinary

communicative purposes. For example, Grasset

(1884) reported a case of a monolingual French-

speaking Catholic woman who started to speak

single Latin words and prayers (the language of the

church) a few days following a left-hemisphere stroke

but was unable to speak French. It is worth noting

that it is not known what single factor influences

the pattern of recovery (Paradis, 1998). For example,

it is not always the case that the language spoken

most proficiently premorbidly will be the language

affected the most or the least by brain injury or the

language that will be recovered first.

Bilingual Aphasia Assessment

When evaluating a bilingual aphasic individual, vari-

ous important issues warrant special considerations.

First, a ‘direct translation’ is not the same as cross-

language equivalency. Different languages have dif-

ferent (nonoverlapping) grammatical structures and

vocabulary that can potentially influence how

thoughts are expressed; consequently, certain linguis-

tic impairments may or may not manifest themselves

depending on the language, as suggested previously

in the Mandarin–Cantonese and Friulian–Italian

bilingual cases. Furthermore, languages are used

in different social and cultural contexts, resulting in

context-dependent interpretations even for the same

utterance. Second, because bilingual aphasics use the

two or more languages in different social settings, and

because the two or more languages can be affected

and recovered differently, all languages the individ-

uals speak premorbidly need to be assessed in order to

gain a more complete picture of the aphasia. Third, in

addition to any formal measures, a thorough case

history detailing use and proficiency of each language

needs to be taken because it can potentially affect the

rehabilitation process.

Different formal/standardized test batteries are

available for assessing aphasics who speak different

languages. These include tests that are originally con-

structed in English but then translated into other

languages with considerations of the appropriate

linguistic and cultural contexts and/or normative

data for the specific groups. For example, there is a

Cantonese version of the Western Aphasia Battery

(Yiu, 1992), a Spanish version of the Boston Naming

Test (Taussig et al ., 1992), and a Japanese version

of the Communication Abilities in Daily Living

(Sasanuma, 1991). In addition, there are also tests

designed for assessing bilingual individuals, including

the Bilingual Aphasia Test developed by Paradis and

colleagues for more than 65 languages and 170

specific language-pair combinations [e.g., an Urdu

version (Paradis and Janjua, 1987) and a Bulgarian–

French version (Paradis and Parcehian, 1991)] and

the Multilingual Aphasia Examination in Chinese,

French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish

(Rey and Benton, 1991).

Rehabilitation

Traditional approaches employed in aphasia rehabili-

tation still apply to rehabilitating bilingual

aphasic individuals, such as language stimulation ap-

proaches that emphasize individual linguistic units

Bilingualism and Aphasia 15

and processes such as grammar and naming, as well

as compensatory approaches that target the indivi-

dual’s participation in vocational and social settings

despite linguistic impairments. However, additional

challenges exist when more than two languages are

present. For example, should rehabilitation focus on

one or two languages? If one, which one? No one set

of widely accepted guidelines exists for selecting one

or all languages in aphasia rehabilitation, and evi-

dence and arguments exist for either consideration

(Bond, 1984; Chlenov, 1948; Linke, 1979; Wald,

1958). Similarly, it is still unclear whether skills ac-

quired from the rehabilitation of one language can be

transferred to another. Evidence suggests that skill

transfer across affected languages may be optimal if

the languages are closely related (e.g., Spanish and

Italian) (Paradis, 1998). As stated previously, differ-

ent individuals use their multiple languages in differ-

ent social and vocational settings. In rehabilitation,

the affected individual and her or his family should be

counseled to consider the preponderating need of one

language over another. For example, the social penal-

ty of linguistic impairments in English may be greater

for Spanish–English bilinguals whose immediate

peers are English-speaking, even though Spanish

might be the more proficient language.

Bond S (1984). Bilingualism and aphasia: word retrieval

skills in a bilingual anomic aphasic. Unpublished master’s

thesis, Denton: North Texas State University.

Chlenov L (1948). ‘Ob Afazii u Poliglotov.’ Izvestiia Aka-

demii Pedagogucheskikh NAUK RSFSR 15, 783–790.

[Translated version: Hervouet-Zieber T (1983). ‘On

aphasia in polyglots.’ In Paradis M (ed.). 446–454.]

De Fina A (1989). ‘Code-switching: grammatical and func-

tional explanations.’ Ressenga-Italiana-di-Linguistica

32 , 107–140.

DeSanti S, Obler L & Sabo-Abramson H (1995). ‘Discourse

abilities and deficits in multilingual dementia.’ In Paradis

M (ed.) Aspects of bilingual aphasia. San Diego: Singular.

224–235.

Fabbro F & Frau F (2001). ‘Manifestations of aphasia in

Friulian.’ Journal of Neurolinguistics 14, 255–279.

Gloning I & Gloning K (1965). ‘Aphasien bei Polyglotten.

Beitrag zur Dynamik des Sprachabbaus sowie zur Loka-

lisationsfrage dieser St ¨ runge.’ Wiener Zeitschrift f¨ r

Nervenheilkunde 22, 362–397. [Translated version:

Greenwood A & Keller E (1983). ‘Aphasias in polyglots.

Contribution to the dynamics of language disintegration

as well as to the question of the localization of these

impairments.’ In Paradis M (ed.). 681–716.]

Grasset J (1884). ‘Contribution clinique ` l’´tude des apha-

sies (c´cit´ et surdit´ verbales).’ Montpellier M´dical,

January (Observation II), 33–34. [Translated version:

Mitchell C (1983). ‘Clinical contribution to the study of

aphasias.’ In Paradis M (ed.). 15.]

Green D & Price C (2001). ‘Functional imaging in the study

of recovery patterns in the bilingual aphasia.’ Bilingual-

ism: Language and Cognition 4(2), 191–201.

Grosjean F (1989). ‘Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual

is not two monolinguals in one person.’ Brain and

Language 36, 3–15.

Heller M (1995). ‘Codeswitching and the politics of lan-

guage.’ In Milroy L & Muysken P (eds.) One speaker,

two languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

115–135.

Kim K, Relkin N & Lee K (1997). ‘Distinct cortical areas

associated with native and second languages. Nature

(London) 388, 171–174.

Lim V & Douglas J (2000). Impairment of lexical tone

production in stroke patients with bilingual aphasia.

Academy of Aphasia meeting at the School of Human

Communication Sciences, Australia: La Trobe University.

Linke D (1979). ‘Zur Therapie polyglotter Aphasiker.’ In

Peuser G (ed.) Studien zur Sprachtherapie. Munich:

Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

Milroy L & Myusken P (1995). ‘Introduction: codeswitch-

ing and bilingualism research.’ In Milroy L & Myusken P

(eds.) One speaker, two languages. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press. 1–14.

Mu˜ oz M, Marquardt T & Copeland G (1999). ‘A com-

parison of the codeswitching patterns in aphasic and

neurologically normal bilingual speakers of English

and Spanish.’ Brain and Language 66, 249–274.

Paradis M (ed.) (1983). Readings on aphasia in bilinguals

and polyglots. Montreal: Didier.

Conclusion

Basic knowledge of how multiple languages are

represented in the brain and what factors influence

representation undoubtedly have bearing on the

clinical process. Moreover, careful documentation of

linguistic impairment characteristics and the course

of recovery in the two languages can also inform us

about how the brain is organized. With increasing

interaction between individuals from diverse linguis-

tic and cultural backgrounds, due to factors such as

immigration, globalization, and state unionization,

the number and proportion of individuals who

know and use more than one language will most

likely increase. The clinical population as well as

clinical needs will likewise increase. Thus, a greater

basic and clinical understanding of bilingualism and

the brain is warranted.

Bibliography

Abutalebi J, Cappa F & Perani D (2001). ‘The bilingual

brain as revealed by functional neuroimaging.’ Bilingual-

ism: Language and Cognition 4(3), 179–190.

Albert M & Obler L (1978). The bilingual brain. New

York: Academic Press.

Encyclopedia - Keith, B. (Ed.). (2006). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. (2 ed.)(B2 - Bilingualism and aphasia).pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: