ABSTRACT
After the Second World War, the centre of gravity had moved from Europe to North America in aphasiology, as in other areas of human endeavour. The influence of approaches established pre-Second World War was passed down and issues of localisation generally gave way to holism. A significant impact on development came from increased efforts in aphasia rehabilitation in those states engaged in the war, as Goodglass (1993: 26) stated: ‘The Second World War produced several converging influences that accelerated both basic research on aphasia and the efforts to rehabilitate aphasic patients.’ Similarly, Wepman (1951: 3-4) observed: ‘The developing attention was greatly stimulated by the large numbers of brain-injured patients who needed therapy as an aftermath of the second war.’ This is exemplified by the work of Luria in the Soviet Union, Wepman and Schuell in the USA and Zangwill, Butfield, Newcombe and Russell in Britain. Developments in aphasia and aphasia therapy were limited under fascism in Germany, but there were isolated attempts to continue with a traditional approach (for example by Bay and Leischner). In the 1960s there was a return to classical Lichtheim-Wernicke aphasiology triggered by the neoclassicism of Boston neurologist Norman Geschwind in the USA.
