Objective To investigate the clinical effect of continuous language rehabilitation nursing on the language function in patients with stroke motor aphasia. Methods A total of 60 motor aphasia patients with a brain stroke were recruited and divided into experimental group and control group with 30 cases each by random digits table method. The control group was treated with the routine stroke care in traditional Chinese medicine, while the experimental group with the continuing language rehabilitation nursing base on the routine stroke care. The language function of both groups were detected by the Chinese Rehabilitation Research Center Standard Aphasia Examination before and after 3 months treatment, and a survey of nursing satisfaction of patients when discharged was conducted. Results The right rate of hear and understand, retelling, say, read aloud, reading comprehension, transcription, description, dictation, calculation in the Chinese Rehabilitation Research Center Standard Aphasia Examination was (44.35 ± 18.69), (32.37 ± 22.25), (21.49 ± 14.91), (27.63 ± 12.54), (46.87 ± 15.30), (14.25 ± 6.11), (7.33±3.23), (11.63±4.82), (18.93±6.82)%before the treatment and (62.14±10.81), (55.36±19.53), (41.42 ± 13.75), (59.16 ± 11.05), (55.57 ± 13.90), (32.39 ± 7.12), (9.73 ± 3.92), (27.45 ± 4.71), (37.46 ± 6.91)%after the treatment in the experimental group, except for description, the differences were significant ( t=2.096-14.540, P<0.01 or 0.05). The right rate of hear and understand, retelling, say, read aloud, reading comprehension, transcription, description, dictation, calculation in the Chinese Rehabilitation Research Center Standard Aphasia Examination was (43.86±15.89), (34.28±20.27), (22.84±15.40), (28.63±12.45), (47.23±11.30), (13.40±6.24), (7.27±3.70), (11.10±4.73), (19.50±6.80)%before the treatment and (49.46± 14.27), (42.36±20.58), (30.33±13.36), (40.31±11.88), (49.97±10.13), (15.37±5.59), (8.50±3.74), (12.83± 4.36), (21.47 ± 7.74)% after the treatment in the control group, the differences of hear and understand, retelling, say, read aloud were significant (t=2.263-3.991, P<0.05 or 0.01). There were significant differences in hear and understand, retelling, say, read aloud, transcription, dictation, calculation after the treatment between two groups (t=2.510-10.298, all P<0.05). The score of satisfaction was (94.36 ± 5.55) in the experimental group and (88.25 ± 5.46) points in the control group, and there was significant difference (t=4.299, P<0.01). Conclusions Continuing language rehabilitation nursing can improve the recovery of the language function of the motor aphasia patients with a brain stroke.