ACQ Vol 11 No 1 2009

p eech

athology

ustralia

MULTICULTURALISM AND DYSPHAGIA

by the child?” It is easy to assume that the two languages in

bilingual individuals are, and perhaps should be, autonomous

(Grosjean, 1989), but the speech pathologist asking these

questions does not see the child as a whole bilingual, with a

communication system that consists of

both

languages. Rather,

he/she is treating each language as separate, a perspective we

are calling “two monolingualisms”.

But what exactly does it mean to talk about “a communi

cation system of both languages?” Evidence that bilingualism

is qualitatively different from a multiple monolingualism

comes from a variety of sources. One source is studies of language

use, specifically the phenomenon of code switching or code

mixing. Code switching and mixing has in the past often been

interpreted as a product of interference between one language

and the other, poor proficiency in one or both, or careless

language, and in all these cases indicative of inadequacies in

language competence. While it is true that code switching can

occur through a lack of proficiency, it is also true that code

switching and mixing is a characteristic of highly proficient

bilinguals, and a naturally occurring characteristic of bilingual

communication (Brice & Anderson, 1999; Grosjean, 1989). It is

hypothesised that language alternation through code

switching and code mixing allows bilinguals to com

bine two language systems, including pragmatic,

syntactic and morphological dimensions of both

languages (Grosjean, 1989). The appropriate parts

of either language are utilised according to how

they provide for their communication needs. In the

end, the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

This code mixing can result in a “third language”

which is not exactly the same as either language

considered separately (a process common in the

development of new language via creolisation).

Crystal (2003) pointed out in the concept of “global

English” that the use of English by proficient multi

linguals who do not have English as a first language

results in a different “English” to that spoken by

monolingual English speakers. As a consequence,

judgements of what is “correct” in the language

(what is “English”?) can no longer be the exclusive

province of the monolingual English speakers.

This raises a number of possibilities for clinical

practice. Putting aside the issues of working in

multiple languages, should even teaching English-

only in a bilingual situation be the same as teaching

it in a monolingual one? How might it differ? Where could

we find “norms” for bilingual use of English? Could teaching

code switching be an appropriate target in language inter

vention? And if so, how could this feature be taken advantage

of, and encouraged, as an indicator and an aid to profi-

ciency?

Another line of evidence for the bilinguals not being double

monolinguals comes from neurolinguistics. Vaid and Hall

(1991, cited in Baker, 2003) and Kim, Relkin, Lee, and Hirsch

(1997) indicated that the comparative brain lateralisation

studies that have been conducted over a number of years

have found differences in hemispheric activity in language

processing between monolinguals and bilinguals when

speaking in the same language; bilinguals use their right

hemispheres more for language processing than monolin

Keywords

assessment in child language disorders,

bilingualism,

cultural and linguistic diversity,

intervention in child language disorders.

here is concern in the speech pathology literature

about effective assessment and intervention for

bilingual children with language impairments

(Gutierrez-Clellen, 1999; Kayser, 2002; Kritikos,

2003; Mahon, Crutchley, & Quinn, 2003; Sochon &

Hand, 2001, Speech Pathology Australia, 2001).

There is now a reasonable amount of advice avail

able for working with children from linguistically

and culturally diverse backgrounds (see Baker,

2000; Battle, 2002; Isaac, 2002; and Roseberry-

McKibbin, 2002 for examples) including material

on culturally competent practice more generally

(e.g., the National Center for Cultural Competence

at Georgetown University in the USA – see website).

However, the question of “which language?” for

assessment, diagnosis and intervention is still an issue for

most clinicians. Should assessment or intervention be con

ducted in the child’s first language, second language, or both?

How can you decide? Most commonly, clinicians in Australia

and most of the English-dominant world work in English (if

at all possible) or less commonly with an interpreter in the

child’s home language. They have, therefore, made a choice as to

which language is the significant one in that particular case.

To answer the question “which language?” might seem

problematic enough. However, we contend that to ask such a

question at all is to see the issue as one language versus the

other. Common clinical questions are “which language best

demonstrates the disorder?” or “which language is most needed

peech

athology

and

ilingual

hildren

Do we think in terms of “two monolingualisms”?

Joyce Lew and Linda Hand

Speech pathologists in Australia find working with

communication disorders in bilingual

[1]

clients to be

problematic. There are obvious reasons for such difficulty,

most prominently that of how to assess and provide

therapy in languages that you do not speak. However, it

is the contention of this paper that providing interpreters

is not the solution. There is an issue we are calling “a

monolingual perspective on bilingualism” which leads

speech pathologists to think about bilingual clients as if

they were a composite of two monolinguals, rather than

appreciating the differences between monolingualism

and bilingualism. This paper outlines reasons for current

beliefs and practice, as well as the evidence for con

sidering bilinguals as a variant set of communicators who

process and use language differently from monolinguals.

There are implications from this for changes to speech

pathology practice.

See table 1 for an explanation of this term.

Joyce Lew

Linda Hand

This article has been peer-reviewed