14 / 68
12
S
p eech
P
athology
A
ustralia
MULTICULTURALISM AND DYSPHAGIA
Translating language tests
Assessing one language by
translating a good, standardised language test from another
language is an appealing idea. However, languages are not
simple translations of each other. For example, Chang (2001)
showed that parts of speech in Chinese languages are not
formally distinguished, and the same word may have
different structural functions – contrary to English which has
word classes with different functions in a sentence (e.g.,
“verb”, “adjective”, etc.). As a result, bilingual speakers of
English and Chinese may not always differentiate between
related words that in English would be distinguished, for
example, “difficult” and “difficulty”. If a test is marked
“right” or “wrong” depending on such distinctions, then the
translated test would be invalid. Therefore, to consider
translating a language instrument, whether a formal test or
not, shows a lack of understanding of bilingualism.
Using developmental normals from “home” populations
If a child
speaks Cantonese in Australia, then it has been suggested that
a valid judgement can be made by comparing their language
development to that of children in Cantonese-speaking
countries. Although this approach has considerable initial
appeal, problems arise when we consider the nature of
bilingualism. This recommendation results in a comparison
with a monolingual Cantonese population, or a bilingual but
Cantonese-dominant one. However, bilingualism varies by
context. There is a phenomenon of “language loss” in a first
language when a child or adult becomes more proficient (or
dominant) in a second language (Grosjean, 1989; Kravin, 1992;
Mahon et al., 2003). In general, there is less exposure to the
home language as it is not found in the wider society or in
general communication sources (e.g., the media, official
publications, education). The child’s exposure to Cantonese in
Australia may be to only one or some uses of language (e.g.,
social, within-family language) compared to a wider variety
of uses in places where that language is society-dominant.
Therefore, proficiencies cannot be expected to be the same in
children growing up in the two countries, even with the “first
language” being the same and being made available by
proficient speakers of that language. Understanding of this
point has led to recommendations that “language dominance”
should be considered more significant by speech pathologists
than “first language” (Dopke, 2000; Huer & Blake 2003). How
ever, anecdotal evidence suggests that speech pathologists
often do not assess “language dominance”, feel inadequate to
do so, or use the concept of “first language” as a basis for
assessment decisions.
Both of these examples are attempts to increase the validity of
assessing a bilingual child. However, they are both still
looking for one language to compare to what is essentially a
monolingual “norm”. Speech pathologists rarely assess the
dual communication system of bilinguals. One of the reasons
for this may be because the speech pathologist is proficient
only in one of the languages spoken by the bilingual. How
ever, even bilingual speech pathologists have difficulties
analysing mixed language data. The education and training in
speech pathology is oriented to monolingual understandings,
hence “speech pathologists who happen to be bilingual” are
not the same as “bilingual speech pathologists”. The former
group may have difficulty or lack confidence in applying
their bilingual skills to their clients, as their other language
may be that of a user, rather than an analyst of communication
as a speech pathologist must be. There is little published
guidance on analysing a bilingual language sample, even if
the speech pathologist doing so is bilingual. Nor is there
much information on the specific features of impairment in a
bilingual communication system. Mahon et al. (2003) suggest
that many researchers studying bilingual language continue
to shy away from dealing with mixed language data, leaving
the monolingual bias in speech pathology to persist.
Hammer, Detwiler, Detwiler, Blood, and Qualls (2004)
reported that in 1985, the American Speech and Hearing
Association (ASHA) found that the majority of speech
pathologists surveyed (91%) stated they had received no
coursework in multicultural issues. By the late 1990s and
early 2000s, 59% to 95% of speech pathologists working with
children reported they had at least one bilingual child on their
caseload (Kritikos, 2003; Winter, 1999). The profession does
not have a long history in preparing its practitioners for what
may be an increasing caseload of bilingual clients. More
recently, speech pathology associations have published
position papers discussing multicultural issues, most of
which tend towards recommending a pluralist bilingual view.
Speech Pathology Australia, for example, states that all
residents “should have equitable access to speech pathology
services irrespective of cultural or linguistic background” and
that “development of cross-cultural competence is essential”
(Speech Pathology Australia, 2001, p. 3). However, Mahon et
al. (2003) reported that the prevailing view in the therapeutic
landscape in the UK is still on the side of assimilation, despite
research indicating the positive effects of the child’s first
language (L1) as language of instruction on the development
of the English language. It seems there remains work to do
with regards to changing the attitudes of speech pathologists.
Bilingualism in education
The problem in speech pathology is mirrored in education.
Education can illustrate for us the ways that monolingual bias
appears and can be maintained, even in the face of
information that would contradict it. In the development of
Australian multiculturalism during the 1970s, bilingual
education was seen as a means of contributing to self-esteem
and achieving equality in educational outcomes for immigrant
children (Inglis, 2003). This followed the American Supreme
Court in 1974 ruling that the civil rights of non-English
speaking students were deemed to be violated if their school
did not assist them in acquiring the language of instruction
(Cummins, 2000; Kayser, 2002).
However, in 1998 and 2000, California and Arizona voted
to reverse approximately 25 years of education policy by
eliminating the use of first language as the language of
instruction of bilingual children (Cummins, 2000, 2003). By
the mid-1990s, education policy-makers in Australia argued
for the need to acknowledge English as the nation’s common
language (Department of Education Victoria, 1997). Their
“Multicultural Policy for Victoria” recognised the value of the
first language as a sound basis for the acquisition of English
as a second language, but little was suggested on possible
implementation of policies relating to assisting children with
little or no English to learn the language of instruction by
making links with the language concepts of their first
language. In policy debates in the USA both sides argued
“equity” as their central principle. The conservatives pushed
for an assimilation discourse in social policies, which involved
a “return to the traditional expectation that immigrants will
quickly learn English as the price of admission to America”
(p. 32), and strongly supported “time-on-task” as the single
most effective way of achieving acquisition of a second
language (Hornblower, 1998, cited in Cummins, 2000); that is,
spend more time on English, because it is the language you
will be using more often.
The push for the traditional assimilation practice is a mono
lingual view in more ways than one. Not only does it
privilege one language over others, it also expects a general
isation from the way the first language is learnt to the second.
Against this, proponents of bilingual education acknowledge
the differences in language acquisition between first- and
second-language learners, and support spending instructional