Previous Page  14 / 68 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 14 / 68 Next Page
Page Background

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