ACQ Vol 11 No 1 2009

ACQ

uiring knowledge

sp eech

language and hearing

, Volume 11, Number 1 2009

MULTICULTURALISM AND DYSPHAGIA

time partly in students’ minority first language because of the

significant interdependence across languages at deeper levels

of conceptual and academic functioning (Cummins, 2000,

2003; Kayser, 2002; Perozzi & Sanchez, 1992).

Inglis (2003) noted that ethnic groups in Australia were

largely silent when a revised language policy that gave far

greater priority to the importance of English in Australia was

announced by the Commonwealth government; instead,

protests came mostly from educators. Inglis suggested that

the silence may have come from a priority that parents assign

to mainstream academic success. The opportunity for social

mobility among English-speaking academic high achievers in

Australia, and in the USA, may outweigh such parents’

interest in maintaining their mother tongue. There is a

widespread lack of understanding of the correlation between

language and cultural maintenance. Parents from diverse

language backgrounds need to know that the development of

a strong first language system that can be cultivated by the

child’s natural environment supports the learning of English.

However, they are not the only people who need to know this

more thoroughly. The fact that speech pathology includes a

bias found in the wider society should not surprise us, as it

indicates that there are pressures that support the underlying

monolingual perspective. Understanding this gives us some

potential to resist it.

Future directions: a bilingual

approach to language therapy

Which language?

Decisions about which language(s) to use in speech pathology

should be made on the basis of the broader social, cultural

and temporal contexts of the child. There are a number of

significant reasons to maintain and enhance a minority

language, for example being part of a community which

speaks that language, interacting with family members who

may only speak or be dominant in the home language, and

participating in important cultural events. It is also important

to consider whole-life and lifelong needs. A child may live

and work in their non-dominant language-speaking

community even more after leaving school, and therefore this

possibility should be planned for. These ideas are consistent

with the World Health Organisation’s International

Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)

framework (Campbell & Skarakis-Doyle, 2007; Threats &

Worrall, 2004 ) which gives equal weight to

activity,

participation

and

context

in intervention.

Language education practices in bilingual countries can

give us pointers to how the different languages might be used

in speech pathology. For example, Pennington (1995, cited in

Brice, 2000) observed bilingual Cantonese–English teachers

(of English) in Hong Kong using Cantonese in class for the

purposes of word definition, explicating ideas, giving directions,

checking for understanding, expediting lessons, disciplining,

motivating, as well as maintaining solidarity and group

membership. This was so even while English was the target

language. Bilingual speech pathologists could use the client’s

first language to explain language concepts (i.e., to teach

English effectively, it is not always necessary to use English).

For those who do not speak the client’s first language, a

skilled team approach, utilising others who speak that

language, could also follow this principle.

Additionally, there is evidence that the use of a first lan

guage supports second language acquisition (Baker, 2000,

2003; Brice, 2001; Cummins, 2000, 2003; Mahon et al., 2003;

Oller & Pearson, 2002). A number of authors recommend that

this may be even more important when working with a

bilingual child with language disorders (Brice, 2001; Perozzi

& Sanchez, 1992), although there is as yet little hard evidence

in the research literature. Thordardottir, Weismer and Smith

(1997), in a small but informative study, found that children

learned targeted language concepts in one language more

effectively when given therapy in both languages. Perozzi

and Sanchez (1992) compared the efficacy of teaching pre

positions and pronouns to a group of bilingual children with

language delay in their first language (Spanish) and then in

English, compared to another group who were taught in

English only. Some of the bilingual children acquired syntactic

goals twice as quickly when taught in Spanish and then in

English. Similar results were found by Thordardottir et al. in

their case study of vocabulary acquisition. The theory is that

learning in one language involves interrelated processes in

the other for both typically developing and language im

paired children. The transfer of language skills to a second

language can be facilitated through mediation with the native

language (Cummins, 2003; Gutierrez-Clellen, 1999; Perozzi &

Sanchez, 1992), even where language disorders are present.

However, there is still little published data of this kind, and

more is needed.

A perspective often given by speech pathologists, and

sometimes by teachers and parents, is that it is too hard to

expect the child with a language disorder to learn two

languages. This is logically appealing, but it is not supported

by the evidence, nor by theories of language acquisition.

Rather than abandoning the first language, the continued use

and acquisition of the first language, along with acquisition of

the socially dominant language, should be targets for speech

pathology intervention.

Assessment

We would best serve this diverse caseload by using models

that aim to study how a child’s communication weaknesses

prevent them from engaging in school, at home and with

their peers in the playground. The ICF framework is again a

model for this possibility. Although a full discussion about

assessment practices goes beyond the scope of this paper, a

few important points are highlighted (see table 2).

Table 2. Some recommendations on bilingual language

assessment

Assess the two languages, according to the uses they

have for the client

Assess across a range of contexts

Examine language interactions

Assess code switching; a skill, or an indicator of in

competence?

Avoid norm-referenced tests; or adapt and treat as

criterion-referenced

“Language-free” non-word repetition and rapid auto

matic naming methods seem to have potential but are

still unproven

As bilingual speakers have differential needs for their

languages (Grosjean, 1989), assessment should take place in

different settings, such as in school, at home, over the tele

phone or through the use of audio tapes (Speech Pathology

Australia, 2000). This will enable an estimate of the amount of

use of the different languages, the needs the child has for

them, and the proficiency or adequacy that is shown.

Interpreters and cultural informants will be needed to help

analyse and interpret the data.

Use and proficiency in code switching should also be

assessed. We know that code mixing and code switching are