ACQ Vol 13 no 3 2011

5 / 60

ACQ Volume 13, Number 3 2011 107
to variability in children growing up in bilingual contexts.
These factors include the pattern of bilingual development
– simultaneous (exposure to two languages before the age
of 3) or sequential (introduction of a second language at
a later point in development) (Paradis, 2010), the amount
of exposure to the second language, and family and
community attitudes to the use of the two languages. If the
pattern of development is sequential, the age at which the
second language is introduced, the amount of exposure to
that language and the pattern of use of the two languages
are critical variables which may impact on both the first
and second language. The effects on the second language
make it difficult to separate language disorder from
language difference. Paradis (2010) suggests that there is
an overlap in the linguistic characteristics of the second
language spoken by typically developing bilingual children,
bilingual children with SLI, and monolingual children with
SLI, and that these overlaps are particularly evident in the
first two years of exposure to the second language. These
factors may impact on the continued development of the
first language with the result that the first language skills
may appear to be impaired (Genesee, Paradis, & Crago,
2004).
Family, community, and individual attitudes to the use of
the two languages may affect the amount of exposure to
each language, and therefore opportunities to use the two
languages. The decline in the use of home languages within
migrant communities over generations is at least partly
attributable to individual choice (Pauwels, 2005). It is thus
important to include questions which address these crucial
elements of variability in case/family history questionnaires
for use with clients from culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds.
The literature on second language learning describes
a number of typical processes, many of which may be
mistakenly interpreted as evidence of language disorder
(Williams & Oliver, 2002). Children may go through a
silent period, during which they do not attempt to use the
second language. Interference (cross linguistic effects)
may mean that syntactic or phonological characteristics
of the first language are evident in the second language
(Goldstein & Gildersleeve-Neumann, 2007; Kohnert,
2008). Basic knowledge of the characteristics of the first
language will assist in interpreting these characteristics.
Code mixing (which occurs when elements of the two
languages are included in the same utterance) and code
switching (moving from one language to the other, usually
in response to context) are typical processes in second
language learning. Children may use routines or formulaic
utterances as means of coping with the demands of a
new language, or they may avoid using language elements
which they know to be difficult for them. Language shift (the
process by which children move from using mostly a first or
home language to using mostly the language of the wider
community) and language loss (the replacement of a first or
home language by the language of the wider community)
are also common processes. See de Houwer (2010) for a
more detailed discussion.
Issues and evidence
Assessment
In assessing speech and language in bilingual children we
need to be sure that the typical patterns of second
language development are not mistaken for language
learning disorder; at the same time, we need to be certain
Requisite knowledge
In working with children (or adults) from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds it is crucial to understand
culture, the relationship between culture and language, the
processes of second language learning and the variability to
be seen in this population. Culture has been defined as “the
shared, accumulated, and integrated set of learned beliefs,
habits, attitudes and behaviours of a group or people or
community” (Kohnert, 2008, p. 28; my emphasis). The
realisation that the beliefs, habits, attitudes, and behaviours
which make up culture are learned, not inherently right, is a
critical one. Culture can be seen as a filter through which
we see the world (Saville-Troike, 1989), a filter which is
generally invisible to us. Awareness of those beliefs and
orientations which are culturally determined (recognition of
our cultural filter) is a first step in learning to work with those
whose cultural background differs from our own. A failure to
recognise such differences may lead to misinterpretation of
behaviour.
Cultural orientation has been discussed in terms
of differences along two dimensions – individualism/
collectivism (or independence/interdependence) and
high/low power. Individualism refers to the tendency
to value the individual, independence, and individual
achievement, while collectivism involves orientation primarily
to the group. The high/low power dimension captures
differences in expectations about power relationships
between individuals. A low power orientation expects
equality in interactions, while a high power orientation
accepts inequality. These dimensions are seen as a way
of thinking about cultural differences, rather than as
cultural absolutes, but some cultures are thought to show
particular characteristics. Western cultures, for example,
are most often thought to be low power and individualistic,
whereas Asian cultures are thought to be high power and
collectivist (Westby, 2009). Consideration of the ways in
which cultural orientation may affect the assessment and
intervention processes is needed when working with clients
from cultural backgrounds which differ from those of the
clinician. Differences between individuals and families from
the same cultural background must also be recognised.
Language is one aspect of culture, “at once the context
in which language is developed and used and the primary
vehicle by which it [culture] is transmitted” (Kohnert, 2008,
p. 28). Differences in language form are readily apparent,
but other cultural differences in language are less evident.
Children are socialised within the cultural orientations
of their home and learn the ways of interacting that are
valued within their culture. These ways of interacting may
differ from those of the speech pathologist. Failure to
recognise differences which are due to culture may lead
to misinterpretation of behaviour and to the provision of
intervention which does not meet the needs of the child and
family (Peña & Fiestas, 2009; Wing et al., 2007). Consider,
for example, the child who seldom initiates conversation.
Within an individualistic cultural orientation, this behaviour
may be seen as problematic, but within a collectivist
cultural orientation, which values the group more than the
individual, this may be the expected behaviour.
The speech pathologist working with children from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds needs
an understanding of the typical patterns of second
language acquisition and of the many factors that will
affect this. Language learning is characterised by variability
regardless of the number of languages a child is exposed
to, but there are additional factors which will contribute