ACQ Vol 13 no 3 2011

7 / 60

ACQ Volume 13, Number 3 2011 109
the clinical context can be reported in the literature. These
small scale studies are within the scope of practitioners,
and can then help to build a body of data which can be the
basis of larger, controlled research projects. Sharing of the
outcomes of the studies with the professional community
will help to inform practice throughout Australia.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2010). Yearbook
Australia, 2009–10 . Retrieved from
AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1301.0Feature+Article70120
09%E2%80%9310
De Houwer, A. (2010). Bilingual first language acquisition.
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, (2010). Australia
in brief . Retrieved from
overview.html
Elin Thordardottir, T. (2010). Towards evidence-based
practice in language intervention for bilingual children.
Journal of Communication Disorders , 43(6), 523–537.
Elin Thordardottir, T., Weismer, S. E., & Smith, M. E.
(1997). Vocabulary learning in bilingual and monolingual
clinical intervention. Child Language Teaching and Therapy,
13 (3), 215–227.
Fagundes, D., Haynes, W., Haak, N., & Moran, M. (1998).
Task variability effects on the language test performance of
southern lower socioeconomic class African American and
Caucasian five-year-olds. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools , 29, 148–157.
Feltmate, K., & Kay-Raining Bird, E. (2008). Language
learning in four bilingual children with Down Syndrome:
A detailed analysis of vocabulary and morpho-syntax.
Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and
Audiology , 32(1), 6–20.
Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (Eds.). (2004). Dual
language development and disorders . Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Goldstein, B., & Gildersleeve-Neumann, C. (2007).
Typical phonological acquisition in bilinguals. Perspectives
on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally
and Linguistically Diverse Populations , 14(2), 11–16.
Gutierrez-Clellan, V., & Peña, E. (2001). Dynamic
assessment of diverse children: A tutorial. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32(4), 212–224.
Gutierrez-Clellan, V., & Simon-Cereijido, G. (2009). Using
language sampling in clinical assessments with bilingual
children: Challenges and future directions. Seminars in
Speech and Language , 30(4), 234–245.
Isaac, K. (2002). Speech Pathology in cultural and
linguistic diversity . Philadelphia, PA: Whurr.
Jordaan, H. (2008). Clinical intervention for bilingual
children: An international survey. Folia Phoniatrica et
Logopaedica, 60(2), 97–105.
Kay-Raining Bird, E., Trudeau, N., Elin Thordardottir, T.,
Sutton, A., & Thorpe, A. (2005). The language abilities of
bilingual children with Down syndrome. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 187–199.
Kohnert, K. (2008). Language disorders in bilingual
children and adults . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
Kohnert, K. (2010). Bilingual children with primary
language impairment: Issues, evidence and implications for
clinical actions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43(6),
456–473.
Kohnert, K., & Medina, A. (2009). Bilingual children and
communication disorders: A 30-year research retrospective.
Seminars in Speech and Language, 30(4), 219–233.
speak their home language to avoid added difficulty for
the child. The available evidence suggests that children
with language impairments are able to learn two different
languages, and will not suffer any additional disadvantage
as a result (Elin Thordardottir, Weismer, & Smith, 1997;
Paradis, Crago, Genesee, & Rice, 2003). This is true also of
children with Down syndrome (Feltmate & Kay-Raining Bird,
2008; Kay-Raining Bird, Trudeau, Elin Thordardottir, Sutton,
& Thorpe, 2005). There are compelling social reasons
for the maintenance of home languages, but pragmatic
justification for a focus on the majority language may be
presented (for example, that this is the language used in the
education system). Ultimately, the choice of language (or
languages) to be spoken in the home will be made by the
family, for reasons which may be unique to that family.
The literature contains different perspectives on the
question of which language to use in intervention. Speech
Pathology Australia (2009) recommends that a decision
regarding the language of intervention be made in
collaboration with the family after consideration of a number
of factors, including the language skills of the clinician and
the preferences of the family. The limited evidence available
suggests that a focus on both of the child’s languages
leads to better outcomes, and that a focus on processes
common to the two languages will facilitate progress (Elin
Thordardottir, 2010). Gains in both languages in bilingual
intervention for a child with autism have been reported
(Seung, Siddiqi, & Elder, 2005).
Kohnert (2008) has suggested that, rather than asking
which language to use in intervention, clinicians should ask
how to support the development of the languages needed
by the child. This support is, in most cases, unlikely to
include intervention delivered by the speech pathologist
in the home language of the child. An international study
of practices of speech pathologists working with bilingual
clients (Jordaan, 2008) found that 87% of respondents
worked with children in one language only, their own.
Williams and McLeod (2011) reported that 57.9% of
Australian respondents worked with their bilingual clients
only in English. Support for both languages must therefore
be delivered in innovative ways. Kohnert (2008) suggested
a number of general strategies which could be used
to achieve this goal. These include using collaborative
strategies to develop the home language (for example,
working with others who share the child’s first language),
supporting the development of general language abilities
(for example, through a focus on print and literacy, and
ensuring an optimum listening environment) and focusing
on elements which may transfer from one language to the
other.
Conclusions
Working with children from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds presents a number of challenges to
speech pathologists in Australia. These challenges arise
from the large number of languages spoken, the small
number of bilingual speech pathologists, and the
geographical distribution of the Australian population. The
evidence base in this important area remains relatively
small. All practitioners who work with children from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds have a part
to play in helping to develop evidence to support practice
and inform research. Well-designed and carefully reported
single subject case studies which document the choices
made (e.g., the language(s) used, the model of intervention),
procedures and outcomes of interventions undertaken in