ACQ Vol 11 No 1 2009

MULTICULTURALISM AND DYSPHAGIA

S peech P athology and B ilingual C hildren Do we think in terms of “two monolingualisms”? Joyce Lew and Linda Hand

by the child?” It is easy to assume that the two languages in bilingual individuals are, and perhaps should be, autonomous (Grosjean, 1989), but the speech pathologist asking these questions does not see the child as a whole bilingual, with a communication system that consists of both languages. Rather, he/she is treating each language as separate, a perspective we are calling “two monolingualisms”. But what exactly does it mean to talk about “a communi­ cation system of both languages?” Evidence that bilingualism is qualitatively different from a multiple monolingualism comes from a variety of sources. One source is studies of language use, specifically the phenomenon of code switching or code mixing. Code switching and mixing has in the past often been interpreted as a product of interference between one language and the other, poor proficiency in one or both, or careless language, and in all these cases indicative of inadequacies in language competence. While it is true that code switching can occur through a lack of proficiency, it is also true that code switching and mixing is a characteristic of highly proficient bilinguals, and a naturally occurring characteristic of bilingual communication (Brice & Anderson, 1999; Grosjean, 1989). It is hypothesised that language alternation through code switching and code mixing allows bilinguals to com­ bine two language systems, including pragmatic, syntactic and morphological dimensions of both languages (Grosjean, 1989). The appropriate parts of either language are utilised according to how they provide for their communication needs. In the end, the whole is more than the sum of the parts. This code mixing can result in a “third language” which is not exactly the same as either language considered separately (a process common in the development of new language via creolisation). Crystal (2003) pointed out in the concept of “global English” that the use of English by proficient multi­ linguals who do not have English as a first language results in a different “English” to that spoken by monolingual English speakers. As a consequence, judgements of what is “correct” in the language (what is “English”?) can no longer be the exclusive province of the monolingual English speakers. This raises a number of possibilities for clinical practice. Putting aside the issues of working in multiple languages, should even teaching English- only in a bilingual situation be the same as teaching it in a monolingual one? How might it differ? Where could we find “norms” for bilingual use of English? Could teaching code switching be an appropriate target in language inter­ vention? And if so, how could this feature be taken advantage of, and encouraged, as an indicator and an aid to profi- ciency? Another line of evidence for the bilinguals not being double monolinguals comes from neurolinguistics. Vaid and Hall (1991, cited in Baker, 2003) and Kim, Relkin, Lee, and Hirsch (1997) indicated that the comparative brain lateralisation studies that have been conducted over a number of years have found differences in hemispheric activity in language processing between monolinguals and bilinguals when speaking in the same language; bilinguals use their right hemispheres more for language processing than monolin­

This article has been peer-reviewed

Keywords assessment in child language disorders, bilingualism, cultural and linguistic diversity, intervention in child language disorders. T here is concern in the speech pathology literature about effective assessment and intervention for bilingual children with language impairments (Gutierrez-Clellen, 1999; Kayser, 2002; Kritikos, 2003; Mahon, Crutchley, & Quinn, 2003; Sochon & Hand, 2001, Speech Pathology Australia, 2001). There is now a reasonable amount of advice avail­ able for working with children from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds (see Baker, 2000; Battle, 2002; Isaac, 2002; and Roseberry- McKibbin, 2002 for examples) including material on culturally competent practice more generally (e.g., the National Center for Cultural Competence at Georgetown University in the USA – see website). However, the question of “which language?” for assessment, diagnosis and intervention is still an issue for most clinicians. Should assessment or intervention be con­ ducted in the child’s first language, second language, or both? How can you decide? Most commonly, clinicians in Australia and most of the English-dominant world work in English (if at all possible) or less commonly with an interpreter in the child’s home language. They have, therefore, made a choice as to which language is the significant one in that particular case. To answer the question “which language?” might seem problematic enough. However, we contend that to ask such a question at all is to see the issue as one language versus the other. Common clinical questions are “which language best demonstrates the disorder?” or “which language is most needed Speech pathologists in Australia find working with communication disorders in bilingual [1] clients to be problematic. There are obvious reasons for such difficulty, most prominently that of how to assess and provide therapy in languages that you do not speak. However, it is the contention of this paper that providing interpreters is not the solution. There is an issue we are calling “a monolingual perspective on bilingualism” which leads speech pathologists to think about bilingual clients as if they were a composite of two monolinguals, rather than appreciating the differences between monolingualism and bilingualism. This paper outlines reasons for current beliefs and practice, as well as the evidence for con­ sidering bilinguals as a variant set of communicators who process and use language differently from monolinguals. There are implications from this for changes to speech pathology practice.

Joyce Lew

Linda Hand

1 See table 1 for an explanation of this term.

S p eech P athology A ustralia

10