ACQ Vol 11 No 1 2009

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

S p eech P athology A ustralia

12