ACQ Vol 11 No 1 2009

MULTICULTURALISM AND DYSPHAGIA

& 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 n Assess the two languages, according to the uses they have for the client n Assess across a range of contexts n Examine language interactions n Assess code switching; a skill, or an indicator of in­ competence? n Avoid norm-referenced tests; or adapt and treat as criterion-referenced n “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

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

ACQ uiring knowledge in sp eech , language and hearing , Volume 11, Number 1 2009

13