JCPSLP Vol 21 No 1 2019

The role of speech-language pathologists in the justice system

Viewpoints Why do speech-language pathologists need to recognise the differences between Australian Aboriginal English and Standard Australian English? Stella Martin

A ustralian Aboriginal English (AAE) is comprised of dialects along a continuum of English. It began by merging English and Indigenous languages to enable communication on missions and outstations (McLeod, Verdon, & Bennetts Kneebone, 2014). Over the years, AAE has developed its own complex and full dialects of English and may be learned as first languages by some children. Indigenous Australian children may speak a combination of Australian Aboriginal English, Standard Australian English (SAE) and their traditional language, and may speak them separately or code-switch between them. In schools, Australian Aboriginal students may be learning SAE as a second, third or even fourth language. Due to the overlapping nature of vocabulary in AAE and SAE, this may be misinterpreted by non-Indigenous people that AAE speakers are speaking SAE poorly, or in “bad English”, when in fact, they are speaking a different dialect. Interestingly, many Australian Aboriginal students in Queensland speak very little SAE outside their interactions with teachers (McTaggart & Curro, 2009). However, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) need to recognise that even though Indigenous Australian children may not be exposed to the same level of SAE as non-Indigenous Australian children, their “language environments are rich, with many family members and friends telling oral stories, reading books, and listening to the children read” (McLeod et al., 2014, p. 118). Communication areas All aspects of AAE are influenced by traditional Australian Aboriginal languages, including phonology, semantics, syntax, grammar, non-verbal communication, and pragmatic language (Butcher, 2008; Pearce & Williams, 2013). The book language research (McTaggart & Curro, 2009) collected teachers’ views in Far North Queensland and found that the educational needs of Indigenous Australian students who spoke SAE as a second language were not adequately recognised or met. Once teachers became aware of the differences and incorporated strategies that supported their learning, they reported major changes in the students’ engagement and improvement in their SAE. For Indigenous Australian people, context is highly influential in determining both what needs to be spoken and the manner in which it is to be spoken (Gould, 2005). Use of standardised assessments with young Australian Aboriginal people It should be recognised that young Australian Aboriginal people are strongly influenced by their first language, as all

bilingual speakers are influenced by their first language. This has implications for the use of standardised assessments and their limitations with respect to being culturally appropriate. Standardised assessments “tend to be norm-referenced based on white, middle-class populations and can include items that are culturally inappropriate for Indigenous people” (McGarrigle & Nelson, 2006, p. 7). There may also be a linguistic and cultural mismatch between the young person, the assessor, and the language assessments used, as well as a reduced awareness of Aboriginal communication styles by non-Aboriginal language assessors (Gould, 2008). If inappropriate assessments are used, the potential risks include: (a) misdiagnosing children with a delay or disorder; (b) labelled as having a learning/language disorder; (c) provision of unnecessary intervention; and (d) the young person’s needs as an SAE-as-a-second-language learner being ignored or overlooked. As shown in Table 1, the majority of Australian Aboriginal languages have three vowels. Many in the Top End of the Northern Territory have 5 vowels (Butcher & Anderson, 2008). Failure to consider dialectal difference can result in misidentification through over-identification of speech errors, or conversely through under-identification, where dialectal difference is held accountable for all errors (Toohill, McLeod, & McCormack, 2012). If the administration of the test follows non-Aboriginal ways of communicating, it will continue to be problematic for Aboriginal children to respond appropriately and to the best of their ability (Gould, 2001). However, there is also literature that found that standardised assessments used in conjunction with non- standardised assessments were appropriate measures of performance (Miller, Webster, Knight & Comino, 2013). SLPs who do not identify as Australian Aboriginal can conduct valid communication assessments with Australian Aboriginal children, but it is essential for speech pathologists to have a fuller understanding of the language differences. It is ideal for SLPs to access ongoing cultural supervision and support. Adapting interventions to become culturally responsive Gould (2008) and Thorley and Lim (2011) identified several modifications to create culturally safe therapeutic environments, with strategies including: developing quality

Stella Martin

39

JCPSLP Volume 21, Number 1 2019

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au