Recommendations for Working with Bilingual Children
Marion Fredman
José
G. Centeno, Ph.D
Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology
Program
Department of Speech, Communication Sciences, &
Theatre
Introduction
In
the world today, bilingualism and
multilingualism are frequent phenomena and this prompted the Multilingual
Affairs Committee of the International Association of Logopedics
and Phoniatrics (IALP) to carry out a survey to investigate the
intervention provided to bilingual language impaired children. Information
pertaining to 157 children was obtained from 99 speech- language therapists in
13 countries. The survey addressed biographical details and language background
of the children, the diagnosed language disorder, language competence of the
therapists, issues pertaining to the language of intervention, use of
interpreters, advice given to parents regarding the use of each language, and
possible results of intervention.
The results of this study confirmed that clinical
practice with bilingual children is not always based on research findings and
theoretical positions in the literature. This encouraged the Multilingual
Affairs committee to compile recommendations for working with bilingual children with speech and language delay or
disorders in culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The aim was to
encourage therapists to formulate guidelines in accordance with the specific needs
of their own communities. These children may be bilingual, multilingual, or
monolingual speakers of a minority language.
Bilingual
children, like all bilingual speakers, are a very heterogeneous group. There
are many terms to describe the numerous ways children learn two languages and
the degree they master them. Two broad categories have been proposed to
describe bilingual acquisition, simultaneous and successive/sequential
bilingualism. While simultaneous acquisition refers to the regular exposure to
two languages from birth, successive acquisition describes exposure to a second
language after there has been considerable development in a first language.
Regardless of the acquisition pattern, it is important
to keep in mind that comparisons of language proficiency among bilingual
children warrants the individual attention of each bilingual child’s
experiences in each language over time, including languages used at home and
school, and in the community.
For
practical purposes, rather than describing each situation of bilingual
acquisition, we use the term bilingualism as referring to the knowledge and/or
use of two or more language codes (bilingualism or multilingualism). An
individual will be regarded as bilingual regardless of the relative proficiency
of the languages understood or used. A minority language is a language, which
in contrast to the language used by a larger majority and media, is spoken by a
smaller community or group.
Language Delay/Disorders
There
are individual differences in all language development and this will apply as
well to children from bilingual, multilingual, and
language-minority backgrounds. Therefore,
clinical decisions made on the assessment and intervention with any child
should take into account these individual differences, i.e. family background, the family's attitudes toward maintaining
the home language(s), and also practical
considerations regarding the availability of human and material resources to carry
out intervention plans.
Bilingual children differ from one another in
two very important aspects and these should be considered when treating a
child:
1. They may be members of a minority group where the language
is less widely spoken, has lower social status, may be associated with less or
no socioeconomic power, and may receive less institutional support (e.g.,
Cantonese in
2.
The second factor to consider is whether they have learned two languages
simultaneously from infancy (they have been given opportunities to learn two languages
from birth, although not necessarily equal opportunities), or have learned a
second language after a first has been established. There is no
definitive cut-off age demarcating bilingual from second language
acquisition but many researchers accept age 3 because a first language is well
established at that point. These differences are discussed in the
book by
It
is apparent that the assessment of many aspects of children’s speech and
language requires specific background and skills. To provide assessment and
remediation services in the minority language, it would be ideal if the speech-language
therapist could have native or near native fluency in both L1 and L2. But it is
recognized that in many countries this is not possible. Ideally, interpreters
trained to work with speech/language therapists are recommended. These
interpreters have to receive extensive training on the purposes, procedures and
goals of the tests and therapy methods. They should also be taught to avoid the
use of gestures, vocal intonation, and other cues that could aid the child during
test administration. It would be helpful
to use the same interpreter with any given minority language group. The
therapist should acknowledge the use of an interpreter in a written evaluation.
A full language background history should be taken for
each language:
-
When each language was first
heard in the home
-
What language is used at school
-
It is important to estimate the amount
of input from each parent in each language
-
The level of language proficiency
for each parent should also be established
-
Attitudes to the use of each language in the home and for instructional
purposes should be ascertained
-
Language used with siblings
should be noted.
Assessment
Therapists may choose formal or
informal assessment materials. However, systematic standardized formal testing
is not available in all languages. Practitioners knowledgeable in both the
culture and languages of the bilingual/multilingual child can create their own
informal testing procedures. These methods lend themselves to the assessment of
bilingual individuals more readily than formal methods, as stimulus materials
may be freely adapted to the child’s language and culture. It is important to
stress that test translations should not be used when not adapted to the
language and culture of the child. Descriptive assessment materials devised for
one population may need careful adaptation or revision to avoid
cultural/linguistic bias when used with another population. Ideally both
languages should be tested.
The following best practices for
culturally and linguistically diverse populations
should be taken into account for all age groups:
-
Normative data from formal tests normed
on monolingual speakers cannot be applied to bilingual
speakers. Currently there are limited tests available for the bilingual paediatric population. If attempting to translate a test into
another language, the test should be carefully adapted into that language and
culture, preserving idiomatic use of syntactical complexity, and so forth.
Interpretation of results should be made with caution and normative data should
not be referred to.
-
Self devised tests that are
culturally and linguistically sensitive should be considered for qualitative
interpretation and the establishment of a baseline for future reference.
Assessment at the level of discourse (narrative, procedural etc.,) may be a
useful culturally-sensitive assessment tool for all age groups. For children
who are not yet at this stage of development, a developmental scale of
functional communication should be administered for both languages.
-
Mode: Consideration should be given to the question whether the assessment
should be in monolingual mode (where only one language is spoken) or bilingual
mode. Code switching (which has been
defined by Romaine, 1995, and
others as the combined use of two languages (i.e., words, phrases, sentences,
etc.) within the same utterance) doesn’t necessarily indicate that the child is
confusing the two languages. It may in fact be a strategy for effective
communication. In such cases it is recommended that an assessment be conducted
to determine whether the child can in fact produce the word or syntactic
structure correctly in the other language.
-
Clinical experience has shown
that obtaining a communicative score for a pre-school child can be useful. This
means taking into account the vocabulary used in L1 while testing in L2 (or
visa versa). When a child is being tested in one language and gives answers in
the second language these should be taken into account as well. This may
indicate the child’s ability to communicate when conversing with people who
know both languages.
-
When possible the performance of
a child on an assessment procedure, should ideally be compared to that of an
age –matched normally developing bilingual. This matched child should be from a
similar background with respect to
combination of languages spoken, as well as the amount and type of
exposure to each language (for example, a child from the same class or
same family).
Therapy
In general one
finds greater carryover of results from one language to the other if the
targeted structure is language-universal. For instance, if word order is important
for both languages, and word order retains a similar structure for both
languages, then targeting a structure in L1 may generalize to L2. On the other
hand there may not be generalization across languages when their structures are
very different and the child may need therapy in each of the languages.
-
It is now thought
that children with language impairment should ideally receive bilingual
language therapy instruction in order to maintain and
promote their L1 skills while also helping them to learn L2. (Roseberry-McKibbins, 2002, p 205).
The author believes that children will learn faster and more thoroughly and
experience less language loss
if they learn in these ideal bilingual situations. Unfortunately it is not
always possible or practical to provide bilingual therapy and so it is
recommended that parents receive guidance on how to help develop L1 at home.
-
The language of
the home should never be changed to
adapt to the language of therapy or education, as this will lead to loss of
language that has already been acquired.
-
The decision as to which language to treat
should be done in consultation with the parents. The parents’ attitude towards
maintaining the home language is very important and must be considered.
However, it should be pointed out to them that working in the stronger language
initially may be to the child’s benefit, even if it is not the language of
education.
-
The language
skills acquired in the treated language may transfer later when the language is
targeted in therapy. Working in the stronger language may necessitate making
use of interpreter services.
-
In the case of
children with deficits in the semantic and pragmatic areas of language, it is
possible to work in both languages simultaneously as these aspects of language
are generalisable across languages and rely on the
same cognitive skills regardless of language.
-
Parent
involvement is critical in working with bilingual children and they should
constantly be informed of the principle guiding the choice of language for
intervention. The amount and quality of input that children receive in each
language will determine how proficient they may become in each language.
-
Parents should be well informed about
facilitation techniques for language acquisition and should use opportunities
for language stimulation if the child is to become bilingual (e.g.,telling stories, watching
videos, singing songs in the second language).
Bilingualism and Phonological
Development and Disorders
Typical Development
1. Simultaneous and successive bilinguals may differ. For example, de Houwer’s
(1995) case study of simultaneous acquisition of Dutch and English showed
development that did not differ from monolingual peers in either language. In
contrast, studies of successively bilingual Cantonese-English indicate
developmental speech error patterns that differ from those exhibited by
monolinguals
2. The pattern of research findings is likely to
differ according to the language pair acquired. Most research on bilingual children’s acquisition of
language has focused on children acquiring two languages from the same language
family, e.g., English and French where the predominant language structures are
similar (Zhu and Dodd, in press). Little is known about bilingual language
acquisition involving different ‘languages pairs’. For example, Navarro,
Pearson, Cobo-Lewis and Oller
(1995) analysed the phonology of 11 successive
bilingual Spanish-English pre-school children, concluding that their
acquisition differed from that of monolinguals but that bilingual children were
less likely to use uncommon error processes. Meanwhile, Holm and Dodd
(1999a) and Dodd, So and Li (1996) report some developmental patterns of
bilingual Cantonese-English that were atypical of monolinguals; the latter 2
languages have very different phonologies.
Disorder
1. Evidence of
phonological disorder in all languages spoken. Evidence from case studies of Cantonese/English-speaking bilingual
children (Holm & Dodd, 1999b), and two Welsh/English-speaking bilingual
children (Ball, Müller and Munro, in press) suggest
that a single deficit underlines disorder in the two phonological systems of
bilingual children.
2. Therapy on the
phonological system of one language will NOT affect the other language. However, intervention that focuses on motor
production of speech sounds (articulation therapy) in one language will generalise to the other language (Holm, disorders.
Bilingualism and Literacy Skills
Family-based
reading risk factors are critical in later literacy (reading and writing)
acquisition problems in young children.
The identification of the risk levels are, therefore, crucial, in
addition to a communication case history of the child (Specific Language
Impaired [SLI] pre-schoolers are high-risk for
reading disabilities in any language).
A. Determine the potential
for reading difficulties risks via a questionnaire. The following
variables should be taken into account and the more variables present the higher the
risk (Hammer, Miccio, & Wagstaff,
2003):
-
Child and family history of learning/reading disabilities
-
Home languages
(including nonstandard dialect) that are different from the school language(s)
-
Low
socio-economic status and one-parent family
-
Minimal
opportunities for verbal instruction
-
Minimal support
for literacy development.
B. A profile of the
child's home literacy environment should be obtained: In
preschoolers, home language input and literacy support levels were found to be
critical in predicting later school success in both monolinguals and bilinguals
(Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
Important variables to
explore are:
-
The value
placed on literacy: how much the
parents read and write (for any purpose) and encourages their children to
read. The less the parent uses literacy
the lower the child's achievement.
-
The press for
achievement: how much direct reading
instruction parents provide e.g., school related concepts and script, respond to the child's reading interest, belong to a local
library or a cultural centre that includes home language library, and express
their expectations for achievement.
-
The
availability and use of reading materials: how many
adult and children's books, newspapers, and magazines (in home languages and/or
school language) are in the home.
-
Parent-child reading frequency: how often and for how long child is exposed to literacy experiences.
C. Observe
and describe the mother-child reading interaction:
-
Have the parent
bring a few of the child's favourite books to the
meeting, in their preferred language, and observe the style of reading and
interaction. Is it dialogic (dyadic),
i.e., does the child participate as in two people having a conversation about
the book or is he expected to listen only?
Does he ask questions about the story?
And what is the child's attention span in this activity?
-
Does he know the
print directionality? Can the child recognize any words? If the language is
alphabetic, does the child know the names of letters? Can the child recognize
named letters? Can he reproduce dictated letters?
D.
Obtain a reading profile:. In school age
children, determine whether literacy is being taught in the home language. If it is, then interview the child's teacher
to obtain information on the child's reading status and mode of learning. Develop an appropriate questionnaire for this
purpose: include questions on reading decoding, comprehension, spelling, and
writing, and whether the skills are worse, same, or better than same language
peers.
Determine
the language(s) the child will be schooled in and whether it is already one of
the child's languages. If it is, then
assess reading in the school language:
¨
Give an oral
language test: especially important is the language comprehension portion. A comparison of this result with the reading
test results will help you determine the presence of dyslexia versus a
generalized reading disability.
¨
Try to examine
phonological awareness by examining rhyming, first and final sound recognition,
syllable & sound counting, segmentation, and blending.
¨ Give a spelling task based on the word features of the
school language: invented spelling is highly correlated with phonemic awareness
¨ Use an early reading test to determine the child's
reading development level in the school language.
Note: When no test exists: collaborate on constructing a
test based on an adaptation of a published test (e.g., Test of Early Reading
Ability; Reid, Hresko & Hammill,
1991). In addition, think of constructing
an Informal Reading Inventory. Obtain
the reading standards for all grades from your local school boards or schools. The focus here is profiling the child's
reading skills and needs. Share your
instruments with other clinicians to obtain performance data and professional
feedback.
Conclusion
As the occurrence of bilingualism and multilingualism
are becoming more common worldwide, it is hoped that these Recommendations
developed by the IALP Multilingual Affairs Committee will be valuable for
speech-language therapists working with bilingual/multilingual children. We
also hope that our work will stimulate further research and the development of
similar guidelines based on the
specific needs of the bilingual/multilingual children in their own communities.
References
De Houwer, A.
(1995) Bilingual language acquisition. In P. Fletcher and B. MacWhinney (Eds.). The Handbook of Child Language
(pp. 219-250).
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F. (1999). Language choice in
intervention with bilingual children. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 291-302.
Reid, D.K., Hresko, W., & Hammill, D. (1991) Test of Early
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2002)
Principles and strategies in intervention. In A.E. Brice (Ed.). The Hispanic Child: Speech,
Language, Culture and Education.
Scheffner-Hammer, C.S., Miccio, A.W., & Wagstaff,
D.A. (2003). Home
literacy experiences and their relationship to bilingual preschoolers'
developing English literacy abilities: an initial investigation. Language,
Speech, and Hearing in Schools, 34, 20-30.
Snow, C., Burns, M.S., &
Wyatt, T. A. (2002). Assessing the communicative abilities of clients from diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds. In D.
Zhu, H. and Dodd, B. (Eds.). (in press) Phonological
Development and Disorders: A Multilingual Perspective. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters
Acknowledgement
The recommendations made in this paper are based on
guidelines and position statements compiled by the South African Speech
Language and Hearing Association, The American Speech –Language- Hearing
Association and The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, UK, and
the Recommendations prepared by the IALP’s Multilingual
Affairs committee Jose Centeno (USA), Marion Fredman (ISR) Helen Grech (Malta), Yvette Hus (CAN) and Heila Jordaan (SA), Special thanks are due to Yvette Hus for
writing the literacy section in the Recommendations and to Helen Grech for reorganizing the phonology section.
Contact Address: Marion Fredman PhD Chair,
Multilingual Affairs Committee
marion@netvision.net.il
International Association of Logopedics
and Phoniatrics (IALP): www.ialp.info/site/