Speech and Language Therapy Services for Multilingual Clients: the impact of official language construction and implementation

 

Aoife Hayden, Senior Speech and Language Therapist, HSE Dublin-Mid Leinster, LHO Dublin South East, Ballinteer Health Centre, Ballinteer Avenue, Dublin 16, Ireland. aoife.hayden@mailm.hse.ie

 

Introduction:

            Working as a speech and language therapist in a community care clinic in Dublin in 2003, I noted that my clinic was increasingly accessed by bilingual and multilingual families. These families provided a new challenge and led me to research the service that was provided to bilingual and multilingual clients by speech and language therapists in general.

            From an initial focus on speech and language therapy in isolation, it quickly became clear that attention to the speech and language therapists and their methods was not enough - the linguistic context of Ireland was of equal importance to the service itself and the construction and implementation of official languages seemed central to the manner in which non-English or non-Irish speaking clients were treated. I therefore focused my research on the nature of the speech and language therapy service to bilingual clients and the manner in which this reflected the dominance of official languages in Ireland. 

            In this paper I will therefore provide background information on theories of official language construction and Ireland’s linguistic context before presenting some results from research conducted with speech and language therapists in what was formally known as the Eastern Regional Health Authority, Ireland.

 

Official Languages

Official or national languages hold a privileged position in most countries.  May (2001:7) describes how the requirement of monolingualism is unique to nation states where the chosen ‘national’ language comes to be associated with modernity and progress. Gellner (1983:45) notes how nationalism requires the imposition of homogeneity on its population - a homogeneity that has resulted in the ‘imagining’ of national languages (Billig, 1995) an ‘imagining’ that influences the manner in which services are delivered. 

‘……..the national language. It is for us what no other language can be.  It is our very own.  It is more than a symbol, it is an essential part of our nationhood.’

Eamon de Valera (17 March, 1943)

 

In this speech, the Taoiseach of Ireland (prime minister) Eamon de Valera held up language as central to nationhood.  He stressed the authenticity and continuity of language and perceived the Irish language to be the only true medium for the message of Irish culture, history and nationalism.  It is interesting to note however, that his speech was in English………. and herein lies the central myth at the heart of ‘national’ languages.  They are seldom spoken by all or even the majority of the people in the nation.  Instead they have been constructed or imagined, much as nations may be seen as constructed as ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson, 1991).  As Hobsbawm (1990:57) asserts, the idea of a national language ‘is a literary and not an existential concept’.  The national language and the prescribed way of using it (i.e official language as described by Bourdieu, 1991:45), imposes itself on the whole population as the only legitimate language.  It is bound up with the state both in its genesis and in its social uses. The education system emphasises the official language and the relationship between the education system and the labour market devalues so-called dialects.  Knowledge of the official language alone becomes the key to valued social domains, including the job-market and politics.  Taylor (1999:222) describes this process as modern market, growth-oriented industrial economies forcing a kind of homogeneity of language.  In other words, the modern nation develops what it presents as one true voice – a voice that speakers need in order to be heard. 

May (2001:52) describes how the establishment of a national language disadvantages those for whom it is not a mother tongue.  The state’s chosen language becomes a condition for full access to services and this access is therefore limited for those who speak in other ways.  Bourdieu (1991) proposes the idea of linguistic capital which is unequally distributed throughout the population and is used in the linguistic market.  Competence in the official language is the key to economic and social success; thereby the maintenance of a different mother tongue is discouraged.

The status of national languages is likely to have influenced perceptions of bilingualism and multilingualism.  Monolingualism tends to be held up as the ‘standard’ and Romaine (1995:322) points out that most research on language is on monolingual speakers.  Implicit in work on bilingualism is often a model of human development that associates monolingualism with normal development and bilingualism with exceptional development (Genesee, 1993:64).  Romaine (1995:322) describes monolingual speakers as the ‘powerful minority’, while Hamers and Blanc (2000:32) point out that monolingualism is more commonly found in economically dominant groups whereas members of minority or subordinate groups tend to be bilingual or multilingual. 

            Referring to the field of speech and language therapy specifically, the guidelines of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT, 2006) and the American Speech - Language - Hearing Association (ASHA, 1985) follow on from research in the field by supporting bilingualism and recommending that assessment and therapy takes account of all languages used by clients.  Despite this Stow and Dodd (2003) have argued that clinicians unfamiliar with the literature and research on bilingualism may have negative attitudes to bilingualism informing their clinical work.

 

Languages in Ireland

            Turning to the specific case of Ireland, the language landscape is characterised by two official languages.  According to the Irish constitution, ‘the Irish language as the national language is the first official language’ and ‘the English language is recognised as a second official language’ (Government of Ireland, 1937).  This emphasis on two languages is carried through to education where Irish is compulsory in 1st and 2nd level schools.  According to figures from the 2002 census, 42.8% of the population over the age of 3 were able to speak Irish.  However, despite this ability, nearly two thirds of those recorded as being able to speak Irish never do (CSO, 2003).  The number of people using the two languages on a regular basis is therefore small.

            Bilingual Irish/English speakers are not however the only bilinguals in the country – a fact noted by the developers of the 2002 census, which was translated into Albanian, French, Polish, Romanian and Russian.  This reflected an increase in migration to Ireland and a consequent increase in the number of languages spoken.  Since the 1990’s Ireland has changed from a country of emigration to a country of immigration. Prior to my research in the period 1995-2000, approximately 250,000 people migrated to Ireland, with approximately 10% of these being asylum seekers, (Mac Einri, 2001).  In 2002 4.5% of the population were born outside Ireland (CSO, 2003).  Of the migrants in general, no exact figures are available on languages spoken.  However, in her study of the language and literacy needs of asylum seekers, Ward (2002) reported immense linguistic diversity within this group, with a total of 63 mother tongues catalogued for the 767 respondents. Research since the completion of my study suggests that there are at least 167 languages being spoken in Ireland today (Gallagher, 2006).

            While the constitution and legislation in Ireland support the idea of bilingualism, they do so with only two languages in mind – Irish and English.  The reality of the many other languages spoken in Ireland tends to be erased in the face of the dominant official languages.  At present no public mother tongue education is available in any languages other than English and Irish and the system is one of submersion in English with the assistance of language support teachers who are English speakers.

            Much as bilingual education programmes should not be removed from their social context (Paulston, 1986) any study of services provided by speech and language therapists to clients should therefore not be interpreted in isolation but rather against a background where monolingualism or bilingualism in Irish/English is seen as standard and anything else is somehow ‘anomalous’.

             

Methodology

            My research focused on the area formally known as the Eastern Regional Health Authority (ERHA) region covering Dublin, Wicklow and Kildare. It encompassed urban and rural areas as well as a variety of different settings (e.g. hospitals, community clinics, special schools etc.)

All quantitative data as well as some qualitative data through open ended questions were collected using questionnaires circulated by post to all speech and language therapists recorded as working in the ERHA region (I.A.S.L.T, 2003).  This amounted to 204 therapists. The questionnaire contained factual questions concerning bilingual caseloads, assessment, therapy, and the availability of resources including interpreters, along with attitudinal questions regarding the adequacy of the service and the speech and language therapist’s proficiency in the area.  Following distribution, 140 completed questionnaires were returned, representing 68.6% of the total sent. 

            In addition to the questionnaires, further qualitative data were collected through interviews with 8 speech and language therapists working in different settings.

 

Results:

Frequency of Bilingual/Non-English Speaking Clients

Responses from the questionnaires indicated that the majority (80%) of speech and language therapists dealt with bilingual clients at least occasionally, while only 20% never encountered this client group. (Fig 1).  A significant number (47.8%) also encountered non-English speaking monolinguals occasionally or frequently (Fig 2).  Most speech and language therapists were therefore effectively working with a multilingual client group.

Figure 1

 

Figure 2

 

 

Advice Given to Parents

Of those who had advised in this area, the greatest numbers of therapists advised a one language/one person approach (24.3% of total).  However, an almost equal number (23.5%) advised switching to one language only, with 10% of the total specifying English.  Only 12.9% of speech and language therapists advised parents to maintain the current language profile in the case of children with language delay, (Fig 3)

Figure 3

 

The comments included in the questionnaires also showed a variety of opinions on the topic:

One speech and language therapist emphasised the importance of English….

‘I feel especially with pre-school children who have to go to school where English is the main language that it is best to advise English at home’

 

Another speech and language therapist expressed her support for bilingualism…

‘I am an advocate for allowing all children whether language delayed, impaired, dyslexic etc. to engage with both languages if they are bilingual.  I think it is a wonderful opportunity for them’

 

Discussion with speech and language therapists over the course of interviews indicated that for many, the use of home languages was very much emphasised.  G.H. (working in service for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties) and the speech and language therapists working with clients with physical disability reported that this was the case in their services.  However, E.O’D (working in special class for language disorder) noted that among speech and language therapists there has been a generally negative attitude to bilingualism.  Referring to views held by therapists in the past particularly, she described them as ‘very authoritarian’ and felt that parents were put in a

‘terrible position when asked to stop using their language of choice’.

Two more of the therapists suggested that this negative attitude to bilingualism may not be so explicitly stated now, but may be transmitted to parents nonetheless.:

‘to be honest I think you’re maybe pushing English a bit more especially when the parents say they’re going to be starting school next year and you’re thinking “oh they’re going to be swamped”’, D.Q. (working in community care clinic)

 

‘well from our point of view you know all our materials are in English and the majority of speech and language therapists speak English only and so it’s very difficult for us to work in a language other than English’, N.Q. (working in community care clinic)

 

            The implications of the advice given should not be underestimated.  While parents in many cases may not choose to follow the advice, many will be influenced by the recommendations of an ‘expert’ in the field of language.  By recommending a switch to one language, particularly English, speech and language therapists again send the message that bilingualism is a problem and monolingualism in English is the solution. 

            An underlying negative or ambivalent attitude to bilingualism in society and among speech and language therapists seems to affect parents in a demonstrable manner. They may as a result think it ‘correct’ to report that they speak English to their children.  A number of speech and language therapists noted that parents gave inaccurate information on the language used with their child, tending to overemphasise the use of English. Two speech and language therapists mentioned a contradiction in what is said and what is done………

 

‘lack of “open” information from parents.  Occasionally state that English is the first language when it might not be.’

 

‘Many families insist that “English” is what they want child to learn yet speak another language at home’

 

G.H also noted that this was an issue in her service where parents reported that they were trying to bring up their children in English, but on listening to them interact it was clear that they were using a different language altogether.  ‘Parents feel that they should be talking English’, a situation that causes them difficulty when they typically feel less comfortable communicating in this way.

            It seems then that the construction of official languages as ‘standard’ and as containing high linguistic capital is transmitted to speech and language therapists and parents alike, who may find themselves ‘pushing English’, despite evidence that this does not necessarily maximise communicative and linguistic ability, and is likely to have a negative impact on self-esteem and educational achievement.

 

Language of Therapy

This focus on English as ‘standard’ is carried through in the language used over the course of remediation – both assessment and therapy.  There appeared to be slightly more focus on home languages during assessment with 37.9% of speech and language therapists reporting that all languages used were assessed while 42.9% assessed only English (Fig 4).  However, when it comes to ongoing therapy, the majority (56.4%) reported that only English was used while 6.4% reported the use of the first language and 17.6% reported the use of all languages (Fig.5)

 

Figure 4

Figure 5

 

 In order to fully benefit from speech and language therapy services in the ERHA, it seems that clients had to use English, as this was typically the language of therapy.  This clearly disadvantaged those for whom English was not their first language.

 

Quality of Service

The responses of speech and language therapists indicated a recognition of the shortcomings of the service provided to clients.  The majority of respondents to the questionnaire (53.6%) disagreed that an appropriate service was being provided to bilingual clients. Only 9.3% agreed that bilinguals received an appropriate service, while an even smaller 5% strongly agreed (Fig 6).  It should be noted at this point that speech and language therapy services at this time were typically under resourced in Ireland with long waiting lists typical. It is therefore possible that many monolingual clients may not have been perceived to receive an appropriate service either.

Figure 6

 

Therapist confidence in ability

When asked to state their level of agreement with the statement ‘I feel equipped to deal with the needs of bilingual clients’, an even greater majority of therapists disagreed, with 61.4% disagreeing, 17.1% strongly disagreeing, 4.3% agreeing and only .7% (one individual) strongly agreeing (Figure 7). 

Figure 7

While acknowledging that people may at times underestimate their own ability, it is likely that these feelings of inadequacy in dealing with the bilingual client group are related to a lack of training on the topic.

 

Conclusions:

            As discussed, the construction of official languages in Ireland and elsewhere means that other languages are erased from the official linguistic landscape, even though they may exist in large numbers.  Knowledge of the official language becomes a criterion for full participation in society.  The results of my research indicated that this was reflected in speech and language therapy services in the ERHA where advice tended to favour the use of English in the home, therapy was typically through English and parents often felt that bringing up their children speaking only English is the ‘correct’ thing to do.  Many therapists were aware of the manner in which societal attitudes to language influenced their services and despite their best efforts they acknowledged the ultimate inadequacy of service provision to bilinguals.    In the words of D.Q., many bilingual and non-English speaking children ‘have no voice’.  The implications of this for the bilingual and non-English speaking clients are significant.  Research in the area of education and speech and language therapy has all emphasized the role of home language/mother tongue in both emotional and cognitive/educational development.

            Since the completion of this research, there have been developments in the area of bilingualism and speech and language therapy in Ireland.  A special interest group has been set up for speech and language therapists interested in the field and one of the Dublin speech and language therapy teams has prepared a document on best practice in the area. With bilingualism now on the agenda as an issue, it is clear that steps in the right direction are being taken and it is hoped that this will continue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

American Speech-Language-hearing Association. (1985, June). ‘Clinical Management of communicatively handicapped minority language populations.’ ASHA, 27(6) pp29-32.

Anderson, Benedict.  (1991). Imagined Communities.  London: Verso Publishing.

Billig, Michael.  (1995).  Banal Nationalism.  London: Sage.

Bourdieu, Pierre.  (1991). Language and Symbolic Power.  Cambridge: Polity Press.

Central Statistics Office.  (2003). Census Results 2002. www.cso.ie/Census.

De Valera, Eamon. (1992). ‘The Vision of Such an Ireland’.  In Brian McArthur (Ed.), The Penguin Book of 20th Century Speeches.  London: Penguin.

Gallagher, Anne ( 24 May 2006), ‘Speaking in Tongues’, The Irish Times.

Gellner, Ernest.  (1983). Nations and Nationalism.  Oxford: Blackwell Press.

Genesee, Fred.  (1993). ‘Bilingual Language Development in Preschool Children’, in Dorothy Bishop and Kay Mogford (eds.), Language Development in Exceptional Circumstances.  Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Government of Ireland.  (1937). Irish Constitution: Bunreacht na hÉireann.  Dublin: Stationery office.

Hamers, Josiane F. and Blanc, Michel H.A.  (2000). Bilinguality and Bilingualism.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hobsbawm, E.J.  (1990). Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Irish Association of Speech and Language Therapists. (2003). Directory of Speech and Language Therapists.  Dublin: I.A.S.L.T.

Mac Einri, Piaras.  (2001). Immigration into Ireland: Trends, Policy Responses, Outlook.  Cork: Irish Centre for Migration Studies, UCC.

May, Stephen.  (2001). Language and Minority Rights:  Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language.  Harlow: Pearson.

Paulston, Christina Bratt.  (1986). ‘Linguistic Consequences of Ethnicity and Nationalism in Multilingual Settings’, in Bernard Spolsky (ed.), Language and Education in Multilingual Settings.  Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Romaine, Suzanne.  (1995). Bilingualism (2nd Ed).  Oxford: Blackwell

Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. (2006). Communicating Quality 3: RCSLT’s guidance on best practice in service organization and provision. London: RCSLT.

Stow, C. & Dodd, B. (2003). Providing an Equitable Service to Bilingual Children in the UK: a review. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 38(4), 351-377.

Taylor, Charles.  (1999). ‘Nationalism and Modernity’.  In Ronald Beiner (ed.), Theorising Nationalism.  New York:  State University of New York Press.

Ward, Tanya.  (2002). Asylum Seekers in Education – Executive Summary.  Dublin: City of Dublin VEC/County Dublin VEC.