Greetings! The field of speech-language pathology, and our practice as bilingual clinicians, is always changing. Along with these outside changes, our own experiences make us evolve as individuals. It’s good to assess our own roles and views of the profession periodically, and in doing so it seems valuable to hear the experiences of others. We can be inspired by the energy and earnestness of newer clinicians, and we can benefit from the perspective and experience of more seasoned practitioners.

This month’s ¡Adelante! article is a compilation of reflections about the profession from three clinicians at different points in their careers. Sara Bayona is a recent graduate who is busily growing as a CF. Raquel Martínez has participated in a number of working environments in the few years since she completed her CFY. Karen Miranda has broad experience both as a speech-language pathologist and a speech aide. Each of them shares important insights into life as a bilingual clinician in this unique article. Please feel free to share your own in the comment section!

Sara Bayona, M.S., CF-SLP
Houston Independent School District, Houston, TX

Sara works at the elementary school level in Houston Independent School District. She graduated in May 2010 from Texas Tech Health Sciences Center. This is her first year working as a bilingual speech-language pathologist.

I was very honored when Nate Cornish asked me to contribute to the ¡Adelante! blog. I began my professional career as a bilingual speech-language pathologist eight months ago and it has been a non-stop ride ever since.

There are a few things I have learned since the previous stage in my career (graduate school). First, I have learned that confidence in your knowledge and skills is just as valuable as your actual knowledge and skills. You have to come prepared to explain, defend, and support your results from an evaluation or therapy sessions. When you present this information with confidence, your colleagues and your student’s parents will trust your professional opinion. You need to believe that you did learn valuable information in graduate school and be ready to share that with the world! Second, I have learned that one of your greatest tools will be networking with other clinicians in your school district. I suggest branching out and making friends with as many clinicians as you can at your first district meeting. The advice, suggestions, and tips from other professionals going through the same experiences as me has gotten me through this first school year. You will have an endless supply of therapy ideas for every holiday, season, or animal that is the theme of the week, support from someone who understands how it feels to spend 30 minutes with a three year-old that will only say one word, and encouragement when you think you cannot take on one more report. Finally, I have learned you cannot worry about being the perfect clinician your first year out of school. You will make mistakes. It is easier if you accept it from the start. The best advice I received before starting my job was, “control what you can control and for the rest just do the best that you can”.

Before the beginning of the school year, I asked some experienced therapists what to expect. The overall answer was to be prepared to be overwhelmed. They were correct, but if you have your time management skills in check then you will be just fine. I wish I had known the amount of time that would be spent away from the students. I expected to see students from 8 to 3 and then be on my way. There will be an incredible amount of paperwork coming your way, but like I mentioned, time management skills is the key.

In conclusion, I have learned many new things throughout my clinical fellowship year. There are a few things I wish I had known before hand, but it is all part of the learning process. The best part of this stage in my career is the joy you experience from finally putting years of studying theory into practice. The excitement of trying the therapy technique you read about and seeing results that impact a child’s communication and education. You might not be the perfect clinician, but if you find support from other professionals, have confidence in your skills, and manage your time then I promise you will make it through this exciting yet challenging time in your career.

Raquel Martínez, M.A., CCC-SLP
Austin Independent School District, Austin, TX

Raquel received her bachelor’s degree at the University of Texas at Austin, and her Master’s degree at Our Lady of the Lake University in San Antonio. She currently practices as a bilingual speech-language pathologist in Austin through Bilingual Therapies.

I’ve been an official member of the Bilingual Therapies team since August of 2009. Since 2009 so much has happened! I started out in San Antonio as a CFY, and then I moved onto South Padre Island to work in a Pediatric Private Practice setting and am now in Austin working as a school-based clinician.

Being a bilingual clinician has been a blessing— I enjoy the perks of endless traveling opportunities. I’d like to think that one of the best things about this profession is the diversity and the energy! I love, love, LOVE the diversity the profession has to offer. The profession itself is continuously evolving, which beautifully fits my “student for life” mantra. I don’t think we ever stop learning- evolving into better clinicians with every year that comes. In these last two years I’ve found that the key is to remain open. If I could go back, as a CFY I’d tell myself two things: 1) “It’s okay if you don’t get it right the first time, change WILL always be there, it’s a constant.” 2) It’s not about having all the answers; it’s putting theory into practice.

For me, it’s about changing lives one individual at a time!

Karen Miranda, M.S., CCC-SLP
Prince George’s County School District, Maryland

Karen received her M.S. in Disorders of Communication from California State University Northridge and her B.A. in Communicative Disorder from California State University Long Beach. She currently works through Bilingual Therapies as a Diagnostician for the Dual Language Assessment Team in Prince George’s County Public Schools, Maryland.

I began in the field of Speech – Language Pathology as a “Student Evaluation Technician”, which was a fancy title for a speech aide in the school system, at the ripe ol’ age of eighteen. Unaware of what I was getting into, I soon realized I enjoyed helping monolingual SLPs work with their Spanish-speaking students in providing adequate therapy sessions. I decided to major in that area and as a result of working in the field while I went to school, I was privy to a few things my fellow soon-to-be SLP classmates would encounter…in due time! I knew that the job was not glamorous or always fun, as we would be made to work in small hall closets that were once occupied by cleaning supplies. Nonetheless, I learned many good therapy ideas from different SLPs and I applied them once I became a full-fledged SLP.

Now that I am in a different stage of my career, where my focus is on evaluations, I have learned how to write better reports in order to present a clear and thorough representation of my client, in writing. I try to create a kind of verbal hologram, if you will, of my client so that the reader will have a clear representation of what occurred during testing. I have learned that you cannot rely solely on standardized data because communication skills are far more intricate than just being able to produce grammatically and syntactically correct sentences on command. And I have learned to keep up on current guidelines as they are ever-changing.

But perhaps one of the most important lessons I have learned throughout my years of experience, is that we do not just improve clients’ communication skills, but rather wear many hats in order to help improve clients’ lives. Being that we are bilingual SLPs and speak the same language as the families we work with, they look to us for assistance and guidance. We act as counselors (mostly, I just listen), as interpreters, as advocates, as liaisons between parents and school staff and as discipline coaches. Frankly, I enjoy it! So, I must admit that I find myself watching some Super Nanny episodes in order to learn tips I can pass along to parents on how to make discipline work for them.

All in all, if I had to do it over again, I would not hesitate to choose Speech – Language Pathology as my career path. I meet great people, from parents, to children, to educators and colleagues that teach me something new everyday. And, in light of the economic changes our nation is going through right now, the best thing about our profession, as I see it, is that it appears to be “recession proof.” As I am sure it is the case with everyone else, my caseload continues to grow and I am busier now than I ever was in the past, (at least it seems like it)! We have so many options available to us…we can choose to work in almost any part of the world, we can be creative in our practice, we can work with people of all ages and we can concentrate on different areas to work in… the opportunities are endless! That is really exciting to me and I can’t think of any other profession that has so many options!

François Grosjean, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

François Grosjean is Emeritus Professor of Psycholinguistics, Neuchâtel University, Switzerland. His specialty is psycholinguistics and his domains of interest are the perception, comprehension and production of language, be it speech or sign language, in monolinguals and bilinguals. He also has interests in biculturalism, applied linguistics, aphasia, sign language, and natural language processing. He is better known for his work on bilingualism in which he has investigated the holistic view of bilingualism, language mode, the complementarity principle, the processing of code-switching and borrowing, as well as the bilingualism of the Deaf. He is the author of numerous articles and of five books, the latest of which is Bilingual: Life and Reality (Harvard University Press, 2010).  Dr. Grosjean currently maintains a blog entitled, “Life as a Bilingual.”

Greetings! My name is Nate Cornish. I am a bilingual speech-language pathologist, the clinical director for Bilingual Therapies and moderator of the ¡Adelante! blog. It is my pleasure to introduce as well as to participate in this month’s article, which will be presented in a different format than we are accustomed to. I had the opportunity to engage our contributor, renowned psycholinguist Dr. François Grosjean, in an interview on biculturalism. Our discussion was based on a chapter of his book, “Studying Bilinguals” (Oxford University Press, 2008). Chapter Twelve, titled, “The Bicultural Person: A Short Introduction,” raises some interesting points that are pertinent to our work with culturally and linguistically diverse individuals. Clearly, language and culture are closely linked. However, we as communication professionals may not always consider the dynamic of biculturalism as readily as we consider bilingualism, even though its impact on our clients’ participation in academics and life may be just as profound.

In Dr. Grosjean’s book, he acknowledges that most people are simultaneous members of multiple cultural groups. The “minor” cultures that a person may identify with (occupation, family, hobbies, etc.) are often complementary and coexist within a “major” culture (national, linguistic, social, religious, etc.). While an individual may belong to a number of minor cultures, aspects of major cultures are frequently mutually-exclusive. Thus, navigating, and identifying with, more than one major culture may require some effort.

While the bicultural person may be characterized by a number of traits, there are three in particular that Grosjean focuses on:

1. Bicultural individuals take part, to varying degrees, in the life of two or more cultures
2. They adapt, at least in part, their attitudes, behaviors, values, language, etc., to these cultures.
3. They combine and blend aspects of their cultures.

These traits bear some similarities to the characteristic cross-linguistic skills and needs of bilinguals with at least one important difference: Grosjean states that “Bilinguals can usually deactivate one language and use the other in particular situations… whereas biculturals cannot always deactivate certain traits of their other culture in a monocultural environment.” In other words, there appear to be some aspects of culture that are “adaptable and controllable” while other features are more “static,” meaning that they are “always present and cannot be easily adapted.”

One of the significant points Dr. Grosjean makes is in regards to identity and biculturalism. Grosjean observes that the bicultural individual may experience conflict unless she accepts her identity as a bicultural person with an experience that is distinct to that of monocultural persons. Particularly problematic are external and internal perceptions that an individual cannot successfully be a member of multiple cultures. For example: an individual may be judged to belong to only one culture despite a clear need to navigate two. This is particularly problematic if members of Culture A perceive that the individual belongs exclusively to Culture B, while members of Culture B perceive that the individual belongs solely to Culture A. In such circumstances, Grosjean posits that the bicultural person may make one of the following decisions regarding their identity:

1. They may identify solely with Culture A
2. They may identify solely with Culture B
3. They may reject both cultures
4. They may accept themselves as a bicultural individual with the need to operate in two or more constituent cultures.

Dr. Grosjean states that the process of finding one’s identity as a bicultural person may be long and even arduous. Continued conflict may exist when identifying exclusively with only one culture, or rejecting both cultures. Those who choose these solutions may feel “uprooted, marginalized, or ambivalent.” However, those who can “come to terms with their biculturalism”, and recognize that they do indeed belong to two cultures, have a stronger likelihood of navigating their two cultures with ease.

With that summary, I would like to share the content of my enlightening (and enjoyable) conversation with Dr. Grosjean:

In an article that you wrote on the topic of bilingualism, (Grosjean, 1989) you state that a bilingual is not the sum of two complete or incomplete monolinguals, but rather a distinct and competent communicator. How would you liken (or differentiate) that view to the bicultural individual?

I believe this view also applies to the bicultural person, perhaps even more so. As already mentioned, biculturals take part, to varying degrees, in the life of two or more cultures; they adapt, at least in part, their attitudes, behavior, values, and languages to their cultures; and they combine and blend aspects of the cultures involved. The first two characteristics are similar to those that describe bilinguals. As we all know, bilinguals live within two of more language communities and they adapt their language to each group. This said, bilinguals are not two monolinguals in one person, and similarly, biculturals are not two monoculturals in one person. This is particularly clear when one examines the third trait that characterizes biculturals – combining and blending aspects of the cultures involved.

But don’t bilinguals also “mix” their languages?

True, bilinguals also combine their languages in the form of code-switches and borrowings (when in a bilingual language mode) but they do not normally blend their languages the way biculturals blend their cultures. Not all behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes can be modified according to the cultural situation the bicultural person is in. A bicultural who has roots in both the French culture and the American culture, for example, blends aspects of each culture and may find that she cannot be 100 percent French in France and 100 percent American in the United States, however hard she tries.

This form of static cultural interference is a differentiating factor between bilingualism and biculturalism: bilinguals can usually deactivate one language and only use the other in particular situations (at least to a very great extent), whereas biculturals cannot always deactivate certain traits of their other culture when in a monocultural environment.

How does a speech-language practitioner determine these cross-cultural traits (or blends)? What questions should they ask?

It is only by getting to know the client very well that these cultural blends will become apparent. Biculturals themselves often cannot identity them for others unless they have undertaken quite an extensive introspection. Cultural blends can be found in greeting and leaving behaviors, hand gestures and facial expressions, the amount of space that is left between oneself and others, etc. but also in less visible domains such as what you talk about, your attitudes, your beliefs and so on.

Can you say something about biculturals and the monocultural – bicultural continuum they operate along?

Biculturals may find themselves at various points along a situational continuum that requires different types of behavior depending on the situation they are in. At one end they are in a monocultural mode, since they are with monoculturals or with biculturals with whom they share only one culture. In this situation they must deactivate as best they can their other cultures. They attempt to apply the motto, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” If their knowledge of the culture in question is sufficient, and they manage to deactivate, at least to a large degree, their other cultures, then they can behave appropriately. However, because of the blending component in biculturalism, certain behaviors, attitudes, and feelings may not be totally adapted to a situation and may instead be a mixture of the person’s two (or more) cultures.

At the other end of the continuum they are with other biculturals who share their cultures. With them, they will use a base culture to interact in (the behaviors, attitudes, beliefs of one culture) and bring in the other culture, in the form of cultural switches and borrowings, when they choose to.

In what ways does biculturalism affect language use and need?

As is now well established, bilinguals usually acquire and use their languages for different purposes, in different domains of life, with different people. Different aspects of life often require different languages. I have called this the complementarity principle and I discuss it extensively in my recent book, Bilingual: Life and Reality. The cultures that characterize biculturals will often impact differently on language need, fluency and use. If a language is spoken in a reduced number of cultural domains and with a limited number of people of a specific culture (these biculturals are dominant in the other culture), then it will not be developed as much as a language used in more domains and with more people. More specifically, if a cultural domain is not covered by a language, bilinguals will simply not possess the domain-specific vocabulary, the stylistic variety, or even sometimes the discursive and pragmatic rules needed for that domain.

I recall a conversation that I had with one of my bicultural colleagues about her experiences as a Mexican-American child growing up in the United States. I was intrigued by a statement that she made while discussing the rules that she had to abide by, which were very different than those of her Anglo-American friends. She said, “Nobody tells you it’s a cultural difference. You’re just frustrated with your parents.” What does the process look like as biculturals become aware of differences and then become aware that the differences are cultural rather than individual?

This is a fascinating issue which has not been studied very much. The best data we have currently can be found in autobiographies of immigrants who have written about how they grew up in a minority family and then discovered and entered the mainstream culture. Writers such as Maxine Hong Kingston, Richard Rodriguez, Eva Hoffman, Olivier Todd and Paul Preston, among many others, evoke their awakening and adaptation to biculturalism.

What can you say about self-identity and biculturalism?

An important aspect of biculturalism relates to the identity bicultural people decide to take on. Their dilemma is that monocultural members of their different cultures want to know if they are members of culture A or culture B, or of a new culture, when biculturals just want to be accepted for who they are: members of two or more cultures. How does the identity process take place? First, biculturals have to take into account the way members of the cultures they belong to categorize them. These members will take into account their kinship, the languages they speak and how well they do so, their physical appearance, their nationality, their education, their attitudes, and so on. The outcome, in each culture they belong to, will often be categorical: biculturals are judged by friends, acquaintances, and others to belong to culture A or to culture B, but rarely to both cultures. An additional problem can be that culture A may categorize them as members of culture B and vice versa, a form of double, contradictory, categorization.

Faced with such sometimes contradictory perceptions, biculturals then have to reach a decision regarding their own cultural identity. They take into account how they are seen by the cultures they belong to, as well as such other factors as their personal history, their identity needs, their knowledge of the languages and cultures involved, the country they live in, the groups they belong to. The outcome, after a long and sometimes trying process, is to identify solely with culture A, solely with culture B, with neither culture A nor culture B, or with both culture A and culture B.

Many of us have observed biculturals struggling with this process.

Yes, and that is because the first three solutions—that is, only A, only B, neither A nor B—are often unsatisfactory in the long run, even if they might be temporary answers. They do not truly reflect the bicultural person who has roots in two cultures, and they may have negative consequences later on. Those who choose to identify with just one culture (whether freely or when pushed to do so) are basically turning away from one of their two cultures, and they may later become dissatisfied with their decision. As for those who reject both cultures, they often feel marginalized or ambivalent about their life.

As for the fourth route, and being able to say, “I am bicultural, a member of culture A and of culture B”, it may require a lot of energy and time. And yet, this is the optimal solution since biculturals live their lives within two cultures, combining and blending aspects of each one, even when one culture is dominant. Some biculturals are helped by the existence of new cultural groups, such as the immigrant groups in North America. Identifying with Cuban Americans, or Haitian Americans, for example, and being able to use those labels, is a fine way of telling others that you are of dual heritage, Cuban and American or Haitian and American, and that you wish to be recognized as a bicultural individual.

Why is it important for professionals to be mindful of the cross-cultural dynamics of their speech and language-impaired clients?

Even though professionals are concentrating on the speech, language and communication of their clients, it is important that they view them holistically as bilingual bicultural people. Most bilinguals in the United States are also bicultural (recall that in other countries, the two do not always go together) and hence they must be mindful of both aspects. Certain language behaviors such as the reserved, or outgoing, nature of their clients, the amount of speech that is produced, the subjects that are talked about (or not talked about), even their voice amplitude, may find their roots in the specific cultures present in these people.

What role can a speech-language professional or other concerned parties play to help the bicultural individual establish a healthy cultural self-identity?

A first step is to obtain a clear understanding of what it means to be bicultural. In addition, recognizing the assets of being bicultural is needed. Bicultural people are invaluable in today’s world—they are bridges between the cultures they belong to, useful go-betweens who can explain one culture to members of the other and act as intermediaries between the two. Professionals can also accompany, and sometimes help bilingual and bicultural children and adolescents on their journey which will lead, hopefully, to their acceptance of their dual identity.

I end my recent book in the following way, “Caring and informed adults must accompany them – many already do – and ease their passage from one stage to the next. I dream of the moment when these young people and, later, adults will all be proud of their languages and cultures, and be accepted for who they are—bilingual and bicultural individuals, quite simply.”

Thank you Dr. Grosjean, for your important work in the area of biculturalism and for sharing this information with our readers!

Further readings by François Grosjean:

- Grosjean, François.  “What Bilingualism is Not.”  Weblog.  Harvard University Press Publicity. 29 July 2010.  Harvard University Press.  4 August, 2010.  http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2010/07/what-bilingualism-is-not-.html

- Bilingual: Life and Reality (most notably Chapter 10, “Bilinguals who are also bicultural”).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.

- “The bicultural person: A short introduction”. Chapter 12 of Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

- “The bilingualism and biculturalism of the Deaf”. Chapter 13 of Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

- Grosjean, F. (1989) Neurolinguists, beware!  The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person.  Brain and Language 36, 3-15.

François Grosjean’s website: www.francoisgrosjean.ch

Elizabeth Kay-Raining Bird, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, Professor, School of Human Communication Disorders, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Dr. Elizabeth Kay-Raining Bird (Ph.D. Madison, Wisconsin) is a Professor in the School of Human Communication Disorders at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Her research and teaching is in the area of child language development and disorders, with a particular focus on children and adolescents with Down syndrome. Her publications and presentations have focused upon a variety of topics including: cultural and linguistic diversity, language and literacy development, and the effectiveness of speech, language and literacy interventions. Elizabeth is a speech-language pathologist, certified with both the Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists (CASLPA) and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). She is currently the President of the Speech and Hearing Association of Nova Scotia (SHANS).

As Annick DeHouwer stated in 1999, “Bilingualism is most often a necessity, not a choice”. What this means is that many children live in environments that require them to speak and understand two languages. This is true whether or not a child has a language, or cognitive impairment. The need to be bilingual cuts across disability boundaries.

Unlike children with typical development, however, parents of children with language and/or cognitive disabilities are often told by professionals to expose their children to only one language, even when their child needs to learn two languages to communicate fully and effectively in their everyday lives (e.g., Paradis, 2007; Thordardottir, 2002). I believe that this is not an appropriate recommendation, for two reasons. First, it will isolate the child from important communicative contexts and deny the child the social benefits of being bilingual. Second, bilingual parents may find speaking the chosen language, or only one language, uncomfortable and unnatural. This, in turn, may negatively affect the quality parents’ ability to facilitate language development in their children through their interactions. Instead, I feel it is critical to help families optimize bilingual development for their children with disabilities who need to learn two languages.

The research base
Most developmental research on bilingualism involves typical children. While recent bilingual research has begun to focus upon individuals with language and/or cognitive disorders, most involves children with either language, but not cognitive, difficulties–children who are often referred to as Specifically Language Impaired (SLI), or children with Down syndrome. Other populations such as autism or Williams syndrome have been largely ignored. Therefore, when we seek to understand bilingualism in children with disabilities, we must often infer from related bodies of literature. In this article I will first provide a brief overview of how variable bilingual individuals are, followed by a discussion of bilingual development for typical learners, children with SLI, and children with Down syndrome. In each section I will discuss implications for children with language and/or cognitive disabilities in general, and will end with tentative clinical conclusions. 

Not all bilingual experiences are the same
There is a lot of variability in the experiences of bilingual individuals, regardless of whether they have a language or cognitive impairment or are learning language typically. One important factor that differentiates bilingual speakers is timing—that is, when each language was learned. Simultaneous bilinguals (or bilingual first language learners) learn both their languages at the same time and essentially from birth. In contrast, sequential bilinguals learn one language first and then learn their second language. Other important distinctions include where the languages are spoken (e.g., home, school, community), who speaks to the child in each language, which languages are spoken (e.g., French and English), how similar the languages are that are spoken (e.g., French and English are more similar than French and Chinese), and the relative status each language holds in society (i.e., are English and French valued equally in the community?). Frequency of exposure is another factor critical to consider. Children will understand and speak a language they hear and use often, better than a language they hear and use infrequently (Pearson, Fernandez, Lewedag, & Oller, 1997).

We do not yet know how best to support bilingual development. For simultaneous bilinguals, many have suggested using a one parent one language strategy, meaning that each parent should choose a language to speak to their children. This strategy, however, may be difficult for some families to implement. As well, just because a parent speaks a language to their child does not mean that the child will respond in that language. Indeed, in the case where the home language is a minority language, children may often respond in the majority language. Thus, there is no clear evidence that the one-parent-one-language strategy works better than alternative strategies for speaking two languages in the home (De Houwer, 2007; Thordardottir, 2006). One important rule of thumb is to ensure that any bilingual child experiences each language frequently. This may be particularly important for a child who has language learning or cognitive difficulties, as they often require additional models to acquire a particular word or linguistic structure. A second rule of thumb is to provide high quality input in interactive, naturalistic contexts, regardless of the language being spoken. General language stimulation principles (such as modeling, imitating, recasting) will be useful regardless of how many languages are being learned.

Bilingualism and typical development
Simultaneous bilinguals with adequate exposure frequency will acquire two languages in approximately the same time frame that monolingual children acquire one language (e.g., De Houwer, 2009; Genesee, 2006; Genesee, Paradis & Crago, 2004). That is, major milestones, such as the emergence of first words, will occur at approximately the same time. This does not mean that bilingual development looks just like monolingual development. It does not. Young simultaneous bilingual children will have smaller vocabularies than monolingual children of the same age when you look at each of their languages separately. But, when you combine the words they know in both languages, bilingual children will have vocabularies that are often similar in size or sometimes even larger than monolingual children’s (Pearson, 1998; Pearson, Fernandez & Oller, 1993; Pearson, et al., 1997). This learning profile has implications for children with language and cognitive disorders. First, these children will have language learning problems whether they learn one or two languages. Second, bilingual children with language learning disorders will exhibit problems in both their languages, but the types of problems they experience will depend upon the specific structures they need to learn, or typology, of each language. Third, depending upon how frequently each language is heard and used, children may have one language that they speak better (i.e., dominant) than the other. Finally, children who are bilingual with language and cognitive disorders will develop somewhat differently from children who are monolingual with language and cognitive disorders. This is natural.

Another difference between bilingual and monolingual children is that bilingual children experience language transfer, where aspects of one language impact their understanding or use of the other language. Language transfer can have a positive impact on language learning, as when a child uses their knowledge of a French word (e.g., “mal”) to learn an English word (e.g., “malevolent”). It can also lead to errors in bilingual children’s production, as when a child uses a syntactic structure from French when speaking English (e.g., “Me, I am going.”). We would expect language transfer to occur in children with language and cognitive impairments as well as typically developing children.

Sequential bilinguals have different developmental profiles than simultaneous bilinguals. First, they do not always become fluent in their second language (L2). Factors that influence L2 fluency include how young they are when exposed, how frequently they are exposed, how rich the language environment is, parent’s educational levels, willingness to use the language, and, for older children who have chosen to learn a second language, how motivated they are to learn (Paradis, 2007b). Second, their first (home) language (L1) can become their weaker language over time, especially in contexts where it is not used frequently and is a minority language. The implication for all children, including those with language or cognitive disorders, is that the home language must be supported in order to maintain L1.

A consequence of bilingualism that has received considerable attention in the literature is enhancement of some metalinguistic skills. Metalinguistics is the conscious ability to think about and manipulate various components of language. One type of metalinguistic skill is word consciousness, defined as the “awareness of and interest in words and their meanings” (Graves, 2006). A bilingual child demonstrates word consciousness when he says, for example, “cat is chat in French”. Word consciousness is an early developing metalinguistic skill in bilingual children. Other metalinguistic skills that appear to be advanced in bilingual children are the ability to judge whether a sentence is grammatical and the ability to count the number of words in a sentence (Baker, 2006; Bialystok, 2001; Lazaruk, 2007). It is possible that metalinguistic abilities such as these can assist children in learning language, a possibility that may be particularly important for children with language learning difficulties. While this is a possible outcome, we currently know very little about metalinguistic consequences of bilingualism in children with language or cognitive disabilities.

Bilingualism and Specific Language Impairment
As stated, children with specific language impairment have language learning, but not major cognitive, disabilities. Research with this population has shown that, for each of their languages, simultaneous bilingual children with specific language impairment make the same type of errors as monolingual children with specific language impairment. For example, in English, both bilingual and monolingual children with specific language impairment have particular difficulty learning to use auxiliary (e.g., He is going) and copular (e.g., He is cold) and past tense (e.g., He walked) verb forms. In addition, when groups of bilingual and monolingual children with SLI of similar age are compared, they do not differ in the frequency of the errors they exhibit Paradis, Crago, Genesee, & Rice, 2003). Similarly, when groups of language-matched (i.e., mean length of utterance) bilingual children with typical development or specific language impairment are compared, they show similar error frequency and types in each of their languages (Paradis, Crago, & Genesee, 2006). The studies discussed in this section so far are of simultaneous bilinguals with SLI. While several studies of sequential bilinguals with SLI have been conducted, none to date have compared monolingual children with SLI to bilingual children with SLI, on either their L1 or L2 (Kohnert & Medina, 2009). Taken together, these findings suggest that simultaneous bilingualism is not detrimental to language learning in children with specific language impairment and that they can become successfully bilingual (Paradis, 2007). In addition, a bilingual child who has SLI will manifest that impairment in both of their languages, although the nature of the language difficulties they exhibit will differ across languages and will be defined by the typology of each language being learned.

Bilingualism and Down syndrome
Children with Down syndrome have cognitive impairments that vary from mild to severe in nature. Their cognitive impairments lead to general learning difficulties, as well as specific language learning problems; so, all aspects of language are delayed relative to their age. Despite considerable individual variability, research shows that monolingual children with Down syndrome as a group have an identifiable profile of language strengths and weaknesses (Chapman & Kay-Raining Bird, in press; Chapman & Hesketh, 2000). First, their understanding of language is usually better than their ability to speak it. This means that it can be hard to judge what a child with Down syndrome knows about language from what they say. Second, grammar is harder for children with Down syndrome to learn than vocabulary.

How do children with Down syndrome fare when learning two languages? First, they can become functionally bilingual (Woll & Grove, 1996) and even trilingual (Vallar & Papagno, 1993). Second, as one might expect, simultaneous bilingual children with Down syndrome show the same profile of strengths and weaknesses in both their languages that is found in monolingual children in their single language (Feltmate & Kay-Raining Bird, 2008; Kay-Raining Bird, Cleave, Trudeau, Thordardottir, Sutton, & Thorpe, 2005). Third, the dominant language skills of simultaneous bilinguals with Down syndrome are equivalent to the single language skills of monolingual children with Down syndrome of the same mental age (Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2005), so being bilingual does not disadvantage them in terms of language learning. And finally, simultaneous bilinguals with Down syndrome are learning to speak two languages, although how well they speak the non-dominant language can vary considerably and is related to factors such as frequency of input. Unfortunately, we have very little information about sequential bilinguals with Down syndrome to date.

Conclusions
More research must be conducted to help us understand the course of development of bilingualism in children with language and/or cognitive disorders and the factors that influence that development. For example, children with language and/or cognitive disorders must be studied in a larger variety of geographic locations and educational settings so that we can better understand the outcomes across the range of bilingual experiences that exist. Importantly, sequential bilingualism in children with language and/or cognitive disabilities must receive more attention. As well, a larger set of language measures must be studied. Despite the dearth of information, several conclusions and recommendations can be made:

1. Families must lead in making decisions regarding whether their children need two languages.
2. If a child with a language and/or cognitive disorder needs to know to languages, then the focus should be upon helping them learn the two languages. It is not appropriate to recommend that the input be reduced to a single language.
3. It is important to provide frequent and high quality input to children in each language they are learning.
4. For children with language and/or cognitive difficulties, speech-language pathologists and other professionals can help families identify successful language facilitation strategies.
5. If a child has a language and/or cognitive disorder, all languages they learn will be affected.
6. Bilingualism does not change the general profile of language strengths and weaknesses characteristic of children with language and/or cognitive disorders. If they are bilingual, however, this profile will manifest in both languages. For example, whether bilingual or monolingual, children with Down syndrome will be likely to have more difficulty learning grammar than vocabulary.
7. The particular language features that children with language and/or cognitive disorders have difficulty with will depend upon the typological characteristics of the language(s) they are learning.

References
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th edition). Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in Development: Language, literacy, & cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bialystok, E. (2006). Bilingualism at school: Effect on the acquisition of literacy. In L. Wei (Series Ed.) & P. McCardle and E. Hoff (Vol. Eds.), Child language and child development, Vol. 7. Childhood bilingualism: Research on infancy through school age (pp. 107 – 124). Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Chapman, R. (2006). Language learning in Down syndrome: The speech and language profile compared to adolescents with cognitive impairment of unknown origin. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 10.

Chapman, R., & Hesketh, L. (2000). Behavioral phenotype of individuals with Down syndrome. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability Research Reviews, 6, 84-95.

Chapman, R. S., & Kay-Raining Bird, E. (in press). Language development in childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood in persons with Down syndrome. To appear in J. Burack, R. Hodapp, & E. Zigler (Eds.), Handbook of Intellectual Disabilities and Development (2nd edition), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Chapman, R., Schwartz, S., & Kay-Raining Bird, E. (1991). Language skills of children and adolescents with DS: I. Comprehension. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1106-1120.

Chapman, R.S., Seung, H.K., Schwartz, S.E., & Kay-Raining Bird, E. (1998). Language skills of children and adolescents with Down syndrome: II. Production deficits. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 861-873.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Cleavedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

De Houwer, A. (1999). Two or more languages: Some general points and practical recommendations. ERIC Digest (EDO-FL-99-03), U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Library of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0008.

De Houwer, A. (2007). Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 411 – 424.

De Houwer, A. (2009). An introduction to bilingual development. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Eilers, R., Pearson, B. Z., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2006). Social factors in bilingual development: The Miami experience. In L. Wei (Series Ed.) & P. McCardle and E. Hoff (Vol. Eds.), Child language and child development, Vol. 7. Childhood bilingualism: Research on infancy through school age (pp. 68 – 90). Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Feltmate, K., & Kay-Raining Bird, E. (2008). Language Learning in Four Bilingual Children with Down Syndrome: A Detailed Analysis of Vocabulary and Morphosyntax. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 32, 6 – 20.

Fidler, D.J., Hepburn, S., & Rogers, S. (2006). Early learning and adaptive behaviour in toddlers with Down syndrome: Evidence for an emerging behavioural phenotype? Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 9, 37-44.

Genesee, F. (2006). Bilingual first language acquisition in perspective. In L. Wei (Series Ed.) & P. McCardle and E. Hoff (Vol. Eds.), Child language and child development, Vol. 7. Childhood bilingualism: Research on infancy through school age (pp. 45 – 67). Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2004). Dual language development and disorders. A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Graves , M. F. 2006. The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York: Teachers College Press. Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language. New York: Basic Books.

Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A.D., & Phillips, C.E. (2002). Verbal short-term memory in Down syndrome: a problem of memory, audition, or speech? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 531-544.

Kay-Raining Bird, E. (June, 2009). Bilingualism and Down syndrome. Presented at Contextualizing Bilingualism and Biliteracy: National conference on Bilingualism and Biliteracy Development. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Kay-Raining Bird, E., & Chapman, R.S. (1994). Sequential recall in individuals with Down syndrome. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 1369-1380.

Kay-Raining Bird, E., Cleave, P. L., Trudeau, N., Thordardottir, E., Sutton, A., & Thorpe, A. (2005). The language abilities of bilingual children with Down syndrome. American Journal of Speech-language Pathology, 14, 187 – 199.

Kohnert, K., & Medina, A. (2009). Bilingual children and communication disorders: A 30-year research retrospective. Seminars in Speech and Language, 30, 219 – 233.

Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French Immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 605 – 627.

Miller, J.F. (1995). Individual differences in vocabulary acquisition in children with Down syndrome. Progress in Clinical Biology Research, 393, 93-103.

Paradis, J. (2007a). Bilingual children with specific language impairment: Theoretical and applied issues. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 551 – 564.

Paradis, J. (2007b). Second language acquisition in childhood (pp. 387 – 406). In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Language Development. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M. (2003). French-English bilingual children with SLI: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 46, 113 – 127.

Paradis, J., Crago, M., & Genesee, F. (2006). Domain-general versus domain-specific accounts of specific language impairment: Evidence from bilingual children’s acquisition of object pronouns. Language Acquisition, 13, 33 – 62.

Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1 – 23.

Pearson, B. Z. (1998). Assessing lexical development in bilingual babies and toddlers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 2, 347 – 372.

Pearson, B., Fernandez, S., Lewedag, V., & Oller, D. K. (1997). Input factors in lexical learning of bilingual infants (ages 10 – 30 months). Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 41 – 58.

Pearson, B., Fernandez, S., & Oller, K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monlingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93 – 120.

Selikowitz, M. (1997). Down syndrome: The facts (2nd edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Seung, H.-K., & Chapman, R. S. (2000). Digit span in individuals with Down syndrome and in typically developing children: Temporal aspects. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research , 43, 609 – 620.

Thordardottir, E. (2002). Parents’ views on language impairment and bilingualism. Poster presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association convention, Atlanta, GA, November.

Thordardottir, E. (2006). Language intervention from a bilingual mindset. The ASHA Leader, 11, 20 – 21.

Thordardottir, E., & Namazi, M., (2007). Specific language impairment in French-speaking children: beyond grammatical morphology. JSLHR, 50, 698 – 715.

Vallar, G., & Papagna, C. (1993). Preserved vocabulary acquisition in Down’s syndrome: The role of phonological short-term memory. Cortex, 29, 467 – 483.

Woll, B., & Grove, N. (1996). On language deficits and modality in children with Down syndrome: A case study of twins bilingual in BSL and English. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1, 271 – 278.

Thank you for viewing this newest edition of “Adelante.”  Dr. Brian Goldstein asked Bilingual Therapies to post his keynote address from the July 2008 Bilingual Symposium in Los Cabos, Mexico.  This hour-long presentation is entitled, “Interaction in Bilingual Language Acquisition.”

It is commonly accepted that bilinguals are not two monolinguals in one (Grosjean, 1989).  This whole view of bilingualism assumes that the language systems of bilinguals are not independent, but interdependent.  Thus, interaction across language systems in bilinguals should be expected.  The purpose of this seminar is to explore the interaction between language systems in bilingual speakers.

Please note that this post is offered with the intent of sharing information with the general public.  Although this seminar was offered for ASHA Continuing Education Units at the symposium, Bilingual Therapies is not able to offer Continuing Education credit for viewing this presentation online.

We invite you to view the video and follow along with the handouts that Dr. Goldstein has shared with us.  Please feel free to post your questions and comments for Dr. Goldstein and other forum members.  We look forward to hearing from you!

goldstein-interaction.pdf

¡Bienvenidos! This month’s topic of discussion is Autism Spectrum Disorders and the Bilingual Individual. Given the increasing number of bilingual children in the United States, and the increasing frequency of autism diagnoses, there is surprisingly little information available for clinicians who work with children who are “on the spectrum” from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.A few of the questions communication professionals may face include:

• How do I help these kids navigate the social constructs of two or more cultures?
• How do I effectively evaluate pragmatic differences vs. disorders?
• What is the home culture’s understanding/beliefs regarding autism and how will it affect assessment and intervention.
• And of course, the same question asked of so many bilingual individuals, In which language do I provide treatment?

Sofia Carias, M.S. CCC-SLP, begins this month’s topic. Please take a moment to view her video and weigh-in on the subject with your questions, comments and experiences.

Thanks for participating in the ¡Adelante! forum this month! We have a lot to talk about!
If you would like more information on this topic, please visit the following articles and websites:

1. Intervention Outcomes of a Bilingual Child with Autism (Disease/Disorder Overview). Seung, Hyekyung. Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathology, March 2006.
2. Multicultural Perspectives on Teaching Students with Autism. Wilder, Lynn K.; Dyches, Tina T.; Obiakor, Festus E.; Algozzine, Bob. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, Summer 2004.
3. Is Bilingualism Detrimental for Children with Autism? Dopke, Susanne (susanne@bilingualoptions.com.au). February 2006.
4. To Be or Not to be Bilingual: Autistic Children from Multilingual Families. Kremer-Sadlik, Tamar (University of California, Los Angeles). Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, 2005.
5. http://www.census.gov/
6. http://www.nccrest.org/index.html
7. http://www.azgala.org