Myths Surrounding Language Development & Treatment in Bilingual Children

Myths Surrounding Language Development & Treatment in Bilingual Children

Due to changing demographics and an increase of children who are exposed to one language in the home (L1), as well as the majority language of the community (L2), speech-language pathologists (SLP) are seeing more and more culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children on their caseload. The recency of this demographic shift has left a paucity of research in the areas of typical developing (TD) and disordered bilingual language development, which leads to misunderstandings regarding the assessment and treatment of bilingual children. Our goal is to apply currently available research to provide insight into some of the most common myths surrounding this population so that SLPs can provide the most efficacious assessment and treatment for bilingual children with and without language disorder (LD).

Delays are to be expected in bilingual children because they are processing two languages simultaneously.

FALSE. This common myth implies that bilingual children will be delayed in language, specifically when producing their first words and early syntax. This belief is anchored in the theory that because bilingual children receive more complex linguistic input in two different systems, it will take them longer to begin speaking and using grammar than their monolingual peers. However, in a 1998 research study of American toddlers, it was concluded that there was not a significant difference in language development between bilingual and monolingual toddlers (Granda Rodriguez). A later study focused on the difference in developmental timetables between monolingual English speakers and bilingual English speakers and ASL signers. Petito and Holowka (2002) concluded that introducing two languages does not delay overall language production; additionally, “…given similar socioeconomic circumstances, simultaneous bilinguals will produce their first words, develop a core vocabulary, and combine this developing vocabulary into meaningful phrases at the same ages as their monolingual peers.” 

Code-Switching is a sign of disorder in bilingual children.

FALSE. A misconception concerning code-switching assumes that alternation between two languages is a sign of a disorder that results from incompletely learned language systems. Kohnert et al. (2005) refute this idea, arguing that while code-switching may sometimes be utilized by children with limited proficiency in one language or another as a communicative strategy to compensate for missing language or lexical knowledge, it is not a sign of language disorder or delay. Code-switching is common within bilingual communities and is utilized by individuals to varying degrees. Kohnert et al. (2005) also report that code-switching is more common in informal exchanges amongst familiar communication partners. In a study of the use of code-switching amongst Korean-American first graders, Shin and Milroy (2000) found that the children not only used code-switching to accommodate their communication partners’ language competencies and preferences but also employed code-switching as an additional communicative resource to achieve conversational goals and facilitate interactions with bilingual interaction partners. Gutiérrez-Clellen (1999) reports that given the common occurrence of code-switching amongst bilingual individuals, it may demonstrate bilingual language proficiency instead of a language deficit.

Standardized tests can be used to assess bilingual children.

FALSE. While standard measures are necessary for qualifying children for services, their utility in identifying disorders in bilingual populations is limited. However, a survey of 596 current practicing Speech-Language Pathologists illustrated that most respondents use standardized assessment tools to assess bilingual populations (Caesar & Kohler, 2007). In a 2001 study examining the validity of the Preschool Language Scale, (3rd ed.) for assessing Spanish-English bilinguals, the test was only found to identify language impairment roughly 40% of the time accurately (Restrepo & Silverman, 2001). Given the problematic nature of diagnosing speech disorders in bilingual individuals, the authors highlight the need for more research into typical bilingual development and better assessment methods. More recent research has highlighted the possibility of using Dynamic Assessment (DA) methods to assess the abilities of bilingual children to respond to teaching. Test-Teach-Retest designs were the most useful in accurately assessing the need for intervention and its potential to improve language functioning (Petersen et al., 2020).

If a bilingual child has a language disorder, parents should avoid using L1 in the home.

FALSE. Research has shown that preservation of L1 in the home does not inhibit the acquisition of the majority language, even in children with a language disorder. This myth is based on the belief that children with LD could limit their linguistic potential in L2 by taking on the burden of learning two languages. Academics have questioned whether learning a second language is detrimental to language acquisition in children with LD. A study in 2003 by Paradis et al. found that children with LD who received consistent input in two languages from birth had equivalent linguistic abilities compared to their monolingual peers with LD, as demonstrated through language samples. This study demonstrated how, with proper support, children with LD could successfully learn two languages. Parents are the key to supporting their children in learning L1. Avoiding L1 in the home will not cure LD, nor will using L1 in the home make a language impairment worse. Bilingual children with LD need two languages to participate culturally at home and in the classroom, just as typically developing (TD) bilingual children do.

If a child has a communication disorder, introducing a second language will make it worse.

FALSE. The idea that bilingual learners with LD will fare worse than their monolingual peers with LD is based on the belief that acquiring more than one language taxes the child’s language learning resources, leading to more significant impairment than those learning only one language. While the topic of bilingual language acquisition in learners with LD is an area that demands further investigation, Kohnert et al. (2005) contend that the available research indicates that children with LD can and do learn two languages, given sufficient, enriched opportunities in each language. A study conducted by Paradis et al. (2003), which examined the acquisition of tense-bearing morphemes among French-English bilingual children with SLI, found that the bilingual children did not exhibit any more significant deficit than their monolingual peers with SLI in acquiring the morphosyntactic form. While both monolingual and bilingual children with LD encounter increased challenges in acquiring language, Kohnert et al. assert that a monolingual approach to treating children with LD will not cure the underlying disorder since bilingualism is not the cause of the disorder (2021). Gutiérrez-Clellen reports that no evidence has been found to support a monolingual approach in treating children with LD and supports a bilingual method to intervention for children with LD based on the idea that “intervention approaches may be most successful when they are designed to extend, rather than limit, the child’s linguistic resources” (1999, p. 300). Kohnert et al. (2005) similarly advocate for providing explicit support in both languages, as the development of each language pertains to the long-term social and academic success of children who require more than one language to successfully negotiate their linguistically diverse environments.

A bilingual child with LD will only show evidence of their disorder in one language.

FALSE. A myth surrounding language disorder is that bilingual children with LD will only demonstrate difficulties in one language. Research has revealed that a child with LD will show disorder in learning and using both languages, as LD is likely due to an underlying inefficiency in processing language (Ambert, 1986; Cummins, 1991; Langdon, 1989; Merino, 1983). While the impairment will manifest in both languages, the difficulties a child has within each language will vary based on their contextual experience and the phonetic components and structure of that language. SLPs and educators must be aware of this distinction. The ability to differentiate difference from disorder is fundamental to the accurate identification and diagnosis of LD. General differences in bilingual children’s speech include overgeneralizing rules from L1 to L2, telegraphic speech, imitation of speaker’s utterances, and simplified language constructions. Some signs of disorder in Spanish-speaking bilinguals with LD are difficulty with clitic pronouns (damelo/give it to me), articles, and plural nouns (Restrepo & Gutiérrez-Clellen, 2001). These children have also been found to have difficulty composing narratives.

Bilingual children should only receive instruction and intervention in English to lighten their linguistic load.

FALSE. Another common myth is that if children are in a primarily English environment, any instruction or intervention should be done in English to facilitate more rapid learning. There are many reasons why this may not be the case. First, conducting intervention in the child’s primary language may increase the speed at which they learn English language structures and forms. Perozzi & Sanchez (1992) conducted a study in Texas in which two groups of bilingual children were given treatment in English pronouns and prepositions. Those who received instruction in L1 learned the English conventions almost twice as fast as those receiving treatment in English. A similar study targeted vocabulary acquisition in Spanish-speaking children aged 4-6 learning English. The study showed that those who received English instruction with some Spanish to “bridge the linguistic gap” learned the English vocabulary at a much faster rate than those who received English-only intervention (Restrepo et al., 2010). Theoretically, it has been questioned whether or not it is beneficial for bilingual children to continue learning their home language or whether it is better to only support English via instruction and intervention. In a 2005 literature review surrounding this question, Kohnert et al. determined that research does indicate that supporting the home language is the best practice decision for Speech-Language Pathologists. Parent training and peer-mediated intervention were offered as possible solutions if the SLP cannot provide these services. 

If a child is learning English at school, they should speak English at home, even if it is not the first language.

FALSE. Another misconception surrounding bilinguals’ language development is that children in a primarily English-speaking environment should eliminate any linguistic input in L1 from the home to facilitate the acquisition of L2. There is no empirical evidence to support that bilingualism inhibits a child’s acquisition of the target language. Beyond the absence of research, caretakers must have the ability to speak with their children in their native language throughout development. Caretakers use language to communicate cultural norms, family values, social expectations and provide structure and discipline to their children. This support is best provided in a caretaker’s first language. Research has shown that children who maintain family bonds in their home language while learning L2 are three times less likely to drop out of school, report being closer to their parents, and are more socially and emotionally developed (Anderson, 2004; Cummins, 1991, 2000). The need to acquire English to achieve academic success is equally important to the continued use of L1 in the home and results in stronger relationships across generations and the preservation of cultural identity.

After adolescence, it is useless to learn a second language because the critical language period has been missed.

FALSE. The idea of a critical language period before adolescence, in which brain plasticity is presumably more excellent, has influenced the assumption that later L2 learners cannot achieve native or near-native proficiency in a second language. Kohnert (2008) emphasizes that the age of acquisition of two different languages does not ultimately determine the level of proficiency attained. Older learners may even exhibit accelerated levels of L2 acquisition in the initial stages of L2 learning. Learning a second language is a complicated process involving cognitive, social, and environmental factors. Rubin (1975) states that essential factors contributing to the success of second language acquisition include aptitude, motivation, and opportunity. Living in the environment of the target language has been shown to have a positive effect on adult L2 learners’ global pronunciation (Riney & Flege, 1998). Marinova-Todd et al. (2000) contend that while older learners may tend to struggle more than younger learners in acquiring a second language, “a close examination of studies relating age to language acquisition reveals that age differences reflect differences in the situation of learning rather than the capacity to learn.”

Compared to monolinguals, simultaneous bilingual children are initially delayed in meeting early language milestones but later catch up. 

FALSE. This myth is based on results from past research that used monolingual standards to assess the language development of simultaneous bilingual children. Studies that found a delay in this population were flawed in research design as the linguistic abilities of the bilingual participants were assessed separately in each language and then compared to the performance of their monolingual peers. While bilingual children in both languages may understand some concepts, many words are understood in either L1 or L2, based on communicative context. Pearson et al. (1993) found that the most accurate way to determine a child’s vocabulary development was to assess it bilingually by determining their total vocabulary in both languages. When the assessment was completed in this way, Pearson and her colleagues showed that monolinguals and bilinguals possessed similar expressive and receptive vocabulary scores. In other words, the breadth of the vocabulary of monolinguals in L1 is equivalent to that of bilinguals when accounted for L1 and L2. In another study, simultaneous bilinguals were compared to monolingual peers of similar socioeconomic classes (De Houwer et al., 2013). They were found to produce first words, develop a core lexicon, and simultaneously combine vocabulary words into phrases. It is clear that bilingual children cannot be compared to their monolingual peers; they must be evaluated in a way that credits them for the linguistic knowledge they possess, independent of which language is being tested.

Original Contributors: Dunya Chirchi & Angela Downing, 2011 

Updated January 2022