My previous post perhaps didn’t clarify my thoughts well, so I’ll make another attempt here.
Back in February, I (and probably millions of others) listened to a This American Life episode about the intersection of policing and race in the US. I was introduced to the concept of ‘unconscious bias’ or prejudice as being something separate from racism. As I see it, racism is an overt, direct belief in the inferiority of a race or many races (or similarly the superiority of a particular race). Unconscious bias is best illustrated by a quote from the episode attributed to Josh Corell:
For most of us, we would say things like, oh, you know, I like black people. I like black men. I don’t have anything against them. I don’t have any negativity toward them. That’s an explicit report of an attitude.
But it goes through an editing process. When I flash a picture up on a screen and ask you to respond in 630 milliseconds, you don’t have time to edit. It’s like everybody has this gut response that is, oh, black means threat.
You can test yourself on many biases at Project Implicit.
This ‘gut response’ is almost hardwired. Here’s a more relevant example: in class when we were discussing a recorded consultation with a cleft client, I referred to the male in the room as the doctor. I don’t think women can’t be doctors (at least explicitly). Yet my expectation was that the woman in the video couldn’t be the doctor – this was my built-in assumption. As soon as I said “the doctor”, I immediately corrected myself and said to my tutorial full of women “well, he could have been the speech pathologist.”
Unsurprisingly, my colleagues had also assumed that he was the doctor. Just because you belong to the ‘marked’ group (in this case women) does not mean you are free from unconscious bias. Women and men alike share these unconscious bias about what men and women are like, and what they are able to do.
And really, there’s little to be done about addressing this at the source. Instead, I think we should alert people to these unconscious thoughts through experiments (although the surgeon story could probably use a sequel), and make them acknowledge that they exist. The worst option is to pretend that we treat everyone equally, implying that discussions of race, gender or sexuality are off-limits, because “I know I’m not sexist/racist/homophobic”. Several responses to Adrian Bradley’s survey said the following regarding men in SP:
- “Not top priority for SLP, getting right candidate is more important”
- “Attracting the ‘right’ people is more important than their gender.”
These responses reminded me of the ‘women of merit’ argument for Tony Abbot’s male-dominated cabinet upon forming government in 2013. As the argument went, only the right candidates were chosen for cabinet, and it is coincidental that few of the women were the right candidates. Unconscious bias was not acknowledged: instead, we were told that everyone was being treated equally.
What is the right candidate? Could it be for the survey respondents that the qualities that are considered ‘right’ for SP are interwoven with ‘feminine’ qualities? Can you pretend to ignore a person’s race or gender when interviewing them? It is noteworthy that when American orchestras began auditioning musicians behind a screen (i.e. heard but not seen), the number of women in the ranks shot up. Yet I’m certain that any panel member would claim that they were free from gender bias, their unconscious bias may have played a part when they could see the candidate.
In summary, we cannot ignore gender – we must acknowledge it, and the biases that we all carry that come along with it.
The flip-side to unconscious bias is privilege, familiar to most Arts students from the essay ‘White Privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack’ by Peggy McIntosh. Associate Professor Catriona Elder refers to privilege as “the unconscious, unearned and largely un-examined benefits of prejudice.”
I believe I have experienced privilege. For a case in point, once I left my wallet at a school in South Melbourne accidentally, before travelling to Bundoora by public transport (a long trip!). On the train to Reservoir, I was asked to see proof of my concession. Since I had been on placement, I was dressed in business attire and was reading on my iPad. I could not provide it, and said (rather lamely) that I had lost my wallet but still had my myki. The inspector looked at me for a moment, and walked away.
Of course, the plural of anecdote is not evidence, but I did wonder if I were a female international student from South-East Asia (a common target, as far as I can see) if I would have been simply let off without even a warning. Luckily, there is some evidence as this New York Times article summarises:
As they describe in two working papers, Redzo Mujcic and Paul Frijters, economists at the University of Queensland, trained and assigned 29 young adult testers (from both genders and different ethnic groups) to board public buses in Brisbane and insert an empty fare card into the bus scanner. After the scanner made a loud sound informing the driver that the card did not have enough value, the testers said, “I do not have any money, but I need to get to” a station about 1.2 miles away. (The station varied according to where the testers boarded.)
With more than 1,500 observations, the study uncovered substantial, statistically significant race discrimination. Bus drivers were twice as willing to let white testers ride free as black testers (72 percent versus 36 percent of the time). Bus drivers showed some relative favoritism toward testers who shared their own race, but even black drivers still favored white testers over black testers (allowing free rides 83 percent versus 68 percent of the time).
Male privilege is probably real in speech pathology, but probably only in areas where ‘male’ attributes are valued (e.g. perhaps in management issues concerning money, rather than ‘feminine’ rapport building skills with children). Anecdotally, more men work in adult populations, and are more likely to work in roles that could be construed as ‘technical’ roles rather than ‘care’ roles (I have never met a male speech pathologist who worked in disability, ASD being an important exception).
Once again, the way to combat privilege is to encourage those who benefit from it to acknowledge it, instead of pretending they got where they are solely and completely by their own personal merits.
There’s been a recent flare-up in the debate over the policing of non-conforming voices. The two cases are vocal fry in women, and ‘gay speech’ – a sociolect common to a subset of Western males (who are not always homosexual as the research informs us).
The articles in question:
- Naomi Klein, The Guardian: “Young women, give up the vocal fry and reclaim your strong female voice”
- Klein seems to argue that features such as uptalk, vocal fry, and run-on sentences are assigned to women in order to “tangle their steps and trivialise their important messages to the world”
- NPR Fresh Air: “From Upspeak To Vocal Fry: Are We ‘Policing’ Young Women’s Voices?”
- Two journalists are joined by a Speech Pathologist and a linguistics professor to debate women’s voices
- NPR Fresh Air: “Filmmaker And Speech Pathologist Weigh In On What It Means To ‘Sound Gay’ “
- David Thorpe discusses his new film Do I Sound Gay? with the same Speech Pathologist.
Reactions to the last article were intense:
- David Shariatmadari, The Guardian: “Do you sound gay? What our voices tell us – and what they don’t”
- Sameer ud Dowla Khan, Language Log: “Open letter to Terry Gross”
Both of these responses saved special criticism for the Speech Pathologist in question (who I don’t think it’s important to identify), specifically what they view as the pathologising of normal variation in speech. The SP’s opinions about vocal fry:
They just have developed a speech pattern that’s a habit, and they don’t know how to break out of it. When we present ourselves, the way we speak is our verbal image. Much as the way people in the professional world typically don’t go to work in sweats and a t-shirt, they are more concerned about how they present themselves, a lot of the clients that come to see me are concerned about how they’re presenting themselves verbally.
and on gay speech:
I don’t try to dissuade them because when people come to see me they’ve typically reached the point where it’s really bothering them.
In some ways the Speech Pathologist is working through patient-centered goals: these patients want the speech therapy to achieve a change, so why not give it to them?
I think this model places the clinician outside of the society in which their clients operate. If a client who spoke in a non-standard dialect of English (say, African-American Vernacular English) and said they weren’t happy with their accent and dialect, and wanted to approach the standard variety, what should the Speech Pathologist do? Should we view ourselves as a therapy machine that exists solely to enact individual patient wishes, or should we advocate for a society we would want to be part of that embraced diversity? There is no meaningful functional limitation that comes from using vocal fry, uptalk, gay speech, or AAVE that isn’t propagated by people. Speech Pathologists are people, who are part of society, and pretending that we can leave our prejudices at the door of the clinic room is wishful thinking.
Instead of normalising this difference, so that everyone speaks in the same way to not risk upsetting those who cannot tolerate difference, couldn’t we instead advocate for the acceptance of other ways of talking? Speech Pathology’s record here is not fantastic, as a famous David Sedaris essay reminds us:
One of these days I’m going to have to hang a sign on that door,” Agent Samson [the Speech Pathologist] used to say. She was probably thinking along the lines of SPEECH THERAPY LAB, though a more appropriate marker would have read FUTURE HOMOSEXUALS OF AMERICA. We knocked ourselves out trying to fit in but were ultimately betrayed by our tongues. At the beginning of the school year, while we were congratulating ourselves on successfully passing for normal, Agent Samson was taking names as our assembled teachers raised their hands, saying, “I’ve got one in my homeroom,” and “There are two in my fourth-period math class.” Were they also able to spot the future drunks and depressives? Did they hope that by eliminating our lisps, they might set us on a different path, or were they trying to prepare us for future stage and choral careers?
I’m sure that commentary like that above that suggests that the profession is not accepting of language and speech difference is not a ‘good look’ for the profession, especially given that SPs are in general completely unlike the population in makeup (on gender, age, and cultural measures).
This is an old assignment that I thought might be a good place to start for the blog. Excuse the bright, chirpy, parent-friendly tone.
The 2011 Australian Census revealed that 15% of children under 5 are growing up in bilingually (ABS, 2011). This means they either speak two languages at home, or one language at home and another outside of the home. Monolinguals, by contrast, speak only one language in all environments. Their exposure to each language may vary from hearing mostly English with just a little bit of their home language to hearing only their home language with the only English coming from outside the home. Most of these children would be simultaneous bilinguals meaning they are learning both languages at once. This is different from successive bilinguals who become fluent in one language before they begin another (like a child born to Italian migrants who only begins learning English in her first year of school).
What do we mean by language? A language is a system that allows communication between people. Messages are sent, received and understood. This system has shared symbols: the word dog has little to do with the animal itself, but English speakers share the use of this symbol (the word) to communicate the meaning of a pet that barks, etc. Speech is a tool to use language. Speech is the physical way humans produce sound that can be understood as language by other people.
Children are not born with language. In the early years of life they learn to tell sounds apart from each other and produce them in meaningful ways. These language milestones arrive in an expected sequence following a set timeline. For example, a child’s first word normally appears at 12 months. The language a child speaks obviously depends on its environment. In bilingual homes, children are exposed to two systems at the same time. Some people believe this confuses the child, as they cannot distinguish the two languages, and end up mixing them together.
We know that this is not the case. A study looked at bilingual German/English children aged two, and found that they used words in both that meant the same thing, and would say the right one given the context (Junker, 2002). This suggests that they understand that there are two ways of talking, and that they could code-switch between the languages in appropriate situations. It is also clear that the sum of their two vocabularies is equal to or greater than their monolingual peers, indicating they are learning at a faster rate, even if they seem behind in one language (Pearson, 1993; Schaerlaekens, 1995).
Language is more than just having names for objects. Children need to learn the words and endings that help put sentences together (I’ve put them in bold). An Australian study has shown that while bilingual children learn these markers more slowly than monolinguals, their rate of learning is still within the normal range for monolinguals (Nicholls, Eadie, & Reilly, 2011). When children start school they learn to become literate in their language (reading and writing). A study of bilingual children undergoing instruction in Wales revealed that the bilingual children developed literacy in Welsh within normal expectations, if slightly slower than those learning to read and write in English (Rhys, 2013).
Won’t speaking two languages to a child confuse them? Will they mix them up?
As those who have attempted or succeeded in learning a second language can attest, the process is difficult! Every language has a different vocabulary (individual words used to name things or relate things together) and a different grammar (the rules for combining words into meaningful sentences). It might seem reasonable to suggest that children hearing two languages will be confused, as they will not have developed the capacity to understand that there are different languages with different vocabularies and grammars. Parents worry that they might confuse the languages, as they have no direct cues to distinguish them.
Schaerlaekens (1995) found that children who grew up in bilingual French/Dutch environments knew when to speak each of the languages. If they were asked in French to name an object and they did not know the word in French but they did in Dutch, they would choose not to answer rather than respond in Dutch. This suggests that children are not confused by exposure to two languages, and that they develop the ability to distinguish their production and reception of them from an early age. A weakness of this study was that only fifty children out of the sample of 745 were actually assessed at multiple time-points.
Interestingly, a study by Junker (2002) showed that preschool aged simultaneously bilingual children always produce some translational equivalents (e.g. a German/English bilingual child could name a table a “table” when asked in English and a “Tafel” when asked in German). It should be noted that direct equivalents (e.g. English hand and German Hand) caused confusion. This suggests that their brains are able to develop a system for each language individually, instead of combining them into the same system.
How much of each language do they need to hear?
No child grows up in a bilingual environment where they have equal exposure to each language. A child who speaks Spanish at home in Miami, Florida will hear English in different contexts, environments and qualities from a child who attends an English immersion preschool in Madrid. Pearson (1997) found that, in general, the size of a child’s vocabulary in a given language is proportional to the amount they are exposed to. However, if the language is a minority in their community (like Tamil in Singapore for instance) and they are only exposed to low amounts of this language, there is the possibility that they will develop little to no proficiency in it. Pearson tentatively recommends that a child needs to receive at least 20% of their input in a language in order for them to develop proficiency in it, but this is not related to any of her results, and is fundamentally a guess.
Do bilingual children develop language slower?
Only if you only assess them in a single language! Pearson (1993), Schaerlaekens (1995) and Hoff (2012) all found that while simultaneously bilingual children may score lower on vocabulary measures when measured on one language only, if the figures for both languages are combined (and translational equivalents removed), the figures equal or exceed their monolingual peers. Nicholls, Eadie, & Reilly (2011) found that bilinguals children aged three had generally acquired fewer grammatical markers (e.g. I was going to clean the shower), but that they acquired them in the same order as their monolingual peers. Schaerlaekens (1995) found that, from the age of four, there was no difference between the bilingual’s and monolingual’s vocabulary measures in single languages. There have been no large scale studies to date that tracked bilingual children’s language development from preschool through to adolescence.
Are bilingual children at greater risk of Language Impairment?
No research has shown Language Impairment (LI) to be aggravated by bilingualism, and Paradis (2010) recommends dual language environments for bilingual children with LI if they are easily created. In a study of Finnish/Swedish bilingual children in Sweden, Westman (2008) identified those at risk for LI at age five and reassessed them a year later. They found that bilingual children with LI had similar profiles to a control group of monolingual children with LI, suggesting that bilingualism does not aggravate LI. They did note an increased risk of LI in the bilingual group, but this was believed to be a result of language testing in Swedish only (as the children’s Finnish was not assessed).
If they only hear the language from me, does that matter?
Yes. While monolingual children may be mostly fluent in their language before they go to school, at school they develop this language in sophisticated ways, learning how to read and write in it, how to express complex ideas in a variety of contexts, and how to build social connections using it.
Rhys (2013) looked at the vocabularies and reading abilities of children attending Welsh immersion schools, and found that majority (English) speakers faced no detriment to their home language by being instructed in Welsh only. On the other hand, Welsh speakers required the immersion schooling in order to develop their language, as the broader social environment did not facilitate their acquisition (as English is dominant). To develop bilingual competency, children need to be exposed to a variety of environments in each language.
Is the one-parent-one-language method the best/only way?
An example of this method would be when a mother only speaks to her children in French and the father only in Arabic, in all environments. In general, the evidence suggests that children are capable of distinguishing languages from an early age, and will not become confused in hearing an adult speaking both languages. There is no clear evidence relating the success of children learning two languages in a fluctuating linguistic environment. For example, Pearson (1997) reports no correlations between linguistic abilities and any other factors in children who were exposed to changing amounts of Spanish and English.
So it’s alright to raise my child bilingually?
There is no strong evidence indicating that children should not be raised bilingually; however, the research described above has some serious flaws. Firstly, sample sizes were often small, and most only followed the children over a period of months, making it difficult to assess long-term outcomes. Also this means that the researchers have extrapolated to make their conclusions – they have not observed bilingual children acquiring language from birth to adolescence. Secondly, many only used published norms as a control group, making it difficult to compare the bilingual group with monolinguals.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Table Builder: 2011 Census – Cultural and Language Diversity. Retrieved from https://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/
Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Señor, M., & Parra, M. (2012). Dual language exposure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 39, 1-27. doi:10.1017/S0305000910000759
Junker, D. A., & Stockman, I. J. (2002). Expressive vocabulary of German-English bilingual toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 381-394.
Nicholls, R. J., Eadie, P. A., Reilly, S. (2011). Monolingual versus multilingual acquisition of English morphology: what can we expect at age 3? International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 46, 449-463. doi:10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00006.x
Paradis, J. (2010). The interface between bilingual development and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 227-252. doi:10.1017/S0142716409990373
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93-120. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00174.x
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller, D. K. (1997). The relation of input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 41-58. doi:10.1017/S0142716400009863
Rhys, M., & Thomas, E. M. (2013). Bilingual Welsh-English children’s acquisition of vocabulary and reading: implications for bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 633-656. doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.706248
Schaerlaekens, A., Zink, I., & Verheyden, L. (1995). Comparative vocabulary development in kindergarten classes with a mixed population of monolinguals, simultaneous and successive bilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 16, 477-495. doi:10.1080/01434632.1995.9994619
Westman, M., Korkman, M., Mickos, A., & Byring, R. (2008). Language profiles of monolingual and bilingual Finnish preschool children at risk for language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 43, 699-711. doi:10.1080/13682820701839200