It is estimated that ~5 million children attending grades K through 12 do not speak
English with sufficient proficiency to follow the curriculum in English without receiving
additional educational support. The number of these children increased by two million
between 1996 and 2006, and constitutes ~10% of the entire national school population.[1] These students have been referred to with various acronyms such as NEP (non-English
proficient); LEP (limited-English proficient); and, most recently, ELL (English-language
learner). As we end one decade and begin another in this millennium, the number of
these students will most likely continue to increase. One of the most frequent concerns
voiced by educators, administrators, and legislators is the over- or under-representation
of these students in special education, hence the debate about language disorder versus language difference. The articles in this volume review this debate.
This first article, by Kohnert and Medina, focuses on research conducted over the
last 30 years that distinguishes bilingualism from communication disorders. Findings
conducted by using six electronic databases include 116 nonduplicated articles, with
the first one published in 1978. A critical review of 64 articles indicates that the
majority of these articles focused on bilingual sequential learners and development
of their primary language (L1), which was most frequently Spanish. The authors found
the database to be limited and of uneven quality. However, for the most part, performance
on grammar, pragmatics, learning, and language processing measures separated typical
second-language (L2) learners from their bilingual peers in their primary language
(L1). In addition, the authors found that well-designed auditory and visual processing
measures differentiated those who had language disorders from those who were developing
normally.
In the absence of the “ideal” test or set of tests, a language sample can be a powerful
tool to identify students who may have a language disorder. The second article in
this volume, authored by Gutiérrez-Clellen and Simon-Cereijido, proposes methods to
analyze spontaneous language samples to measure bilingual students' linguistic abilities
(in this case, in both Spanish and English). The authors propose using a verb morphology
composite measure in combination with a measure of mean length of utterance (MLU).
Findings such as depressed MLU—combined with ungrammatical utterances and limited
grammatical accuracy in use of articles, verbs, and clitic pronouns—in addition to
omission of thematic arguments and limited use of ditransitive verbs may be among
patterns that can signal a language disability. A rubric is offered to facilitate
analysis of students' use of verb argument structures. The authors propose that the
analysis should be used in both languages and supplemented with information from parent
and teacher interviews and observation of the student's interactions with peers to
appraise language proficiency. Potential differences in a student's use of language
at school and home should also be considered in arriving at a final diagnosis. As
with other authors in this volume, Gutiérrez-Clellen and Simon-Cereijido caution that
one single measure is insufficient to arrive at a sound and fair conclusion regarding
whether a student has a language-learning disability.
The connection between oral and written language has been long documented. Even though
languages vary in structure and sound systems, there are some universals that bind
the reading process across languages. The third article, by Gorman, focuses on this
issue. Her article provides an overview of cross-linguistic universals in reading
acquisition. It discusses how reading disabilities manifest themselves in various
languages, and whether diagnostic and instructional approaches that are appropriate
for English-speaking students are appropriate for ELL students. In conclusion, she
states that several universal parameters are indicative of reading disabilities regardless
of language structure and language combinations, including: (1) difficulty with phonological
processing, (2) difficulty with working memory, and (3) poor performance on rapid
automatic naming.
The fourth article, by Langdon and Wiig, provides an overview of existing bilingual
tests (primarily in Spanish), including their development and contents. The latest
list of available bilingual tests to speech-language pathologists (SLPs) practicing
in the United States accommodates a wide range of client ages from preschool to adulthood.
Like the previous authors, Langdon and Wiig acknowledge that no matter how carefully
a test may have been designed to assess the bilingual student's or client's language
skills, the results need to be combined with input from teachers, parents, observations,
and results of language sample analyses to reach an informed judgment about whether
language skills and progress are age appropriate or require intervention. In sum,
the answer to “How does one differentiate a language disorder from a language difference or interim
stages of language learning in bilingual language users?” cannot be determined simply with a test score or a set of scores. This situation
is not likely to change dramatically in the years to come; we will continue to require
careful, multifaceted analysis that we hope will become increasingly more accurate
as research informs the selection of tasks that are sensitive in differentiating language
disorder from language difference.
The last article in the series, by Westby, focuses on an aspect that is often neglected
in the process of assessment and intervention of any student, whether monolingual
or bilingual, even though it is required by law—that is, including the parent voice.
Westby takes us through the guidelines we need to follow in involving parents and
significant others in the process of assessing and planning intervention for children
with various language-learning disabilities. Even though these individuals may not
be proficient in English or familiar with the mainstream “American” way of parent
participation, we need to hear their voice.
