Identification of Speech and Language Disorders in Culturally Diverse Students
Nichole Mathis, M.S., CCC-SLP
McGregor Elementary home of the District ESOL Program
Springfield Public Schools, MO
Jill Oswalt, M.A., CCC-SLP
Director, Speech-Language Hearing Clinic, Missouri State University
ASHA November 22, 2008
Chicago, IL
Learner Outcomes
•To identify typical characteristics of Second Language acquisition.
•To gather specific, crucial information before testing.
•To administer tests prudently to ensure accurate diagnosis.
•To carefully interpret results based on the specific needs of each student.
•To implement efficacious and appropriate services.
•To locate resources that would even address this guy
Warning!
This is how my journey began….
What would you do if, on your first day of school, a student told you,
“Me imagine about ten one hour new return?”
This is how my journey began….
For the School-Based SLP
•View information through your district’s eligibility guidelines. (RtI/Discrepancy)
•We are discussing identification and service-implementation of Language Impaired,
Learning Impaired or Speech Impaired students.
•This information is important, but not pivotal, in the identification of ELL students who
have primary handicapping conditions of Other Health Impaired, Mental Retardation,
Autism, Orthopedic Impairment, etc.
For the Medical-Setting SLP
•View this information through your facility’s procedural guidelines.
•This information should be used when analyzing test results, counseling families and
performing differential diagnoses.
•Clients may benefit from a communication-enriched environment facilitated by an SLP,
but is this the best setting?
Quick Semantic Update
•ELL = English Language Learners
•ESL = English as a Second Language
•ESOL = English Speakers of Other Languages
•CLD = Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
•A
population of students that should also be considered “CLD” are children of
international adoption.
•Because
Second Language influence is documented to last for up to three generations
after newly arrived immigrant generation (Ortiz, 2005), students who might be
considered ESOL or CLD will be compared to “students who are born in the United
States to families who have only had English-language influence for their entire life
experience.”
(Can I just call them ‘English speakers?’)
What was taught in Grad School
(or what I remember being taught)
•Multi-Cultural Awareness Involves
•Treating all clients with respect regardless of their cultural background
•Not perceiving my culture to be superior to other cultures.
•Being aware that culture influences dress, hygiene, education, religion, family roles,
timeliness, perception of people with disabilities, gender roles, use of alternative
medicine versus Western medicine.
•Understanding that culture impacts eye contact, gesture, turn-taking, questioning,
interpersonal space, greetings, appropriate use of humor, role of student participation in
the classroom, perception of interrupting and/or conversational silence. (ASHA, 2007)
•But what about Cultural influence on Phonetics, Phonology, Morphology, Semantics,
Syntax and Pragmatics?
Growing Diversity Nationwide
If you’re here, you probably already recognize this [wonderful] phenomenon.
I’ll spare you the statistics.
Primary Language (L1) vs.
Secondary Language (L2)
•Simultaneous Bilingualism = having equal input from 2 languages starting at the same
time.
•When students learn 2 languages with equal input and output at the same time, the brain
‘piggybacks’ and uses the same neural circuitry.
•Sequential Bilingualism = having foundation in native language and later adding
second language.
•When students learn a second language, the brain uses existing neural circuitry from the
primary language to decode and encode linguistic information.
•This is sometimes called ‘interference’ or ‘transfer’
Primary- and Secondary-Language Influence
•New fMRI studying corroborates the theory of Interactional Dual Systems Model
(Paradis, 2001) where the Primary Language (L1) and Secondary Language (L2) have
their own neurological representation but some interaction exists (Fabiano, 2007; Ortiz,
2005)
•The phonetic system governed by L1 (Crowley, 2004).
•Even non-CLD language learners do this!
Normal, Second-Language Acquisition
•“Transfer” (when an individual applies patterns of L1 to decode and encode L2) is
observed most with syntax and grammar for both spoken and written language.
•“Silent Period” occurs when a child is focusing on listening and understanding their
new language.
•There are two types of second language proficiency
•Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) is documented to take up to 1-3
years.
•The time frame to reach Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) has been
recently revised and increased to 5-7 years with ELL support but 7-10 years without
support.
Fact for Thought
•According to Samuel Ortiz, PhD, at St. John’s University,
•The 24 Thousand Hour Gap
•at Kindergarten, English learners with an average of as much as 2-3 hours per day of
exposure to the English language will still be 15,000 total hours behind their
monolingual English speaking peers.
•by 5th grade, rather than closing this gap via ESL methods, English learners are now
nearly 24,000 total hours behind (about ½) their monolingual English speaking peers
with respect to exposure to and experience with the English language. Indeed, they never
catch up.
•This consideration must be made when diagnosing a ‘Learning Impairment’ versus a
‘Language Difference.’
When the First Concerns are Noticed…
•A comprehensive interview with the parent(s) and teacher(s) is important.
•Parent interview should address –
•Years in the United States for both parent(s) and child.
•How does each parent perceive his/her own proficiency in both L1 and L2.
•Country and region of origin, not just language spoken.
•Include parent estimation of hours per week child spends listening to each language and
hours per week child spends speaking each language.
•Have parent(s) describe the communicative contexts of their child’s typical day.
(Goldstein, 2005)
•Be conscientious that some individuals have fled their native country for persecution
and may be reluctant to answer “intrusive” questions. (Beebe, 1994)
Scaffold for Using an Interpreter
•Interpreter and SLP should use the BID method
•Brief – Review all history information with interpreter
•Interaction – SLP & Interpreter interact as a team during interview and assessment
•Debrief – Discuss results, observations and considerations. (ASHA, 2007)
•As you would with an individual who has a hearing impairment, address the family
members and students directly (not the interpreter), refrain from extraneous conversations
or multiple speakers and use cues from the family to determine appropriateness of humor.
(ASHA, 2007)
Teacher Interview
•We must identify specific concerns in the areas of
•Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS)
•‘Survival’ communication skills to function and attempt to bridge the proverbial
language barrier
•Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)
•Are concerns noted in curriculum-based instruction?
•Academic History (for L1 and L2)
•In some instances, teacher education is appropriate in the areas of
•Errors (speech/language) likely for this student in academic tasks.
•Comparative appraisal of linguistic components of L1 vs. L2
•‘Red Flags’
Example Red Flags
•Student not developing along similar continuum as siblings.
•Student is not able to ‘Code Switch.’
•Using L1 in an L2 setting
•Not to be confused with word-finding-like behaviors typical of highly-proficient
bilinguals
•Student has a significant birth/developmental history
•Parents report “blue baby” or “child stopped talking”
Consideration Before Assessment
•Speech, language and cognitive tests are norm-referenced primarily for CALP in
Standard American English.
•Even Non-verbal IQ tests have bias for dialect/language.
•http://wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceOriginalAustralian.html
•There is a growing array of tests for Spanish speech and language skills. They must be
administered by a bilingual SLP.
•CAUTION IS STILL NEEDED!
•These tests are not normed using native Spanish-speaking children with a representative
sample. Most companies have adapted the English test to second- and third-generation
bilingual children to satisfy statistical correlations!
•These tests are also biased to dialectal variations between countries and regions. (Puerto
Rico vs. Mexico)
If Formal Assessment is Necessary,
•An ESSENTIAL component to the multidisciplinary team is
•Finding a qualified, specialized interpreter
•Best
practice is having a bilingual, CCC’d SLP (ASHA, 1994)
a bilingual SLP-A
•Or, a bilingual individual who has an understanding of linguistics, multicultural issues
and speech pathology.
•Or, an interpreter that has been trained in the administration of standardized tests.
•Family members and staff members should only be a last resort.
•Discuss differences between interpreter’s dialect and student’s.
Administration of Speech Tests
•For accurate diagnosis, includes:
•Single-word speech sample (both languages)
•connected-speech sample (both languages)
•independent analysis of phonetic inventory of both languages
•relational analysis of shared and unshared phonemes; analysis of cross-linguistic effect
(e.g. using Spanish r in English target)
•Analysis of phonological patterns (developmental or disordered)
•Calculation of PCC in native language, English, shared phonemes and unshared
phonemes (Goldstein, 2007).
•Or,
Considerations After Assessment
•What are the nature of the language errors in English?
•What are the nature of the language errors in L1?
•What are the nature of the speech errors in English?
•What are the nature of the speech errors in L1?
If the Team was Suspecting a Language Impairment
•A student who obtains scores that are within normal limits on a standardized language
test administered in English is unlikely to be ‘Language Impaired.’
Analysis of Language Test Results
•Speech and Language assessments primarily assess academic language proficiency.
•Standardized tests are invalidated when interpreted into another language. (ASHA,
2007)
•The phonetic, morphologic, semantic, syntactic and pragmatic structures assessed in
Standard American English (SAE) are specific to SAE (compare SAE to Australian
English or African-American English).
•The literature suggests that, even with an interpreter trained in administration of
standardized assessments, bias in translation and test invalidation is still present.
•For example, Vietnamese does not have morphological structures such as “-ed,” “-ing,”
and “-s,” therefore there is no equivalent to translate, even for a highly-qualified
interpreter.
Analysis of Articulation Test Results
•If errors are present on sounds shared between languages (phonemes, not letters!)
•There is a better chance for remediation in native language but there is no way to predict
how or if the student will generalize sounds to their native language.
•Implementing services in L2 for sounds that are not shared
•At best, research suggests that students need to have a strong neural representation for
L2 before skills will generalize to their speech.
•Remember:
When a listener interprets the speech of an individual with an accent, they
filter the phonetic information through their existing knowledge of phonetics governed by
their native language.
When an CLD student exhibits errors that appear Phonological in nature…
•You must first consider the Phonological Structure of the Native language.
•Some languages do not have consonant clusters. Therefore, if a student is exhibiting
cluster reduction in English the error is dialectal in nature
•Some languages do have consonant clusters but the clusters use sounds that are not
present in English. Therefore, these errors are dialectal in nature
•Some languages do not have final consonants. For these ELL students, FCD is dialectal
in nature.
•It is also important to consider the students’ literacy development in his/her native
language
•Orthographic knowledge may transfer to speech production.
•Spanish word reading and Spanish phonological awareness significantly predicted
English word reading (August, 2002).
•Across the BOARD
•Promoting communication skills of L1 and literacy skills of L1, has the largest gains in
proficiency of L2. (Gutierrez-Clellen, 1999; Ortiz, 2005; Levey, 2006)
Before Recommending “Speech Therapy”
•Consider if the errors made in English are made on sounds shared between languages.
•Consider if the errors made in English are for sounds that are not present in the native
language.
•Do not confuse sounds that have the same orthographic representation but are
phonetically dissimilar.
•Remember:
•When a listener interprets the speech of an individual with an accent, they filter the
phonetic information through their existing knowledge of phonetics governed by their
native language.
Considerations During Intervention
•Research indicates that best practice is to allow children time to ‘map’ their new
language (this may take years!)
•If indicated a student has speech or language errors in their native language,
intervention must be done in the native language.
•For example, super-imposing syntactic rules for Standard American English will not
correct syntax errors in Cantonese.
•Use a bilingual SLP or a trained interpreter/SLP-A who has a background in linguistics.
•Consider benefits and disadvantages
(Pull-Out Speech vs. Context Rich Classroom)
More about Intervention
•This surprised me -
•Research shows that students will only become as proficient in L2 as they are in L1.
Therefore, parents should be encouraged to promote use of the dominant language in the
home. This includes reading and writing (Crowley, 2004).
•Consider creative resources for native-language intervention, such as:
•Area Churches
•the University (foreign students or students of foreign language)
•High School students
•Soap Box Alert! – We need to begin to cultivate bilingual SLPs at a high rate.
Speech Intervention
•Barbara Dodd, PhD suggests ‘speech’ kids really have different needs (Dodd, 2005).
•Based on her analysis, only 10% of children with ‘speech’ concerns (children with
inconsistent speech disorder) will have transfer of skills from English to their native
language.
•More assessment of bilingual transfer of articulation skills is needed, but preliminary
evidence suggests benefit in non-native language is ‘hit or miss’ with little way to predict
which students will or will not benefit from articulation therapy (Goldstein, 2006).
Let’s do some Language Therapy in French
Are you sleeping,
Are you sleeping,
Brother John?
Brother John?
Morning bells are ringing,
Morning bells are ringing.
Ding, dang, dong.
Ding, dang, dong.
Our 1st Lesson is in Semantics
Our 2nd Lesson is in Morphology
Our 3rd Lesson is in Syntax
Our 4th Lesson is for Speech
Our 5th Lesson is French Orthography
•Sound/Symbol awareness and correlation varies by language.
•The Duke Men’s Basketball Head Coach is –
Mike “Krzyzewski” pronounced / ə
vski/ ?!
•Interference with sound production
•Say these words:
•Vet
•Get
•Pet
•Net
•Ballet
Our Lesson in French Orthography
French Language Therapy helped…
But We Still Need Services
•For Speech because:
•We can’t say F è uh or do may
•For Language because:
•We have poor semantic knowledge (“Cloches matinée”)
•We have inappropriate use of syntax (“Êtes dormez vous”)
•And we haven’t even discussed our social skills
Furthermore…
•English and French are 2 languages that are related and have similar historical
influences. When comparing English to other languages such as Russian and
Vietnamese, the parallels of phonetics, semantics, syntax, morphology, orthography, and
phonology become fewer and fewer.
Why shouldn’t we just provide services, if a student actually ‘qualifies?’
•It’s illegal (DESE, 2004)
•Students are not to receive services based on dialectal differences or second-language
influence.
•When we make a Basis for Determination, we are stating that a student has a Disability.
•‘Disabilities’ are viewed differently across cultures. For example, in some cultures,
disabilities are viewed as punishment and/or disgraceful to the family.
•Pull-out speech and language services might not be the most efficacious method for
service-delivery (Dodd, 2007; Ortiz, 2005).
So, What Do We Do?
•Parent Education
•Help parents provide a communicatively rich environment (in all languages).
We’re good at that!
•District/Administrative Education
•Encourage strategic selection and training for specialized interpreters (not a “firstperson-who-answers-the-phone” strategy)
•Facilitate discussion about Two-Way bilingual services model (instruction in L1 and
L2) and Content Instruction in ESL (content instruction in L1) which have the highest
student achievement (Ortiz, 2005)
The SLP’s Role (cont’d)
•Teacher Education
•Help teachers recognize what is ‘Normal Second Language Acquisition’ and what is
not.
•Be available for strategies to differentiate language instruction.
•Supplementation of curriculum with phoneme manipulation tasks to increase literacy
acquisition (Nancollis, Lawrie & Dodd, 2005)
•Be available to problem-solve interventions that might be necessary for a struggling
student.
•Recognize that high-proficiency is the goal not native-like proficiency (Hellman, 2008).
Finally…...To the Handout!
Language Comparison for Students of Concern
•Wait & See or Watch & See for
•Students who have a large difference in the ratio between Exposure in L1/Capable in
L1. Limited exposure to the types of academic tasks expected in American schools might
be a contributing factor to parent/teacher concern.
•Possible Red Flag for
•Students who have predominantly “0s” in all columns
The Back of the Handout
•Comparative Phonemic Inventory of Top 10 Languages other than English in the U.S.
•When considering intervention for speech, phonemes that are shared between languages
would have a better (??) likelihood of generalization to L1
•Assuming English is L2 and anything other than Korean or Arabic is L1, services for /p/
would be acceptable goal.
The 10 Most Common Languages in the U.S.
(after English)
•Spanish
•Chinese (including Cantonese & Mandarin)
•German (European Dialects: Low German, High German, Standard German, Austrian
& Swiss German; Dialects within the US: Hutterite German, Texas German,
Pennsylvania Dutch, Plautdietsch)
•Tagalog (Ilokano, Pangasinan, Bikol languages, Visayan languages)
•Vietnamese
•Italian
•Korean
•Russian
•Polish
•Arabic
US Census Bureau, 2000
Where Do I Go?
•www.ASHA.org
•Languages of the World
•http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/languageList.html
•Categorization of differences between English and other languages
http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/learningExpectations.html
•Speech Accent Archive
•http://accent.gmu.edu/browse_native.php
•ListServ
•Wikipedia
•Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)
•http://www.cal.org/
•Pronunciation Contrasts in English by Don Nilsen
•Numerous ESL websites with amazing resources (even for traditional ‘speech’ therapy)
•Evaluate all resources closely (for more information on this visit Judith Maginnis
Kuster, PhD CCC-SLP at www.mnsu.edu/comdis/ASHA2006handout.html )
Spanish-Influenced English
Spanish-Influenced English
•Phonetically –
•English phonemes that DO NOT occur in Spanish include /ŋ, v, θ, voiced θ, z,
*, , vocalic r/. *sh and ch are allophones.
•5 phonemes in Spanish that do not occur in English (two are variations of /r/)
To view animations of difference between Spanish and English productions of
orthographically and phonetically similar (but not identical) speech sounds:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/about.html#
*,
, h,
Spanish Phonology
•Phonological error patterns are different for English & Spanish (Goldstein, 2001). For
example, cluster reduction is still considered developmental until 5:6 (Goldstein, 2007).
•There are only 5 consonants used in the word-final position /l, d, n, s, /. / / is the
flapped r
Errors in Spanish
•Research has shown that a child who is a typically-developing, Spanish-speaking, 4
year-old will have difficulty acquiring the sounds /s, f, g/, trilled r (/r/) and flapped r (/ /)
and ‘moderate’ amounts of cluster reduction, final consonant deletion, unstressed syllable
deletion, stopping, liquid simplification, flap/tap/trill /r/ deviation, assimilation and
fronting.
Some basic facts about Chinese-Influenced English
•There are 11 dialects
•Let’s
just focus on Mandarin and Cantonese
•Phonetically
•Both
dialects are tonal meaning vowels acoustics can change word meaning
phonemes that DO NOT occur in Madnarin include /ŋ, v, θ, voiced θ, z,
h, , , vocalic r/
•In Cantonese, /n/ and /l/ are interchangable.
•English
,
,
Chinese Phonology
•Phonologically, both Mandarin & Cantonese:
•Are monosyllabic
•Have no consonant clusters
•Have limited number of phonemes that may be used in the final position of words
•Have phonological processes when speaking in English
•Affrication, assimilation, cluster reduction, deaspiration, final glide deletion, fronting,
initial /h/ deletion, stopping
German Phonemic Inventory
•Plosives: p, b, t, d, k, g
•Affricates: pf, ts, tS, dZ
•Fricatives: f, v, s, z, S, Z, C, j, x, h
•Sonorants/Nasals: m, n, N, l, R
•Three variations of orthographic ‘r’
•Dorso-uvular consonant (represented as /R/ above)
•Apico-alveolar consonant (represented as /r/)
•Vowelized in non-prevocalic positions
German Phonology
•[p, t, k] are less aspirated than English
•Plosives are deaspirated following fricatives, similar to English
•Word-final voiced consonants are not voiced
•Phonemes found in German (not English)
•Uvular trilled /r/
•Affricates /pf/ and /ts/
•Voiceless palatal fricative (/ch/?)
•Voiceless velar fricative
•http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/december/German.html#stru; accessed 10/22/08
Speech Characteristics of Tagalog-Influenced English
•Consonant:
•Final obstruent devoicing
•Interdental fricative to a stop
•/w/ to labial fricative
•Dentalization
•Vowel:
•Vowel shortening
•Vowel raising
•Vowel lowering
•Syllable Structure:
•Vowel insertion
Tagalog, Phonologically Speaking
•Words generally end in a vowel or nasal
•It is a non-tonal language
•Complex array of morphological structures
•Has many words that have been assimilated from Spanish and English
Vietnamese-Influenced English
•Phonetically
•23 consonants, 12 vowels and 1 semi-vowel.
•English sounds / , v/ are not in Vietnamese.
•The Vietnamese-influenced production of the phonemes /t, k/ sounds like /d, f/
(respectively) to the Standard American English listener.
•Vowels, vowel clusters, diphthongs and triphthongs present
Vietnamese Phonology
•Phonologically
•Final consonants may only be voiceless stops or nasals.
•Vietnamese has no consonant clusters or blends.
•Vietnamese words are primarily monosyllabic.
•The sounds /k/ and /t/ are unaspirated (“implosive”) stops.
Vietnamese Syntax & Semantics
•There are generally 3 recognized ‘dialects’ of Vietnamese. Each dialect has variations
in vowel production.
•Use of personal pronouns is prohibited by young Vietnamese because they convey lack
of respect.
•14 of 32 items on the Word Structure subtest of the CELF-4 require student use of
pronoun in some form.
•Substantial differences between English for Syntactic and Morphological structures.
For Example:
•Literal translation of some Vietnamese sentences•Grandchild go market return already?
•Grandchild has already returned from the market?
•Me imagine about ten one hour new return.
•I thought that you would not return until 11 o’clock.
•Vietnamese does not have ‘morphological’ structures the way English does.
Italian-Influenced English
•Consonant:
•Final obstruent devoicing
•Interdental fricative to a stop
•/r/ to trill
•Non-aspiration
•Vowel:
•Vowel shortening
•Vowel raising
•Syllable Structure:
•Vowel insertion
Russian Phonology
•Phonetically –
•5 vowels
•Consonants, diphthongs were WAY to complicated to understand.
•Has alveolo-palatal consonants which means the tongue is simultaneously articulating
with the alveolar ridge and palate.
Arabic-Influenced English
•Consonant:
•Final obstruent devoicing
•/r/ Æ trill
•Consonant voicing
•Non-aspiration
•Vowel:
•Vowel Shortening
•Syllable Structure:
•Vowel insertion
•Obstruent deletion
Red Flags, Not So Red with CLD
•When you think about the big picture, after listening to distinguishing features of
Linguistically Diverse speech and language, the characteristics that might be ‘Red Flags’
for English-speaking children (voicing errors, glottal stops, vowel distortions, errors in
syntax or morphology) are often differences, not disorders.
Hammy’s CLD in a Nutshell
•Students of CLD backgrounds are not ‘standard’
•Standardized tests are not the sole measure for student achievement
•Standard timeframes (1-3 years, 5-7 years) are not the sole criteria for deciding if/when
services should be delivered
•Standard ‘red flags’ do not necessarily generalize to CLD students
•The goal of second-language acquisition should be high-efficiency, not native-like
proficiency.
•SLPs need to be flexible in our perception of ‘service delivery’ and student needs.
Food for Thought
Resources
•August, D., Calderon, M., & Carlo, M. (2002). Transfer of Skills from Spanish To
English: A Study of Young Learners. Journal of Abnormal Eating, 8(3). Retrieved
September 18, 2007, from Center for Applied Linguistics database, from
www.cal.org/acqlit/skills-transfer.pdf
•Austin, L., & Glover, G. (2005). Linguistically Diverse Populations: Considerations and
Resources For Assessments and Intervention. Texas Speech Language and Hearing
Association, Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
http://www.txsha.org/Diversity_Issues/cld_document.asp
•American Speech-Language and Hearing Association. (9/23/2008). Cultural
Competence Checklist: Self-Assessment for Cultural Competence. Retrieved November
13,2008, from http://www.asha.org/about/leadership-projects/multicultural/self.htm
•American Speech-Language and Hearing Association. (9/23/2008). Cultural
Competence Checklist: Policies and Procedures. Retrieved November 13,2008, from
http://www.asha.org/NR/rdonlyres/62B3F614-6A80-4BA7-8CCCCECBEBBE0F0D/0/polandprocedures.pdf
•American Speech-Language and Hearing Association. (9/23/2008). Cultural
Competence Checklist: Service Delivery. Retrieved November 13,2008, from
http://www.asha.org/NR/rdonlyres/07693109-C4F6-48EA-BFC358874C8998F9/0/servicedelivery.pdf
•Armentrout, T., Buenemann, T, Coulis, J. (2008, Sept). Setting the Table for CulturalLinguistic Diversity. Seminar presented at the Missouri-Developmental Education
Consortium Fall Conference (MO-DEC). Union, Missouri.
•Beebe, R., Leonard, K.. (2007). Second Language Learning in a Social Context. Center
for Applied Linguistics, Retrieved September 21, 2007, from
http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/beebe001.html
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (1/23/04). Definition of
Limited English Proficient. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/fedprog/discretionarygrants/bilingualesol/BilDEF.htm
•Dodd, B., (2007, Nov). Intervention for Differentially Diagnosed Subtypes of Speech
Disorder. Seminar presented at the American Speech, Language and Hearing Convention
(ASHA). Boston, Massachusetts.
Resources, continued
•Goldstein, B., Fabiano, L., (2006, Nov). Clinical Implications of Phonological
Representation in Bilingual Children. Seminar presented at the American Speech,
Language and Hearing Convention (ASHA). South Beach, Miami.
•Goldstein, B., Fabiano, L., & Washington, P. W., (2005). Phonological Skills in
Predominantly English-Speaking, Predominantly Spanish-Speaking, and Spanish-English
Bilingual Children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, volume 36,
pages 201-218.
•Goldstein, B., Washington, P., (2001). An Initial Investigation of Phonological Patterns
in Typically Developing 4-Year-Old Spanish-English Bilingual Children. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, volume 32, pages 153-164.
•Goldstein, B., (2000). Cultural & Linguistic Diversity Resource Guide for SpeechLanguage Pathologists. , Singular.
•Gutierrez-Clellen, V., (1999). Language Choice in Intervention with Bilingual Children.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, volume 8, pages 291-302.
•Hellman, A. (2008, Sept). Introduction into the findings of brain-based research in
second language acquisition (Project SPEAK). Springfield, Missouri.
•King, D. K. (2003). Educating Linguistically Diverse Students; Requirements and
Practices. Retrieved September, 18, 2007, from
http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/fedprog/discretionarygrants/
•Levey, S., (2006). Variables That Affect Bilingual Spanish/English and EnglishSpeaking Children’s World. Speech Pathology.com, Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
http://www.speechpathology.com/articles/article_detail.asp?article_id=297
•Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2001). English
Language Learners, A Guide for Low-Incidence Districts (DESE Publication No. 3255-5
4/04). Jefferson City, MO: U.S. Government Printing Office.
•Nancollis, A., Lawrie, B., Dodd, B., (2005). Phonological Awareness Intervention and
the Acquisition of Literacy Skills in Children From Deprived Backgrounds. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, volume 36, pages 325-335.
•Nilsen, D,. (1971). Pronunciation Contrasts in English. New York, Regents.
•