Many families who attend Hanen Programs (about 30% at the Hanen Centre) are in a situation where one or both parents have a first language other than English. (At least one parent in families who attend Hanen Programs has adequate English to take a program. For this reason, we don't tend to see minority families who have not yet acquired basic fluency in the majority language. This article was therefore written with potentially bilingual families in mind and the particular set of choices they face). One question frequently asked by these parents is "How should we talk to our child? Should we use one language or two?" When someone asks this at an Orientation Meeting when there is limited time for discussion, I usually give the two pieces of advice that I think are the most important: first, I recommend that parents communicate with their child in a way that feels natural and that they can sustain over a long period of time; second, I suggest that parents try to be as consistent as possible in the way they expose their child to the two languages.

Behind the short answer, is a much longer one. The decision to raise a bilingual child requires thought and planning among parents and other family members. Parents may face the dilemma of having strong feelings about their language and culture, and at the same time fearing that they are taking a risk with their child's language development. When a child has a language delay, this adds to their uncertainty. The following issues related to bilingualism illustrate its complexities and hence the difficulty in providing straightforward advice to parents:

· bilingualism is a relative phenomenon whose definition changes when viewed in terms of the individual, the family, the culture or in terms of social policy;

· the acquisition of two languages can be simultaneous or sequential, each having different implications for language development, learning and intervention;

· each family is unique in terms of its language history, its relationship to minority and majority cultures, its needs and motivations for raising bilingual children and its configura tion of language use and interaction patterns;

· the availability of education and intervention services in a family's non-dominant language will impact on the child's acquisition of a second language;

· there is a lack of research on bilingualism in the language-delayed preschool child.

I will explore these various aspects of bilingualism by drawing from the literature on normal bilingual development, language immersion programs, intervention for minority-language school-age children and family exam ples. I end with some considerations for parents who must decide on the language(s) to use with their child.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE BILINGUAL?
Over half the world's population is estimated to be bilingual (Harding & Riley, 1986) although there are many different types of bilingual individuals and societies.

In any country where people of different backgrounds live together, the social rewards of cultural and linguistic diversity are tempered by the need for a common language in which to carry out society's affairs. Thus in Canada, the policy of "multiculturalism" which encourages immigrant minority groups to maintain their language and customs co-exists with the policy of "official bilingualism" which gives status to English and French as the languages for business and affairs.

While only about 4.5 million Canadians (i.e. 16%) report having "knowl edge in both official languages" (Statistics Canada 1991, Census Data), immigrant groups in different parts of Canada maintain a form of "social bilingualism" or "diglossia" by speak ing their first language (L1) in their ethnic community as well as one of the majority languages (L2, either English or French).

There are many other countries where diglossia is far more extensive than in Canada because of the diversity of indigenous languages and dialects. For example, in Kenya where there are many tribal languages, Swahili is the "lingua franca," the common language, in India, it is Hindi, in China, Mandarin, and in Italy, Germany and other European countries "standard" forms of the language replace regional dialects for official purposes.

Bilingualism is a matter of degree. A child or adult can be :

· a balanced bilingual (i.e. equally proficient in both languages);

· semilingual - dominant in one language which he or she actively uses while retaining a "passive" knowledge of the other language, e.g. a child who understands his parents when they speak Italian, but can only talk to them in English.

Most bilinguals are dominant in one of their languages. This is not usually problematic unless both languages are needed to function in all aspects of home, school and community life. Language dominance can shift quite quickly whenever the linguistic environment changes. This happens, for example, when a family moves to another country either permanently or for a holiday, or when a preschool child who has been looked after at home, begins school.

For certain minority groups, bilingualism is a transient phenomenon. Loss of the primary language can occur within two or three generations of immigration (Langdon, 1992). This depends on how immigrants view the migration experience, on the size of the ethnic community and on assimila tion to the majority culture through mixed marriages.

THE ACQUISITION OF TWO LANGUAGES IN NON-DELAYED CHILDREN
Bilingual acquisition can be "simultaneous" - two languages introduced from infancy, or "sequential" - one language introduced first, then the second at some point following basic acquisition of the first language.

Simultaneous Acquisition

Simultaneous acquisition occurs when a child is raised bilingually from birth or when the second language is introduced during the earliest stages of emerging language. Typically, each parent speaks a different language to the infant following the rule of "one person-one language". Alternatively, parents may speak one language and other significant caregivers speak another. The reasons for introducing two languages at birth stem from many different family situations. For example, an immigrant family has been in a country for some time and want their child to be fluent in the dominant language while still retaining the ability to speak the parents' mother tongue. In this case, at least one parent will have achieved functional fluency in L2 at the time of their child's birth. Another example might be of a couple who have an inter-cultural, inter-linguistic marriage and who wish to raise their child so he knows both of their languages. Or perhaps a family know that they will be moving to another country at some point in the future and want to prepare their child in advance by exposing him to that country's language.

The simultaneous acquisition process is similar to monolingual development (Harding & Riley, 1986; Saunders, 1982; Kessler, 1984) with the child having the additional task of distinguishing the two language systems. But there is no evidence that this requires special language process ing devices. The normal age range for the emergence of first words is the same for monolingual and bilingual children (about 8 to 15 months). Statistically, bilinguals may start talking slightly later than mono -linguals, but this is still within the normal range.

There are three phases of simultaneous acquisition:

Phase 1: A child has one, undifferen-tiated language system. This results in one lexicon containing words from both languages. Depending on lan guage input from caregivers, a word from each language may be acquired for one concept and may be expressed as a blend, for example, a Spanish -English child who asks for "agua-water." Other words are acquired in a one-word-one-concept fashion. Words may also be blended phonologically, for example, a French-English child says "tati" , a mixture of "thank you" and "merci" (cited in Harding, 1986).

Phase 2: A child begins to differentiate lexical systems but often shows considerable grammatical mixing. This stage can be alarming to parents who may wonder if bilingualism is going to be successful for their child. The mixing of each language can happen on many levels - prosodic, lexical, syntactic and phonological. If one language has an easier grammatical structure it may appear dominant for a while. This phase may last for one to two years.

Phase 3: The two languages are differentiated in vocabulary and syntax. A child may associate the two languages rigidly with people or contexts, for example, one person, one language, or one location one lan guage. As in monolingual children, there might be overextension of certain grammatical rules in each language in order to keep the two languages separate. For example, all adjectives go before the noun in English and after the noun in French. Exceptions to the rules are learned when the child becomes more confident and flexible in each language.

Sequential bilingual acquisition

Sequential acquisition occurs when a second language is introduced after the first language is well-established. Some researchers have used age 3 as the age when a child has basic communicative competence in L1 (Kessler, 1984). For example, when a family immigrates after their child has ac quired basic competence in L1 and is then introduced to L2 through a preschool or school setting; or this may occur in a well-established immigrant family who live in a minority-language speaking community and speak only L1 with their child until the child goes to school or preschool; or perhaps, an immigrant family lays the foundation of L1 for the first year or so of the child's life and then introduces L2 at home as school entry approaches.

The phases that children go through during sequential acquisition are less linear than for simultaneous acquisition and vary greatly among children. Sequential acquisition is a more complex and lengthier process al though there is no indication that non-language-delayed children end up less proficient than simultaneous bilinguals as long as they receive adequate input in both languages.

Sequential acquisition uses the L1 system as its starting points, particu larly in the early stages (Kessler, 1984). The acquisition process in some ways parallels monolingual development and in other ways departs from it. These are some of the major phases and processes:

Interactional phase: Many children learning a second language begin by trying to establish social relationships. At first, they rely on nonverbal com munication and fixed formulas (Harding & Riley, 1986). In play with other children, L2 learners may quickly acquire chunks of discourse, such as "my turn," "give it to me." This gains them quick entry into social interaction and facilitates further L2 input from peers (Kessler, 1984).

Interference: In the initial stages of sequential acquisition, a child uses the L1 system to help construct L2 (Kessler, 1984). This results in a sort of "interference" as normal errors are produced when L1 rules are applied to L2. The amount of interference is minimal for some children and extensive for others. L2 is also developing according to its unique system. L2 learners who have different first languages make similar errors in L2 and those errors are similar to those made by children acquiring L2 as their first language (Harding & Riley, 1986).

Silent period: Many children go through a silent period when they are first exposed to L2. This can last for up to several months and is probably a time for building comprehension (Roseberry-McKibbon, 1994). The extent of this silent phase may be related to learning style and personal ity. For example, sociable and outgoing children have been found to achieve fluency faster (Wong Fillmore, 1979).

Codeswitching: This is a normal process of switching back and forth between two languages within the same sentence or paragraph. Children probably do this because they hear the adults around them doing it. It can be a normal way of talking for people in diglossic communities.

Language Loss : When one language is replaced abruptly by a second lan guage, without continued input in L1, this results a form of "subtractive bilingualism" (Lambert, 1975). A child may lose some of his capacity in L1 resulting in negative consequences for cognition and language (Roseberry -McKibbon, 1994; Pacheco, 1983).

Critical period hypothesis: A traditionally held belief has been that young children acquire a second language with more facility and speed than adults and that it was therefore better to learn a second language before puberty. This theory of brain plasticity and learning capacity has been called into question. Other factors may account for differences in adult and child language learning. Children's apparently effortless and rapid lan guage acquisition may be explained by the fact that the environment is set up to engage them in frequent and optimal learning opportunities (Harding & Riley, 1986). Adults seem to have an initial advantage in their learning of vocabulary and syntax but may never achieve native-like pronunciation (Langdon, 1992).

BICS and CALP: These terms describe two different types of language abilities found in children (Cummins, 1984) - "Basic interpersonal communication skills" (BICS) refers to context-bound, face to face communication, like the language first learned by toddlers and preschoolers. In contrast, CALP, "cognitive-academic language proficiency" refers to the highly decontextualized communication that takes place in the classroom, especially in the later elementary grades. According to Cummins, children who begin acquiring a second language at the time they begin school take 1 to 2 years to acquire BICS and 5 to 7 years to acquire CALP. Also related to L2 acquisition, is the "interdependence hypothesis" which as sumes a "common underlying proficiency" for both languages. This allows concepts acquired through one language to transfer to the other language. It also assumes a minimum threshold be attained in L1 before a child can benefit from instruction in L2. Taken together, BICS, CALP and the interdependence hypothesis are used as a rationale for providing minority-language children with varying combinations of instruction in L1 and L2.

The effects of being bilingual

Being bilingual can have positive or negative effects on language and cognition depending on many factors such as: the age the languages are learned, simultaneous or successive acquisition, maintenance of each language at home, school and in the community and the status of each language (Pacheco, 1983).

North American studies conducted in the 1930's to 1950's tended to report negative effects of bilingualism, which included lower IQ, as well as lower academic and language skills. This was later attributed to the fact that these studies were of students whose L1 was a minority language and who had not developed a threshold of linguistic competence in their L1 before receiving academic instruction in L2 (Lambert, 1975; Pacheco, 1983). These children ended up with a "subtractive bilingualism." ESL programs have since been established to give extra support to minority students in their L2. Lower levels of vocabulary are still associated with bilingualism regardless of the child's level of proficiency in each language. This may be a result of reduced exposure to the words in each language and perhaps due to some sort of syntactic interference that inhibits a word in L1 from connecting with its counterpart in L2 (Ben-Zeev, 1984).

Studies done in the 1960's to 1980's reported more positive find ings. Many of these studies looked at middle and upper-class children whose L1 was the dominant language and were learning L2 in immersion pro grams. These "additive bilinguals" were found to perform better than monolinguals in divergent thinking, flexible manipulation of language, concrete operational thinking, separation of meaning from sound, concept formation and metalinguistic awareness (Saunders, 1982). Studies by S. Ben-Zeev (1984) of Hebrew-English and Spanish-English children who had been bilingual since birth showed increased metalinguistic skills and increased perspective-taking respectively.

BILINGUAL ACQUISITION IN LANGUAGE-DELAYED CHILDREN
A key question for parents of a language-delayed child is whether the addition of a second language will further delay language development and learning. As previously mentioned, there is not much information on this issue and I draw from related fields and family examples.

Bruck (1984) states that exposing a language-delayed minority child to a second language does not negatively affect development. She supports this by citing a Canadian study comparing language-delayed children in French immersion programs and English-only programs. No significant linguistic or cognitive differences were found between the children after three years in their respective programs.

However, successful acquisition of a second language depends on how the second language is introduced. For example, the relative success of immersion-type programs for any child in the early grades is attributed to the fact that communication takes place in highly concrete and meaningful contexts (i.e. more like the home environment). The teacher's role is to provide "comprehensible language input" that utilizes nonverbal and contextual cues that help a child's comprehension.

Immersion-type programs are also more successful when both L1 and L2 are valued by society and "additive bilingualism" is promoted (e.g. in the Canadian English-French situation). However, the fact that children from majority sociolinguistic backgrounds do well cannot be generalized to minority second-language learners. It is now widely recommended that minority children (who are not balanced bilinguals) receive remediation and teaching in L1. When this is not done, a child ends up with a case of "subtractive bilingualism" which is detrimental to language and cognition.

What about children with more severe forms of language delay, such as many of the children who come to Hanen Programs?

For the severely language-delayed child, Carrow-Woolfolk & Lynch (1982) recommend using one language only and that that language be the same at home and school whenever possible. They state that "the bilingual language-disordered child must attempt to master two codes with a language-learning system that is ineffective even for one." They differentiate children with moderate language disorders, recommending that a single language be used for instruction, while the language of the home may differ.

Dierdre Duncan (1989) disagrees with this position because of its underlying assumptions:

a) that language disorder ameliorates more efficiently when language input is restricted and monolingual;

b) that language functions in a social and cultural vacuum;

c) that potentially bilingual children do not need to function in bilingual communities.

She argues that a language-disordered system, whether monolingual or bilingual needs more and better language-learning opportunities.

The following real-life examples illustrate how decisions relating to bilingualism take into account more than just the degree of language delay:

1. A 3-year old Punjabi-speaking child in England (Miller & Abudarham, 1984) had a severe receptive delay and a vocabulary of approximately 12 words. Taking home and preschool factors into account, it was recom mended that he be raised in English only, the reason being that he could only acquire a few words a month and it was uneconomical to use two languages. It was recommended that his mother learn enough English to reinforce the words her child was learning at school. (The outcome is not reported).

2. A 2-year old German-English bilingual child was diagnosed with a severe language disorder (Huneke, 1994). Her parents weighed the advice from various sources and decided to continue with two languages because they wanted to maintain a bilingual home for both of their children. The girl's English made steady progress while German progressed at a slower rate. The parents came to accept the fact that she would have an unequal bilingualism.

3. A 6-year old girl with Down syndrome, (whose parents took a Hanen Program) was raised with Spanish and English from birth. The parents' first language was Spanish and they had lived in Canada for 18 years prior to her birth. The father spoke fluent English and wanted to raise his children in the language of their adopted culture. The mother did not feel as competent in English and wanted the children to have at least a passive knowledge of Spanish so they could communicate with Latin American relatives. At 6 years of age, this girl used English actively (1 to 3-word phrases) and understood Spanish. Her language level was around 3 1/2 years receptively and 2 1/2 years expressively. The parents were happy with the choice they had made and with their daughter's easy transition to school.

With respect to speech and language intervention, I have found only a few studies involving children in the preschool-kindergarten age range. These studies support the interdependence hypothesis and the provision of remediation in a child's L1, at least in the initial stages. For example, recep tive vocabulary acquisition in English was enhanced when words were first taught in Spanish (Perozzi, 1985; Perozzi & Sanchez, 1992; Kiernan & Swisher, 1990).

CONSIDERATIONS FOR PARENTS
Parents whose facility in both languages gives them the choice of raising their child with one or two languages can face a difficult decision which has long term implications for the family. Once family patterns of first and second language use are established, it can feel awkward to change them later on. Parents who are recent immigrants and who speak only their first language do not have the same choices about how to speak to their child at home. For them, decisions regarding the language(s) of instruction for their child may not come until school entry time.

Parents who do have a choice early in their child's life have several things to consider based on the issues discussed above. But first and foremost, parents need to think about their motivations and long-term vision of the language and cultural experiences they want to provide for their child.

Parents' motivations

Since raising a bilingual child takes a great deal of effort and commitment, parents should be clear about why they want to raise their child to be bilingual. For example, do they believe in bilingualism because they themselves are bilingual, does their family need a second (minority) language to maintain connections with relatives, is the family part of an immigrant commu nity that is maintaining its heritage language across generations, does the family anticipate moving to another country at some point? Parents should also consider the level of bilingualism they hope their child will attain (e.g. active or passive). If parents decide to take the "one person, one language" approach, each one must be actively involved in developing their child's acquisition of that language. This is particularly important for maintenance of the minority language. If the parent who speaks the minority language spends little time with the child (as in the case of mother at home, father out working), bilingualism may not be achieved.

Parents' attitudes towards their old and new culture

How parents feel towards their first language and culture will influence their commitment to maintaining a bilingual home. Some parents have a great attachment to their heritage culture and would lose their sense of identify if they had to give up their first language. Other parents feel quite positively about their adopted culture and want their child to integrate quickly. When parents feel ashamed of their heritage or culture or ambiva lent about their adopted culture, their child's development in both languages can suffer (Cummins, 1981).

Societal attitudes towards minority languages

Attitudes toward immigration and minority-cultural groups are reflected in many areas of social policy, employment, health care, education and so on.

The relative status of a culture and its language within any society is something for parents to take into account since it will be more difficult to maintain a language that has little prestige (Harding, 1986). Harding distinguishes between "world" languages that have high status such as English, French, Spanish or Arabic and "regional" languages that have low status such as Gaelic or Welsh. In the middle there are many other languages that are less prestigious but still worth maintaining by families for personal reasons, such as strong links to cultural groups or country of origin.

Parents' fluency in the two languages

Parents should feel comfortable in the language they speak and be able to maintain natural social interaction with their child. In keeping with the Hanen approach, interaction provides the essential context for language development.

In the case where both parents speak a non-dominant language, at least one parent should be minimally fluent in the dominant language in order to communicate with the child in that language. Langdon (1992) found that S-LPs needed to be at least "strong intermediate" speakers of Spanish with near-fluent pronunciation in order to support the first language of Spanish -speaking children and carry on basic conversations with them. This presumably applies equally to parents or any primary language facilitator.

The criteria for second language competence includes: the ability to converse in formal and informal situations, provide explanations, resolve problems, and talk about practical, social and abstract topics. Such language competencies are necessary to support a child's language and cognitive development.

Providing consistent language input

Families who raise their child with two languages from birth usually organize the language input in one of four ways (Langdon, 1992):

1. one person, one language, e.g. father speaks only English and mother speaks only Spanish

2. one location, one language, e.g. Tagalog in the home, English in the community

3. one time of day, one language, e.g. both parents speak one language during the day, the other language at dinner and in the evening

4. at random, e.g. parents switch back and forth between languages depending on the topic, activity or people present. This usually happens when parents have not made a conscious decision to raise their child to be bilingual.

All four patterns of language use, even the last one, seem to work well with non-language-disordered children. However, for a child with a language disorder it would make sense to adhere to one of the consistent patterns. Consistent separation of the two languages would presumably help him/her organize language input and make use of contextual and linguistic cues necessary for cracking the code.

Educational options related to the timing of bilingual acquisition

Educational options should have a strong bearing on when to introduce the second language. The availability of intervention and teaching services in a minority language are critical in the case of sequential bilingualism and certainly important, but somewhat less critical in the case of simultaneous acquisition.

For non-language-delayed children, simultaneous or sequential acquisition does not seem to make any difference to eventual proficiency (as long as all the proper home and school supports are in place for both L1 and L2). However, in sequential acquisition the process does take longer and is some what complicated for a child around preschool or school entry.

These considerations are even more important for a child who is at risk for language delay (e.g. born with Down syndrome or cerebral palsy) or who is identified with a language delay before age 3. If parents are strongly commit ted to bilingualism and can arrange for fairly equal exposure to the two languages, then simultaneous acquisition might be preferable because:

· it is a less complex process than sequential acquisition;

· the process more closely resembles monolingual development;

· it takes longer to acquire L2 BICS and CALP in sequential acquisition;

· bilingualism has negative effects on learning without continued support for L1.

Parents who have been able to do this find that it paves the way for their child's transition to school.

Another possible, but I imagine rarely-used, option for minority parents who are proficient in the majority language (L2) might be to use (L2) exclusively with their child until he reaches school age. If time were not a factor, they could then introduce their heritage language (L1) at home and help their child learn it sequentially over a longer period of time. While this may work technically speaking, it is a somewhat artificial situation since the family would have to rearrange their established language patterns at an arbitrary point in time. It would also require that the family be free of any language constraints imposed by their extended family or community.

Degree of language delay

Given the lack of consensus on whether the severity of a child's language delay affects bilingual development, it is probably not advis able for parents to make this a strong deciding factor. At this point in time, other considerations like parents' motivation, fluency and availability of services should weigh more strongly in their decision.

IN SUMMARY

The decision to raise a child with two languages requires thoughtful consideration because of the effort and long term commitment that will be needed on the part of parents. While this is a highly personal decision involving a unique set of issues for each family, it is also influenced by societal values that may or may not support the successful outcome of raising a bilingual child.

Learning two languages can be a very positive part of a child's develop ment when the necessary input is provided by parents, community and school. When it is not done well, the results can be harmful to a child's learning and self-esteem. For parents who have a choice, it is probably best to introduce the two languages as early as possible in order to help a child establish basic interpersonal communication before entering school. This may be especially important for a child with a language delay who needs more time and more intensive input to learn language.

In any society that values cultural diversity, the educational supports for minority speaking children should naturally include children with lan guage delays. So far, there is no conclusive evidence that language -delayed children are further delayed as a result of exposure to two languages. Therefore, we should support parents who opt for two languages so they can raise their child with the richness of two cultures.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References and Suggested Reading

Abudarham, S. (Ed.) (1987) Bilingualism and the Bilingual: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Pedagogical and Remedial Issues. Windsor: NFER-NELSON Publishing Company Ltd.

Anastasiow, N.J., Hanes, M.L. & Hanes, M.L. (1982) Language & Reading Strategies for Poverty Children . Baltimore: University Park Press.

Battle, D.E. (Ed.) (1993) Communication Disorders in Multicultural Populations

Ben- Zeev, S. (1984) Bilingualism and Cognitive Development. In N. Miller (Ed.), Bilingualism and Language Disability: Assessment and Remediation . San Diego: College Hill Press.

Bruck, M. (1984) The suitability of immersion education for children with special needs. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Communicative Competence Approaches to Language Proficiency Assessment: Research and Application . Multilingual Matters Inc.

Carrasquillo, A.L. & Reyes Bonilla, M.A. (1991) Teaching a Second Language to Limited-English-Proficient Learning-Disabled Students, in A. Carrasquillo and R. Baecher (Eds.), Teaching the Bilingual Special Education Student . New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corp.

Carrow-Woolfolk, E. & Lynch, J.I. (1982) An Integrative Approach to Language Disorders in Children . New York: Grune & Stratton, Inc.

Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. San Diego: College Hill Press.

Cummins, J. (1981) Bilingualism and Minority-Language Children . Toronto: OISE Press.

De Jong, E. (1986) The Bilingual Experience: A Book for Parents . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Duncan, D. (1989) Working with Bilingual Language Disability . New York: Chapman & Hall.

Duncan, D.M. & Gibbs. D.A. (1989) Mainstream Bilingual Schoolchildren: A Model for Remediation, in D. Duncan (Ed.), ibid. pp. 176-186.

Genessee, F. (1988) Bilingual language development in preschool children, in D. Bishop & K. Mogford (Eds.), Language Development in Exceptional Circumstances . Longman Group UK Limited.

Harding, E. & Riley, P. (1986) The Bilingual Family: A Handbook for Parents . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huneke, A. (1994) Language Disorder and Bilingualism. In Saunders G. & Marjukka, G. (Eds.), The Bilingual Family Newsletter; vol 11 (2).

Kessler, C. (1984) Language acquisition in bilingual children. In N. Miller (Ed.), Bilingualism and Language Disability: Assessment and Remediation . San Diego: College Hill Press, Inc.

Kiernan, B. & Swisher, L. (1990) The initial learning of novel English words: two single-subject experiments with minority language children. In JSHR vol. 33, (Dec) 707-716

Lambert, W.E. (1975) Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Education of Immigrant Students . Toronto: OISE Press.

Langdon, H.W. with Cheng, L.L. (1992) Hispanic Children and Adults with Commu nication Disorders: Assessment and Intervention . Maryland: Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Langdon, H.W. (1983) Assessment and Intervention Strategies for the Bilingual Language-Disordered Student. In Exceptional Children , Vol 50 (1).

Miller, N. (Ed.) (1984). Bilingualism and Language Disability: Assessment and Remediation. San Diego: College Hill Press, Inc.

Miller, N., & Abudarham, S. (1984) Management of Communication Problems in Bilingual Children. In N. Miller (Ed.), ibid.

Pacheco, R. (1983) Bilingual Mentally Retarded Children: Language Confusion or Real Deficits? In D. Omark and J. Erickson (Eds.), The Bilingual Exceptional Child. College-Hill Press, Inc.

Perozzi, J. (1985) A Pilot Study of Language Facilitation for Bilingual Language-Handi capped Children: Theoretical and Intervention Implications. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, (50) 403-406.

Perozzi, J.A. & Chavez Sanchez, M.L. (1992) The Effect of Instruction in L1 on Receptive Acquisition of L2 for Bilingual Children with Language Delay. In Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools , Oct. (23) 348-352.

Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (1994) Assessment and Intervention for Children with Limited English Proficiency and Language Disorders. In American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, (Sep) 77 - 88.

Roseberry-McKibbin, C., Eicholtz, G., & McCaffrey, P. (1990) Second Language Acquisition: Differentiating Language Differences from Language Disorders. Miniseminar given at ASHA Convention, Seattle, WA.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981) Bilingualism or Not: the Education of Minorities . (Translated by L. Malmberg and D. Crane.) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Saunders, G. (1982) Bilingual Children: Guidance for the Family . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Taylor, O.L. (Ed.) (1986) Treatment of Communication Disorders in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations. San Diego: College Hill Press, Inc.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1979) Individual differences in second language acquisition. In C.J.Fillmore et al (Eds.), Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behaviour. New York: Academic Press.