See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274971546

Bilingual Myth-Busters Series Language Confusion in Bilingual Children

Article  in  Perspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations · April 2013
DOI: 10.1044/cds20.1.5

CITATIONS READS
23 8,331

1 author:

Mark M Guiberson
University of Wyoming
47 PUBLICATIONS   727 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multicultural Issues in Audiology & SLP View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mark M Guiberson on 12 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Unless otherwise noted, the publisher, which is the American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association (ASHA), holds the copyright on all materials published in
Perspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Populations, both as a compilation and as individual
articles. Please see Rights and Permissions for terms and conditions of use of
Perspectives content: http://journals.asha.org/perspectives/terms.dtl
Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 1–34
April 2013

In This Issue
Coordinator’s Column by Joyce L. Harris ....................................................................... 3–4

Bilingual Myth-Busters Series. Language Confusion in Bilingual Children

by Mark Guiberson ....................................................................................................... 5–14

Bilingual Myth-Busters Series. When Young Children who Stutter are Also Bilingual:
Some Thoughts About Assessment and Treatment by Rosalee C. Shenker ...................... 15–23

Production Accuracy of Six Spanish Speech Synthesis Voices for Single Nonsense
Words by Bruce Wisenburn and Edward Crawley .......................................................... 24–34

1
Bilingual Myth-Busters Series
Language Confusion in Bilingual Children
Mark Guiberson
University of Wyoming, Division of Communication Disorders
Laramie, WY
Disclosure: Financial: Mark Guiberson has no financial relationships to disclose. Nonfinancial:
Guiberson serves as Editor for ASHA Special Interest Group 14’s Perspectives on
Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD)
Populations.
This article is the first in a series that will attempt to deconstruct myths about
bilingualism. Language confusion is the popularly held belief (or myth) that children are
incapable of becoming bilingual without experiencing confusion. The purpose of this article
is to provide an integrative review of relevant research that sheds light on the existence of
language confusion. To better understand bilingual language development, the author
describes theoretical frameworks of bilingualism. Next, the article provides a cursory
review of research that is relevant to the concept of language confusion. Topics include
infant processing skills, bilingual toddlers’ ability to separate and use languages, code-
mixing, bilinguals’ cross-linguistic transfer abilities, and bilingualism in disordered
populations. In conclusion, this integrative literature review revealed no evidence to
support the existence of language confusion in bilingual children. Finally, the author
highlights several research findings and summarizing points that may help providers in
future conversations with families and colleagues when planning assessment,
intervention, and programming for children from linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Commonly held beliefs and myths about bilingualism can be dangerous because they
influence assessment, intervention, and decision-making for children that are at high risk for
academic failure (Espinosa, 2008). In an era of evidence-based practice, there is no reason why
myths should shape decision-making for bilingual children. Nonetheless, these myths persist.
This article will describe the phenomena of language confusion in bilinguals. As a first step, I
provide a working definition of language confusion. Next, I review theories of bilingual language
development. Finally, the article concludes with research findings that contradict the concept
of language confusion, including summarizing points that may assist readers when discussing
language confusion with families and colleagues.

Language Confusion Defined

Defining a popularly held belief or myth can be difficult because the concept may not be
accurately represented in research or scholarly work. The earliest studies available anecdotally
describe bilingual confusion in children who existed in a context that did not value
bilingualism or multiculturalism (as cited in Cummins, 1981). Cummins critically reviewed this
work:
Rather than considering the possibility that the school’s treatment of minority children
might be a cause of their failure, teachers, researchers, and administrators seized on

5
 the obvious scapegoat and blamed the children’s bilingualism. The research findings
were interpreted to mean that there is only so much space or capacity available in our
brains for language; therefore if we divide that space between two languages, neither
will develop properly and intellectual confusion will result. . . . [This] “Scientific”
explanation [indicates that] bilingualism causes confusion in thinking, emotional
insecurity, and school failures. (Cummins, 1981, pp. 21–22)
Parents of bilingual children have also described the phenomenon of language
confusion. In a study of Puerto Rican parents of bilingual children with disabilities, Harry
(1992) describes parents’ beliefs about language confusion.
Parents of children labeled learning disabled focused on the common theme of
“confusion” resulting from the change from Spanish to English, and one parent
specifically charged the method of teaching reading as the source of her daughter’s
difficulties. . . . Parents were adamant regarding the role of language confusion, it was
evident that they did not have a clear idea of exactly how this worked in school. (Harry,
1992, p. 33)
For the purpose of the current article, language confusion is defined as the popularly
held belief that children are incapable of becoming bilingual without becoming confused. The
presumed symptoms of language confusion include difficulty separating first language (L1) and
second language (L2), code-mixing, and poor language outcomes. The language confusion myth
is dangerous because it leads to conversations where parents are advised against exposing
children to a L2 and/or parents are advised against maintaining L1 in order to avoid confusion.

Theories of Bilingual Language Development

Reviewing theoretical frameworks of bilingualism may assist in understanding
arguments for and against the idea of language confusion. Two such frameworks are reviewed
in the following section.
Separate Underlying Proficiency Versus Common Underlying Proficiency
Cummins (1981) describes two models of bilingualism: a separate underlying
proficiency model and a common underlying proficiency model. The separate underlying
proficiency (SUP) model states that L1 and L2 have separate proficiencies and that languages
do not interact with one another. The SUP model also suggests that L1 and L2 are in
competition with one another or have the possibility of taking skills and resources away from
one another. This model can be visualized by imagining that languages are kept in separate
containers in our minds. Individuals who believe in a SUP model of bilingualism are likely to
believe that language confusion occurs as a result of defective or poorly defined language
containers. In contrast, the common underlying proficiency (CUP) model states that
development in any language contributes to general linguistic development regardless of the
language in which it occurs. According to the CUP model, experiences with L1 or L2 promote
proficiency underlying both languages. This model can be visualized by imagining two channels
that feed into a common language container. According to the CUP model, there is positive
interdependence between languages, so language development in any language supports
general language learning.
Cummins reviewed available studies of school-age children from linguistically diverse
backgrounds to establish if there was evidence that supported the SUP or the CUP model (for a
review, see Cummins, 1981). In his review, he examined the relationship between L1, L2, and
achievement skills (e.g., reading, mathematics, and language skills). He considered studies of
bilingual education programs, studies that examined the relationship between age of L2
exposure and L2 achievement skills, and studies that described the impact that language
usage in the home had upon academic achievement. The bilingual education studies showed
that a child’s L1 could be promoted in school at no cost to the development of L2. The studies
that considered age and L2 development showed that older children applied L1 knowledge in

6
acquiring L2 achievement skills, and that having an established L1 was an asset in L2
acquisition, not a liability. The studies that described language usage in the home revealed that
quality of language enrichment provided was more important than which language was used
(i.e., L1 or L2). However, Cummins cautions that encouraging parents who are not fluent in a
L2 to communicate in that language with their children will result in a poor communication
model and may result in interactions that are less than natural. Based on his review of the
literature, Cummins found evidence that supported the CUP model of bilingualism, but he did
not find evidence to support the SUP model of bilingualism. These findings led to Cummin’s
Interdependence Hypothesis, which states that linguistic skills learned in a given language (Lx)
will result in a transfer of linguistic skills to another language (Ly) when there is adequate
support for Ly. This hypothesis indicates that cross-linguistic transfer is possible and that, in a
supportive environment, skills learned in a given language can be carried over to another
language.
Interactional Dual Systems Model
Another model of bilingual language development is the interactional dual systems (IDS)
model, which states that there are two language systems (LI, L2) in bilinguals that interact with
one another (Paradis, 2001). This model allows for the idea that children may use resources
from L1 or L2 during language learning, while at the same time, the L1 and L2 systems
maintain adequate separation for language-specific elements. In other words, the L1 and L2
systems communicate when it is helpful but they are also well delineated and defined. This
model can be visualized by imagining a container with individual chambers that share a
common wall with a sliding door that allows for the passage of information across chambers.
Evidence that supports the IDS model has been described in studies of phonology, vocabulary,
and grammatical development in bilingual children, including children with language disorders
(for a review, see Goldstein, 2006). This evidence challenges the belief that children will
experience language confusion by showing that bilingual children, even those with language
disorders, have the capacity of developing well-defined L1 and L2 systems that interact and
exist in a symbiotic fashion.

Research-Based Findings That Refute Language Confusion

Having established a theoretical framework that explains how languages exist within
bilinguals, the following sections of this article will present research findings that may assist in
dispelling the myth of language confusion. Five distinct research findings are described: (a)
infant processing skills, (b) toddlers’ abilities to handle languages, (c) code-mixing, (d) cross-
linguistic transfer, and (e) bilingualism in populations with communication disorders.
Infant Processing Skills
Infant processing of speech is important to the current discussion because the ability or
inability of infants to handle speech codes from two languages may shed light on the bilingual
infant’s innate categorization ability or confusion when exposed to two languages. In this
section, I provide a cursory review of infant processing skills; for a more thorough review on
this research, see Barbara Conboy’s description of language processing in infants and toddlers
(Conboy, 2012). Over the past three decades, studies of infants’ processing skills have
employed a variety of innovative techniques (e.g., heart rate, high amplitude suck, event-related
potentials, functional near-infrared spectroscopy, and infant gaze or looking behaviors). Many
of these studies have examined infants’ responses to native language and foreign language
phonemes and other speech stimuli. This research has shown that even prior to birth, fetuses
respond differently to intonation and rhythmic patterns in foreign languages (Kisilevsky et al.,
2009). It appears that humans are born with the capacity to categorize speech sounds, even
those that do not occur in their linguistic environment, but that by 11 months, infants
generally begin to “tune out” phonemes that are not native to their language environment
(Kuhl, 2004). Studies of bilingual infants show that, generally speaking, bilingual infants

7
demonstrate phonetic categorization skills that are similar to monolingual infants, but also are
more highly developed or flexible because they handle two codes.
Children begin life with mechanisms for finding patterns in their input languages, and
develop strategies for language learning based on the statistical distributions of speech
sounds, rhythmic patterns, and other properties of their languages. . . . Infants learning
two languages in infancy possess basic mechanisms for keeping those languages
separate, given that they learn which phonological and grammatical cues are relevant
for each language. The ability to differentiate languages is present early in infancy.
(Conboy, 2012, pp. 50–65)
This ability of bilingual infants to adequately categorize L1 and L2 phonemes during the
first year of life may indicate that humans are innately wired to handle two or more languages.
At the very least, these findings suggest that as early as infancy, language learning and
cognitive systems can handle more than one language without confusion.
Bilingual Toddlers’ Abilities to Separate and Use L1 and L2
If language confusion exists, we would expect it to be evident early in development, as
young bilingual children begin to speak. Bilingual children likely would confuse which
language to use with speakers who are monolingual in the child’s LI or L2. However, if young
bilingual children adequately separate and use their languages appropriately with monolingual
L1 and L2 speakers, there is less evidence for language confusion. Several studies have
described the ability of bilingual children to separate and use their languages (for a review, see
Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2011). In a study that included children and their parents,
researchers found that children were able to differentiate and use their two languages
appropriately with each parent, using French with their French-speaking parent and English
with their English-speaking parent. These results may have been influenced by socialization
and routine language practices in the home. To account for this, the researchers completed a
second study with four children. In this study, the children were introduced to an unfamiliar
monolingual conversational partner who spoke the child’s non-dominant language in order to
determine if children could adequately differentiate which language to employ. Three of the four
children adjusted their language behavior by speaking the unfamiliar partner’s language more
frequently than the other language, even though the children were more proficient in the other
language and had been engaged in the other language with their parent. These findings
indicate that toddler-age children are capable of differentiating and using their languages
appropriately in different contexts without experiencing language confusion.
Code-Mixing: A Normal Bilingual Behavior
Studies of code-mixing also provide evidence against the idea of language confusion.
Code-mixing is the alternate usage of L1 and L2 within an utterance or phrase, and may involve
the alternate use of phonological, lexical, mophosyntactic, or pragmatic patterns from each
language. Code-mixing is often a source of concern and misunderstanding (Paradis et al.,
2011), with some researchers claiming that code-mixing is an indicator of language deficiency,
inadequacy, or deviancy (Cheng & Butler, 1989; Fernandez, 1990; Poplack, 1980). The fact that
bilingual 2-year-olds frequently produce utterances that include code-mixing has also been
cited as evidence that these children are struggling to differentiate their two languages
(Redlinger & Park, 1980; Vihman, 1986; see also Petitto & Holowka, 2002). This argument has
been challenged by a number of researchers and is summarized by Petitto and Holowka below.
Young bilinguals’ language mixing exhibits highly regular grammatical patterns and is
directly influenced by sociolinguistic environmental factors (e.g., the child’s sensitivity
to the addressee’s language, the amount of parental language mixing) . . . (these)
findings do not support the proposal that young bilingual children are linguistically
confused. . . . Language mixing does not reflect confusion but instead demonstrates the
bilingual children’s distinct representations of their two input languages from an early
age. (Petitto & Holowka, 2002, p. 8)

8
 Other research has also substantiated the finding that code-mixing is not a sign of
linguistic deficit, and suggests instead that this behavior is sophisticated, rule-governed, and
observed in both adults and children (Ardila, 2005; Backus, 1999; Brice & Anderson, 1999;
Guiberson, Barrett, Jancosek, & Yoshinaga-Itano, 2006; Paradis, 2012; Paradis et al., 2011;
Patterson, 1999; Toribio, 2004). Furthermore, code-mixing is natural, and most bilinguals
code-mix. Code-mixing is seen across levels of L1 and L2 proficiency, and even fluent L1 and
L2 speakers code-mix. Overall, this body of research suggests that code-mixing does not
indicate language confusion; rather, it’s a normal bilingual behavior.
Cross-Linguistic Transfer
Cross-linguistic transfer is “the influence resulting from similarities and differences
between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps
imperfectly) acquired” (Odlin, 1989, p. 27). Cross-linguistic transfer occurs when bilinguals
have access to and use linguistic resources from their L1 to support their L2 or vice versa.
Cross-linguistic transfer is bidirectional, with both forward transfer (from L1 to L2) and
backward transfer (from L2 to L1) possible. Cross-linguistic transfer is important in the current
conversation because it indicates that bilinguals are capable of not only adequately separating
and organizing two languages, but they also are capable of coordinating the transfer of
knowledge from one language to the other. Cross-linguistic transfer also provides evidence for
the interdependence hypothesis and the interactional dual systems model discussed above.
There is a growing body of research describing cross-linguistic transfer in bilinguals; a
few of these studies are highlighted here. In a study that included over one thousand young
Spanish-speaking kindergartners, researchers found evidence that supported the cross-
linguistic transfer of early literacy skills (letter name and sound, as well as phonological
awareness) across Spanish and English (Cárdenas-Hagan, Carlson, & Pollard-Durodola, 2007).
In a study of 123 Spanish-English bilingual preschool children, Dickinson and colleagues
observed cross-linguistic transfer of phonological awareness skills (Dickinson, McCabe, Clark-
Chairelli, & Wolf, 2004). Researchers have also documented the cross-linguistic transfer of
syntactic structures. For example, Paradis and Navarro (2003) observed increased use of overt
subject use in two Spanish-English–speaking children when compared to a Spanish
monolingual peer. Additional studies of Spanish-English bilingual children have documented
the cross-linguistic transfer of syntactic structures and grammaticality observed during
narrative tasks (Fiestas & Peña, 2004; Peña & Bedore, 2009). Similarly, in a study of over 200
elementary school–age children, Pearson (2002) also found evidence of cross-linguistic transfer
of syntax and narrative skills in bilingual children. Other studies have documented cross-
linguistic transfer of literacy development, including the skills of print awareness, decoding,
writing conventions, story grammar, and reading comprehension (for a review, see Durgunoglu,
2002). Viewed together, studies of cross-linguistic transfer suggest that bilingual children are
capable of the complex task of coordinating and exchanging information across languages.
These findings do not support the claim that bilingual children are confused by learning two
languages.
Bilingualism in Children With Disabilities
Families and interventionists may be especially concerned about language confusion
when making decisions about raising children with disabilities in a bilingual context. The
rationale for minimizing bilingual exposure for children with disabilities may be that these
children will have language-learning challenges as part of their disabilities, and adding another
language may tax their language-learning systems and result in lower skills across the two
languages. There is a growing body of research indicating that children with a wide range of
communication disorders are capable of becoming bilingual. For example, studies have shown
that children with developmental language disorders (DLD) are capable of learning two
languages when provided with sufficient opportunities to learn each language (Kohnert, 2008;
Paradis et al., 2011). Specific characteristics of DLD vary across languages, but children with
DLD generally demonstrate inefficiency in language-related tasks in both of their languages

9
(Kohnert, 2008). Children with a range of speech sound disorders (SSD) are also capable of
developing bilingually (Gildersleeve-Neumann & Goldstein, 2012; Goldstein & Gildersleeve-
Neumann, 2012). Children with SSD may benefit when parents and instructors plan for cross-
linguistic transfer and select targets for speech treatment that reflect shared phonological
aspects of the two languages (Yavas & Goldstein, 1998). Studies of children who are deaf/hard
of hearing (DHH) have also revealed that this population is capable of developing spoken
language skills in more than one language (Guiberson, 2005, 2012; McConkey Robbins, Green,
& Waltzman, 2004; Teschendorf, Arweiler-Harbeck, & Bagus, 2010; Waltzman, McConkey
Robbins, Green, & Cohen, 2003; Yim, 2011). Similar to what is observed in typically developing
bilingual children, variability in spoken language (L1 and L2) outcomes in children who are
DHH is related to the quantity and quality of exposure to each language. Additionally, studies
of bilingual children who stutter have revealed that bilingualism does not aggravate stuttering
and that treatment does not take longer with bilingual children (Shenker, 2013, in this issue).
The research discussed thus far has included children with normal cognition. Recent
research has demonstrated that children with disordered cognitive and social development can
also develop bilingual language skills. For example, studies have shown that children with
Down syndrome are capable of becoming bilingual, and their language outcomes in their L1 are
comparable to language outcomes seen in monolingual individuals with Down syndrome
(Feltmate & Kay-Raining Bird, 2008; Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2005; Trudeau, Kay-Raining Bird,
Sutton, & Cleave, 2011). Recent work has shown that bilingual children with Down syndrome
may also employ cross-linguistic transfer, using syntactic bootstrapping during fast mapping
tasks (Kay-Raining Bird, 2012). These results suggest that bilingual children with Down
syndrome may have a metalinguistic advantage over monolingual children with Down
syndrome. In addition, two recent studies have compared the language abilities of bilingual
children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) with those of monolingual children with ASD.
In the first study, children with ASD from bilingual backgrounds had L1 vocabulary skills that
were comparable to those of a monolingual ASD comparison group (Petersen, Marinova-Todd,
& Mirenda, 2012). The second study found that bilingual children with ASD had similar
linguistic milestones (first word and first sentence) and Autism Diagnostic Observation
Schedule scores that were not significantly different than monolingual peers with ASD (Ohashi
et al., 2012). These studies indicate that even with cognitive and social impairments, children
are capable of developing bilingually, with outcomes similar to those of matched monolingual
peers. In summary, all children with communication disorders will have challenges in
developing their communication skills, but this does not mean that these children are not
capable of developing a second, or third, language, nor does this mean that children with
disabilities will experience language confusion if raised bilingually.

Conclusions
Professional competence in providing speech-language and hearing services requires
cultural competence (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], 2011a). This
means that professionals must be knowledgeable about and responsive to cultural and
linguistic characteristics of an increasingly diverse U.S. population. This is not a lofty goal—
rather, it is an ethical and professional duty: “It is the ethical duty of professionals to provide
services with careful and respectful consideration and incorporation of the cultural and
linguistic variables that have an impact on service delivery and efficacy” (ASHA, 2011b). It is
the professional’s responsibility to be knowledgeable about normal bilingual development,
disorders in bilingual populations, myths associated with linguistically diverse populations,
and best practices to employ with these populations. Commonly held beliefs and myths about
bilingualism can have a strong influence on assessment, intervention, and decision-making
processes (Espinosa, 2008). Well-intentioned adults may cite the risk of language confusion as
justification to restricting a child’s linguistic input or usage to the dominant culture language
(L2). Eliminating a child’s L1 comes at a great expense, and may result in exposure to poor

10
language models, decreased child-directed speech from care providers, difficulty in family
cohesion and parenting, and disabling families from passing on their culture and values
(Baker, 2000; Luo & Wiseman, 2000; Sridhar, 1988; Tabors, 2008; Wong Fillmore, 1991).
This integrative literature review revealed no evidence to support the existence of
language confusion in bilingual children. Several research findings assist in deconstructing the
myth of language confusion, including the following:
1. Infants have the ability to differentiate languages, and bilingual infants possess
basic mechanisms for keeping languages separate.
2. Bilingual toddlers adequately separate and appropriately use their languages with
monolingual conversational partners.
3. Code-mixing is a normal bilingual behavior and is not associated with deficiency.
4. Bilingual children are capable of applying metalinguistic or cross-linguistic transfer
skills that allow the transfer of linguistic skills from one language to another.
5. Children with a wide range of communication disorders are capable of becoming
bilingual.
A growing body of research also describes the bilingual abilities of children with a wide
range of communication disorders. The following summarizing points were developed by
Kohnert to help understand bilingual children with language disorders, but also can be applied
to a broader range of children with communication disorders (Kohnert, 2008, pp. 105–106):
1. Bilingualism does not cause communication disorder, and prescribing
monolingualism will not cure it.
2. Children with communication disorders are capable of learning two languages.
3. L1 and L2 proficiency (or skill level) will depend upon the exposure to and support
for each of these languages.
4. Bilingual children with communication disorders need two languages to be
successful communicators in their environments and communities.
Many readers may be familiar with the research reviewed in this article. It is hoped that
this article provides readers with research-based findings that can be shared in future
conversations with families and colleagues who may suspect that learning two languages is too
much for children to handle.
Comments/questions about this article? Visit the SIG 14 ASHA Community and join the
discussion!

References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2011a). Cultural competence in professional service
delivery [Position Statement]. Available from www.asha.org/policy
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2011b). Cultural competence in professional service
delivery [Professional Issues Statement]. Available from www.asha.org/policy
Ardila, A. (2005). Spanglish: An Anglicized Spanish dialect. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27(1),
60–81.
Backus, A. (1999). Mixed native languages: A challenge to the monolithic view of language. Topics in
Language Disorders, 19(4), 11–22.
Baker, C. (2000). A parent’s and teachers’ guide to bilingualism. Toronto, Canada: Multilingual Matters.
Brice, A., & Anderson, R. (1999). Code mixing in a young bilingual child. Communication Disorders
Quarterly, 21(1), 17–22.
Cárdenas-Hagan, E., Carlson, C. D., & Pollard-Durodola, S. D. (2007). The cross-linguistic transfer of
early literacy skills: The role of initial L1 and L2 skills and language of instruction. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 38(3), 249.

11
Cheng, L. R., & Butler, K. (1989). Code-switching: A natural phenomenon vs language ‘deficiency.’ World
Englishes, 8(3), 293–309.
Conboy, B. T. (2012). Language processing and production in infants and toddlers. In B. A. Goldstein
(Ed), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (2nd ed., pp. 47–71).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for
language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language
minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles, CA: National Dissemination and
Assessment Center.
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Clark-Chiarelli, N., & Wolf, A. (2004). Cross-language transfer of
phonological awareness in low-income Spanish and English bilingual preschool children. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 25(3), 323–347.
Durgunoglu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language
learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 52(1), 189–204.
Espinosa, L. M. (2008). Challenging common myths about young English language learners. Foundation for
Child Development Policy Brief 8. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from http://fcd-
us.org/resources/challenging-common-myths-about-young-english-language-learners
Feltmate, K., & Kay-Raining Bird, E. (2008). Language learning in four bilingual children with DS: A
detailed analysis of vocabulary and morphosyntax. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and
Audiology, 32, 6–20.
Fernandez, R. (1990). Actitudes hacia los cambios de codigos en Nuevo Mexico: Reaciones de un sujeto a
ejemplos de su habla [Attitudes towards code-mixing in New Mexico: A subject’s reactions to examples of
his speech]. In J. Bergen (Ed.), Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic issues (pp. 49–58).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Fiestas, C. E., & Peña, E. D. (2004). Narrative discourse in bilingual children: Language and task effects.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35(2), 155–168.
Gildersleeve-Neumann, C. E., & Goldstein, B. A. (2012). Intervention for multilingual children with speech
sound disorders. In S. McLeod and B. A. Goldstein (Eds.), Multilingual aspects of speech sound disorders
in children. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Goldstein, B. A. (2006). Clinical implications of research on language development and disorders in
bilingual children. Topics in Language Disorders, 26, 305–321.
Goldstein, B. A., & Gildersleeve-Neumann, C. E. (2012). Phonological development and disorders. In B. A.
Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (2nd ed., pp.
285–309). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Guiberson, M. (2005). Children with cochlear implants from bilingual families: Considerations for
intervention and a case study. The Volta Review, 105(1), 29–39.
Guiberson, M. (2012, November 28). Survey of Spanish parents of children who are deaf or hard of
hearing: Decision making factors associated with communication modality and bilingualism. American
Journal of Audiology. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/12-0042)
Guiberson, M., Barrett, K. C., Jancosek, E. G., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2006). Language maintenance and
loss in young preschool age children of Mexican immigrants: Longitudinal study. Communication
Disorders Quarterly, 28, 4–14.
Harry, B. (1992). Developing cultural self-awareness: The first step in values clarification for early
interventionists. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12(3), 333–350.
Kay-Raining Bird, E. (2012, November). Bilingual children with significant communication disorders: From
research to practice. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association, Atlanta, GA.
Kay-Raining Bird, E., Cleave, P. L., Trudeau, N., Thordardottir, E., Sutton, A., & Thorpe, A. (2005). The
language abilities of bilingual children with DS. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 187–
199.

12
Kisilevsky, B. S., Hains, S. M. J., Brown, C. A., Lee, C. T., Cowperthwaite, B., Stutzman, S. S., . . . Wang,
Z. (2009). Fetal sensitivity to properties of maternal speech and language. Infant Behavior & Development,
32, 59–71.
Kohnert, K. (2008). Language disorders in bilingual children and adults. San Diego, CA: Plural.
Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
5(11), 831–841.
Luo, S. H., & Wiseman, R.L. (2000). Ethnic language maintenance among Chinese immigrant children in
the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 307–324.
McConky Robbins, A., Green, J. E., & Waltzman, S. B. (2004). Bilingual oral language proficiency in
children with cochlear implants. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 130(5), 644–647.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ohashi, J. K., Mirenda, P., Marinova-Todd, S., Hambly, C., Fombonne, E., Szatmari, P., . . . Thompson, A.
(2012). Comparing early language development in monolingual- and bilingual-exposed young children
with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6(2), 890–897.
Paradis, J. (2001). Do bilingual children have separate phonological systems? International Journal of
Bilingualism, 5, 19–38.
Paradis, J. (2012). Crosslinguistic influence and code-switching. In B. A. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual
language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (2nd ed., pp. 73–91). Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes.
Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. B. (2011). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook
on bilingualism and second language learning (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Paradis, J., & Navarro, S. (2003). Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual
acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of the input? Journal of Child Language, 30(2), 371–
393.
Patterson, J. L. (1999). What bilingual toddlers hear and say: Language input and word combinations.
Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21, 32–38.
Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Narrative competence in bilingual school children in Miami. In D. K. Oller & R. E.
Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy development in bilingual children (pp. 135–174). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Peña, E. D., & Bedore, L. M. (2009). Bilingualism in child language disorders. In R. G. Schwartz,
Handbook of child language disorders (pp. 270–305). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Petersen, J. M., Marinova-Todd, S. H., & Mirenda, P. (2012). Brief report: An exploratory study of lexical
skills in bilingual children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 42(7), 1499–1503.
Petitto, L. A., & Holowka, S. (2002). Evaluating attributions of delay and confusion in young bilinguals:
Special insights from infants acquiring a signed and a spoken language. Sign Language Studies, 3(1), 4–
33.
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en espanol: Towards a typology of
code-switching. In J. Amastae & L. Elias-Olivares (Eds.), Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic
aspects (pp. 230–263). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Redlinger, W. E., & Park, T. Z. (1980). Language mixing in young bilinguals. Journal of child language,
7(2), 337–352.
Shenker, R. (2013). Myth-busters series: When young children who stutter are also bilingual: Some
thoughts about assessment and treatment. Perspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Populations, 20, 15–23.
Sridhar, K. K. (1988). Language maintenance and language shift among Asian-Indians: Kannadigas in the
New York area. International Journal of Social Language, 69, 73–87.
Tabors, P. O. (2008). One child, two languages: A guide for preschool educators of children learning
English as a second language (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

13
 Teschendorf, M., Arweiler-Harbeck, D., & Bagus, H. (2010). Speech development after cochlear
implantation in children with bilingual parents. Cochlear Implants International, 11(1), 386–389.
Toribio, A. J. (2004). Convergence as an optimization strategy in bilingual speech: Evidence from code-
switching. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 7(2), 165–173.
Trudeau, N., Kay-Raining Bird, E., Sutton, A., & Cleave, P. (2011). Développement lexical chez les enfants
bilingues ayant le syndrome de Down. Enfance, 2011(3), 383–404.
Vihman, M. M. (1986). More on language differentiation. Journal of child language, 13(3), 595–597.
Waltzman, S. B., McConkey Robbins, A., Green, J. E., & Cohen, N. L. (2003). Second oral language
capabilities in children with cochlear implants. Otology & Neurotology, 24(5), 757–763.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 6, 323–346.
Yavas, M., & Goldstein, B. (1998). Phonological assessment and treatment of bilingual speakers. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7(2), 49.
Yim, D. (2011). Spanish and English language performance in bilingual children with cochlear implants.
Otology & Neurotology, 33(1), 20–25.

14

View publication stats