Language Diversity in Students with Special Education Needs

J. S. de ValenzuelaSherry L. Niccolai

• Defining Language• Language Development• Second Language Development• What Does This Mean for Students With Exceptionalities?• Implications for Educators• SummaryObjectivesTo emphasize the importance of understanding language development in bilingual childrenTo define basic concepts of languageTo overview language development as a general processTo define second language developmentTo compare and contrast the processes of first and second language developmentTo examine several well-know models of second language developmentTo discuss current controversies in second language developmentTo deconstruct common fallacies about the language development of bilingual children with exceptionalities

Understanding the process of language development is crucial to the appropriate education and assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse(CLD) students. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a framework for considering the unique aspects of language development of bilingualchildren. This will hopefully lead educators to consider how bilingualism can affect the academic performance and assessment of bilingualstudents and how it plays a part in the education of CLD students with exceptionalities.In this chapter, language development is used as a central concept, rather than second language development. This is done so with the intent ofshifting the focus from examining how English is acquired to a more general examination of how bilingual students acquire language. There areseveral reasons for this shift in focus: (1) many bilingual students in this country begin the process of developing English at a very young age andtheir language development can most accurately be called "bilingual"; (2) understanding the effects of second language development on firstlanguage development can help us understand where students are in terms of their overall language competence; and (3) incorrect assumptionsabout students' native language competence and development can lead to unnecessary referrals and inappropriate assessment procedures. Wecannot simply talk about the development of English as a second language without considering the general process of language developmentfor bilingual students.There are many popular misconceptions about bilingualism, language development, and bilingual students. Some people erroneously believe thatstudents with disabilities cannot learn two (or more) languages. Others believe that encouraging the parents of CLD students, students with andwithout disabilities, to speak with their children at home in English is in the best interests of the students. Another common fallacy is thatacquiring more than one language is difficult and can lead to academic problems. Finally, some people, teachers included, have been heard tosuggest that their bilingual students don't speak any language to a real extent and are "semilingual." We will return to these myths at the end ofthis chapter. By then, the intervening information will have provided you with enough understanding about the normal process of languagedevelopment that the faulty logic of these beliefs should be obvious.Regardless of whether the preceding assumptions lack grounding, they are very common and can influence how educators assess and educateCLD students. Without understanding how language development works, the belief in these fallacies is understandable. Therefore, educatorsworking with bilingual students must understand the language development process in order to effectively implement appropriate assessment andselect effective instructional strategies.DEFINING LANGUAGELanguage Is a Dynamic ConstructWhat is language? The answer to this question is both extremely simple and extremely complex. Although we all know what it is, we may have ahard time defining it exactly. In simple terms, we can say that language is one of the most important means we have to communicate with oneanother. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (1989) defines language in the following ways:.The body of words and systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or thesame cultural tradition.The system of linguistic signs or symbols considered in the abstract (as opposed to speech).Any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicateintelligibly with one another.Any system of formalized symbols, signs, gestures, or the like, used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.These definitions convey several important concepts, that language is systematic (rule governed), symbolic, abstract, culturally relevant, andsocial. We also can say that language is a dynamic construct, because it means different things to different people and in different con- texts, andbecause it is ever changing, both in terms of individual language and as a generic concept. These definitions recognize that the word school inEnglish means "a place where children go to learn" only because our community has agreed that this is what it means. There is no inherentrelationship between this particular group of sounds and the concept "school." Rather, the relationship is socially agreed upon.Language is also culturally defined. School means "school" because of how our culture defines what the institution of schooling is.Although individuals from other cultures may understand in general the use of the term school, they may not have the same culturalunderstandings about school that Americans do. For example, school in the United States conveys the idea of a particular age group, youngchildren through adolescents. However, in other countries, not all children are expected to participate in "schooling" nor is "school" restricted to aparticular age group. A "third grader" might be an adult who simply had not completed this grade earlier in life. The term school also conveysideas about particular behaviors and activities that can vary from culture to culture. Just as our cultural background influences our behaviors andbeliefs, it also shapes how we use language.Different Ways of Looking at LanguageWhen we talk about language, we can talk about it in different ways. As described previously, we can discuss the social and cultural componentsof language. More commonly, when we think about language development in schools, we think about the form of language. We can also talkabout the content of language and about language use. Children are socialized to use language in ways that are deemed appropriate in their cultureand home community. The language that a child has been socialized to use may be very different from the language used in the schoolenvironment. For example, within different cultural groups there are different expectations for how, when, and where children speak to adults.Direct questioning of adults by children may be permitted, indeed encouraged, in some communities, and strongly discouraged in others. Thesedifferences extend to nonverbal communication, such as eye contact, as well. Without understanding how culturally and linguistically diversechildren have been socialized to use language, educators who are not from their students' speech community may misidentify a language

We use terms such as syntax, morphology, and phonology when we talk about linguistic form. Syntax and morphology refer to the grammaticalsystem of a language. Syntax governs the use of different word classes (such as nouns and verbs) and how these words are combined intointelligible and grammatical sentences. Morphology refers to the rule system that governs how words are put together from smaller grammaticalparts, such as root words, prefixes, and suffixes. We refer to the internalized rule system for putting together sounds as our phonological system.For example, the phonological system of English prohibits certain types of consonant clusters in the beginning of words, which makes it difficultfor native English speakers to correctly pronounce the names of the following cities: Mbandake (Zaire); Mtwara (Tanzania); and Mpika, Mzimba,and Shiwa Ngandu (Zimbabwe). This is because the phonological system of English excludes these consonant clusters at the beginning of words.These rules also govern whether the plural -s sounds like an "s" (as in "cats") or a "z" (as in "dogs"). No one consciously learns the rules ofphonology, morphology, and syntax in their native language. In fact, most people would be hard pressed to explain why they form words andsentences in the way they do-most of our knowledge about language is unconscious.We can also talk about the content of language. When we talk about word meanings, we are talking about semantics. Semantics refers to morethan just vocabulary knowledge, or the meaning of words. Semantics also refers to the function of words. Understanding how words function isvery important in child language re- search, because many times one word will assume many functions, depending on the context. An example is"daddy go," which could mean a variety of different things. In one instance, it could mean "daddy isn't here." In another context it could be acommand from a child for daddy to go somewhere.More recently, people have also started talking about language use, or pragmatics. This area is concerned with the multitude of ways that peoplecan say things and how this varies in different situations. Pragmatics involves language form and content, as well as other facets of language, suchas intonation, hesitancies, pauses, loudness, and rate. Speakers should be able to switch styles of speech according to different communicativecontexts. An analysis of language use will identify how well speakers can accommodate their speech production to different contexts. Forexample, the way students address their peers is most likely very different from how they would greet the school principal. Pragmatic languageskills are acquired along with knowledge and use of syntax, morphology, phonology, and semantics. Children learn very quickly the language userules of their community and dialect, although, as with any linguistic ability, full competence takes a matter of years to develop. It is essential toremember that pragmatics, like other aspects of language, varies from one language to another. For example, students of English as a SecondLanguage may bring assumptions about certain aspects of language use from their first language, such as loudness, intonation, or turn taking, thatmay not be the same in English.Important Concepts in LinguisticsLinguistics provides us with a framework for understanding language in a variety of contexts: historically, cross-culturally, developmentally, andtheoretically, to name just a few. Regardless of the different ways that we can talk about language, there are a few basic concepts that mostlanguage specialists hold in common. These concepts are (1) commonalities among all living languages, called linguistic universals; (2) theunderstanding that no one language variety is intrinsically better than another; (3) the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammars;(4) the difference between linguistic competence and performance; and (5) the difference between language performance and languagecompetence.Linguistic Universals. Linguists have developed over the years a set of linguistic universals- facts that are believed to pertain to all languages. Thefollowing are from Fromkin and Rodman's (1988) introductory text on linguistics:1. Wherever humans exist, language exists.2. There are no "primitive" languages all languages are equally complex and equally capable of expressing any idea in the universe. The vocabulary of anylanguage can be expanded to include new words for new concepts.3. All languages change through time.4. The relationships between the sounds and meanings of spoken languages and between the gestures (signs) and meanings of sign languages are for the most partarbitrary.5. All human languages utilize a finite set of discrete sounds (or gestures) that are combined to form meaningful elements or words, which themselves form aninfinite set of possible sentences.6. All grammars contain rules for the formation of words and sentences of a similar kind.7. Every spoken language includes discrete sound segments like p, n, or a, which can all be defined by a finite set of sound properties or features. Every spokenlanguage has a class of vowels an a class of consonants.8. Similar grammatical categories (for example, noun, verb) are found in all languages.9. There are semantic universals, such as “male” or “Female,” “animate” or human,” found in every language in the world.10. Every language has a way of referring to past time, negating, forming questions, issuing commands, and so on.11. Speakers of all languages are capable of producing and comprehending an infinite set of sentences. Syntactic universals reveal that every language has a wayof forming sentences such as”• Linguistics is an interesting subject• I know that linguistics is an interesting subject.• You know that I know that linguistics is an interesting subject.• Cecilia knows that you know that I know that linguistics is an interesting subject.• Is it a fact that Cecilia knows that you know that I know that linguistics is an interesting subject?12. Any normal child, born anywhere in the world, of any racial, geographical, social, or economic heritage, is capable of learning any language to which he or sheis exposed. The differences we find among languages cannot be due to biological reasons. (pp. 18-19).Language VariationIs the English spoken by university professors and news anchors on nationally televised broadcasts inherently better than that spoken by blue-

production might actually have a much higher level of language comprehension. Students may understand a grammatical form or vocabulary itemeven though they do not or cannot use it independently in speech. As mentioned earlier, this can be the result of a physical disability that impedesfluent oral language. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes second language learners undergo a common and normal process that istermed a "silent period." This is a period of time during which students produce little or no spontaneous oral language for communication withothers. During this time, which can vary from days to months, students may understand more of what they hear than they are able to demonstratethrough their speech. Conversely, young children and second language learners may sometimes produce words or phrases that they have heardwithout evidence of real comprehension. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is a common example of this. Research indicates that repetition (eitherimmediately or at a later time) of overheard utterances, even without comprehension and in inappropriate contexts, can be a strategy used bychildren in the process of learning a second language (Hakuta, 1986; Saville- Troike, 1988). So we can see that differences between languagecomprehension and language production are normal phenomena in language development. Therefore, we must be careful not to assume thatstudents who have limited oral language output- whether because of a disability or because they are in the beginning stages of English languagedevelopment-also have equally limited comprehension. And additionally, we must not assume that students' comprehension is identical to theirlanguage production. Either one of these erroneous assumptions might lead us to look for language disorders when none really exists.LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENTTheories of LanguageDevelopmentWhy do we study language development? Depending on the orientation of the researcher, the study of language development can be eitherimportant in and of itself or as a mechanism for understanding other areas of research such as theoretical linguistics, cognitive psychology,neuroscience, or child development. Some want to know what the process of first and second language development tells us about humandevelopment, learning, and organization of the brain. Others want to know about language development so they can make recommendations abouteducational programs. Regardless of their focus, all of these researchers must take a position on some fundamental arguments about thedevelopment of language and its relationship to other mental functions.Linguistic theory can be divided into several main camps depending on (1) whether language is viewed as either separate from or as an outgrowthof cognition; (2) whether language development is believed to be directed by a pre- programmed, language-specific area of the brain or whether itis guided primarily by experiential factors; and (3) the extent to which interaction between children and their social partners figures in theories oflanguage development. Noam Chomsky (1965) addressed the first two of these issues when he proposed that human brains are "hardwired" forlanguage development via what has come to be called the Language Development Device, or LDD. This is considered a nativist theoreticalposition. Nativists argue that "children are born with innate knowledge which guides them in the language acquisition task" (Crain & Lillo-Martin,1999, p. 4). The development of Chomsky's theory was in direct opposition to B. F. Skinner's ideas about the development of language asimitation shaped by behavioral reinforcement received from a child's environment (Skinner, 1957). Chomsky demonstrated that the languageavailable in a child's environment is far too complex and the reinforcement (i.e., praise) far too inconsistent to account for a behavioral model oflanguage development. Although the extent to which grammatical structures are specifically preprogrammed in the human brain is still hotlydebated (Bohannon & Bonvillian, 1997; Bowerman, 1994), most child language specialists today agree that, at least to some extent, the humanbrain is predisposed to (1) attend differentially to language input, (2) process that input according to some preset principles, and (3) formulateunconscious rules for language comprehension and production.This perspective of language as biologically driven has traditionally been considered diametrically opposed to sociocultural perspectives thatrecognize the role of the environment in shaping language development. However, many child language researchers are coming to the conclusionthat this does not necessarily need to be the case. Some have come to take the position that "it is perfectly consistent to believe that, while much oflanguage development is governed by the operation of powerful innate principles, some important aspects of early language development aresignificantly influenced by the child's language experience" (Harris, 1992, p. XI). These researchers, while acknowledging the existence of thebiological basis for language development, also recognize that "interpretation and meaning are necessarily embedded in cultural systems ofunderstanding. If language is a meaning-making system and speaking and listening are meaning-making activities, then accounts of thesephenomena must at some point draw on accounts of society and culture" (Ochs, 1988, p. 4). Schieffelin and Ochs (1986) refer to the process oflanguage development in the sociocultural context as "language socialization." Ochs (1988) defines socialization as "the process by which onebecomes a competent member of society" (p. 5) and language socialization as "socialization through language and socialization to use language"(p. 14). This perspective recognizes that linguistic competence involves much more than the ability to comprehend and produce grammaticallycorrect utterances. Language competence involves the ability to select between a variety of possible options of linguistic form and contentaccording to the social context and cultural norms, as well as to interpret subtle meanings that require extensive social and cultural knowledge. Anexample is knowing when "Would you like to sit down?" becomes an indirect command, a real question, or a sarcastic comment on inappropriatebehavior. The study of second language development clearly fits within the preceding theoretical de- bate. Understanding how second languagelearners best acquire a new language may shed more information about the relative influence of cognition, language-specific brain functions, andenvironmental influences. Unlike the process of first language development in young children, the process of second language development canbe observed under a variety of circumstances. The relative influences of age, personality, social context, type of language input, and other factorscan be better isolated and explored. This information can, in turn, in- form our understanding of how language development as a generic processunfolds.The Process of FirstLanguage DevelopmentIt is a remarkable fact that, without special training or carefully sequenced linguistic input, every normal child acquires a natural language. The universality oflanguage in our species stands in glaring contrast to the much more selective attainment of comparable cognitive skills, such as the ability to perform arithmeticcalculations. A related fact is that every child in a linguistic community succeeds in converging on a grammatical system that is equivalent to everyone else's,despite considerable variability in linguistic experience. Moreover, children acquire language quite rapidly and with few wrong turns, considering the number of

Precursors to Language Production Language development is indeed a remarkable process. Children acquire the language(s) heard aroundthem and seem to do so in strikingly similar ways the world over. This process is even more remarkable when we consider what children mustknow and be able to do to produce their first word, for example, "mama." To answer this question, we need to distinguish between the real use ofa word for communicative purposes and the imitation of a string of sounds. It is easy for first-time parents, eagerly anticipating Joey's first word,to interpret /mama/ as mother and /dada/ for daddy when the child is really just engaging in babbling or sound play. In order to call /mama/ or/dada/ a word, it should occur in consistent contexts spontaneously (without imitation) and appear to indicate a communicative intent. Clearly, thiscan be difficult to determine. However, if Joey says /dada/ when repeating sounds made during play with his mother and produces this consonantvowelcombination along with others, such as /baba/, /gaga/, and /dadada/, then we can probably suspect that it is not a real word. On the otherhand, if Joey sees his father coming into the room and spontaneously looks at him and says /dada/ and, in addition, has done this before in asimilar context, then there is a good likelihood that for him /dada/ is now a word that means "Daddy." For Joey to do this, what must he know andbe able to do? He must have a variety of linguistic, cognitive, social, physical, and perceptual competencies. It is amazing to consider all that achild must be capable of to produce even one real word. This is as true for the child acquiring a second language as it is for the first.Within his first year, Joey has already developed quite a bit of knowledge about the phonology of his first language. Research has demonstratedthat very young infants are able to "distinguish phonemes from all of the world's languages-including phonemes not used in their languagelearning environment" (Werker & Desjardins, 2001, p. 26). That means that, even if Joey were born and raised in Japan, in very early infancy hewould be able to distinguish between sounds like "r" and "I," even though these sounds are not differentiated by adult Japanese speakers. Yet,beginning at around 6 months of age and continuing through the end of the first year of life, typically developing infants learn what sounds arenormal within their language (Kuhl, Williams, Lacerda, Stevens, & Lindblom, 1992; Werker & Desjardins, 2001). Werker and Desjardins (2001)found that by 10 to 12 months of age, typically developing infants no longer distinguish between pairs of sounds that do not form a meaningfulcontrast in their language. So, by his first birthday, if Joey were raised in Japan (and were not exposed to English), he would no longer be able todistinguish between "r" and "I "-he would have learned what differences, out of all of those possible in human language, are important in his ownlanguage. Using the example presented in the beginning of this chapter, within their first 12 months, native English speaking infants learn thatwords cannot start with mb.Joey has also learned how to produce a variety of sounds correctly in English. He has "practiced" language since birth, first by making a widevariety of vocalizations (such as cooing, gurgling, and blowing "raspberries"). By the time he was 6 months old, Joey began canonical babbling,first by doubling like consonants in consonant-vowel combinations (i.e., "gaga" or "dada") and then by combining dissimilar consonants (i.e.,"gaba" or "daba"). By around his first birthday, when Joey began "talking," his pronunciation was well enough developed that many of his earlywords were grossly intelligible.Joey had also started understanding how language functions. Although, as explained previously, first words can assume a variety of grammaticalfunctions, young children have at least a basic understanding of what a word is and what different functions words can perform. By the time hesays his first word, Joey understands the meaning of a number of words, even though his understanding may not be exactly like that of an adult. Inaddition to understanding the early words that he produces, Joey understands their underlying concepts. To identify a mother, Joey has tounderstand what a mother is. His understanding of this concept, again, may not be exactly like that of an adult (he may conceive of a mother asany female adult caregiver rather than one unique individual), but he clearly does have some idea. This means that Joey can also differentiatebetween individuals and can typically differentiate between genders and age groups. Joey must be able to understand a lot of what goes on aroundhim and interpret relationships between objects, actions, sounds, and people in his environment.To produce just one word, a child must also have acquired quite a bit of social and cultural knowledge. Words have social functions-they can beused to label, request, greet, query, and deny, to name just a few. Therefore, by saying "mama," Joey demonstrates his knowledge about the socialfunctions of language and his understanding of social relationships. He knows that words are to be used interactively with others, and he knowswhen and how to initiate and continue communicative interactions. He knows how to take conversational turns, and he expects that others willrespond to him in specific ways.Joey must have some useful auditory capabilities if he is producing his first words orally. He must be able to process auditory input and todistinguish between human speech and environmental sounds. Although at birth children with deafness and severe hearing impairments do makesounds that are very similar to those produced by hearing infants (Oller, 2000), by 8 months, the production of a variety of speech soundsdecreases (Stoel-Gammon, 1998). Obviously, the production of oral language is dependent on the ability to hear.In contrast, visual acuity is not necessary for the development of oral language. Although there has been considerable discussion in the literatureas to whether children who are blind demonstrate differences in language development from their sighted peers (see, for example Andersen,Dunlea, & Kekelis, 1993; Mulford, 1988), it is important to emphasize that children who are blind can and do acquire language. More recently,research on the language development of children who are blind or who have visual impairments has focused on the role of interaction on thedevelopment of communication. For example, Perez-Pereira and Conti- Ramsden (1999) argued that "the environment may playa more criticalrole in the development of blind children than in other handicaps or in non-impaired children" (p. 4). As will be discussed later in this chapter, therole of social interaction in language development has also taken a more prominent role in theory and re- search on second language development.Language Comprehension. What does it mean to understand a word? Language comprehension is not an all-or-none phenomenon. This idea isimportant for educators to understand. Children may be able to "comprehend" a word or phrase in some contexts and not in others. Children mayfirst comprehend a word within a specific routine or context, such as "Where's your jacket?" during a getting-dressed-for- going-outside routine.Often, in fact, parents are not aware of the types of cues they use to facilitate children's comprehension, such as by looking at or gesturing towardthe item they are naming. Those types of cues are critical to scaffolding children's emerging language comprehension, and parents, educators, andother caregivers should be encouraged to use this type of facilitative cueing. However, these cues also may provide the appearance that childrencomprehend more words than they actually do. We can say children really understand a word when they are able to follow a direction or identifyan item when the item involved is not present and the context is not routine. For example, children demonstrate some amount of languagecomprehension when they put their shoes on after being asked to during a dressing routine. They demonstrate greater comprehension when theyrespond appropriately to "show me how you put your shoes on" during a non-dressing situation, such as play testing. With second languagelearners, we must be careful that we do not either over- or underestimate their receptive language abilities by failing to analyze the linguistic,social, situational, and/or gestural context of comprehension.

these develop, and the development of phonology all appear to proceed in a somewhat consistent and systematic fashion. The emergence of theseaspects of language is sometimes used to gauge children's overall cognitive development. However, it is imperative to remember that the order ofdevelopment can be different in other languages, and so we must not make assumptions about children who speak a home language other thanEnglish based on guidelines developed for monolingual English speaking children. In addition, a child learning English as a Second Languagemay experience a somewhat different order of development because of transfer from the native language.Evidence for the biological foundation of grammatical acquisition came with the discovery that the development of grammatical morphemesappears to progress in an orderly fashion (Brown, 1973). Brown observed the language development of three children, Adam, Eve, and Sarah,over a period of several years and discovered that the order of appearance of the first 14 grammatical morphemes was the same for all threechildren. Figure 6-1 lists these morphemes in their order of appearance. Another classic study also found striking similarities in the sequence ofmorphological development among native English speaking children (deVilliers & deVilliers, 1973).In addition to determining the sequence of development of grammatical morphemes in English, the research by Brown (1973) and deVilliers anddeVilliers (1973) was also important in establishing parameters for when these morphemes should appear, in terms of stage of languagedevelopment. This research described children's level of language development according to a measure of utterance length mean length ofutterance (MLU). A determination of MLU is made by analyzing a 100-utterance language sample for the average length of child-producedutterances, in terms of morphemes. For example, the utterance "Bobby hitting" has a morpheme count of 3, because "hitting" includes both theverb "to hit" and the present progressive morpheme-ing. This type of measure of language development, rather than age, is considered a betterpredictor of grammatical development, since children of similar chronological ages can vary greatly in their language development. Therefore,researchers have attempted to determine in what order and at what stage of linguistic development different language forms should appear.Until recently, most research has focused on similarities in grammatical development, with the accompanying perception that all typicallydeveloping children follow a relatively fixed and stable pattern of grammatical development. However, more recently, investigators have begun toquestion this assumption, with research that indicates a greater variability than previously assumed (Lahey, Liebergott, Chesnick, Menyuk, &Adams, 1982). Given the original research indicating very consistent patterns of grammatical development among middle-class native Englishspeakers, this trend was assumed to hold for nondominant culture English speakers as well as children acquiring languages other than English.A considerable amount of research on the grammatical development of native Spanish speakers has been performed, with the goal of finding aconsistent order of development of morphemes such as had been found among middle-class, native English speakers (e.g., Gonzalez, 1978; Kvaal,Shipstead-Cox, Nevitt, Hodson, & Launer, 1988; Olarte, 1985; Vivas, 1979). However, in a meta-analysis of these studies, Merino (1992) foundthat no more than very gross generalities could be found, such as the development of the present tense before the subjunctive. This research hasimportant implications for the language assessment of bilingual and non-English speaking children. The finding that the order and developmentalage of appearance of morphemes may not be as consistent as previously thought should warn educators and assessment personnel against makingjudgments about grammatical development for the purposes of determining special education placement. We need to be very cautious whenmaking comparisons of individual children against assumed benchmarks of "normal" development. This is especially true when those benchmarksare based on the development of English in monolingual children and are being used to assess children who speak a language other than English.Therefore, normative information about morphological development should be understood as only very general guidelines, and deviance fromthese benchmarks should not be taken as indications of a language problem. In addition to research focused on the stage and sequence ofgrammatical development, researchers have also looked at the process by which children acquire grammatical forms. This process was assumed tobe a matter of modeling, imitation, and reinforcement when Skinner's behavioral model of language development was in vogue. However,researchers have since observed that children seem to go through a process of "hypothesis testing." Children may first acquire a word, such as"went," without acquiring the rule for irregular past tenses. Later, when they acquire the rule for formation of regular past tenses, they may overgeneralize this rule, forming productions such as "goed." As they fine-tune their system of grammatical rules and acquire the irregular past tense,they will once again correctly produce "went." During this period of overgenera\iz3tion, children may be very resistant to corrections of forms thatthey have not yet acquired. Figure 6-2 provides an example of a hypothetical but typical mother-child interaction that illustrates this resistance. Infact, observations of mother-child dyads indicate that parents respond more to the truthfulness of the child's productions rather than togrammatical correctness (Pinker, 1994). This is reason why the behavioral model of language learning was rejected as untenable.Similar to grammatical development, the development of articulation and phonology appears to follow a general pattern of development, withsome sounds typically appearing earlier than others. In general, sounds such as "p," "b," and "m" appear very early, even across different cultures.Other sounds, such as "s," "th," "r," and "I," typically appear much later. Consonant-vowel combinations will typically appear before consonantclusters. However, as with all generalities, these patterns may not hold for individual children. Although a typically developing English speakingchild may not correctly produce "r" in all phonological contexts until age 5 or 6, some 3-year-olds can produce this sound without difficulty. Thisis one more reason that we must take a child's total language abilities into consideration when evaluating his or her language competence:Language form, content, and use all must be assessed.Input Influences. Even if we accept a strong nativist position, the influence of external input on the process of language development is undeniable.A child growing up in China learns to speak Chinese, not because of a physical predisposition, but because that is the language of thechild's environment. If that same child were born in the United States, of monolingual English speaking, Chinese American parents, the child'snative language would be English. Obviously, the language of input is the language that will be acquired.A child raised in a home in which American Sign Language (ASL) is the dominant language will acquire that code. In addition to the language ofinput, the mode of input, signed or spoken, will determine the language acquired. Sign language, just like spoken language, is a complex,systematic, rule-governed code. The linguistic universals discussed in the beginning of this chapter apply to all sign languages just as to orallanguages.The language and mode of input are unarguable examples of the influence of external factors. The influence of other factors, though, is less wellestablished. Some researchers have found that the way that parents speak to their children may affect early vocabulary development (Beals, 1997;Beals & Tabors, 1995; Harris, 1992; Tabors, 1998). However, what long-term effect different maternal styles have on language development isstill unknown. At one time, the typical way that middle-class English speaking mothers communicated with their children was thought to be auniversal pattern. The elevated pitch, expressive intonation, and tendency to treat even very young infants as capable communicative partners hasbeen termed "motherese." However, by the 1980s evidence from cross-cultural studies had begun to reveal that what was once considered auniversal communication style with young children and necessary for facilitation of language development is not found in all cultures (Moore,

Similarities to First Language Development. In general, we can say that the process of grammatical development, the relationship ofcomprehension to production, and the role of hypothesis testing and formulaic speech are somewhat similar in first and second languagedevelopment. Although we cannot specify the exact order of morphological development for second language learners (i.e., Brown's first 14morphemes), we can observe that the process is not random. Grammatical forms develop, just as in first language development, in a relativelyorderly and systematic fashion. Depending upon the individual's native language and learning context, some grammatical forms will be acquiredbefore others. Second language learners will not begin to use all forms correctly at once; the process will be incremental and reflect commonlanguage use patterns of the language being acquired. For example, the passive grammatical construction (i.e., "the ball was kicked by Sophia")will most likely not be the first to be used correctly in the speech of either a first or second language learner.Second language learners, depending upon the environment in which they are acquiring their second language, may undergo a process ofhypothesis testing similar to first language learners. When second language learners do acquire the grammatical rule for formation of a particularconstruction, they may also overextend its application. So, just as first language learners may begin to use "goed" in place of "went," secondsome particular feature of baby talk is necessary (or even very useful) for babies. We do not know enough yet to tell caregivers how they shouldtalk to babies" (p. 53).At present, the controversy surrounding motherese has not yet been resolved. The information that has been presented here about the developmentof first language should emphasize that there are great differences in how children are socialized to learn language and in the forms of languagethat children are socialized to use, that language development begins at birth, and that children are active participants in their languagedevelopment, even at very early ages. Additionally, with or without disabilities, young children know a tremendous amount about language evenbefore they produce their first words.SECOND LANGUAGEDEVELOPMENTThe focus of this chapter has been on language development as a general process and on first language development as providing fundamentalunderstandings about how children develop language, whether it is their first, second, or third. Although in many important ways second languagedevelopment differs from first language development, it is an error with CLD students to focus only on their development in English. The extentto which they have had a chance to develop their native language can have important implications for second language development (see, forexample, Cummins, 1991, 2001; Nguyen, Shin, & Krashen, 2001). This research suggests that students acquire their second language better whenthey have a firm foundation in their native language. Also, when thinking about the differences between first and second language development, itis important to recognize that for very young children exposed to two languages, the process of second language development may be moresimilar to first language development than to the typical second language development process of an adult.Different Categories of SecondLanguage DevelopmentSecond language development has commonly been divided into two categories, depending on the age of exposure to the second language. Secondlanguage development before the age of 3 has been considered concurrent or simultaneous language development. The simultaneous developmentof two languages from birth is also sometimes called bilingual language development. Many of the early second language development studiesfall into this category, since they typically involved the observation of a re- searcher's own child who was acquiring two languages concurrently(see Redlinger, 1979, for a review of this research). Summarizing the research regarding bilingual language development, Garcia (1983) drew thefollowing tentative conclusions:1. Children can and do acquire more than one language during early childhood.2. The development of two languages need not ham- per the development of either language.3. The development of two languages can be parallel but need not be. That is, one language may lag behind, surge ahead, or develop simultaneously with the otherlanguage. (p. 7)Exposure to the second language after the age of 3 has been considered sequential language development (Kessler, 1984). However, there is noevidence that age 3 is a magical number, at which point the development process changes dramatically. This division is an artificial one, whichbest serves to emphasize that early exposure to two languages is different from development of the second language after the first has been wellestablished. Sequential language development is also sometimes divided into different categories, such as early and late sequential bilingualism(Kessler, 1984). However, it may be most realistic to view these different categories of second language development (bilingual,current/simultaneous, early sequential, and late sequential) along a continuum, ranging from true bilingual language development to secondlanguage development in adulthood.The Process of Bilingual/Second Language DevelopmentDepending upon the age of exposure to the second language, there will be more or less similarities to first language development. Currently, thereis much debate about the ex- tent to which the processes of first and second language development are similar. According to Kessler (1984),"While research does not sup- port the hypothesis that the development of a second language is identical to that of the first language, neither doesit support the position that the two processes are different" (p. 33). Part of the difficulty of differentiating between these two processes is that thereis still much disagreement between researchers as to the exact nature of first language development. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the extentto which general cognitive development or a language-dedicated function of the brain, such as a LAD, is responsible for language acquisition stillis hotly debated. Additionally, the literature is not consistent in describing the effect of other factors, such as parental input, on first languagedevelopment. Without agreement as to how first language development proceeds, it will be very difficult to achieve consensus about the similarityor difference of this process to second language development. Nevertheless, it is possible to draw some tentative conclusions.

For example, studies of critical periods in the development of the visual system have been performed with laboratory animals. Researchers havefound that, if certain animals' visual systems are not exposed to light during a specific period of time during early development, they willexperience long-term visual abnormalities (Knudsen, 1999). This type of experiment has shown that certain functions of the brain must beactivated by stimulation and, furthermore, that this stimulation must occur during a specific period of development. Until a certain point ofdevelopment, the brain is considered to be "plastic," that is, receptive to new input (Hoffman, 1991).Following this research, linguists hypothesized that there may be a critical period for language development as well. Lenneberg (1967) argued that"there is evidence that the primary acquisition of language is predicated upon a certain developmental stage which is quickly outgrown at the ageof puberty" (p. 142). From the time it was first proposed, the critical period for first language development has been associated with the notion ofp. 127). These unanalyzed whole utterances, called prefabricated utterances (Hakuta, 1986) or formulaic speech (Wong Fillmore, 1994), mayplaya role in the development of first and second language. Perera's (2001) research indicates that second language learners may use prefabricatedlanguage as a way to scaffold their acquisition of syntactic rules, by allowing them to "first tryout semantically similar words for replacement andgradually increase the selection of words" (p. 260). Perera provides the following examples of this process for a young Japanese speaking EnglishLanguage Learner named Aya. Aya first produced the pre- fabricated utterance "more cracker please" (p. 260) and gradually was able to replacecracker with similar words like apple and salad, only later using less similar words, such as fork. It is important to remember that the use ofprefabricated language is a normal and natural part of the learning process, especially during early stages of language development. During thistime, second language learners may benefit more from others modeling the correct form and "recasting" (modifying and elaborating on) theirproductions than from explicit correction and requests for imitation of the correct form.When using prefabricated utterances, second language learners may generally understand the social context for their use, without reallyunderstanding what the utterance means. Liar, Panzon fire would most likely be an example of this. Diaz, Padilla, and Weathersby (1991) observedtheir research participants using English words in contexts in which it was clear the students did not understand the word meaning, such asin imitation of native speakers or in sound play. This type of language production without full comprehension can also be observed in firstlanguage learners, such as in the example of the Pledge of Allegiance provided earlier.Just as production does not necessarily imply comprehension, comprehension does not al- ways imply production. Both first and second languagelearners may in actuality comprehend much more than they can produce, in terms of vocabulary, morphology, and syntax. Additionally, secondlanguage learners may exhibit a period of time during which they do not actively engage in verbal communication. This "silent period" does notindicate that students have a lack of comprehension-second language learners may be actively developing language competence even though theyare not yet ready to speak. While students are silently listening to the new language, they are most likely actively attending to meaning andformulating new hypotheses about the grammar of that language.Differences From First Language Development. Research indicates that social interaction is important for second language development (see,for example, Chesterfield, Hayes-Latimer, Chesterfield, & Chavez, 1983; Ellis, 1999; Gass, 1997) just as it is for first language learners. However,the contexts under which second language learners acquire their second language may vary greatly. Snow (1992) concurs, finding that "the socialand the cultural situatedness of language learning and use… constitute a much greater source of variation in second- than first-languagedevelopment" (p. 17). For example, second language learners may not be exposed to their second language outside of a formal learningenvironment. They may not be exposed to a wide range of social experiences as most first language learners. Therefore, we can say that theamount, type, and variation of input may differ greatly between first and second language development and that this may influence the rate andquality of second language development.The simple fact of already having developed a language is different for second language learners. According to Kessler (1984), for secondlanguage learners, "Increased age, cognitive maturity and more extensive language experience are variables which can serve to enhance theprocess" (p. 49). They may be able to draw upon information about language structures and language use from their first language experiences.Although the use of first language grammatical forms in the second language might be perceived negatively as errors or "native languageinterference," it can also be seen as a resource that learners can call upon to rapidly increase their communicative competence. Although thestructures may not be grammatically correct, their use may allow the speaker to achieve some level of fluency early in the second languagedevelopment process.With increased age and experience, second language learners may also be able to capitalize on cognitive strategies not available to first languagelearners. Second language learners may be able to use conscious learning strategies, such as mnemonics, to remember new vocabulary. Because ofgreater knowledge and life experiences, they may be better able to anticipate and interpret the context of utterances, thereby facilitatingcomprehension. Also, second language learners may know how to read and write in their first language, facilitating the development of literacy intheir second language. Second language learners do not have to relearn the basic concepts and skills underlying literacy; they are able to extendpreviously acquired knowledge to the new language. This is true even for languages that use a different alphabet, such as Russian (Krashen,1996a, 1996b; Nguyen et al., 2001).Unlike first language development, in which the language acquired is the language of the child's environment and community, bilingual or secondlanguage development may involve issues of differential language status. When a child's first language is not that of the dominant culture, it maynot be considered a high- status language or language variety. This is the case in the United States for many immigrant languages, such asSpanish, Hmong, and Vietnamese. The social devaluing of students' native language may have repercussions for both continued first languagedevelopment and second language development. These second language learners may be at risk for first language loss and/or difficulty acquiringEnglish as a Second Language.Critical Periods. The notion of a critical or sensitive period for language development is related to the issue of similarities and differencesbetween first and second language development. This idea comes from neuroscience research demonstrating that some parts of the brain mustreceive stimulation in order to develop normally.A sensitive period is a developmental stage during which neurons select their permanent repertoire of inputs from a wider array of possibilities. ...An extreme formof a sensitive period is referred to as a critical period, a state when appropriate experience is essential for the normal development of a pathway or a set ofconnections. ...If appropriate experience is not gained during the critical period, the pathway never attains the ability to process information in a normal fashionand, as a result, perception or behavior is permanently impaired. (Knudsen, 1999, p. 637)

parents who had not been exposed to sign language until the age of 5 or 6 years when they began attending a school where sign language wasused. As adults, these individuals' language abilities were found to be different from those of other deaf adults who had been exposed to signlanguage at an earlier age. This research seems to indicate that development of language during early childhood is important to the end result andsupports the idea of a critical period for exposure to a first language.However, even if we accept that early exposure to language is necessary to trigger the language-specific portions of the brain, this does notnecessarily imply that a LAD functions only during a specific time period, once triggered. After all, adults clearly can learn a second language,under optimal conditions. However, some research suggests that a critical period may exist for some features of grammatical development(Newport, 1993). Additionally, it is a common observation that children acquire native-like accents much more readily than adults. Some havetaken this as evidence that there may be a critical period for the establishment of neuromuscular patterns (Hoffman, 1991). However, there isevidence that under certain contexts, including very high learner motivation to acquire a native-like accent, sufficient access to speakers of thesecond language, and targeted intervention, late second language learners can acquire native-like pronunciation (Bongaerts, van Summeren,Planken, & Schils, 1997). This type of evidence argues against a critical period for second language development (Flege, Takagi, & Mann, 1995).However, to date this issue has not been resolved (see Birdsong, 1999; Marinova- Todd, Marshall, & Snow, 2000; and Singleton & Lengyel,1995, for a further discussion of critical periods in second language development).Many times, what people really want to know when they talk about a critical period for second language development is whether adults orchildren learn language faster and better. First, it is important to clarify a popular misconception that young children acquire language at a rapidpace unmatched by second language learners. In an extensive review of the literature, Marinova- Todd et al. (2000) concluded that “older learnersare generally faster and more efficient in the initial stages of L2 learning" (p. 12). Consider the grammatical, semantic, and pragmaticdevelopment of a 2-year- old. A toddler is just beginning to put two and three words together and, although competent in communicating mostbasic needs, is not nearly as functional as we expect a second language learner to be after 2 years of exposure to English. Many second languagelearners in our schools are "transitioned" to English-only classes after only 2 years of bilingual instruction, if they are lucky enough to havereceived this much native language support. Others never receive any instruction in their first language and, in fact, receive very limited Englishas a Second Language (ESL) or English Language Development (ELD) support. We clearly have much greater expectations of linguisticcompetence for our school-aged second language learners than we do of toddlers. Not only do we expect them to learn much more quickly thantoddlers, but we also expect them to communicate fairly difficult and abstract topics after just a short amount of exposure to a second language.Whether younger second language learners might have an advantage in terms of a critical period, certainly older learners have advantages in termsof better developed cognitive abilities and greater social and linguistic experiences. Additionally, most discussions of the best time to learn asecond language cannot be placed within the context of "all things being equal are younger or older learners better at acquiring a secondlanguage?" The problem with this type of discussion is that all things are not equal for all individuals. When considering the best time to expose astudent to a second language, factors other than age must be considered, such as level of development of the first language, type of educationalprograms available, support for the first and second languages in the environment, and student motivation. These factors may far outweigh anyphysiological or cognitive advantage experienced during a specific developmental stage. The simple fact is that adults can and do learn secondlanguages.Theoretical Perspectives onSecond Language DevelopmentIn this section we will consider models of second language development proposed by three researchers who are well known in the field ofbilingual education in the United States: Stephen Krashen, Jim Cummins, and Lily Wong Fillmore. Although these models have been criticized tosome extent, and no one alone is sufficient to explain the process of second language development in all contexts, they have had a significantimpact on our understanding of how second language learners function in academic contexts and have greatly influenced pedagogy. Perhaps thegreatest impact of these models has been the recognition of how both factors internal to the student as well as the environment can influence thepace and quality of language development. Previous instructional approaches, such as the audio-lingual method, became much less popular afterthe introduction of these models. Newer teaching methods emphasizing the natural development of language in real communicative contexts andattention to learner motivation have been developed and implemented with better results. One example of a newer methodology is Total PhysicalResponse (Asher, as cited in Irons, 1995, and Krashen, 1982). This method focuses almost exclusively on listening comprehension, with studentsfollowing increasing complex commands from the instructor, which require some sort of physical action (e.g., "stand up").Krashen. Krashen's model of second language development (1981a, 1981b, 1982, and 1994) has five primary hypotheses: (1) the acquisitionlearning hypothesis, (2) the natural order hypothesis, (3) the monitor hypothesis, (4) the input hypothesis, and (5) the affective filter hypothesis.Krashen's acquisition learning hypothesis and the monitor hypothesis are related. In the first hypothesis, he posited that "adults have twoindependent systems for developing ability in second languages, subconscious language acquisition and conscious language learning" (1981b, p.1). Language acquisition is hypothesized to be similar to the process that young children undergo during first language development. In fact, in hisdiscussion of language acquisition, Krashen (1982) explicitly referred to the LAD (which was discussed previously in this chapter) and arguedthat adults, when going through a natural or informal learning process, have access to this device. 111 contrast, language learning is "consciousknowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them" (1982, p. 10).The monitor hypothesis states that conscious language learning does not contribute to fluent language production, unlike language acquisition.Language learning, however, can be useful in a limited way to help learners monitor and/or edit their language output. Krashen argues, though,that second language learners can use this monitor only when three conditions are met: (1) when learners have sufficient time to think about andimplement knowledge about grammatical rules; (2) when learners are focused specifically on the form, rather than the content, of their utterances;and (3) when they have sufficient knowledge of the grammatical' rules they wish to employ.The natural order hypothesis simply states that second language learners "acquire (not learn) grammatical structures in a predictable order; that is,certain grammatical structures tend to be acquired early and others, late" (1994, p. 52). Several important points need to be emphasized about thishypothesis. First, Krashen recognized that information about the order of grammatical development is limited in terms of which languages havebeen studied (this was discussed previously in this chapter). Second, he recognized that there is individual variation in the order of acquisition of

With regards to his final two hypotheses, the input and the affective filter hypotheses, Krashen (1994) stated:People acquire second language when they obtain comprehensible input and when their affective filters are low enough to allow the input in. In other words,comprehensible input is the only causative variable in second language development. All other factors thought to encourage or cause second languagedevelopment only work when they are related to comprehensible input. (p. 58)The input hypothesis postulates that learners acquire language from input that is just above their current competence, which Krashen symbolizedas i + 1, rather than input that is much more complex than their current level of language development. This idea of facilitative input being justbeyond the learner's current level is somewhat similar to Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Learners' ZPD is just beyond theircurrent independent level, but within their grasp with assistance from an- other. This notion of "scaffolding" learners' current competence throughassisted performance has influenced teaching techniques in many different areas, not only in second language instruction.The final hypothesis in Krashen's theory involves what he calls an "affective filter." This filter is composed of those affective variables that havebeen found to influence second language development. These variables are (1) anxiety, (2) motivation, and (3) self-confidence. According to thishypothesis, these learner variables can block access to the learner’s LAD.By referring to the LAD in several of his hypotheses, Krashen took an implicit stance on two of the theoretical issues in language developmentdiscussed previously in this chapter: that the brain is uniquely biologically predisposed to acquire language and that it is not significantlyinfluenced by maturational factors. This argument aligns Krashen with nativist theorists and, additionally, suggests his position with regard to thecritical theory debate. However, Krashen’s failure to fully explain how he believes this LAD functions, especially in adulthood, has led to somecriticism (see, for examples, Cook, 1993; Gregg, 1984). Also, although Krashen (1982b) explicitly stated that language acquisition “requiresmeaningful interaction in the target language –natural communication- in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances butwith the messages that they are conveying and understanding” (p. 1), his model has been criticized for the greater emphasis placed on input thanon output and interaction (see, for example, Cummins, 2001; Ellis, 1999; Ellis, Heimbach, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1999).Cummins. Cummins (1981) postulated three principles related to second language development: (1) the conversational/academic languageproficiency principle, (2) the linguistic interdependence principle, and (3) the additive bilingual enrichment principle. He proposed an interestingdichotomy between communicative skills, what he terms basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS), and the language proficiency requiredfor academic success, cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). More recently, he has clarified this distinction by discussing CALP interms of low-frequency vocabulary and grammatical constructs, many of which occur more often in written text than in oral language (Cummins,2000). He contrasts this literacy and vocabulary knowledge, CALP, with phonological skills and basic fluency, BICS (Cummins, 1999).Cummins (1999) contends that “these dimensions of language are conceptually distinct” (p. 3), yet clarifies that this “is not the same as saying thatthey are separate or acquired in different ways” (p. 4). He has argued that this distinction is important because educators can make falseassumptions about students’ total language proficiency when they rely primarily on observations of students’ ability to participate in socialconversation.The linguistic interdependence principle posits “a common underlying proficiency (CUP) model in which the literacy-related aspects of abilingual’s proficiency in L1 and L2 are seen as common or interdependent across languages” (Cummins, 1981, p. 18). This principle isconsistent with Wong Fillmore’s postulated linguistic and cognitive processes, discussed later, which second language learners originally developthrough their first language but which they can access for second language development. It is also consistent with findings that literacyknowledge transfers across languages (see, for example, Krashen, 1996a). This understanding of how literacy instruction in the student’s firstlanguage supports literacy instruction in the student’s first language supports literacy development in the second is one of the strongest argumentsfor bilingual education. Simply put, learning to read in the first language will facilitate learning to read in the second. Native language instructionis not time taken away from instruction in English; rather, students may be able to develop concepts and acquire knowledge and skills faster theirnative language, which they can then draw upon in their second language. Learning to read can be difficult task. Even more so when the wordsbeginning second language learners are trying to read are in a language they do not yet know.Cummins’s additive bilingual enrichment principle draws upon Lambert’s (1975) idea of additive bilingualism as the development of a secondlanguage without detriment to the first. Subractive bilingualism, in contrast, is the replacement of the first language by the second. Cummins’sprinciple suggests that additive second language development has a positive cognitive benefit for learners when they are able to acquire a highdegree of proficiency in both languages. The contention that bilingualism can positively impact some aspects of cognition is supported by theresearch literature (see, for example, Ben-Zeev, 1984; Bialystok & Cummins, 1991; Diaz & Klingler, 1991; Malakoff & Hakuta, 1991;Ricciardelli, 1992). The limited research available suggests that bilingualism can also provide a benefit for individuals with intellectual disabilities(Rueda, 1983). Cummins (1994) summarized the research on the cognitive effects of bilingualism with the following statement:The development of additive bilingual and bi-literacy skills entails no negative consequences for children's academic, linguistic, or intellectual development. Onthe contrary, although not conclusive, the evidence points in the direction of subtle metalinguistic, academic, and intellectual benefits for bilingual children.(p. 27).The assertion that bilingualism brings not only social advantages but also cognitive advantages has been used to argue in favor of continueddevelopment of students' home languages.The notion of subtractive bilingualism has perhaps received more criticism that any other aspect of Cummins's model. In his earliest writings,Cummins (1979) initially used the term "semilingualism" to explain the negative cognitive and academic effects resulting from what he describedas "low levels of competence in both languages" (p. 230). Though he later abandoned the use of this term in favor of "subtractive bilingualism,"Cummins's work has retained the fundamental notion that some children demonstrate limited language abilities in both languages and that thisresults in cognitive deficits (MacSwan, 2000; MacSwan, Rolstad, & Glass, 2002; Petrovic & Olmstead, 2001). These authors argue that

These conditions also appear compatible with the use of instructional conversations for language and literacy development with CLD students.Tharp’s five principles for instruction and Ruiz’s OLE model are consistent with the theories of second language development discussed earlierand with Saville-Troike’s (1984) research that focused on applied dimensions of second language studies. Saville-Troike analyzed the effects ofWong Fillmore. This model is important be- cause of the explicit attention paid to social interaction between second language learners andspeakers of the target language. It is an example of the increasing attention given to multiple factors implicated in the development of a secondlanguage and heightened recognition of the complexity of the process. Wong-Fillmore (1991a) identified three components necessary for secondlanguage learning: (1) the second language learners themselves; (2) speakers of the target language; and (3) a social setting that allows secondlanguage learners and proficient speakers to interact. These components interact with three types of processes: social, linguistic, and cognitive.These three processes are interrelated with each other, as well as with the three components. The social skills of the second language learner, aswell as competent speakers of the target language, will influence the social set- ting. Linguistic processes influence how second language learnersand target language speakers use and interpret language. For example, expanding on one of Krashen's ideas, we can hypothesize that theassumptions target language speakers hold about language will influence whether they produce comprehensible input when communicating withsecond language learners. The linguistic expectations that second language learners hold will influence how they interpret that input. According toWong Fillmore (1991a), cognitive processes "involve the analytic procedures and operations that take place in the heads of learners and ultimatelyresult in the development of that language" (p. 56). She notes that the ability of second language learners to draw more heavily upon cognitiveskills than on the hypothesized LAD is one of the important differences between first and second language development. Therefore, this model isalso important in that it provides an explanation for some of the observed differences between first and second language learners and betweenearly and late second language learners.Related Research. Roland Tharp and his colleagues have identified general principles of effective learning for students who have traditionallybeen viewed as at risk for educational failure. Those include students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and students withdisabilities (Tharp, 1997). These principles are based on reviews of re- search, grounded in sociocultural theory, and represent only those findingsfor which Tharp and his colleagues found consensus in the literature. Tharp's five generic principles for effective instruction are as follows.Principle 1: "Facilitative learning through joint productive activity among teachers and students" (p. 6). Principle 2: "Develop competence in thelanguage and literacy of instruction throughout all instructional activities" (p. 7). Principle 3: "Contextualize teaching and curriculum in theexperience and skills of home and community" (p. 7). Principle 4: "Challenge students toward cognitive complexity" (p. 8). Principle 5: "Engagestudents through dialogue, especially the instructional conversation" (p. 8). Goldenberg (1991) defined instructional conversation as follows:It is about an idea or a concept that has meaning and relevance for students. It has a focus that, while it may shift as the discussion evolves, remains discerniblethroughout. There is a high level of participation, without undue domination by anyone individual, particularly the teacher. Students engage in extendeddiscussions-conversations-with the teacher and among themselves. Teachers and students are responsive to what others say, so that each statement or contributionbuilds upon, challenges, or extends a previous one. (p. 3)Instructional conversation is in direct contrast to the type of talk commonly found in classrooms, which is sometimes termed "recitation script"(Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). Recitation script consists of teachers asking questions that they already know the answers to and that require onlyshort answers from students, which the teacher then evaluates as either correct or incorrect. A typical example of recitation script in primaryclassrooms is, "What day is it today?" Though it is certainly valid to use questions such as these to probe for student knowledge, this type of veryrestrictive talk is not considered to be sufficient for expanding on children's oral language skills. Yet, research shows that, even in kindergartenclassrooms, teacher-student conversation rarely takes place (de Valenzuela, 1998). Therefore, it must be explicitly planned for, if teachers wish toemploy this strategy. Instructional conversation deviates from informal conversation in that it is explicitly instructional in intent and deliberatelyplanned and organized around a thematic focus (Goldenberg, 1991). The results of research investigating the use of instructional conversationwith bilingual special education students are promising. Echevarria (1995) reported that "instructional conversation enhanced thematic conceptdevelopment" (p. 551). Echevarria and McDonough (1995) also found instructional conversation to be an effective teaching strategy for studentsreceiving special education services. They cautioned, however, that accommodations, such as selecting themes that are neither too complex nortoo simplistic, may be necessary.Woven throughout Tharp's principles is the notion of learning through meaningful activity and language use, rather than through rotememorization or repetitive drills. This is consistent with the Optimal Learning Environment (OLE) model (Ruiz, 1989, 1995; Ruiz & Figueroa,1995; Ruiz, Vargas, & Beltran, 2002) for bilingual students receiving special education services. This model strongly supports a constructivistapproach to literacy instruction for these students. Ruiz and her colleagues have found the following conditions are conducive to an optimallearning environment:1. Offer students choice in their writing, reading, and learning.2. Activate and use students’ interests and background knowledge3. Center learning around whole texts or projects.4. Provide for active participation and peer interaction5. Recognize that literacy is first a meaning-driven process within which issues of form (e.g., phonics, spelling) can be addressed.6. Provide opportunities for classroom work to have an authentic, real-life purpose (write a book, or a real letter).7. Accept and acknowledge students’ developmental approximations toward learning.8. Immerse students in a language and print rich environment.9. Give demonstrations (not just directions) of the literacy and learning that need to be done.10. Respond immediately and in a personalized manner to pupil work products or journal entries (rather than give a letter grade in thefuture).11. Create a sense that the classroom is a community of learners, readers, writers, and speakers.12. Raise your expectations of what the students can do and help them raise their own expectations of what they can do. (Ruiz & Figueroa,1995, pp 466-467)

Saville-Troike’s research was that an emphasis on speaking may not be necessary for and may inhibit the development of language skills. Thisfinding suggests that teachers of students who appear to be undergoing a silent period should not attempt to force them to speak. Saville-Troikealso found that explicit instruction on patterns of English grammar, especially work inflections, did not appear to meet the needs of beginningEnglish language learners. She stated that “most beginning students do not use grammatical inflections when they are concerned withcommunication real information” (p. 216). This finding suggests that teachers should consider first the level of development of students’ secondlanguage and their communicative needs when planning curriculum. However, Saville-Troike also found that social interaction between studentsis not sufficient to develop proficiency in English. We cannot assume that informal conversation between students, such as during classroomactivities or recess, can take the place of structured and planned language instruction. This finding is consistent with Tharp’s second principle forinstruction, which encourages the development of academic language and literacy skills across the curriculum: “Language development in thelanguage or languages being used for instruction is the first goal of teach/learning” (p. 7). Finally, Saville-Troike found that opportunities todiscuss academic concepts in students’ first language facilitated their grasp of the concepts. This supports the use of techniques such as “previewreview,”ion which students have the opportunity to preview in their first language a lesson that will be taught in English and then review themajor concepts, again in their first language. This makes sense when we think about the academic load of students who are learning new conceptsthrough the vehicle of a new language. This finding also supports Tharp's third principle, which emphasizes the integration of the knowledge thatstudents bring with them to the instructional context.WHAT DOES THIS MEANFOR STUDENTS WITHEXCEPTIONALTIESTo understand how all of this information applies to students with disabilities, we now return to the fallacies introduced at the beginning of thischapter.Fallacy 1: Students WithExceptionalities Cannot LearnTwo (or More) LanguagesThe reality is that CLD students with disabilities must learn a second language-English. When children with disabilities speak a home languageother than English, they must develop a second language (English) in order to participate in the school environment. Although some children mayacquire a second language more slowly, especially if they exhibit language difficulties in their native language, the research clearly supports thatstudents with disabilities can become bilingual (Greenlee, 1981; Kessler, 1984; Rondal, 2000). This includes students with more extensive needsfor supports, such as students with mental retardation, sensory impairments, and multiple disabilities.Therefore, the real question becomes, should the language of instruction for CLD students with disabilities be the student's first or secondlanguage? Studies suggest that, just as for students without disabilities, a second language is best acquired from a firm and well-developed firstlanguage foundation (Perozzi, 1985; Perozzi & Sanchez, 1992). According to Perozzi and Sanchez (1992) their findings "support the practice ofintervention in the native language for children whose L1 is not English" (p. 350). Perozzi's research demonstrated that students learned languagetargets (i.e., receptive vocabulary and grammatical forms) more quickly when they first were taught in their native language, even when they wereassessed on comprehension of these items in English. The research and theory clearly support a bilingual approach to special education with CLDstudents (Gutierrez-Clellen, 1999).The misconception that students with disabilities cannot become bilingual is perhaps most prevalent and devastating for students with intellectualdisabilities. Though there has been increasing recognition of the need to attend to the language needs of English Language Learners with milddisabilities, virtually no attention has been paid, either in the schools or in the professional literature, to the language needs of CLD students withmental retardation and severe disabilities. Yet, the simple fact is that many children with such disabilities lead bilingual lives. Many children withmental retardation and severe disabilities are born into families in which a language other than English is spoken. Although very minimal researchhas been carried out to date on this topic, that available suggests that bilingualism is possible for children with mental retardation raised inbilingual contexts (Greenlee, 1981; Rondal, 2000; Rueda, 1983). These children, just like their typically developing peers, will become bilingualand bicultural, because that is what is demanded by the reality of their lives. We must ask ourselves whether we will implement best practices thathave been demonstrated to foster bilingual development or whether we will engage in self-fulfilling prophesies of student failure by demandingthat those students with the most difficulties in developing cognitively and linguistically do so without access to the resources of their homeculture and language.Fallacy 2: Parents of CLDStudents, With and WithoutExceptionalities, Should SpeakWith Their Children at Homein EnglishThis advice, although commonly offered to parents who are English Language Learners themselves, is incorrect for several reasons. As discussedearlier, students will best acquire a second language if their first language is well established. Second, asking parents who may not be able toprovide an adequate language model in English to restrict the use of their more proficient language is absurd. Parents will neither be able tostimulate their child's language development nor will they be able to communicate easily for social purposes with their child. Wong Fillmore(1991b) makes the following poignant observation:When parents are unable to talk to their children, they cannot easily convey to them their values, beliefs, understandings, or wisdom about how to cope with their

kind of men and women they want them to be. When parents lose the means for socializing and influencing their children, rifts develop and families lose theintimacy that comes from shared beliefs and understandings. (p.343)Wong Fillmore (2000) argues that this ill-informed advice, for parents to stop speaking with children in their home language, contributes to theloss of family languages and to the disruption of parent-child communication.Educators also need to very thoughtfully consider the language of the home and community when choosing the language(s) of instruction forstudents with more extensive and pervasive needs for supports. Who will be providing those supports to the student outside of school? Whatlanguage do those caregivers speak? If the caregivers speak a language other than English, then we are doing our students a grave disservice if wefail to provide them with a functional means for communication in a language and format accessible to the family. For example, students'communication devices/systems can and should be programmed or constructed bilingually if the family's primary home language is other thanEnglish (see, for example, Stuart & Parette, 2002, for a discussion of alternative and augmentative communication with Native Americanstudents).Fallacy 3: Acquiring More ThanOne Language Is "Difficult" andCan Lead to Academic ProblemsIn many parts of the world bilingualism is a common part of daily life. Indeed, in many countries, bilingualism is not only within the reach of thewealthy and well-educated, but rather an expectation for most individuals. For example, Moore (1999) described the multilingual reality of peoplein Northern Cameroon, who often speak more than one African language before they enter school, where they are then exposed to French. Womendevelop an additional language when they marry, as they are expected to marry outside of their community. Even though the majority of studentsdo not complete primary school, Moore states that "trilingualism seems to be the norm" and that "productive competence in five or six languagesis not unusual" (p. 17). Yet, in the United States, there seems to be an assumption that bilingualism is difficult and requires extensive formaleducation.There also appears to be a prevailing assumption that speaking a language other than English at home causes educational problems for CLDstudents. This belief persists, even in light of the fact that many children who speak English as a first language, especially if they live in povertyand come from culturally diverse backgrounds, also experience difficulties within the educational system. Bilingualism, then, becomes one moreway to locate deficits within minority children, rather than to examine how our educational practices and responses to diversity within schoolsmay be the source of the problem. Researchers have identified lower expectations, less access to quality education, and the failure of schools tobuild on the home and community resources that CLD students bring with them as some of the many potential causes for student failure.Delpit (2002) suggests that it is not the fact of knowing a language (or language variety) other than standard English that causes difficulties forchildren. Rather, she argues, "The negative responses to the children’s home language on the part of the adults around them insure that they willreject the school's language and everything else the school has to offer" (p. 47). Clearly, our society abounds with negative attitudes towardspeaking languages other than English, both in the home and in public. Wong Fillmore (2000) recounted the prejudicial comments she overheardwhen sitting on jury duty, in response to grammatical and intelligible, but accented, English. Erroneous beliefs about the negative impact ofbilingual language development also pervade all aspects of our public life. For example, in a 1995 child custody case, Texas State District JudgeSamuel C. Kaiser made the following statement in response to the decision of the child's mother, herself bilingual, to raise her child in amonolingual Spanish speaking home: "If she [the daughter of the defendant in this child custody case] starts first grade with the other children andcannot even speak the language that the teachers and the other children speak, and she's a full-blood American citizen, you're abusing that childand you're relegating her to the position of a housemaid" (Lyons, 1996, p. 23). This statement clearly exemplifies the deeply embedded belief thatacquisition of a language other than English as a child's first language represents a deficit for that child that will have to be remedied.Yet, there is empirical evidence that exposure to more than one language can be beneficial to students in a number of ways. For example, conceptslearned in one language, such as literacy (Krashen, 1996) and vocabulary (Cunning- ham & Graham, 2000), can transfer to the other. Researchpresented earlier in this chapter documents other cognitive benefits of bilingual- ism and challenges the notion that bilingualism is problematic-onthe contrary, it has many potential benefits for students. In addition to cognitive benefits, bilingualism is of immense social benefit in the currentnational and inter- national context and can have only positive outcomes when students leave school and seek employment. The number ofspeakers of languages other than English in the United States is growing; according to the U.S. Census of 2000, almost 18% of respondentsreported speaking a language other than English at home (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Therefore, the ability to speak, read, and write more thanone language is certainly a valuable and marketable skill for our youth. This appears to be well recognized within our educational system forstudents from privileged backgrounds, who are encouraged to take foreign language classes in high school and college. Perhaps, then, we shouldalso foster bilingualism in those students who come to school with existing abilities in a language other than English and question for whom theirbilingualism is a problem.Fallacy 4: Some Bilingual StudentsDon't Speak Any Language to aReal Extent and Are "Semilingual"The idea of "semilingualism" can be very compelling when we do not fully understand language development. When children do not appear to bespeaking either English or their first language well, one conclusion that many teachers draw is that these children "lack language." However, itmay be that these students actually have a much greater language proficiency than is recognized. This is very important to keep in mind because,when teachers fail to recognize the actual and potential abilities of second language learners, they are un- able to support their students in buildingon their existing knowledge about language.

Similarly, standardized tests that are based on prestige dialects in English and/or in students' native language may fail to reveal students' actualcommunicative competence. And even if tests existed that were based on students' particular dialect of English and of their first language, if thetests were normed on monolingual speakers, the results also would be inadequate. Monolingual tests simply cannot demonstrate the full range oflanguage proficiency of bilingual students (see Figueroa, 1989, Figueroa & Hernandez, 2000, and Valdes & Figueroa, 1994, for a review oftesting bilingual students with measures designed for monolingual students). According to Figueroa (1989), “Bilingual testing does not meantesting in L1 and in the second language (L2)" (p. 148). However, bilingual tests, validated for this population, are unlikely to be developed. Thisis because of the wide variability in first and second language development, languages and dialects spoken, educational experiences and supportfor the native language, and a myriad of other factors affecting the assessment of bilingual students in our schools. Another source ofmisunderstanding for educators may be silent periods. Some teachers may misinterpret the reticence to speak by students who are undergoing asilent period as demonstrating a lack of ability to communicate. When we consider all that children have to know to be able to say even one wordin their first language, as discussed previously in this chapter, it should remind us that even those children who demonstrate little expressivelanguage in the school environment (in their first or second language) bring with them a wealth of information about the phonology, morphology,syntax, lexicon, and language use patterns of their native language. It is critical to remember that when children do not speak, their silence doesnot mean that they cannot, nor that they do not have well-developed skills in other aspects of language proficiency.Sometimes the term semilingual may be inappropriately used when educators observe students speaking what they consider to be a mixture of twolanguages. However, research has indicated that what may appear to a mono- lingual speaker to be a random hodgepodge of two differentlanguages is in fact a systematic and socially governed interplay between two separate and well-developed linguistic systems (Genishi, 1981).Code switching refers to "the use of two or more linguistic varieties in the same conversation or interaction" (Scotton & Ury, 1977, p. 5). This caninvolve switching between social styles (or registers), dialects, or different languages. Most people code switch as a regular part of socialadequate support for continued development in their first language. This often happens in the United States, especially as a result of educationalprograms that do not promote bilingualism and biliteracy. Semilingualism also connotes a cognitive deficit, which theoretically results from lowlevels of language development in both languages (Cummins, 1979). Although bilingual children from non- dominant culture backgrounds dohave a higher percentage of below-average academic performance, there is no evidence that this stems from a cognitive impairment brought aboutby their bilingualism. Rather, as mentioned earlier, inappropriate academic pro- grams, prejudicial attitudes toward linguistic differences, andhome-school incongruities have been suggested as some of the various reasons for these academic problems. In fact, one of the major problemsfacing our schools today is the lowered academic achievement of all culturally diverse youth, regardless of whether they speak a home languageother than English or not. This issue needs to be addressed systematically, rather than focusing on bilingualism as the problem that needs to befixed.The notion of semilingualism has been soundly rejected in the professional literature on both theoretical and empirical grounds (see, for example,MacSwan; 2000; Martin-Jones & Romaine, 1986). Commins and Miramontes (1989) carried out one of the few studies that has examined theactual language performance of students who have been identified as "semilingual." Their research indicated that although the students who hadbeen identified as having limited language abilities and who were failing academically did demonstrate some lack of specific vocabulary, "theconstraints of the [instructional] contexts not only restricted students' exposure to new vocabulary items in relevant or meaningful contexts butalso seldom provided them with opportunities to practice what they had learned" (p. 466). Additionally, these students were found to be more thancapable of thinking on abstract and cognitively complex levels and of communicating across a wide range of settings. Commins and Miramontes(1989) found that "teachers perceived these students as limited and adapted the instructional program to fit that perception" (p. 467). The selffulfillingprophesy of low expectations can have very real, very detrimental effects on the education of CLD students.A number of different situations may lead educators to a false assumption that students lack language abilities in any language. These include alack of understanding about language attrition, the misuse of monolingual tests with bilingual students, and misinterpretation of silent periods,code switching, and the use of nonstandard language varieties.Language attrition is a recognized phenomenon in which individuals lose all or part of their native language competence. It can happen naturallyas a result of immigration and the lack of opportunities to communicate in a particular language. For adults who have immigrated without theirfamilies to a new country and who rarely return for visits, this may occur over time, although it may be related more to difficulties in access tovocabulary than to a permanent loss of abilities. It can also happen to young children who are exposed to a new language at school before theirfirst language has been well established, especially when there is a significant discrepancy between the social prestige of the two languages.Language attrition appears to be a common phenomenon among children from minority language backgrounds, such as Spanish speakers in theUnited States, although MacSwan (2000) argues that clear evidence for this is lacking. In some cases, it is not clear whether individuals' limitedproficiency in their first language is caused by an actual loss in proficiency that they once had or a failure to continue developing the firstlanguage after exposure to English (Hakuta & D'Andrea, 1992). The results of the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) No-CostStudy on Families indicate that the early exposure to English, such as in preschool programs that do not use the children's home language as theprimary language of instruction, leads to a shift away from use of the native language at home and contributes to first language attrition (WongFillmore, 1991b). Wong Fillmore (1996) states that "in the case of those who come to school speaking their native language, one year of schoolespeciallypreschool- can wipe it out" (p. 438). Merino (1982) found that among the native Spanish speaking children in her research project,language attrition occurred by the 4th grade, and sometimes even earlier. She also found that language attrition initially affects those skills andabilities that typically appear at later stages of development, such as the subjunctive for Spanish speakers. The dynamic relationship betweenincreasing second language proficiency and first language loss can result in a temporary stage in which the child appears limited in bothlanguages.This "labile interplay between language loss and language acquisition in bilingual children in the United States" (Figueroa, 1989, p. 148) impliesthat testing children at only one point in time, without considering their language and educational history, may inaccurately identify a languageimpairment when none actually exists. MacSwan et al. (2002) suggest that the use of poorly designed language proficiency tests, such as the LASEspañol, can also lead to inaccurate results. They stated:If a child answers no sé ("I don't know"), or shyly gives no response at all, the scoring manual directs the tester to enter a score of zero into the child's pro- file(DeAvila & Duncan, 1990, p. 5; 1994, p. 5; Dun- can & DeAvila, 1986, pp. 3, 14). Because there is only an 11-point spread between fluent-Spanish 'speakers andnon-Spanish speakers for the Pre-LAS Español and only a 21-point spread for the LAS-Oral Español, a zero for this section of the test will make a perfectlycompetent Spanish-speaking child falsely appear to be nonverbal. (p. 21)

Padilla, 1978; Meisel, 1987). Code switching between two different languages, as well as between different social styles, allows a bilingualindividual to communicate in a wider range of social contexts and is an indicator of real communicative competence. Depending on the socialsituation and family and community norms, bilingual code switching may be more or less prevalent. Regardless of the frequency of codeswitching, it should not be taken as evidence that a child is "semilingual." In fact, that students are able to switch back and forth between twodistinct codes is a sign of linguistic maturity. It requires competence in two languages and is not, as is sometimes thought, a result of partialcompetence in each.A final source of misunderstanding for educators may be the use of nonstandard language varieties by students. As has been discussed previously,language variation is a normal phenomenon. Just as we should not expect all students to come to school speaking standard English, we should notexpect them to speak a standard variety of their home language. Even bilingual educators can be misled by students' use of a dialect that isdifferent from the one they speak. We must be very careful that we are not associating the dialect or register of a language that is spoken byeducated and socio- economically privileged groups with "better" language. When we are discussing language proficiency, we need to comparestudents' abilities against the language variety they have had the opportunity to develop, not against a standard to which they have not beenexposed.IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATORSSo what does all of this tell us about educating CLD students with exceptionalities? Though it may seem like a daunting task, certain guide- linescan help teachers provide more effective and appropriate educational experiences. First, it must be recognized that educators cannot and shouldnot be expected to become fluent in the language of every student in their classes. Therefore, it is necessary to know when and where to go forhelp. Other professionals, the community, and, most important, the families of the students should be involved in planning and implementing thecurriculum. Also, there are increasingly available professional resources to assist special educators and other service providers in providingculturally relevant, effective, and appropriate education for CLD students with special education needs (see, for example, Brice, 2002; Kamhi,Pollock, & Harris, 1996; Lynch & Hanson, 1998; van Keulen, Weddington, & DeBose, 1998).Forming real partnerships with the families of students is another way for educators to become informed about the linguistic and cultural traditionsof their students. It is vital to collaborate with families in order to develop an appropriate educational program for students. According to Harry,Rueda, and Kalyanpur (1999), the goals of CLD families for their children's education may differ from the mainstream. This is especially true forstudents with intellectual disabilities (Harry et al., 1999). In order to truly foster collaboration with families, educators must keep an open mindand remember that there is no one right way to provide an education and to raise a child well. For example, notions of independence, work, andself-advocacy may all vary cross-culturally, and educators must be careful that they are not imposing their own cultural values on CLD studentsand their families. At the same time that we recognize that CLD families may have different assumptions, beliefs, goals, and ways of expressionfrom mainstream mores, we also must try to avoid inappropriate stereo- typing by assuming that all families from a particular cultural group willbehave the same way. Hanson (1998) states:Although people of the same cultural background may share tendencies, not all members of a group who share a common cultural background and/or history willbehave in the same manner. Rather, behavior is governed by many factors, such as socio- economic status, gender, age, length of residence in a locale, andeducation. (Each of these factors will have an impact as well.) Finally, individuals may differ by the degree to which they choose to adhere to a set of culturalpatterns. Some individuals identify strongly with a particular group; others combine practices from several cultural groups. (p. 4)Especially for this reason, teachers must include families in planning to ensure that the goals, objectives, and activities are culturally appropriateand compatible with the long-term plans of the family.Second, educators must look inside them- selves to identify their biases and assumptions about CLD students. If bilingual students are identifiedas demonstrating poor academic performance or low language proficiency, the en- tire range of possible explanations must be explored, especiallythose that do not place the deficit within the students or their homes and communities. Teachers can ask themselves whether they hold anyunderlying assumptions about language and culture, such as semilingualism, that warrant exploration. They can conduct an analysis of their ownteaching and interactions with students. By audio- or video- taping activities and analyzing lessons, educators can investigate questions such aswhether they spend the same amount of time with all students, whether they respond in an equally supportive manner, whether they expand onquestions from and answers for all students similarly, or whether they correct certain students more often on a regular basic. Clearly, teachers, andespecially special educators, should individualize instruction. The question, though, is whether the different treatment of individual studentsfollows a systematic pattern and whether that pattern is related to student ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language back- ground, gender, or otherstudent characteristics.Finally, teachers can support the continued development of students' home languages by welcoming them into the classroom and by encouragingparents to continue using their home languages with their children. All too often, even fluently bilingual teachers find themselves reverting toEnglish in the school environment. This is an insidious process that reveals to students the underlying difference in prestige between languages. Itis not enough to say that we value all languages and language varieties if we do not simultaneously demonstrate this through our own linguisticchoices. Students learn much more than the content of instruction at school-they also learn the values and attitudes of the dominant society, asreflected through their teachers. Teachers have an important role to play in mediating the messages that students receive and helping them to valueall of the knowledge they hold, not only that which they learn at school.SUMMARYIn this chapter, the foundations for first and second language development were reviewed. Central concepts in linguistics and child language werepresented and discussed in terms of their implications for second language development. The similarities and differences between first and secondlanguage development were delineated. Three current models of second language development, those developed by Krashen, Cummins, andWong Fillmore, were summarized, and their central tenets were compared with the research literature for feasibility. In light of the information

chapter should allow the reader to make more informed- observations and assessment and intervention decisions regarding CLD students in theschools.DISCUSSION QUESTIONS1. Discuss the relevance of important concepts in first language development to our under- standing of second language development.2. Define simultaneous and sequential bilingualism.3. Discuss some of the similarities and differences of first and second language development.4. Compare and contrast the three models of second language development presented in this chapter.5. Elaborate on why the term semilingualism is not appropriate for the description of the majority of CLD students.6. Propose and discuss other common fallacies about second language development and second language learners that you haveheard.7. Develop a plan for including instructional conversation into your daily lessons.8. Identify several things that you can do in your classroom to incorporate your students' cultural background.REFERENCESAndersen, E. S., Dunlea, A., & Kekelis, L. (1993). The impact of input: Language acquisition in the visually impaired. First Language, 13,23-49.Beals, D. E. (1997). Sources of support for learning words in conversation: Evidence from mealtimes. Journal of Child Language, 24(3), 673-694.Beals, D. E., & Tabors, P. O. (1995). Arboretum, bu- reaucratic and carbohydrates: Preschoolers' expo- sure to rare vocabulary at home. First Language, 15,57-76.Ben-Zeev, S. (1984). Bilingualism and cognitive devel- opment. In N. Miller (Ed.), Bilingualism and lan- guage disability: Assessment and remediation (pp. 55-80). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.Bialystok, E., & Cummins, J. (1991). Language, cogni- tion, and education of bilingual children. In E. Bia- lystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingualchildren (pp. 222-232). Cambridge, England: Cam- bridge University Press.Birdsong, D. (Ed.). (1999). Second language acquisi- tion and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Bohannon, J. N., & Bonvillian, J. D. (1997). Theoreti- cal approaches to language acquisition. In J. Berkc