Bilingualism and language disability: Assessment and remediation Ed. by Niklas Miller (review)

230 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 1 (1986) errors—increases our understanding of the problems involved, and thus makes a worthwhile contribution to the whole issue ofL2 proficiency assessment. [Belle Tyndall, Georgetown University.] Cultural language differences: Their educational and clinical-professional implications. Ed. by Sol Adler. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1984. Pp. 222. $24.79. This book urges that speech pathologists and other educators who assess the linguistic competence of 'culturaUy different and poor' chüdren should not confuse language features that are dialectal with those that are pathological. Emphasizing that non-standard dialects are not inferior, but simply inappropriate at school, the book recommends that children who speak such dialects be taught Standard] E[nglish] as a second dialect by the pathologist and by the classroom teacher (S. Adler, H. Bountress, and I. Tims). The method of instruction that is ülustrated contrasts structures of Black and Appalachian EngUsh with those of SE. Other issues are the relationship between speaking a nonstandard dialect and making errors in composition (K. Bergin), and the need for parents to adopt the view of dialect that the book advocates. Since the volume is intended for educators without extensive knowledge of work on dialect , it summarizes the early work ofW. Labov, R. Fasold, W. Wolfram & D. Christian, et al. In the process, however, it oversimplifies and errs. The authors repeatedly emphasize that non-standard dialects are systems as fuUy formed as SE; but they do not point out that SE is a social dialect as weU. Nor do they discuss variation. Although Bergin presents indirect evidence that SE is variable—a poor inter-rater reUabUity score [70%] in assessing the degree of dialect features present in subjects' oral language —SE is, in general, made to seem monolithic. Errors are also made in defining the dialects, as in the claim that IiI is substituted in initial position for /T/ in Black English. Non-problems are addressed whüe more stigmatized features are ignored: thus lesson plans are given to teach may (vs. can) for requesting permission, and have to for hafta in oral language, but none on î-deletion. The book suggests that learning SE will lead to improving academic achievement and access to goodjobs after school. But SE is viewed here as limited to the phonological, lexical, and grammatical aspects oflanguage. Thereis no mention ofrelevant research on discourse features ofSE that have been found to influence academic achievement (cf. Sarah Michaels, Susan Phüips ). Research such as John Ogbu's on societal factors in differential school achievement is not discussed. Thus the claims for the power of SE are too strong. Although this book addresses issues that are important for schools, its usefulness is questionable because of its simplistic approach and its inaccuracies. [Carolyn Temple Adger, Washington, D.C] Bilingualism and language disability: Assessment and remediation. Ed. by Niklas Miller. London: Croom Helm; San Diego: CollegeHill , 1984. Pp. xiv, 255. £14.95. Eleven papers, organized into three parts, treat the issue stated in the title. Clearly, chüdren who enter school with Uttle or no exposure to the language used in the school—here, generaUy , EngUsh—may experience difficulties. Part I, 'What is bUinguaUsm?' serves as an introduction to the issues and problems ofsecondlanguage acquisition. This is an exceUent 'state of the art' paper on bilingualism and bilingual education (= ESL for school chüdren). The volume's papers then go on to focus on the real issue: the differential diagnosis and treatment ofchüdren who are non-native speakers of EngUsh and have other disabiUties (retardation, learning, hearing, and language disabiUties). Part II, 'Language assessment', deals with the problems of diagnosing language disabiUty in a 'bilingual' child. There are problems ofscale—given that one might expect poor performance by a non-native speaker, what specificaUy indicates a language disabiUty?— and ofpracticaUty—how does one estabüsh that there is a deficit in the chüd's native language, given a paucity of test instruments in most languages ? And who should be responsible for assessment ? In Part III, 'Remediation', an attempt is made at coming to grips with the issue ofmanagement. The papers show that there are currently more issues than answers. As N. Miller & S. Abur- BOOK NOTICES 231 darham...