Despite a growing body of evidence in recent years suggesting that bilingualism is not detrimental for children on the autism spectrum, multilingual families are routinely advised to speak one language – rather than the two or more available to them – if their child has autism (Hampton et al., 2017; Uljarević et al., 2016; Yu, 2013). This advice, although well- intentioned, may be based ‘more on logical arguments than empirical evidence’ (Lim et al., 2018, p.2890). That is to say, it is premised on the assumption that bilingualism confuses autistic children or worsens potential language delays (Hampton et al., 2017; Ijalba, 2016;
Jegatheesan, 2011). Exploring the factors influencing the language choices of 15 Chinese- English bilingual parents of autistic children, Yu (2009) found that they unanimously perceived bilingualism to be detrimental to their child’s development and were discouraged by educational and healthcare professionals to maintain their heritage language. Such conclusions resonate with the findings of Baker (2013), Y’Garcia, Breslau, Hansen, and Miller (2012), and Yu (2016). What emerges then is a significant incongruity between the professional advice given to parents to use one language and the findings of recent studies that bilingualism is not detrimental for autistic children.
To a lesser extent, an incongruity also emerges in the current literature between parents’ perceptions of bilingualism and their actual language practices (Ijalba, 2016; Yu, 2016). For instance, even though parents often highly value bilingualism in theory, many feel that monolingualism is the only option available to their family given the severity of their child’s symptomatology (Hampton et al., 2017; Yu & Hsia, 2018). The choices they make are often restricted by the lack of support available to help the child to maintain both languages (Yu & Hsia, 2018). Although it is acknowledged that advice to parents should be given on a case-by- case basis, generic recommendations to adopt a monolingual approach may have unintended negative implications for children’s linguistic, social and cultural development (Uljarević et al., 2016). Above all, ‘forced monolingualism’ is likely to isolate the child and restrict their perhaps already limited opportunities for social interaction with family and community members (Baker, 2011; Peña, 2016). This is especially concerning as parents of autistic children often continue to provide care into adulthood (Paradis & Govindarajan, 2018). As such, speaking the non-dominant language may have a negative effect on family well-being; an emotional distance may emerge between the parent and child if the parent is advised to no longer use their own first language (Hampton et al., 2017; Tseng & Fuligni, 2000; Y’Garcia et al., 2012). In turn, this may also exclude families from their linguistic communities (Yu & Hsia, 2018). Indeed, Yu argues that it is unrealistic to expect parents to reduce, or worse still abandon, the use of their own native language, suggesting that such advice is not only untenable, but ‘at odds with their ways of life’ (2016, p.425).
Asking parents to use their non-native language may be unhelpful if they lack fluency and are incorrectly modelling it (Drysdale et al., 2015), given that non-native input can result in the child hearing inconsistent morphology and fewer grammatical constructs (Altan & Hoff, 2018). Peña (2016) also highlights the fact that once a language is no longer used, the child’s
ability to learn it later on is rapidly diminished, which may have adverse effects on their relationships with extended family. Finally, no evidence suggests that reducing the child’s linguistic exposure removes the challenges associated with autism; it only turns a bilingual autistic child into a monolingual autistic child.
Conversely, certain studies outline the myriad benefits of bilingual exposure for children on the autism spectrum. These include: developing multicultural identities and the preservation of heritage (Yu, 2013); participation in religious life (Jegatheesan, 2011); enriched relationships with, and access to, immediate and extended family members (Bird et al., 2016b; Hampton et al., 2017; Yu, 2016); and cognitive skills related to attention (Gonzalez-Barrero & Nadig, 2019). Underlying much of the existing literature in this area is an acknowledgement that language choices and practices should be made on a case-by-case basis (Baker, 2013; Hampton et al., 2017). In the UK context, Hampton et al. (2017) posit that bilingualism would become less of a stumbling block to families with autistic children were there better provision of bilingual resources and interventions. Fox et al.’s study (2017) into parental attitudes about autism among the Somali migrant community in the UK found that access to health and education services post-diagnosis was all the more challenging given certain language barriers and unfamiliarity with the system. In light of these issues, existing studies provide recommendations that counter the misleading advice that ‘one language is best’. To ensure bilingualism is a viable possibility, autistic children may require more opportunities to hear and use their home language than neurotypical children, especially those who receive more exposure in the dominant language (Hambly & Fombonne, 2014; Paradis et al., 2018). Accordingly, providing speech and language interventions in both languages may help to alleviate the common risk of language attrition in the home language (Bird et al., 2016a).
Calls have been made for more support and advice for multilingual families prior to, during, and after an autism diagnosis (Beauchamp & MacLeod, 2017; Lim et al., 2018). Such support could be possible through increased dialogue between families and practitioners, with particular attention given to parents’ existing language practices (Uljarević et al., 2016). A greater awareness among practitioners about the nature of intergenerational language practices is also essential (Yu, 2016). By understanding families and children’s experiences and perceptions, along with the barriers that prevent them from choosing a multilingual approach, researchers and practitioners will be better placed to provide evidence-based recommendations and policies. Little (2017) recommends that parents and children actively discuss the role of
the home language in their family life and their motives for maintaining it. Such dialogues are also essential between families, professionals and researchers in order to gain a clear understanding of how the home language is perceived, which, in turn, has the potential to inform policy and practice.