Most research investigating bilingualism in autism considers either children’s capacity to become bilingual (see 1.5.3.) or parental perspectives and experiences of raising an autistic child in a multilingual family (see 1.5.4.). Paradis and Govindarajan (2018) therefore call for the field to shift its attention towards clinical and educational policy and practice. In her study into Hispanic mothers’ attitudes towards raising an autistic child, Ijalba (2016) integrates the notion of parental language choice with wider issues of the cultural stigmatisation of an autism diagnosis and what she defines as ‘antibilingualism policies’ that advocate an ‘English-first’ approach, such as the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ (2002) in the United States. García (2009) denounces such policies for the way in which they replace the term ‘bilingual’ with ‘English language learner’, and have diminished funding for bilingual education programmes. Ijalba and García’s findings are emblematic of Peña’s conclusions (2016) that policies relating to bilinguals on the autism spectrum vary significantly across countries and regions. Across contexts, areas in need of further investigation include assessment and diagnostic tools, support for families, and educational provision, each of which will be discussed in turn.
Finding more appropriate assessment and diagnostic tools for linguistically and culturally diverse children is a major priority, given that they are under-represented in the diagnosed population (Yamasaki & Luk, 2018), and tend to be diagnosed later, therefore precluding them from all-important early intervention (Mandell et al., 2009). For example, Strand et al.’s analysis (2006) of census data revealed Asian pupils were less likely than White British children to be diagnosed with autism in the UK. Despite increasing linguistic diversity, Clifford, Rhodes, and Paxton (2014) found that information about bilingualism is conspicuously absent from paediatric training. Informing clinicians about the emergent evidence-base on bilingualism for children with developmental conditions would be a useful first step in improving the advice given to families (Clifford et al., 2014). Equally, ensuring that clinicians enquire about the language backgrounds of their patients may improve the identification of conditions such as autism in multilingual populations (Lim et al., 2019).
Improved parent-clinician consultation and a more holistic approach to families’ language histories and use across different settings may lead to more appropriate and individualised advice (Anderson, 2012; Medina & Salamon, 2012; Seung et al., 2006). Lim et al. (2018) recommend that clinicians allay parents’ concerns about bilingualism in autism by presenting them with the current evidence-base, which suggests that there are no adverse effects to raising an autistic child bilingually. Uljarević et al. (2016) also argue that the lack of evidence to support a monolingual recommendation for multilingual children with developmental conditions requires further reinforcement in language policy. Nevertheless, Lim et al. (2018) still caution that professionals should be wary of making conclusive statements about bilingualism in autism, and instead take into account the child’s and family’s unique circumstances. Where possible, clinicians should offer interventions and services in both languages or the home language, rather than the default position of only providing services in the dominant societal language (Dai et al., 2018; de Valenzuela et al., 2016).
Research into educational provision tends to focus on bilingualism for children with developmental conditions, rather than autism specifically (de Valenzuela et al., 2016; Marinova-Todd et al., 2016; Pesco et al., 2016). Pesco et al. (2016), for example, examine whether recent special education policies reflect the finding that bilingualism is not detrimental for children with developmental disabilities. By examining their opportunities to pursue bilingualism in four different international settings, the authors found a perennial lack of provision for bilinguals with developmental conditions, when compared to their neurotypical bilingual peers. The authors warned that this lack of opportunity could result in children losing the ability to communicate in their home language. They recommend greater collaboration between teachers and speech and language therapists, and better access to second language programmes for children with developmental conditions. Such advice chimes with Peña, Gillam, Bedore, and Bohman’s findings that priority is almost always given to the majority language, most commonly English, by dint of a ‘lack of available bilingual personnel, time pressures, and lack of training’ (2011, p.311). A disconnect therefore comes to the fore between evidence-based recommendations and the realities of professional practice. Similarly, in their study into the availability of bilingual services for atypically-developing children, Marinova- Todd et al. (2016) found that the provision of language classes was deemed inadequate, especially when compared to access for typically-developing children.
Strategies for the inclusion of bilingual autistic children in educational settings are few and far between (Medina & Salamon, 2012). A lack of bilingual staff and bilingual special education services mean that even if schools wanted to provide interventions in the home language, they would be hard-pressed to do so (Peña et al., 2011; Yu & Hsia, 2018). Consequently, Paradis et al. (2018) argue that it is not an autistic child’s capacity for bilingualism that may prevent them from maintaining their home language, but a lack of opportunities to develop their home language proficiency. Beauchamp and MacLeod (2017) therefore return to the importance of increasing the child’s exposure to their first language in the home setting, if they are exposed only to the dominant societal language in school. They recommend that, where possible, parents enrol their children in home language programmes outside of school to further broaden their exposure to the home language (Beauchamp & MacLeod, 2017). However, it is important to note that these programmes often incur a cost, which may make them less accessible to children from lower socio-economic backgrounds.