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

net/publication/274719263

Multilingual Language Development

Chapter · February 2015

DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23126-7

CITATIONS READS
6 7,102

1 author:

Alejandro Brice
University of South Florida
101 PUBLICATIONS   662 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Subarachnoid hemorrhage View project

Editor of Communication Disorders Quarterly View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alejandro Brice on 27 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Author's personal copy

Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only.

Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use.

This article was originally published in the International Encyclopedia of the Social
& Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy
is provided by Elsevier for the author’s benefit and for the benefit of the
author’s institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including
without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific
colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator.

All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including

without limitation commercial reprints, selling or
licensing copies or access, or posting on open
internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or
repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission
may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s
permissions site at:
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial

From Brice, A.E., 2015. Multilingual Language Development. In: James D. Wright
(editor-in-chief), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences,
2nd edition, Vol 16. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 57–64.
ISBN: 9780080970868
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.
Elsevier
 Author's personal copy

Multilingual Language Development

Alejandro E Brice, University of South Florida St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, FL, USA
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Typical language development has far too long been predicated on monolingual development. It is estimated that
approximately more than half of the world’s population speaks more than one language. Multilingual or multilanguage
acquisition differs from monolingual development. It involves more layers that affect ultimate acquisition including second
and/or multiple language acquisition factors, environmental factors, individual factors, developmental factors, and, if the
child has disabilities, then disabilities are also confounding factors. In addition, the following factors influencing multi-
lingual language acquisition will be discussed: (1) second and/or multiple language acquisition; (2) language dominance
and proficiency; (3) language maintenance; (4) language model; (5) language deceleration; (6) cross-linguistic influence, that
is, language transference; (7) cross-linguistic influence, that is, language interference; (8) cross-linguistic influence, that is,
code switching and code mixing; (9) ultimate attainment; (10) language loss (attrition); (11) language fossilization; (12)
environmental factors; (13) individual and developmental factors; (14) biological, neurological aspects of multilingualism;
(15) disability factors; and (16) strategies for promoting multilingualism. This article will briefly present these overlaying
components and provide suggestions for language professionals in promoting multilingualism.

Introduction indicated that young multilingual children can appropriately

The notion of typical language development has far too long
been predicated on monolingual development. It is estimated that
approximately more than half of the world’s population speaks
more than one language (Grosjean, 2010). Multilingualism
is the norm worldwide. Thus, the monolingual view to language
development is inadequate to describe language acquisition
from a global perspective. In addition, the viewpoint that
multilingual language development mirrors monolingual
language when only one of the child’s languages is considered is
also a misguided assertion (Brice and Brice, 2009; Grosjean, 1989).
Multilingual or multilanguage acquisition differs from
monolingual development (Brice and Brice, 2009). It involves
more layers that affect ultimate acquisition including: (1)
second and/or multiple language acquisition factors, (2) envi-
ronmental factors, (3) individual factors, (4) developmental
factors, and (5) if the child has disabilities, then disabilities are
also confounding factors. This article will briefly present these
overlaying components and provide suggestions for language
professionals in promoting multilingualism. See Figure 1.
code switch as early as 18 months of age when spoken to in
L1 or L2 (Brice and Wertheim, 2004/2005; Döpke, 1992;
Pearson and Fernandez, 1994; Pearson et al., 1997; Pearson
et al., 1995; Wapole, 2000). Hence, no language confusion
appears to be occurring for typically developing children.
Learning a third language (L3) differs from learning an L2
(Jessner, 2006). Third language acquisition (TLA) requires
different skills than those used by bilingual (L2) learners.
Jessner (2006) stated that TLA should be the basis for
studying bilingual and monolingual language acquisition,
and not vice versa. Cenoz (2000) illustrated that TLA differs
from second language acquisition (SLA) in terms of how the
languages may be acquired. In SLA, the L2 may be acquired
simultaneously with L1, or sequentially with L1, whereas in

Second and/or Multiple Language Acquisition

Learning a second language (L2) or multiple languages is not

a straightforward additive process to English. It does not
involve a simple one-to-one correspondence. Grosjean (1989)
wrote that a bilingual speaker does not consist of two
monolinguals speakers. Rather a bilingual speaker is an
individual who has access to two languages that interact
with each other constantly, even when one language is the
primary mode being activated (Grosjean, 1989). When
young children acquire two languages simultaneously from
birth, their first language (L1) is bilingualism. Their two
languages interact in positive and sometimes negative ways
from the very first day they are exposed to the two languages
(i.e., language transference and interference). Research has Figure 1 Interaction of bilingual factors.

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 16 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23126-7 57

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 57–64
 Author's personal copy
58 Multilingual Language Development
TLA, four different conditions exist: (1) L1, L2, and L3 may be
acquired simultaneously; (2) L1, L2, and L3 may be acquired
sequentially; (3) L2 and L3 are acquired after L1; and (4) L1
and L2 are acquired before L3. In addition, the acquisition
process of any of the languages may be halted by the process
of acquiring any of the other two languages. The interruption
process may apply to L1, L2, or L3 at any point in time;
consequently, the TLA becomes more complex than either
L1 or L2 acquisition. Due to the possible interruption of
learning, individuals may also later relearn any of their
interrupted languages. Chronological acquisition of L1–L3
does not necessarily equate with proficiency in any of the
languages (Hufeisen, 1997). However, Jessner (2006) stated
that in TLA, related languages tend to transfer learning more
than unrelated languages. Consequently, cross-linguistic
influences (CLIs) in TLA are more complex than in SLA.
Language Dominance and Proficiency
The concepts of language proficiency and language dominance
are notions that seem to imply that one should consider each
language separately instead of in a combined fashion. Hence,
proficiency should be investigated in terms of communicative
competence (Canale and Swain, 1980; Cazden et al., 1972)
and proficiency utilizing a combined approach as is seen in
vocabulary studies where total vocabulary and total
conceptual vocabulary measures are obtained (Pearson and
Pearson, 2004). Dominance varies across speech and
language domains (phonetics, phonology, morphology,
semantics, pragmatics, etc.) and also seems to vary within
each speech domain. Flege and Eefting (1987) demonstrated
that multilingual speakers are capable of creating different
phonetic categories for voiceless stops across languages.
Grosjean’s (2001) notions of language modes fits this
paradigm. Language modes refer to what extent L1 and L2
are activated and to the continuum of activation among the
languages. Bullock et al. (2006) summarize this by stating,
“Such research contends that bilinguals’ language use is
malleable in that they may behave differently according to
which language they are producing or perceiving at a given
time” (p. 9). Hence, dominance in a multilingual child is not
an overall ability assigned to L1, L2, or L3 but one that seems
to vary according to language, language domain, and task.
Language Maintenance
My husband and I adopted twin sons a little over 2 years ago. They
were 8 months old when we brought them home from their native
country Cambodia, where the only language they had been exposed
to was Khmer. My husband and I are both Hispanic in culture,
language and heritage. Even though we live in the Southern USA
[name changed] we speak Spanish at home and with our Hispanic
friends as well as, of course, family. We have always wanted to raise
our children to be multilingual since that has been both of our
experiences. We know that the speech delay they have is very
understandable given that they are boys, twins and have been
exposed to several languages. A number of English-speaking friends
and professionals have, suggested changing to English only at home.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 57–64
A few mothers of bilingual children have formed a website and we
exchange information we learn out in the ‘real world’ of raising our
own bilingual children. The question is, a few ‘professionals’, have
asked that some parents stop the second language at home to
develop the English or whatever the community language is. What is
the standard advice? Why do we get this question so often? This
really goes against our instincts to not speak our own language to our
children.
The above solicitations for advice came from two mothers
of multilingual children. The first mother was raising two
boys with some speech and motor delays, while the second
mother was raising her typically developing multilingual
child. Yet, the essential question that they asked was the
same, i.e., can we speak the native language at home and raise
our children in a multilingual environment? It also appears
that they have been given uninformed advice to speak only
the outside language at home (English in the first case as this
came from the United States and French in the second case as
this came from a parent in France). What does the research
say and what are the logical consequences of speaking the
native language in the home versus speaking the outside
language (e.g., English) in the home environment? Research
has documented that multilingualism has cognitive and
linguistic advantages (Bialystok, 2007; Hakuta, 1986).
Research with multilingual children with disabilities has
also shown that multilingualism does not have any
detrimental effect on language development even with
children who have prominent language disabilities as seen
in Down syndrome (Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2005). Kay-
Raining Bird et al. stated that,
There was no evidence of a detrimental effect of bilingualism. That is,
the bilingual children with DS scored at least as well on all English
tests as their monolingual DS counterparts. Nonetheless, there was
considerable diversity in the second- language abilities demon-
strated by these individuals with DS. (p. 187)
Kohnert (2008) stated that in multilingual homes there
exists “. the availability of rich language in the environment
and diverse opportunities to develop and use a particular
language for meaningful communicative interactions” (p. 10).
Thus, maintaining the native language allows parents to
communicate with their children in perhaps the best language
medium available to them, i.e., their own native language.
In addition, speaking in the other language (e.g., English) may
diminish communication and possibly provide a less-than-
rich experience and inadequate language model. It will take
a child between 5 and 6 years to acquire nativelike classroom
language abilities in English (Thomas and Collier, 1997).
Speaking only English at home will not accelerate English
learning and may in fact delay English acquisition due to
a less rich language input. Therefore, why do professionals
advocate such advice when it is not supported by the research
and may go against the parent’s instincts? It may be ignorance.
For example, according to popular misconception it is
believed that when two individuals are speaking in another
language they are talking about you. As language specialists,
 Author's personal copy
we must take a broader view (i.e., bilingual or multilingual view)
to language use and development. It is our belief that
multilingualism is a positive attribute and should be
encouraged with all individuals (especially, those with
language and learning disabilities). In sum, all aspects of
multilingualism need to be understood.
Language Mode
The multilingual speaker has access to both their interacting
languages at all times. Hence, the multilingual speaker never
truly shuts one language off even when speaking in mono-
lingual fashion. A multilingual speaker has access to two
phonologies, two lexicons, two syntactic systems, and two
pragmatic manners of interaction. They can choose which
system may best convey their message. A more appropriate
means of classifying a multilingual speaker’s language abilities
is to think of neither their L1 nor their L2 abilities but rather, to
think of their abilities as a third combined language form that
occurs at all times. The combined form is a continual interac-
tion and combination of L1 and L2. The combined form
cannot be subtracted from L1 or L2. Sometimes, the combined
form involves code switching, or code mixing. At other times,
the combined form occurs even when in monolingual mode.
When the multilingual speaker is speaking solely L2 (e.g.,
English) or L1 (e.g., Spanish), their brain is always in the
combined mode (i.e., multilingual).
The implication for language professionals is that any
assessment of a multilingual child’s learning and/or language
abilities should include their combined dual language abilities.
If the language professional is fortunate to have results from
both languages, then these results must not be looked at
separately. Assessment and test results should be investigated
as combined L1 and L2 efforts (i.e., combined mode). The
language specialist should look at both languages and their
combined receptive and expressive language abilities in oral
and written language, phonology, morphology, semantics,
syntax, and semantics. Poplack (1980) postulated that
a multilingual speaker has to abide by both languages and
their grammar rules when code switching and code mixing.
We will postulate that even when the multilingual speaker is
communicating in solely one language, he or she is keeping
track of both language grammars simultaneously. An
example of this is seen in momentary language interference
when a multilingual speaker attempts to read an English
word as a Spanish word, or when a multilingual speaker
displays a broader definition of vocabulary in one language
because they have accessed the vocabulary meaning in both
languages (e.g., ‘father’ in English, ‘padre’ in Spanish,
‘padrastro’ or stepfather in Spanish; hence, ‘father’ can also
encompass a broader meaning to include ‘stepfather’).
Consequently, the term ‘multilingual’ does not accurately
reflect the complexity of the language system of the child who
has multilingualism as L1. Multilingualism is not simply the
use of two languages, but rather, use of three language modes
(L1, L2, and their combined languages). A multilingual indi-
vidual always operates in some varying degree of combined
mode because L1 and L2 cannot be completely deactivated or
separated. See Figure 2.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 57–64
Multilingual Language Development 59
Figure 2 Bilingual language modes.
As can be seen from this illustration, multilingual language
communication involves whether the two languages are active
or inactive, and the degrees of proficiency in each of the
languages. Proficiencies in L1 or L2 are complex issues.
Language Deceleration
It appears from initial research that multilingual infants and
children experience extra language demands and a consequent
limitation on cognitive resources. As a result, multilingual
children may experience language deceleration in both their
languages (Fabiano-Smith and Barlow, 2009; Paradis and
Genesee, 1996). Multilingual children may lag in their
development compared to monolingual speakers of either
language (e.g., Spanish or English).
Fennel et al. (2007) found that bilingual infants showed
temporary delays in acquiring speech sound categories (e.g.,
‘bih’ vs ‘dih’) when compared to monolingual infants.
Monolingual infants were able to make the sound distinctions
at 17 months, while bilingual infants needed 20 months to
accomplish the task. The authors concluded that the bilingual
infants needed more time due to limited cognitive resources.
Genesee (1987) noted language deceleration in reading,
word knowledge, and spelling among immersion students.
The lag noted in Genesee’s study was temporary and the
discrepancy disappeared after 1 or 2 years of English
language arts instruction. Jean and Geva (2009) found
academic vocabulary knowledge (i.e., word meanings and
vocabulary knowledge) to lag among students enrolled in
English as a second language when compared to English as
a first language students. This lag was observed even after
5–6 years of schooling. However, it should be noted that the
lags as noted by Jean and Geva and also those by Genesee
reflect academic language and school performance. Thus, it
appears that for oral language abilities, bilingual and multi-
lingual children are capable of attaining proficient L2 levels.
CLI: Language Transference
CLI consists of the interaction among two or more languages.
CLI may be positive consisting of transference among the
 Author's personal copy
60 Multilingual Language Development
languages, negative consisting of interference among the
languages, or simply interaction of the languages (such as code
switching or code mixing) (Jessner, 2006). Language
transference benefit occurs when bilingual speakers are able
to attain a high level of proficiency in both languages
(Cummins, 1984). Regarding L3 learners, high levels of
proficiency would need to be obtained among two of their
three languages (e.g., L1–L2, L1–L3, or L2–L3). It is also
conceivable that transference would occur among all languages
if high levels of proficiency were obtained in all languages.
Phonetically speaking, Flege et al. (2003) have shown that
the phonetic systems of bilinguals interact. Age of arrival to
the country (e.g., early vs late) and amount of L1 use
determined the extent to which speech production of English
was influenced (vowels in this study). With regard to
vocabulary, research by Pearson and Pearson (2004)
recommend the use of Total Conceptual Vocabulary so that
students will not be identified as having small vocabularies.
Therefore, multilingual vocabulary should only be considered
when both languages are measured jointly. Montrul (2006)
documented that Spanish-English-speaking adults were
capable of achieving balanced syntactic abilities in both of
their languages. These results indicate that the adults showed
robust knowledge of both L1 and L2 syntactic structures,
something that would not have been possible if the
languages were separate and did not interact. Hence, positive
transference seemed to have occurred at the syntactic level.
The question then arises not if dominance and proficiency
are suitable theoretical constructs appropriate for multilingual
students, but do the bilingual speakers catch up or attain ulti-
mate proficiency in both of their languages?
CLI: Language Interference
Children can and do ‘fall between the cracks.’ Language inter-
ference, language loss, and fossilization can and do occur with
SLA. Language interference is the negative influence that
a language may have on subsequent languages. It is the
imposition of one language onto another. An example is where
the Spanish speaker may pronounce a ‘th’ as a ‘d’ sound. This is
because the ‘th’ sound does not occur in Spanish of the
Americas (excluding Castilian Spanish from Spain). The
multilingual speaker will utilize a close approximation from
their native language (L1). This interference is normal and will
typically disappear given time, adequate English exposure, and
perhaps instruction (Cummins, 1984). Language loss is when
one of the two languages (typically, the native language)
diminishes in growth or disappears. Some of our research
with multilingual elementary-aged students (third-, fourth-,
and fifth-grade students) indicates that this occurs with
typically developing students (i.e., no disabilities present)
(Brice et al., submitted). Language loss has been well
documented by others (Selinker, 1991). Please note that
multilingual children can also shift toward greater English
vocabulary with increased English exposure (Kohnert and
Bates, 2002; Kohnert et al., 1999).
Brice and Montgomery (1996) showed that language-
impaired students and English language learners (ELLs) may
display pragmatic problems in the classroom, albeit due to
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 57–64
different causes. The ELL students demonstrated pragmatic
communicative competence and were in the initial stages of
acquiring English. Consequently, the Spanish-English-
speaking students were accessing both their Spanish linguistic
and pragmatic skills in order to accomplish pragmatic
proficiency, yet had not established typically developing
levels of monolingual children. Some pragmatic interference
errors were noted for the ELL students.
CLI: Code Switching and Code Mixing
Code switching and code mixing are two forms of language
alternation exhibited in multilingual speakers’ language. It is
a typical occurrence and does not signal language difficulties
(Brice and Brice, 2009; Grosjean, 2010). Code switching is
when the alternation occurs across sentence boundaries
(intersentential alternations) as in the sentence, “I’m going to
read the directions. Prestes atención? (pay attention).” The
switch occurs between the English and Spanish sentences.
Code mixing occurs within a sentence (intrasentential
alterations). It is developmentally and linguistically more
complex of a behavior (Brice and Brice, 2009). An example is
when the teacher says, “Open your books to pagina diez
(page ten).” Code switching and code mixing behaviors are
exhibited along a continuum of language proficiency
abilities, i.e., individuals may exhibit low-level language
alternation behaviors, midlevel alternation behaviors, or
high-level language alternation behaviors.
Poplack (1980) says that a multilingual speaker when code
switching/mixing, has to abide by the language rules of all
languages. Hence, code switching and code mixing are rule-
governed behaviors. A third form of language alternation is
the use of loan or borrowed words from another language.
However, with loan/borrowed words, one does have to be
multilingual as the borrowed word becomes completely
incorporated into the guest language (e.g., “I took karate
lessons at the dojo”).
Ultimate Attainment
Bialystok et al. (2010) stated that:
Bilingual children need to distribute their language-learning time
across two languages and it is likely that some words occur in
a context in which they only use one of their languages. In this sense,
there is little reason to think that bilingual children are compro-
mised in their expressive ability and every possibility that their
combined vocabulary is equivalent to or greater than the vocab-
ulary of monolingual children [emphasis added]. (p. 525)
Lugo-Neris et al. (2010) found that children with greater
language proficiency in one of their two languages made
the most gains from vocabulary intervention. Students with
low-level aptitudes in both their languages did not show
equal gains as students with better Spanish proficiency.
Consequently, ultimate attainment abilities may depend on
robust L1 skills. Bialystok et al. (2010) determined that
 Author's personal copy
multilingual students are not hindered in school and academic
language and attained ultimate vocabulary attainments for
school words. In sum, it appears that ultimate vocabulary
attainment is possible given a strong L1, sufficient exposure
and adequate vocabulary use, and sufficient time acquiring
their two languages (Bialystok et al., 2010; Gathercole, 2010;
Lugo-Neris et al., 2010).
Pham and Kohnert (2013) found that bilingual children’s
English skills overtook their Vietnamese receptive and
expressive vocabulary skills at approximately 9 and 71/2 years of
age, respectively. While both languages increased in vocabulary,
English became the more dominant language. Expressive skills
lagged receptive English proficiency levels. This would indicate
that ultimate attainment can be achieved in English; however,
this may come at a risk of lesser native language skills
(especially if the native language is not fully developed).
Research investigating speech perception abilities of multi-
lingual adults indicates that some bilinguals are capable of
attaining equal or ultimate attainment abilities in their L2
(Brice and Brice, 2008). However, this ability was found among
only middle bilinguals (i.e., sequential bilinguals who had
begin their English acquisition between 9 and 15 years of age
and also been exposed to advanced English levels for at
least 6 years). It should be noted that most bilinguals achieve,
at minimum, functional abilities in both languages. Con-
sequently, it appears that adequate exposure and maintenance
to both languages is requisite for L2 development.
Language Loss (Attrition)
Under ideal conditions (e.g., near equal amounts of both
languages such as 60% English and 40% Spanish) balanced
multilingualism can result (Brice and Wertheim, 2004/2005;
Pearson et al., 1997, 1993, 1995). However, language attrition
typically occurs under less-than-perfect multilingual
conditions (Anderson, 1999; Seliger and Vago, 1991). Given
that English is the predominant language in schools, in the
media, and for students, it serves as the primary means of
communication with teachers and most friends; it seems very
plausible that English becomes dominant and that Spanish
becomes targeted as a minority language. Consequently, the
home language will develop minority status and be at risk for
language loss. The acquisition of English while losing the
home language has dramatic language learning and
educational consequences: (1) the child’s language
development stalls and resembles a language learning
disability, (2) communication with both parents may weaken,
(3) it takes a significantly longer time to fully develop English
academic language skills (Thomas and Collier, 1997), and (4)
positive transference of language skills from L1 to L2 may be
lessened (Cummins, 1984, 1998).
Cummins (1984, 1998) stated the existence of a threshold
hypothesis whereupon the student must achieve certain profi-
ciency levels in their L1 before language transfer occurs
and before the cognitive benefits of balanced multilingualism
can be attained. If this threshold is not attained then what may
result is language loss (or subtractive multilingualism).
Language loss among typically developing multilingual
students may be more common than many educators may
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 57–64
Multilingual Language Development 61
suspect. It is to the benefit of the child and the school that
multilingual, English learners maintain their home language
(i.e., less referrals for speech–language special education
interventions as these students may appear to be language
learning disabled). Research has demonstrated that promoting
multilingualism promotes English language development and
acquisition (Brice and Wertheim, 2004/2005; Döpke, 1992;
Pearson and Fernandez, 1994; Pearson et al., 1997, 1995;
Wapole, 2000). Brice et al. (2006) offered some suggestions
in educating ELLs. Some specific language recommendations
include: (1) modelling correct English language, (2) providing
grammar drills with direct instruction, and (3) allowing for
code switching to occur. In conclusion, language professionals
should promote multilingualism and encourage teachers,
family members, and students to be proud of their native
language and to use it often.
Language Fossilization
Language fossilization is where growth in English (or the L2)
languishes or stops short (Selinker, 1972). Both language loss
and fossilization are real possibilities for multilingual children.
Acquiring English and maintaining the native language are
not automatic guarantees for multilingual children. Selinker
(1972) first defined the concept of fossilization as an end state
(final stage) and steady state (continuous stage) of language
abilities that are characterized by stagnated growth in L2
development. Selinker (1991) refers to all stages of growth
between two languages (until ultimate attainment is achieved)
as interlanguage (IL) or intermediate stages of L2 learning.
Therefore, fossilization is a permanent cessation of IL learning.
Han (2004) identifies several possible causal factors for
fossilization: (1) lack of instruction, (2) lack of language
input, and (3) satisfactory communicative abilities.
Environmental Factors
According to Wong-Fillmore (1992), multilingualism (i.e., high
levels of proficiency and balanced abilities) is possible only
when certain conditions are met:
1. Need to communicate. The child and others must fulfill
communicative intents. Motivation and desire to commu-
nicate are integral aspects. Language professionals must
provide opportunities for real communication.
2. Access to language from speakers of that language. Multilingual
individuals must have access to English and this English
must be of a high level.
3. Interaction, support, and feedback from speakers of that language
must be present. This interaction and feedback must be
adequate for the learning to occur.
4. Time. It takes considerable time to adequately learn an L2,
especially beyond just conversational abilities (Cummins,
1984; Thomas and Collier, 2002). It may take from 4 to
6 years or 5 to 7 years to acquire nativelike abilities for
classroom language. Thomas and Collier state that this
occurs only if the child has a strong base in their L1;
otherwise, it may take up to 10–13 years. Again, support
of the native language is crucial for English development.
 Author's personal copy
62 Multilingual Language Development
Individual and Developmental Factors
The child’s cognitive aptitude and also stages in their language,
cognitive, and physical development play roles in L2 learning.
It is apparent that gifted and talented students may experience
accelerated learning in acquiring English (Brice et al., 2008).
Just as developmental stages affect L1 development, these
processes and stages also affect SLA. It is beyond the scope of
this article to detail all these processes. However, it must be
mentioned that the interaction of developmental stages
among two developing language systems is more complex
and varied than with monolingual development.
In sum, Kohnert (2013) states that bilingual/multilingual
students must have the means, opportunities, and motivation
to acquire their languages and develop proficiency and
proficiency may vary in each of the languages.
Biological and Neurological Aspects of
Multilingualism
Language and cognition are multiphasic processes (i.e., language
and thinking develop in different stages in brain development)
(Sakai, 2005; Uylings, 2006). Most brain growth occurs after
birth, i.e., postnatally (Eliot, 2001). Evidence indicates that
various aspects of brain development occur into late
adolescence and/or early adulthood: (1) white matter increases
from 4 to 21 years of age (Guidd, 2004); (2) myelin growth
continues into adulthood (Uylings, 2006); (3) synaptogenesis
(i.e., creation of new synapses) reaches maturation around 10–
15 years of age (Uylings, 2006); (4) neurotransmitters such as
dopamine, noradrenaline, and serotonin reach maturation
around adolescence or early adulthood, (5)
acetylcholinesterase (a key enzyme in the nervous system)
matures around 18 years of age or later (Uylings, 2006); and
(6) neuron dendrites and synapses and brain
neurotransmitters are not expected to reach full development
until adolescence or later (Uylings, 2006). Consequently, it
appears that many developing brain capabilities occur in late
adolescence or early adulthood, which would favor a sensitive
and noncritical period to cognition and learning language
(meaning that language learning neither reaches a plateau nor
ceases around puberty). Neurologically, it appears that L2
learning can occur in adulthood (Grosjean, 2010).
Disability Factors
The most perplexing question among monolingual language
professionals is whether bilingual or multilingual children with
disabilities can acquire all languages, i.e., near-nativelike abili-
ties. Clinical experiences and research support the notion that
these children are fully capable of language and cognitive
growth in their two language systems (Brice and Brice, 2009;
Kohnert, 2008). The limiting factor appears to be the extent of
their disability and not their two languages.
Several studies investigating typically developing mono-
lingual children, typically developing bilingual children,
monolingual children with disabilities, and bilingual children
with disabilities have demonstrated similar patterns (Brice and
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 57–64
Brice, 2009; Windsor et al., 2010). Brice and Brice (2009) found
that when comparing phonemic awareness and phonics skills
among kindergarten students a descending order of
correctness emerged among the following groups: (1)
monolingual typically developing students, (2) bilingual
typically developing students, (3) monolingual students with
disabilities, and (4) bilingual students with disabilities. This
order of abilities was also found when comparing receptive
syntax and directions for 8-year-olds: (1) English only, (2)
bilingual, (3) English only – primary language impairment,
and (4) bilingual – primary language impairment.
Strategies for Promoting Multilingualism
Research supports the notion that multilingualism may be an
advantage (Hakuta and Bialystok, 1994). Consequently, the
following points are for making learning multiple languages
an additive process:
1. Language specialists should make learning English in the
classroom and in social environments a positive experience
in which both languages are valued. High-level language and
thinking should be involved. Multilingual children should
be encouraged to participate in verbal and literacy problem-
solving tasks. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) should
verbalize how they solve problems to provide a cognitive
model.
2. Multilingualism should be promoted both at home and in
the school. Children should be allowed to speak either
Spanish or English when it facilitates their communication
(Brice and Perkins, 1997). The children’s comfort level for
using English should be allowed to mature and not be
a forced issue.
3. Children should have well-developed Spanish skills before
learning English (Wong-Fillmore, 1992).
4. Opportunities for reading and writing in both Spanish and
English should be provided. Parents should be encouraged
to read to their children in Spanish. Emergent literacy skills,
knowing about the written word and books, are generaliz-
able across languages. Appreciation of books is not language
specific.
5. Ample opportunities to interact with native Spanish speakers
should be provided to maintain L1.
6. The children should receive appropriate instruction in
English. Learning English should reflect natural language
usage.
7. Children should be allowed to make errors in English as this
is a natural phenomena.
Conclusion
Working with second and multiple language learners with and
without disabilities provide extra challenges for language
professionals. Some of these challenges are unique, yet, neither
teaching nor therapy has been an easy task. Consequently, we
must provide high-quality services to all our students, clients,
and/or patients. It is in our nature as language professionals to
overcome language barriers be it a result of multilingualism,
disability, or both.
 Author's personal copy
See also: Child Care and Development across Cultures; First
Language Acquisition, Developmental Psychology of;
Neurophysiological Markers of Language Development.
Bibliography
Anderson, R., 1999. Impact of first language loss on grammar in a bilingual child.
Communication Disorders Quarterly 21 (4), 4–16.
Bialystok, E., 2007. Cognitive effects of bilingualism: how linguistic experience leads to
cognitive change. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
10 (3), 210–223.
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K., Yang, S., 2010. Receptive vocabulary differences in
monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13 (4),
525–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1336728909990423.
Brice, A., Brice, R., 2008. Examination of the critical period hypothesis and ultimate,
attainment among Spanish-English bilinguals and English-speaking monolinguals.
Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing 11 (3), 143–160.
Brice, A., Brice, R. (Eds.), 2009a. Language Development: Monolingual and Bilingual
Acquisition. Merrill/Prentice Hall, Old Tappan, NJ.
Brice, R., Brice, A., 2009b. Investigation of phonemic awareness and phonic skills in
Spanish-English and English speaking kindergarten students. Communication Disorders
Quarterly 30 (4), 208–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1525740108327448.
Brice, A., Leung, C., Gorman, B., submitted. Vocabulary skills of Spanish-English
speaking elementary students: A pilot study. Perspectives on Communication
Disorders in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations.
Brice, A., Miller, K., Brice, R.G., 2006. Language in the English as a second, language
and the general education classroom: a tutorial. Communication Disorders Quarterly
27, 240–247.
Brice, A., Montgomery, J., 1996. Adolescent pragmatic skills: A comparison of Latino
students in ESL and speech and language programs. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools 27, 68–81.
Brice, A., Perkins, C., 1997. What is required for transition from the ESL classroom to
the general education classroom? A case study of two classrooms. Journal of
Children’s Communication Development 19 (1), 13–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
152574019701900103.
Brice, A., Shaunessy, E., Hughes, C., Mchatton, P.A., Ratliff, M.A., 2008. What
language discourse tells us about bilingual adolescents: a study of students in gifted
programs and students in general education programs. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted 32 (1), 7–33.
Brice, A., Wertheim, E., 2004/2005. Language differentiation in young bilingual,
children. Tejas. Texas Journal of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology 28,
24–31.
Bullock, B.E., Toribio, A.J., González, V., Dalola, A., 2006. Language dominance, and
performance outcomes in bilingual pronunciation. In: O’Brien, M.G., Shea, C.,
Archibald, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second
Language Acquisition Conference. Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA,
pp. 9–16.
Canale, M., Swain, M., 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative competence to,
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1 (1), 1–47. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1.
Cazden, C., John, V., Hymes, D., 1972. Functions of Language in the Classroom.
Teachers College Press, New York.
Cenoz, J., 2000. Research on multilingual acquisition. In: Cenoz, J., Jessner, U. (Eds.),
English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language. Multilingual Matters,
Clevendon, pp. 39–53.
Cummins, J., 1984. Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and
Pedagogy. College-Hill Press, San Diego.
Cummins, J., 1998. Beyond Adversarial Discourse: Searching for Common Ground in
the Education of Bilingual Students. Presentation to the California State Board of
Education, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved February 23, 2006 from http://ourworld.
compuserve.com/homepages/JCRAWFORD/cummins.htm.
Döpke, S., 1992. A bilingual child’s struggle to comply with the ‘one parent-one
language’ rule. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6,
467–485.
Eliot, L., 2001. Language and the developing brain. The NAMTA Journal 26 (2), 8–60.
Fabiano-Smith, L., Barlow, J., 2009. Interaction in bilingual phonological acquisition:
evidence from phonetic inventories. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism 31 (1), 1–17.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 57–64
Multilingual Language Development 63
Fennel, C.T., Byers-Heinlein, K., Werker, J.F., 2007. Using speech sounds to, guide
word learning: the case of bilingual infants. Child Development 78 (5), 1510–1525.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01080.x.
Flege, J.E., Eefting, W., 1987. Production and perception of English stops by native
Spanish speakers. Journal of Phonetics 15, 67–83.
Flege, J.E., Shirru, C., MacKay, I., 2003. Interaction between the native and second
language phonetic subsystems. Speech Communication 40, 467–491.
Gathercole, V.C.M., 2010. Interface of face to face? The profiles and contours
of bilinguals and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics 31 (2),
282–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409990439.
Genesee, F., 1987. Learning through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and
Bilingual Education. Newbury, Rowley, MA.
Giedd, J.N., 2004. Structural magnetic resonance imaging of the adolescent brain.
American New York Academy of Sciences 1021, 77–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/
annals.1308.009.
Grosjean, F., 1989. Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one
person. Brain and Language 36 (1), 3–15.
Grosjean, F., 2001. The bilingual’s language modes. In: Nicol, J. (Ed.), One Mind, Two
Languages. Beyond Language Processing. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 1–22.
Grosjean, F., 2010. Bilingual: Life and Reality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hakuta, K., 1986. Mirror of Language. The Debate on Bilingualism. Basic Books,
New York.
Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., 1994. In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second-
Language Acquisition. Basic Books, New York.
Han, Z., 2004. Fossilization. Five central issues. International Journal of Applied,
Linguistics 14 (2), 212–242.
Hufeisen, B., 1997. L3-Specifics. Magazine for Applied Linguistics 26, 83–87.
Jean, M., Geva, E., 2009. The development of vocabulary in English as a second
language children and its role in predicting word recognition ability. Applied
Psycholinguistics 30, 153–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716408090073.
Jessner, U., 2006. Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals. English as a Third Language.
Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Kay-Raining Bird, E., Cleave, P., Trudau, N., Thorodottir, E., Sutton, A., Thorpe, A.,
2005. The language abilities of children with Down Syndrome. American Journal of
Speech Language Pathology 14, 187–199.
Kohnert, K., 2008. Second language acquisition: success factors in sequential bilin-
gualism. The ASHA Leader 13 (2), 10–13.
Kohnert, K., 2013. Language Disorders in Bilingual Children and Adults, second ed.
Plural, San Diego, CA.
Kohnert, K., Bates, E., 2002. Balancing bilinguals II: lexical comprehension and cognitive
processing in children learning English and Spanish. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research 45, 347–359.
Kohnert, K., Bates, E., Hernandez, A., 1999. Balancing bilinguals: lexical-semantic
production and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 42, 1400–1413.
Lugo-Neris, M., Wood-Jackson, C., Goldstein, H., 2010. Facilitating vocabulary acqui-
sition of young English language learners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools 41, 314–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/07-0082).
Montrul, S., 2006. On the bilingual competence of Spanish heritage speakers: syntax,
lexical-semantics and processing. International Journal of Bilingualism 10 (1),
37–69.
Paradis, J., Genesee, F., 1996. Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: autonomous
or independent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 1–25.
Pearson, B.Z., Fernandez, S.C., 1994. Patterns of interaction in the lexical growth in two
languages of bilingual infants and toddlers. Language Learning 44, 617–653.
Pearson, B.Z., Fernandez, S.C., Lewedeg, V., Oller, D.K., 1997. The relation of input
factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics 18, 41–58.
Pearson, B., Fernandez, S., Oller, D.K., 1993. Lexical development in bilingual
infants and toddlers: comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning
43, 93–120.
Pearson, B., Fernandez, S., Oller, D.K., 1995. Cross-language synonyms in the
lexicons of bilingual infants: one language or two? Journal of Child Language 22,
345–368.
Pearson, J., Pearson, B.Z., 2004. Bilingual lexical development: influences, contexts,
and processes. In: Goldstein, B. (Ed.), Bilingual Language Development and
Disorders in Spanish-English Speakers. Brookes, Baltimore, pp. 77–104.
Pham, G., Kohnert, K., 2013. A longitudinal study of lexical development in children
learning Vietnamese and English. Child Development (published on-line first July 19,
2013), 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12137.
Poplack, S., 1980. Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español:
toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18, 581–618.
Sakai, K.L., 2005. Language acquisition and brain development. Science 310 (4),
815–819.
 Author's personal copy
64 Multilingual Language Development
Seliger, H., Vago, R. (Eds.), 1991. First Language Attrition. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Selinker, L., 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10 (2),
209–231.
Selinker, L., 1991. Along the way: interlanguage systems in second language acqui-
sition. In: Malavé, L.M., Duquette, G. (Eds.), Language, Culture and Cognition.
Multilingual Matters, Bristol, PA, pp. 23–35.
Thomas, P., Collier, V., 1997. School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students.
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, Washington, DC.
Thomas, W.P., Collier, V.P., 2002. A National Study of School Effectiveness
for Language Minority Student’s Long Term Academic Achievement.
Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence and the Office of
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 57–64
View publication stats
Educational Research Improvement (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
475048).
Uylings, H.B.M., 2006. Development of the human cortex and the concept of “critical” or
“sensitive” periods. Language Learning 56 (1), 59–90.
Wapole, C., 2000. The bilingual child: one system or two. In: Clark, E. (Ed.), The
Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Child Language Research Forum. The Center for
the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CT, pp. 187–194.
Windsor, J., Kohnert, K., Lobitz, K., Pham, G., 2010. Cross-language nonword repetition
by bilingual and monolingual children. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology 19, 298–310.
Wong-Fillmore, L.W., 1992. When Does 1 þ 1 ¼< 2? Paper Presented at Bilin-
gualism/Bilingüismo: A Clinical Forum. Miami, FL.