INT J LANG COMMUN DISORD, JULY–AUGUST 2011,

VOL. 46, NO. 4, 449–463

Research Report
Monolingual versus multilingual acquisition of English morphology:
what can we expect at age 3?
Ruth J. Nicholls†, Patricia A. Eadie‡ and Sheena Reilly†
†Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Hearing, Language & Literacy Group, Murdoch Children’s Research
Institute, The Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
‡Hearing, Language & Literacy Group, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, The Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia

(Received 1 February 2010; accepted 14 October 2010)

Abstract
Background: At least two-thirds of the world’s children grow up in environments where more than one language
is spoken. Despite the global predominance of multilingualism, much remains unknown regarding the language
acquisition of children acquiring multiple languages compared with monolingual children. A greater understanding
of multilingualism is crucial for speech–language pathologists given the increasing number of children being raised
in linguistically diverse environments.
Aims: To investigate the expressive morphological abilities of multilingual children acquiring English, compared
with monolingual children, at 3 years of age.
Methods & Procedures: Participants were 148 children (74 multilingual children; 74 matched monolingual children;
mean age of 3 years 4 months) already participating in a larger prospective longitudinal cohort study of language
development in Melbourne, Australia. Thirty-one languages in addition to English were represented within the
embedded cohort. All participants completed a direct language assessment to measure their expressive abilities
across a range of English morphemes. The parents of the multilingual participants completed an interview regarding
the children’s language backgrounds and experiences.
Outcomes & Results: The Multilingual Group typically performed below the Monolingual Group in terms of
their accurate use and mastery of English morphemes at 3 years of age, although variable expressive abilities were
indicated within each group. The same morphemes were shown to be mastered by relatively higher proportions
of each group. Likewise, the same forms were mastered by relatively lower proportions of each group. The results
indicated similarities between the children’s acquisition of English morphology, regardless of whether they were
acquiring English only or in combination with another language(s) at 3 years of age.
Conclusions & Implications: This study found a range of similarities and differences between multilingual compared
with monolingual children’s acquisition of English morphology at 3 years of age. The findings have important
implications for researchers and clinicians involved in the management of linguistically diverse populations by
advancing knowledge of early multilingual English morpheme acquisition and building awareness of acquisition
patterns among multilingual and monolingual English-speaking children at 3 years of age.

Keywords: bilingual/multilingual children, language acquisition, grammatical morphology, English, preschool age.

Address correspondence to: Ruth Jane Nicholls, Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Hearing, Language & Literacy
Group, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, The Royal Children’s Hospital, Flemington Road, Parkville, 3052, Melbourne, VIC, Australia;
e-mail: sheena.reilly@mcri.edu.au
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
ISSN 1368-2822 print/ISSN 1460-6984 online  c 2011 Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00006.x
450 Ruth J. Nicholls et al.

What this paper adds

What is already known on this subject
Prior research has demonstrated that monolingual English-speaking children typically follow a consistent develop-
mental sequence during their acquisition of English morphology during the preschool period. This sequence is
commonly used by clinicians to determine whether a child’s language development is typical or otherwise. However,
research regarding the acquisition of morphology by children simultaneously acquiring English combined with a
variety of other first languages is limited.

What this study adds

This study investigated the language abilities of a community cohort of 3-year-old children simultaneously acquiring
English and another language(s), and compared their acquisition of English morphology with a matched group of
same-age monolingual English-speaking children. The findings indicate that at 3 years of age both multilingual
and monolingual children acquiring English may be expected to demonstrate the greatest acquisition of the same
English morphemes, although multilingual children may display relatively lower levels of expressive accuracy at the
same age. The results of this study provide a greater understanding of multilingual children’s early morphological
acquisition, which is fundamental in the differential diagnosis of children with atypical language development.

Introduction McKibbin and Eicholtz 1994). For example, the surveys

by Roseberry-McKibbin and colleagues found one of the
Multilingualism is increasing worldwide. In the USA
most frequently encountered problems among public
the 2006–2008 Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
school clinicians to be the lack of appropriate assessment
reported that 19.6% of the population aged 5 years
materials for English language learner students with
and older speak a language other than English at
possible language difficulties. Kritikos (2003) also found
home, an increase from 17.9% in 2000 (Shin and
assessment of bilingual/bicultural individuals to be of
Bruno 2003). The prevalence of migration has also
great concern and a major challenge among SLPs in the
increased with 12.5% of the US population being
United States.
foreign-born according to the 2006–2008 estimates,
Another issue for the profession is the limited
compared with 11.1% in 2000. Increasing population
number of clinicians with sufficient proficiency to
diversity is predicted to continue in the United States
provide services in more than one language (Kritikos
(Horton-Ikard et al. 2009), as well as numerous other
2003, Lindsay et al. 2002, Stow and Dodd 2003). This
countries including the UK, which has also become
issue was highlighted by Lindsay et al. (2002) who
increasingly multicultural and multilingual over recent
surveyed SLPs across England and Wales and found
decades (Stow and Dodd 2003). Similarly, Australia
that only a small proportion (6.1%) were fluent in a
is one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse
community language other than Welsh. The profession’s
countries in the world, with the prevalence of English-
predominantly monolingual nature was also reflected in
only homes decreasing over recent decades (e.g., 82.0%
an Australian survey (Lambier 2002), revealing that the
in 1996 and 78.5% in 2006; Australian Bureau of
profession does not reflect Australia’s linguistic diversity.
Statistics 2006). Accordingly, the number of children
The paucity of bilingual clinicians and assessment
being raised in linguistically diverse environments is
materials are well-known international challenges for
predicted to continue to increase as is the number
the profession (Jordaan 2008). While bilingual children
of speech–language pathologists (SLPs) working with
should not be evaluated using a monolingual reference
multilingual children (Jordaan 2008, Stow and Dodd
(Thordardottir 2005), it may not always be feasible
2003).
for a SLP to conduct standardized assessment of all
of a bilingual child’s languages, as SLPs are unlikely
Childhood multilingualism and the to speak both languages of the bilingual populations
they serve. However, assessment of bilingual children
speech–language pathology profession
should aim to examine communication skills in all
Multilingual issues are of growing relevance to SLPs languages to which they are exposed (The Royal College
who provide services to individuals with communi- of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) 2005,
cation disorders in general and from diverse linguis- 2006). Therefore, the assessment of bilingual individuals
tic and cultural backgrounds (Stow and Dodd 2003). may require the skills of non-SLP bilingual professionals
Surveys of SLPs have highlighted the challenges of (such as bilingual interpreters, translators, assistants or
working with increasingly diverse populations (Kritikos co-workers) in order to assess bilingual populations in
2003, Roseberry-McKibbin et al. 2005, Roseberry- their home language. According to the RCSLT Clinical
Multilingual acquisition of English morphology
Guidelines (2005), bilingual professionals are central to
the assessment and management of bilingual individu-
als, and liaising with bilingual personnel is important
in assisting SLPs to differentiate linguistic and cultural
diversity from disorder. SLPs should be prepared to
be innovative and flexible when developing service
delivery models and consider a variety of assessment
techniques when assessing culturally and linguisti-
cally diverse individuals (American Speech–Language-
Hearing Association 2004, The Speech Pathology
Association of Australia 2009).
Nonetheless, there are limited normative data about
language milestones in many languages other than
English as well as few norms for bilingual language
acquisition. There are also limited standardized test
formats in languages other than English and it may
not be possible for SLPs to access or provide norms to
assess a bilingual child’s home language. In countries
such as Australia where an extensive range of minority
languages is spoken (over 200 languages are spoken in
homes; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006), acquisi-
tion of the majority language, in this case English,
may necessarily form the initial basis of a language
assessment. In situations where SLPs can assess bilingual
children’s acquisition of the majority language only, it
is important that SLPs understand what features may
be expected, such as bilingual children’s acquisition of
English morphology.
English morphological development
Children’s English morphological development has been
investigated in numerous studies. In his landmark
longitudinal study, Brown (1973) studied three
monolingual children’s acquisition of 14 grammati-
cal morphemes and found an ‘approximately invariant’
(p. 398) order of acquisition. Brown illustrated the
emergence, gradual approximation and mastery of
English morphology that characterizes the language
development of monolingual children. Brown’s acquisi-
tion order was confirmed within larger cross-sectional
cohorts (de Villiers and de Villiers 1973) and language
impaired populations (Paul and Alforde 1993, Steckol
and Leonard 1979), whilst other researchers suggested
that the order is not as ‘invariant’ as has been reported
(e.g., Lahey et al. 1992). Overall, English morphological
development has been studied extensively in monolin-
gual children, with both individual variability and
regularity shown to characterize the early developmental
stages. Clinicians often use these characteristic patterns
to determine whether a child’s development is proceed-
ing typically. However, it remains unknown as to the
developmental patterns that may be expected among
451
children simultaneously acquiring English and another
language(s).
Simultaneous bilingual development
Following the early monolingual acquisition studies,
researchers investigated whether bilingual acquisition is
characterized by a similar sequence. Research to date
suggests that children simultaneously acquiring two
(or more) languages exhibit differences and similarities
in their English morphological acquisition, compared
with monolingual children, depending on the languages
being learned. Differences were reported by Chimombo
(1979) who analysed the acquisition of Brown’s (1973)
morphemes by a child simultaneously exposed to
English and Chichewa (a Bantu language of East Central
Africa). Chimombo did not find significant correla-
tion with the rank orders reported by Brown or in
Hakuta’s (1974) study of a sequential bilingual child
acquiring, therefore suggesting that the simultaneous
bilingual child’s acquisition of English morphology did
not follow the patterns displayed by either monolin-
gual children or sequential bilingual children. However,
at the conclusion of Chimombo’s 12-month observa-
tion, the child was yet to acquire the later emerging
morphemes, hence the overall acquisition sequence
could not be determined. In addition, the study was
restricted to a single-case and single-language pair.
Therefore, conclusions cannot be formulated regarding
acquisition patterns when different language combina-
tions are being acquired at the population level.
Padilla and Lindholm (1976) examined Spanish–
English bilingual children’s development of selected
grammatical aspects and reported their acquisition
to be comparable with the rate of monolingual
children, concluding that bilingual children’s grammat-
ical acquisition is not slower. However, this study
analysed a limited set of structures and lacked adequate
monolingual comparison data. Two decades later Paradis
and Genesee (1996) examined French–English bilingual
children’s acquisition of selected functional categories
and found that the children were acquiring their
languages separately, autonomously and also at a rate
that was not consistently slower than monolinguals.
Similarly, De Houwer (1990) also claimed that bilingual
children’s grammatical development is language specific
and follows stages and rates similar to monolin-
gual children. However, these previous studies have
typically comprised single cases or small groups of
bilingual children, have examined limited structures,
have comprised restricted language combinations (e.g.,
children acquiring Spanish and English or French and
English), and have not assessed monolingual children in
comparative conditions (e.g., drawn comparison with
the monolingual literature only). Such comparisons
452
need to be interpreted with caution due to methodolog-
ical differences. Ideally, bilingual and monolingual
children should be compared in the same study, using
the same data collection and analysis methods, in order
to compare ‘like with like’.
Knowledge gaps
Despite significant advances in knowledge over recent
decades, bilingualism is still in a comparatively early
stage of scientific inquiry. Research has focused predomi-
nantly on sequential acquisition and there has been
no investigation of the English morphological develop-
ment of a large group of bilingual children simulta-
neously acquiring a range of language combinations.
The field is yet to uncover whether patterns exist across
diverse groups of bilingual children. In addition, the
wider application of past findings has been limited,
with some partial and contradictory findings reported,
some of which can be attributed to methodologi-
cal differences and shortcomings. Direct evaluation of
bilingual and monolingual children would contribute
a greater understanding of how their morphological
development compares, amidst the heterogeneity that
characterizes language acquisition.
Overall, there is a need for conclusive research
examining the acquisition of a comprehensive set
of morphological structures, acquired by a large
and representative cohort of same-age simultane-
ous bilingual children. Research is also needed into
English acquisition amidst linguistic diversity, and for
comparisons across different populations. A greater
understanding of bilingual language development,
specifically how English morphology typically develops
in bilingual children, is vital to ensure the accurate
assessment and appropriate referral of children to
support services.
Aim
The aim of the present study is to measure and compare
bilingual and monolingual children’s acquisition of
English morphology at 3 years of age. Specifically, this
research seeks to answer how bilingual and monolin-
gual English-speaking children present at 3 years of age
with regard to their expressive morphological abilities in
English.
This paper focuses on simultaneous bilingualism,
that is, children exposed to and given opportunities to
learn two (or more) languages simultaneously prior to 3
years of age (Genesee et al. 2004). For the purposes
of this paper, the term ‘bilingual’ refers to individ-
uals who use two (or more) languages in either the
receptive and/or expressive modality. This paper does
not distinguish between bilingualism and multilingual-
Ruth J. Nicholls et al.
ism. Three years of age was selected as the time point
of investigation, given the morphological development
that occurs during the preschool period, combined with
the convenience sampling detailed below.
Methods and procedures
Background
The study is embedded within the Early Language in
Victoria Study (ELVS). ELVS is a prospective longitu-
dinal cohort study of the epidemiology of language
impairment and literacy problems through the first
7 years (Reilly et al., 2006). The ELVS methodol-
ogy is outlined briefly, before describing the embedded
study.
A community sample of 1911 infants aged 7.5–
10.0 months was recruited over an 8-month period
from six of the 31 metropolitan Local Government
Areas (LGAs) in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. The 31
LGAs were stratified into three tiers using the census-
based Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Index
of Disadvantage, derived from the 2001 Australian
Census (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001). Two
non-contiguous LGAs were selected from each tier.
The sample contained approximately matched numbers
of participants from each tier, covering a broad and
representative socio-demographic range.
Participants were recruited primarily via the free
Maternal and Child Health (MCH) program for
children aged 0–6 years. MCH Nurses in the six LGAs
approached the parents of all eligible infants attending
their 8-month-old visit between September 2003 and
January 2004 and obtained written permission from
interested parents to be contacted by the study. Partici-
pants were also recruited via the MCH universal hearing
screening sessions for children aged 7–9 months and via
newspaper publicity. Children were excluded if they had
been diagnosed with a major medical condition, disabil-
ity or developmental delay (e.g., syndrome; significant
vision or hearing problem; other serious intellectual or
physical disability) and/or if their parents’ knowledge of
English was not at a level sufficient to participate. Some
bilingual children were excluded; however, to maximize
the participation of parents with low English literacy
skills, documents were written at a maximum Grade 6
reading level and completion via telephone interview
was available.
At 8 months of age 1911 children participated,
representing approximately 35% of all eligible partici-
pants. The parental questionnaire return rate was
82.2% (1911 of 2325 questionnaires sent). Data were
collected regarding various child, family and environ-
mental factors including: communication and language
development; phonological awareness and literacy;
Multilingual acquisition of English morphology
general development and health; family history of
speech/language difficulties; parent–child interactions;
child behaviour and temperament; cognition; parental
vocabulary, literacy and education; maternal mental
health; family stress factors; and socio-demographic
details. Data were collected via annual parent-report
questionnaires at birthdates and periodic direct child
and parent assessments. Data collection is ongoing.
Participants
One hundred and twenty-nine of the initial ELVS
participants (6.8%) were mainly spoken to in a language
other than, or in addition to, English. A subgroup of
these participants participated in the embedded study.
Data were collected in the current study from two
independent, matched groups: (1) children acquiring
English and another language(s) (Bilingual Group);
and (2) children acquiring English only (Monolin-
gual Group). ELVS participants were eligible for the
Bilingual Group if they were involved in ELVS when
aged 2 years (indicated by completion of the ELVS
24-month-old Questionnaire) and if their parent(s)
reported in this questionnaire that the main language
spoken in the home and/or to the child was a language
other than, or in addition to, English.1 ELVS partici-
pants were eligible for the Monolingual Group if they
were also involved in ELVS when aged 2 years but
were excluded if: (1) eligible for the Bilingual Group;
(2) a language other than English was spoken in the
home and/or to the child; (3) identified as a ‘late
talker’ (≥ 10th percentile for vocabulary production
on the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development
Inventories ‘Words and Sentences’ form at 2 years of
age; Fenson et al. 1993); (4) born preterm (< 36
weeks gestational age); and/or (5) recruited previously
into another ELVS sub-study. Bilingual and monolin-
gual participants were matched on a case-by-case basis
according to (1) gender, (2) socio-demographic status
(measured by the SEIFA Index of Socio-Economic
Disadvantage) and (3) age at assessment (±2 weeks).
The mailed recruitment package comprised an
opt-out form, given previous findings that opt-out
approaches result in higher response rates and reduced
consent bias compared with opt-in methods (Junghans
et al. 2005). Within 2 weeks of sending the recruitment
pack the first author telephoned the parents who had not
actively opted out to discuss the study and organize an
appointment. A total of 74 children (67.9% of the 109
invited) participated in the Bilingual Group. Participant
matching and recruitment continued until 74 matches
were recruited, resulting in a total of 148 participants
(figure 1).
453
Procedures
The first author assessed each participant individually
in his/her home as close to 3;4 years of age as possible.
Assessments were conducted from June to December
2006 due to the spread of birthdates and comprised (1)
face-to-face interviews with the bilingual participants’
parents and (2) direct language assessments with the
participants.
Parent interview
Designed to investigate the bilingual participants’
language experiences across various environments, this
experimental measure comprised a diary exercise and a
structured questionnaire. The diary exercise facilitated
discussion between the interviewer and the parents,
provided background information and prompted the
parents to reflect upon their child’s language experiences.
The questionnaire collected information regarding:
language(s) spoken in the house and by whom;
language(s) generally spoken to the child and by whom;
language(s) spoken by the child during a typical week
and to whom; regular caregivers and the language(s) they
spoke to the child; and language dominance in each of
the aforementioned contexts.
Child language assessment
The language assessment comprised elicitation probes
to assess the participants’ use of English morphology
at 3 years of age. An elicitation format was selected
given its validity, reliability and benefits compared
with spontaneous samples (e.g., Balason and Dollaghan
2002, Rice et al. 1998). Mutually exclusive probes were
selected from the Rice/Wexler Test of Early Grammati-
cal Impairment (Rice/Wexler TEGI; Rice and Wexler
2001) and the Wiig Criterion Referenced Inventory
of Language (Wiig CRIL; Wiig 1990) to measure
the participants’ use of Brown’s (1973) morphemes as
well as additional morphological forms hypothesized
to be at least emerging by the assessment age. The
assessment battery consisted of the first four of the five
Rice/Wexler TEGI probes (Phonological, Third Person
Singular, Past Tense and BE/DO probes) and selected
probes from the Wiig CRIL Morphology Module
(Regular and Irregular Noun Plural; Noun Possessive;
Progressive Aspect; and Subject, Object, Possessive
and Reflexive Pronoun probes) and Semantics Module
(Locative probe, modified). All probes were adminis-
tered and scored by the first author according to the test
manuals and in consultation with the test authors and
experienced testers. The first author undertook training
and a pilot study to confirm the appropriateness of the
measures and procedures, to refine all aspects of testing
454
Figure 1. Recruitment of the Bilingual and Monolingual Groups.
prior to commencing data collection, and to implement
minor procedural modifications. Quality control checks
were conducted between the authors throughout the
data collection period in the form of case discussions
and data re-ratings. A detailed protocol was developed
containing supplementary scoring guidelines to ensure
scoring consistency. These checks served to ensure that
all testing and scoring was consistent and accurate, and
to protect against tester bias.
Each participant’s assessment was completed in
a single appointment. The language measures were
Ruth J. Nicholls et al.
randomly counterbalanced among the eligible bilingual
participants, with all monolingual participants complet-
ing the measures in the same order as their match.
Where applicable, the parent interview was completed
following the language measures.
Ethical approval
Human ethics committees at The Royal Children’s
Hospital (Number 23018) and La Trobe University
Multilingual acquisition of English morphology
(Number 03–32) granted approval of ELVS and the
present study.
Data management and analyses
Data were collected via orthographic transcription
and audio-recording. EpiData (Version 3.1) was used
for data entry, validation and storage; and StataIC
(Version 10) was used to clean and analyse the data.
Analyses involved descriptive and inferential statistics
and proportions (e.g., ‘mastery’ attainment). ‘Mastery’
is defined in this study as 80–100% correct use of a target
morpheme within obligatory contexts, based on probe
scores derived from at least three obligatory contexts.
This criterion level was selected according to the Wiig
CRIL performance guidelines and previous morpheme
research (e.g., Bland-Stewart and Fitzgerald 2001, Jia
2003, Lahey et al. 1992).
Results
Participant characteristics
Participant characteristics, primarily measured at
recruitment into ELVS, are summarized in table 1.
A variety of individual and family characteristics were
included that have been argued throughout the develop-
mental literature (eg see Bates et al. (1995), Nelson et al.
(2006), Zubrick et al. (2007)) to influence children’s
language abilities (e.g., gender, maternal education,
family history of language problems, etc.). Table 1
compares the characteristics of the subgroups in this
study with the ELVS cohort from whom they were
selected.
455
The gender balance was matched equally between
the two subgroups (46% male) and was similar to
the larger ELVS (50.5% male). The percentages of
first born children in the control group and the ELVS
cohort were similar (51.4% and 49.9%, respectively),
although slightly higher among the bilingual partici-
pants (64.9%). Likewise, maternal education levels were
found to be mostly similar between the control group
and the ELVS cohort. A higher percentage of mothers
in the Bilingual Group reported having completed a
university degree or postgraduate qualification at recruit-
ment into ELVS (43.2%) compared with the control
participants’ mothers (28.4%). Two preterm partici-
pants were recruited into the control group prior to
implementing preterm birth as an exclusion criterion
mid-way into recruitment.
Participants were matched according to gender and
age at assessment, with the mean (standard deviation)
age of the Bilingual and Monolingual Groups being 3.36
years (0.040) and 3.38 years (0.045), respectively. An
independent two-sample t-test (with equal variances)
indicated that the groups’ mean age was of a statisti-
cally significant difference, t(146) = –2.73, p = 0.007.
The mean age difference of –0.019 (years) equates to
a difference of 6.99 days, indicating that the bilingual
participants were, on average, 7 days younger than their
monolingual matches at assessment. This difference was
not deemed clinically meaningful. The participants were
also matched according to socio-economic status, based
on their LGA tier level (low, middle, high) at recruit-
ment. The majority of participants were located in
middle-tier LGAs (47% of the Bilingual Group; 45% of
the Monolingual Group), followed by high-tier LGAs
(30% of the Bilingual Group; 32% of the Monolingual
Group) and low-tier LGAs (23% of both Groups). The

Table 1. Summary of participant characteristics at recruitment into the ELVS study

Full ELVS Cohort Bilingual Group Monolingual Group

Characteristics (n = 1911) (n = 74) (n = 74)
Age at assessment (bilingual study), years
Mean (SD) – 3.36 (0.040) 3.38 (0.045)
Minimum–maximum – 3.29–3.48 3.29–3.49
Male gender, n (%) 966 (50.5%) 34 (46.0%) 34 (46.0%)
Twin birth, n (%) 53 (2.8%) 2 (2.7%) 0 (0%)
Preterm birth (< 36 weeks), n (%) 59 (3.1%) 1 (1.4%) 2 (2.7%)
(Nuclear) family history of language problems, n (%) 476 (24.9%) 14 (18.9%) 23 (31.1%)
Socio-economic status (SEIFA Index of Disadvantage), mean (SD) 1036.0 (60.8) 999.8 (88.5) 1045.7 (53.6)
First born child, n (%) 954 (49.9%) 48 (64.9%) 38 (51.4%)
Caregiver born in Australia, n (%) 1605 (84.0%) 24 (32.4%) 69 (93.2%)
Maternal vocabulary score (Mill Hill scale), mean (SD) 27.5 (5.1) 21.8 (6.9) 28.2 (3.9)
Maternal education level, n (%)
< Year 12 431 (22.8%) 13 (17.6%) 20 (27.0%)
Year 12 758 (40.2%) 29 (39.2%) 33 (44.6%)
University degree or postgraduate qualification 699 (37.0%) 32 (43.2%) 21 (28.4%)
Note: SD, standard deviation.
456 Ruth J. Nicholls et al.
Table 2. Languages spoken by the Bilingual Group (n = 74) the assessment was conducted, although the child was
Language Number of children
exposed to some English. Seventy-two participants were
spoken to in English and another language(s) during a
English 73 ‘typical week’, while two participants were spoken to in
Greek 15
Vietnamese 8
two (or more) languages other than English.
Cantonese 5 The numbers of languages spoken to the child
Turkish 4 (language exposure) and by the child (language usage)
Croatian 4 during a typical week are listed in table 3. All bilingual
Macedonian 4 participants were spoken to and spoke themselves
Mandarin 2
German 3
in more than one language during a typical week.
Hakka 3 The parents also reported whether one language was
Spanish 3 spoken more to and by the child (‘dominance’). Thirty-
Arabic 2 nine participants (53%) were predominantly spoken
Bosnian 2 to in a language(s) other than English (non-English
Japanese 2
Polish 2
language dominant), compared with 31 (42%) who
Romanian 2 were predominantly spoken to in English. Similarly,
Serbian 2 almost half (48%) spoke predominantly in their non-
Shanghainese/Shanghai dialect 2 English language(s) and almost half (45%) were English
Teochew 2 dominant. A minority reported equal language exposure
French (Creole) 1
Indonesian 1
(4%) and usage (8%).
Afrikaans 1
Armenian 1 Language abilities
Assyrian 1
Creole 1 Level of development
Hebrew 1
Korean 1 Participants’ percentage correct scores (0–100%) were
Portuguese 1 used to ascertain their level of morpheme development
Punjabi 1 (table 4).
Russian 1 The bilingual participants displayed variable abilities
Tamil 1 across the probes. A proportion of the Bilingual Group
Hungarian 1
attained the ceiling score (100% correct) across six of
Note: The summed ‘number of children’ in table 2 is greater than the number of the 16 probe scores while, on each probe, some bilingual
bilingual participants in the study as each bilingual participant spoke more than one of
the languages listed. participants performed at the basal level (0% correct).
The Bilingual Group’s median was 0% correct on seven
probes, with the group’s highest median value (50%
SEIFA Index scores indicate slightly greater disadvan- correct) occurring on the progressive aspect and locative
tage in the Bilingual Group, reflecting diversity within probes. The Bilingual Group’s standard deviation (SD)
the tiers despite tier-level matching. Overall, the values exceeded their mean values on more than half of
participant and family characteristics of the control the probes (noun possessive; all pronouns; third person
group were not found to differ substantially from the singular; regular, irregular and irregular finite past tense;
overall ELVS cohort and the Bilingual Group. and DO auxiliary), and were almost approximated on
the regular plural noun and total past tense probes. The
wide interquartile ranges on selected probes demonstrate
Bilingual language experiences
further the spread of scores in the group. Addition-
Seventy-three parent interviews were completed by a ally, the Bilingual Group’s distribution was non-normal
mother and/or father. The majority of informants (89%) on the majority of probes (75% positively skewed);
were mothers. One interview was completed by an aunt therefore, median values are the most appropriate central
who was a participant’s main caregiver. tendency measure for the Bilingual Group. (Means are
In total, 31 languages other than English were also presented in table 4 to permit comparison with
spoken by the bilingual participants (table 2). Persian mean data reported in the literature, e.g. Balason and
was spoken in one participant’s home but was not spoken Dollaghan (2002), de Villiers and de Villiers (1973),
directly to or by the participant; hence it is excluded from Lahey et al. (1992), and Paul and Alforde (1993).)
table 2. All but one of the bilingual participants spoke Like their bilingual peers, the monolingual participants
some English (in varying amounts) during a typical also displayed variable levels of development and their
week. The participant who did not speak English was scores were negatively skewed on half of the probes.
reported to speak only Hakka and Cantonese when Floor effects were also observed within the Monolingual
Multilingual acquisition of English morphology 457
Table 3. Number and dominance of languages in the Bilingual Group (n = 74)

Spoken to the child (language Spoken by the child (language

Parent Interview Question exposure), n (%)a usage), n (%)
Number of languages One 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Two 67 (91%) 69 (93%)
Three 7 (9%) 5 (7%)
Dominance of languages English dominant 31 (42%) 33 (45%)
Non-English language 39 (53%) 35 (48%)
dominant
Equal language dominance 3 (4%) 6 (8%)
Notes: a Dominance data for one participant are missing as the parent(s) ‘can’t say’ which language was spoken more to the child. Summed percentages for ‘language exposure’ and
‘language usage’ may not equal 100% due to rounding.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for percentage correct scores obtained by the Bilingual Group and Monolingual Group

Bilingual Groupa Monolingual Groupb

Morpheme probes Mean (SD) Median (IQR) Range Mean (SD) Median (IQR) Range
Plural Regular noun 35.1 (31.2) 30 (0 – 60) 0 – 100 77.4 (23.3) 90 (60 – 100) 0 – 100
Irregular noun 25.3 (11.3) 30 (20 – 30) 0 – 50 17.2 (12.8) 20 (10 – 20) 0 – 60
Noun possessive 11 (20.6) 0 (0 – 10) 0 – 90 20.1 (26.8) 10 (0 – 30) 0 – 100
Progressive aspect 49.2 (36.7) 50 (10 – 100) 0 – 100 88.6 (18.4) 100 (80 – 100) 0 – 100
Locative 48.6 (30.9) 50 (30 – 70) 0 – 100 90.4 (15.5) 100 (90 – 100) 20 – 100
Pronoun Subject 3.2 (7.5) 0 (0 – 0) 0 – 28.6 10.2 (16.1) 0 (0 – 14.3) 0 – 71.4
Object 7.7 (16.4) 0 (0 – 14.3) 0 – 57.1 23.5 (24.8) 14.3 (0 – 42.9) 0 – 85.7
Possessive 4.3 (9.8) 0 (0 – 0) 0 – 42.9 17.6 (20.3) 14.3 (0 – 28.6) 0 – 71.4
Reflexive 5.9 (9.8) 0 (0 – 14.3) 0 – 42.9 20.9 (18.0) 14.3 (14.3 – 28.6) 0 – 100
Third person singular 32.2 (33.4) 22 (0 – 60) 0 – 100 66.5 (32.7) 73 (46.5 – 95) 0 – 100
BE copula and auxiliary 44.3 (25.1) 48 (26.5–59.5) 0–96 60.7 (22.8) 65 (50–76) 0–100
DO auxiliary 6.3 (17) 0 (0–0) 0–100 28.4 (31.9) 9 (0–55) 0–100
Past tense Total 27.2 (25.4) 20 (6–50) 0–89 57.1 (28.3) 65 (35–82) 0–94
Regular 28.4 (31.3) 17 (0–50) 0–100 61.2 (31.5) 73 (40–89) 0–100
Irregular 10 (15.8) 0 (0–17) 0–67 18.6 (18.3) 13 (0–29) 0–71
Irregular finite 22.9 (24.8) 14 (0–33) 0–88 51.5 (30.8) 50 (25–80) 0–100
Notes: SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; range, minimum value–maximum value. The assessment battery was administered to 148 participants; however, data are not
available on selected probes for a variety of reasons (e.g., inability to complete the probe, non-compliance).
a
Bilingual Group (n = 43–73).
b
Monolingual Group (n = 67–74).

Group on all probes other than the locative (range of Morpheme mastery
20–100% correct).
Figure 2 displays the percentage of the groups who
In comparison, the Bilingual and Monolingual
attained ‘mastery’ (80% or greater correct usage) across
Groups demonstrated differing levels of morpheme
the probes. None of the participants in either group
development, at the group level. Other than two
attained mastery of the irregular past tense, irregular
probes (irregular plural noun and subject pronoun), the
plural noun, subject pronoun and possessive pronoun
Bilingual Group’s central tendency values were lower
probes. Otherwise, a higher percentage of the Monolin-
than the Monolingual Group across all of the probes,
gual Group mastered the remaining 12 probes. For
although both groups displayed extensive within-group
example, 90% of the Monolingual Group mastered the
variability. The Bilingual Group’s scores were spread
locative probe (compared with 23% of the Bilingual
across the total possible range (0–100%) on six probes
Group), 85% mastered the progressive aspect (33% of
compared with nine probes by the Monolingual Group,
the Bilingual Group) and 62% mastered regular noun
although differing proportions of each group were
plurals (12% of the Bilingual Group). As illustrated
performing at the floor and ceiling limits. Both groups
in figure 2, the groups generally displayed the greatest
obtained the same size interquartile range on the
relative mastery of the same forms (progressive, locative,
irregular noun plural and reflexive pronoun probes,
third person singular, regular plural noun) and nil to
indicating a similar middle spread of scores on these
limited mastery of the same forms (noun possessive,
forms. Otherwise, the monolingual participants’ middle
DO auxiliary, pronouns, irregular past tense, irregular
half of scores was spread over a greater range than the
plural).
bilingual participants on half of the probes.
458 Ruth J. Nicholls et al.

Figure 2. Percentage of the Bilingual and Monolingual Groups that attained mastery (≥ 80% correct) of the morphemes at 3 years of age.

Given the groups’ different mastery percentages, a Table 5. Chi-squared test comparing the percentage that
Chi-squared test was used to quantify the strength of attained mastery between the Bilingual and Monolingual
Groups
evidence that the differences truly exist in the population
(i.e., beyond the current cohort). Table 5 summarizes Morpheme Estimated difference
the Chi-squared test results, including the estimated probe p-value (95% CI)
differences between the groups’ mastery percentages, Noun plural < 0.001 –49.8% (–63.2% to –36.5%)
the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences (regular)
in percentages, and the associated Chi-squared p-values. Noun possessive 0.30 –4.1% (–11.9% to 3.7%)
The estimated differences and CI values are reported Locative < 0.001 –67.1% (–78.9% to –55.3%)
Progressive < 0.001 –52.1% (–65.6% to –38.5%)
on the percentage scale. Given that none of the study aspect
participants mastered the noun plural (irregular), subject Pronoun, object 0.19 –2.7% (–6.5% to 1.0%)
pronoun, possessive pronoun and irregular past tense Pronoun, 0.19 –2.7% (–6.5% to 1.0%)
probes, Chi-squared analyses of these probes could not reflexive
be conducted. Where the groups’ mastery percentages Third person < 0.001 –30.9% (–46.3% to –15.6%)
singular
were different, all differences were negative, indicating Past tense, total < 0.001 –24.5% (–36.1% to –13.0%)
that the Bilingual Group was performing below the Past tense, < 0.001 –35.8% (–49.5% to –22.1%)
Monolingual Group. The estimated differences ranged regular
from –2.7% (95% CI = –6.5% to 1.0%) on the object Past tense, 0.001 –23.0% (–34.1% to –12.0%)
and reflexive pronoun probes to –67.1% (95% CI = irregular finite
BE (copula and 0.20 –8.3% (–20.7% to 4.1%)
–78.9% to –55.3%) on the locative probe. Strong auxiliary)
evidence (p ≤ 0.001) of differences between the groups’ DO (auxiliary) 0.08 –7.2% (–14.8% to 0.4%)
mastery were found on seven of the 12 probes for which
Notes: Estimated difference = percentage (Bilingual Group) – percentage (Monolingual
the Chi-squared test could be applied. There was little Group); CI, confidence interval. The following probes are not included as none of the
evidence of differences between the groups’ mastery of participants in either group achieved mastery: noun plural (irregular), subject pronoun,
possessive pronoun and irregular past tense.
the noun possessive, object and reflexive pronoun, and
BE and DO probes.
Multilingual acquisition of English morphology
Discussion
This paper investigates the acquisition of English
morphology in a cohort of 3-year-old simultaneous
bilingual children from various linguistic backgrounds
and compares their expressive abilities with a matched
group of same-age monolingual children. The primary
conclusion to be drawn from the study is that bilingual
children acquiring English display a range of differences
and similarities in their expressive morphological
abilities, compared with monolingual English-speaking
children, at 3 years of age.
Differences in morphological abilities
At the group level the bilingual children’s morpholog-
ical abilities in English at 3 years of age were typically
below their monolingual peers, as indicated by the
Bilingual Group’s lower central tendency values across all
forms, except irregular plural nouns. This exception may
be explained as follows. During administration of the
irregular plural probe, the bilingual children generally
displayed less over-regularization of the invariant items
(sheep, deer, fish), resulting in their higher central
tendency scores. In contrast, a greater percentage of the
Monolingual Group had mastered the regular plural rule
and, subsequently, over-regularized the invariant items
resulting in lower irregular plural probe scores.
The groups’ differing morphological abilities are
reflected in their raw score distributions and their
mastery percentages. Firstly, the groups’ scores were
predominantly non-normally distributed and were
skewed in opposing directions (although to differing
degrees) on seven of the 16 probes, indicating that the
bilingual and monolingual children tended to perform at
opposing ends on these morpheme probes. The bilingual
children’s scores were more normally distributed on
the progressive aspect and locative probes, whilst the
monolingual children’s scores were negatively skewed
on these two probes with the majority of monolin-
gual children performing at the upper limit. In total
the Bilingual Group’s scores were positively skewed on
more than half (11/16) of the probes, indicating their
limited correct use of these parts of English grammar.
Compared with their same-age monolingual peers, the
bilingual children generally displayed less advanced use
of English morphology at 3 years of age.
Secondly, fewer bilingual children attained mastery
compared with their monolingual peers. While the
progressive aspect was the form mastered most
frequently by the Bilingual Group (33%), many of
the other forms had not yet been mastered or were
mastered by only a few bilingual children. None of
the participants in the study had mastered the irregular
past tense, irregular plural noun, and subject and
459
possessive pronouns, suggesting that neither bilingual
nor monolingual children use these forms with adult-
like accuracy at 3 years of age (although the partici-
pants’ raw scores indicated emerging use). Other than
these four probes, a lower percentage of bilingual
children had mastered the probes, suggesting that their
mastery of English morphology may occur at ages later
than expected of their monolingual peers. This stands
in contrast to reports that bilingual children follow
the same developmental rates as monolingual children
(Paradis and Genesee 1996). Although acquisition rate
was not measured in the current study, the bilingual
children’s developmental timetable appeared to differ
from that of the monolingual children as a group. In
contrast to past studies the current study comprised case
and control groups assessed under identical conditions,
providing unparalleled comparison data. Within these
groups variability was apparent.
Variability in morphological acquisition
The second major finding was the differing and
wide-ranging expressive morphological abilities present
among children at 3 years of age. Within both groups
the children displayed diverse ranges of accuracy across
the majority of probes. For example, floor to ceiling
scores were found among the bilingual participants on
six of the 16 probes, whilst the Monolingual Group
attained scores across the maximum possible range
on an even greater number of probes (nine probes),
indicating extreme variability within both groups of
children with regard to their morphological abilities
at 3 years of age. However, the extent of the within-
group variability differed between the groups according
to the form. For example, the Bilingual Group displayed
greater within-group variability on the progressive and
locative probes (median (IQR) of 50 (10–100) and
50 (30–70), respectively) compared with the dispersal
in the Monolingual Group on these two probes (100
(80–100) and 100 (90–100), respectively). In contrast,
the Monolingual Group displayed greater within-group
variability on the pronoun probes as indicated by their
wider measures of dispersal compared with the bilingual
children who typically displayed minimal correct use
and less variability on these probes.
Variability has been reported in previous investi-
gations of monolingual children. Lahey et al. (1992),
for example, observed large variability among monolin-
gual children’s morpheme use. The authors queried
(although later refuted) whether their small sample
and limited obligatory contexts could account for the
variability. Neither factor is of concern in the present
study given the relatively large cohort and a sampling
methodology which ensured equivalent and sufficient
obligatory contexts for each child to use each morpheme.
460
Rather, the current study corroborates the heteroge-
neous nature of language acquisition among young
children and highlights variability as a key characteris-
tic of childhood bilingualism. Importantly, these results
highlight the general heterogeneity in language acquisi-
tion and language performance among young children
regardless of whether they are acquiring one or multiple
languages.
Similar acquisition patterns
Despite the children’s variable morphological abilities
and differing mastery percentages, similarities were
found between the children’s mastery patterns at 3 years
of age. At the group level the bilingual children displayed
more frequent mastery of the same forms typically
acquired at earlier ages by monolingual English-speaking
children. For example, progressives, locatives, third-
person-singular verbs and regular noun plurals were
the top four most frequently mastered probes in both
groups, indicating that the same forms were used
relatively more correctly by children at 3 years of age.
Likewise, both groups displayed limited to nil mastery of
noun possessives, pronouns, irregular plurals, irregular
past tense and DO auxiliaries. Few bilingual children
had mastered these forms by approximately 3 years
of age, as was expected of and demonstrated by the
monolingual children. Overall, the children generally
displayed parallels in terms of which morphological
forms were more versus less frequently mastered, a
pattern also consistent with the sequence reported in the
literature for monolingual English-speaking children.
At the group level these findings suggest that Brown’s
acquisition order may be similar for children acquiring
English along with another language(s). The parallels
found in the current study stand in contrast to prior
reports that monolingual and bilingual children do not
show the same acquisition order; however, such reports
have been based upon small samples, whereas the current
study collected data from a large number of children,
thereby providing findings that may be considered
more representative of the greater population. Likewise,
previous bilingual research has examined restricted
language pairs, whilst the current study comprised a
community sample and an unprecedented range of
language combinations, thereby contributing informa-
tion regarding bilingual children’s English development
that can be generalized beyond the immediate sample.
In summary, despite the individual differences
that exist among children, they generally find the
same morphological structures relatively ‘easier’ versus
‘harder’ at 3 years of age, regardless of whether they
are acquiring one or multiple languages. This study
contributes important findings regarding multilingual
Ruth J. Nicholls et al.
acquisition of English morphology, specifically what can
be expected by 3 years of age.
Strengths and limitations
The current study has addressed several limitations of
previous research by contributing data on a compara-
tively large cohort of simultaneous bilingual children
and their acquisition of a comprehensive set of
morphological structures. As far as is known this is the
first study to investigate English morphology within a
large cohort of same-age simultaneous bilingual children
from various linguistic backgrounds, and to compare
their development with a control group of closely
matched monolingual children tested under equivalent
conditions.
The Bilingual Group’s diversity represents both
a strength and a constraint of the present study.
Previous studies have focused predominantly on
single-language combinations (e.g., English/Spanish or
English/French), whilst the current study examined
children acquiring multiple language combinations.
The trends in performance observed in this large and
diverse group of children provide useful findings for
researchers and clinicians, particularly those in linguis-
tically diverse environments. However, the findings of
previous bilingual studies indicate that the grammat-
ical properties of different languages may influence
bilingual morphosyntax acquisition in different ways
(e.g., Serratrice et al. 2004, Yip and Matthews 2000).
Cross-linguistic influences do not operate universally
(Zwanziger et al. 2005); therefore, a bilingual child’s
acquisition of English morphology may vary according
to the combination and the influences between the
languages being acquired. Accordingly, cross-linguistic
influences may account for some of the extensive
variability in performance observed in the current study.
Furthermore, whilst this study investigated children
classified as simultaneous bilinguals, the children within
the Bilingual Group were acquiring their languages
in varying language-learning contexts. The bilingual
children differed along numerous dimensions, such
as their individual language experiences, proficiency,
dominance, age of exposure, and quantity and quality
of language input, which may have contributed, to
some extent, to the variability observed in acquisition.
The single group of bilingual children in this study
may, in fact, represent more than one distinct group.
Bilingual children are a heterogeneous group and such
diversity necessitates caution when interpreting findings
and drawing comparisons across bilingual children.
The heterogeneous nature of bilingualism also has
implications for research sampling criteria. Children
were excluded from the ELVS if their parents’ knowledge
of English was not at a level sufficient to participate.
Multilingual acquisition of English morphology
Thus the parents participating in this study tended
to possess sufficient English to complete the required
questionnaires. On the surface, this criterion may
suggest that the parents in this study possessed a high
level of English ability and were more likely to speak in
English with their children, thereby potentially account-
ing for the bilingual children’s similar English acquisi-
tion patterns. Anecdotally, parents in the study displayed
variable English abilities, ranging from highly developed
to minimal English skills. Furthermore, the percent-
age of first born children in the Bilingual Group was
higher than that of the Monolingual Group (64.9%
and 51.4%, respectively). This is important as first-born
bilingual children may receive greater exposure during
early childhood to their home language, compared with
subsequent children who may receive more frequent
exposure at home to the majority language, such as
from older siblings who bring English from external
educational settings into the home. Given that almost
two-thirds of the bilingual children were first born, it
may be argued that this group of bilingual children
were generally less likely to be exposed to English in
the home, particularly compared with their monolin-
gual controls. Nevertheless, it is important to note that
language exposure varied between the bilingual children,
as evidenced by the parent interview data. Likewise,
the bilingual children’s English abilities and their
patterns of language dominance varied greatly at this
age.
This investigation was also limited to the acquisition
of expressive morphology only. The children’s develop-
ment of other language aspects, such as lexical develop-
ment, is being measured within the larger ongoing study.
Whilst linguistic behaviours known to be characteristic
of bilingualism, such as intra- and inter-utterance code-
mixing, were observed among the participants, the focus
of this study was upon morphology.
Lastly, this study is also limited to documenting
the children’s English abilities only. The assessments
undertaken were not diagnostic clinical assessments
but, rather, part of a research protocol investigating
English development among bilingual children in detail.
Whilst it is known when assessing bilingual individ-
uals that, ‘an incomplete picture of their skills will
emerge if only one language is assessed’ (RCSLT 2006,
p. 270), the current findings are of relevance in countries
where English is the dominant and/or official language
amidst linguistic diversity. Nonetheless, it is beyond
the scope of this paper to formulate recommendations
regarding how best to conduct assessments of children
simultaneously acquiring English and other languages.
Readers are advised to refer to best-practice guidelines
for further information when considering how to meet
the needs of clients from culturally and/or linguistically
diverse backgrounds (e.g., American Speech–Language–
461
Hearing Association 2004, RCSLT 2005, 2006, The
Speech Pathology Association of Australia 2009).
Future directions
The global predominance of multilingualism, combined
with the challenges associated with the clinical
management of diverse populations, point to the
need for ongoing research. One such area is bilingual
children’s language acquisition over time. Longitudi-
nal research is needed to document the developmental
trajectories of simultaneous bilingual language acquisi-
tion beyond 3 years of age. Likewise, research into
the influence of differing language combinations upon
bilingual acquisition across this age period is needed.
There is also a need for further investigation into
the accurate early identification of atypical language
development among bilingual children in order to
provide clinicians with clearer expectations.
Conclusions and implications
With reference to speech–language pathology,
Roseberry-McKibbin and Eicholtz (1994) state: ‘Our
field has always upheld the premise that in order
to understand disordered behaviour, we must first
understand what normal behaviour is’ (p. 161). The
current study provides unprecedented information
regarding bilingual language development, which is
predicted to assist the international field to understand
further bilingual ‘behaviour’ and professionals who
work with diverse populations. This study showed that
bilingual and monolingual children generally perform
differently at 3 years of age with regard to their English
morphological abilities. Bilingual children typically
display lower expressive accuracy and less frequent
mastery of English morphemes at age 3; however,
variable abilities may be expected among all children
at this age, regardless of whether they are acquiring
one or multiple languages. Despite these differences,
children generally find the same English morphemes to
be relatively easier versus harder to master by 3 years
of age and they generally display a similar acquisition
sequence.
In conclusion, bilingualism is a complex multidi-
mensional topic. This study advances knowledge in the
field by building awareness of the patterns that exist
between bilingual and monolingual children during the
preschool years.
Acknowledgments
The ELVS Study was supported primarily by the Australian National
Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC Project Grant
Number 237106). The embedded study formed the first author’s
462
doctoral project and was supported by an Australian Postgradu-
ate Award (APA) through LaTrobe University and a Melbourne
Research Scholarship (MRS) from The University of Melbourne.
Further support was provided by postgraduate grants from the
Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, the School of Human
Communication Sciences and the Faculty of Health Sciences at La
Trobe University, and the Nadia Verrall Memorial Research Grant
from Speech Pathology Australia, which are gratefully acknowl-
edged. Approval to conduct the embedded study was obtained
from the Royal Children’s Hospital Ethics in Human Research
Committee (EHRC 23018) and La Trobe University Human Ethics
Committee (03–32). The first author recognizes and thanks the
team at the ELVS Study for the opportunity to join the project
and complete the embedded doctoral study. The authors also thank
Dr Obi Ukoumunne for statistical consultation; Ms Eileen Cini for
assistance with data management; and acknowledge and sincerely
thank all the participating children and their families. Declaration
of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors
are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.
Note
1. In the present study ‘bilingual’ refers to individuals who either
live in a home where a language(s) other than (or in addition to)
English is the main language spoken by one or more members
of the household and/or where a language(s) other than (or
in addition to) English is the main language spoken to the
child during the week. Whilst some of the participants in the
Bilingual Group were exposed to and/or acquired more than
two languages (i.e., trilingual/multilingual), the term ‘bilingual’
is used to refer to all individuals who were being exposed to
and/or acquiring more than one language.
References
AMERICAN SPEECH–LANGUAGE–HEARING ASSOCIATION, 2004,
Knowledge and Skills Needed by Speech–Language Patholo-
gists and Audiologists to Provide Culturally and Linguistically
Appropriate Services (available at: http://www.asha.org/docs/
pdf/KS2004–00215.pdf).
AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, 2001, Socio-economic Indexes for
Areas (Canberra, ACT: Australia).
AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS, 2006, Australian Census of
Population and Housing (Canberra, ACT: Australia).
BALASON, D. V. and DOLLAGHAN, C. A., 2002, Grammatical
morpheme production in 4-year-old children. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 961–970.
BATES, E., DALE, P. S. and THAL, D., 1995. Individual differences
and their implications for theories of language development.
In P. FLETCHER & B. MACWHINNEY (Eds.), The handbook
of child language (pp. 96–151). Oxford, United Kingdom:
Blackwell Publishers.
BLAND-STEWART, L. M. and FITZGERALD, S. M., 2001, Use of
Brown’s 14 grammatical morphemes by bilingual Hispanic
preschoolers: a pilot study. Communication Disorders
Quarterly, 22, 171–186.
BROWN, R., 1973, A First Language: The Early Stages (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press).
CHIMOMBO, M., 1979, An analysis of the order of acquisition of
English grammatical morphemes in a bilingual child. Working
Papers on Bilingualism, 18, 201–30.
DE HOUWER, A., 1990, The Acquisition of Two Languages from Birth:
A Case Study (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Ruth J. Nicholls et al.
DE VILLIERS, J. G. and DE VILLIERS, P. A., 1973, A cross-sectional
study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child
speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 267–278.
FENSON, L., DALE, P. S., REZNICK, J. S., THAL, D., BATES, E.,
HARTUNG, J. P., PETHICK, S. and REILLY, J. S., 1993, The
MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: Users
Guide and Technical Manual (Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes).
GENESEE, F., PARADIS, J. and CRAGO, M. B., 2004, Dual Language
Development and Disorders: A Handbook on Bilingualism and
Second Language Learning (Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes).
HAKUTA, K., 1974, A preliminary report on the development of
grammatical morphemes in a Japanese girl learning English
as a second language. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 3, 18–
44.
HORTON-IKARD, R., MUNOZ, M. L., THOMAS-TATE, S. and KELLER-
BELL, Y., 2009, Establishing a pedagogical framework for
the multicultural course in communication sciences and
disorders. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 18,
192–206.
JIA, G., 2003, The acquisition of the English plural morpheme
by native Mandarin Chinese-speaking children. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1297–
1311.
JORDAAN, H., 2008, Clinical intervention for bilingual children:
an international survey. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopedica, 60,
97–105.
JUNGHANS, C., FEDER, G., HEMINGWAY, H., TIMMIS, A. and JONES,
M., 2005, Recruiting patients to medical research: double
blind randomized trial of ‘opt-in’ versus ‘opt-out’ strategies.
British Medical Journal, 331, 1–4.
KRITIKOS, E. P., 2003, Speech–language pathologists’ beliefs
about language assessment of bilingual/bicultural individu-
als. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 12, 73–
91.
LAHEY, M., LIEBERGOTT, J., CHESNICK, M., MENYUK, P. and
ADAMS, J., 1992, Variability in children’s use of grammat-
ical morphemes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 373–398.
LAMBIER, J., 2002, Speech Pathology Association of Australia
membership survey (Part A) (available at: http://www.
speechpathologyaustralia.org.au/library/LABOURFORCE_
SURVEY_REPORT021.pdf) (accessed on 1 July 2005).
LINDSAY, G., SOLOFF, N., LAW, J., BAND, S., PEACEY, N.,
GASCOIGNE, M. and RADFORD, J., 2002, Speech and language
therapy services to education in England and Wales. Interna-
tional Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 37,
273–288.
NELSON, H. D., NYGREN, P., WALKER, M. and PANOSCHA, R., 2006,
Screening for speech and language delay in preschool children:
Systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services
Task Force. Journal of Pediatrics, 117, 2336–2337.
PADILLA, A. M. and LINDHOLM, K. J., 1976, Development of
interrogative, negative and possessive forms in the speech of
young Spanish/English bilinguals. Bilingual Review, 3, 122–
152.
PARADIS, J. and GENESEE, F., 1996, Syntactic acquisition in bilingual
children: Autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 18, 1–25.
PAUL, R. and ALFORDE, S., 1993, Grammatical morpheme acquisi-
tion in 4-year-olds with normal, impaired, and late-
developing language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
36, 1271–1275.
REILLY, S., EADIE, P., BAVIN, E. L., WAKE, M., PRIOR, M., WILLIAMS,
J., BRETHERTON, L., BARRETT, Y. and UKOUMUNNE, O. C.,
2006, Growth of infant communication between 8 and 12
months: a population study. Journal of Paediatrics and Child
Health, 42, 764–770.
Multilingual acquisition of English morphology
RICE, M. L. and WEXLER, K., 2001, Rice/Wexler Test of Early
Grammatical Impairment (New York, NY: Psychological
Corporation).
RICE, M. L., WEXLER, K. and HERSHBERGER, S., 1998, Tense
over time: the longitudinal course of tense acquisition in
children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1412–1431.
ROSEBERRY-MCKIBBIN, C., BRICE, A. and O’HANLON, L., 2005,
Serving English language learners in public school settings:
a national survey. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 36, 48–61.
ROSEBERRY-MCKIBBIN, C. A. and EICHOLTZ, G. E., 1994, Serving
children with limited English proficiency in the schools: a
national survey. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 25, 156–164.
SERRATRICE, L., SORRACE, A. and PAOLI, S., 2004, Crosslinguis-
tic influence at the syntax–pragmatics interface: subjects and
objects in English–Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisi-
tion. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 183–205.
SHIN, H. B. and BRUNO, R., 2003, Language Use and English-
speaking Ability: 2000. Census 2000 Brief (available at:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf)
(accessed on 19 November 2009).
STECKOL, K. F. and LEONARD, L. B., 1979, The use of grammat-
ical morphemes by normal and language-impaired children.
Journal of Communication Disorders, 12, 291–301.
STOW, C. and DODD, B., 2003, Providing an equitable service to
bilingual children in the UK: a review. International Journal
of Language and Communication Disorders, 38, 351–377.
463
THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE
THERAPISTS(RCSLT), 2005, RCSLT Clinical Guidelines
(Oxford, UK: Speechmark Publishing).
THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPISTS
(RCSLT), 2006, Communicating Quality 3: RCSLT’s Guidance
on Best Practice in Service Organisation and Provision (London:
RCSLT).
THE SPEECH PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA, 2009,
Working in a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Society
(Melbourne (VIC): Speech Pathology Association of
Australia).
THORDARDOTTIR, E. T., 2005, Early lexical and syntactic develop-
ment in Quebec French and English: implications for cross-
linguistic and bilingual assessment. International Journal of
Language and Communication Disorders, 40, 243–278.
WIIG, E. H., 1990, Wiig Criterion-referenced Inventory of Language
(Wiig CRIL) (San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation).
YIP, V. AND MATTHEWS, S., 2000, Syntactic transfer in a Cantonese–
English bilingual child. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
3, 193–208.
ZUBRICK, S. R., TAYLOR, C. L., RICE, M. L. and SLEGERS, D. W.,
2007, Late language emergence at 24 months: An epidemio-
logical study of prevalence, predictors, and covariates. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(6), 1562–
1592.
ZWANZIGER, E. E., ALLEN, S. E. and GENESEE, F., 2005, Crosslin-
guistic influence in bilingual acquisition: subject omission in
learners of Inuktitut and English. Journal of Child Language,
32, 893–909.
Copyright of International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders is the property of Wiley-
Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.