Purpose: In this study, the authors sought to determine whether a combination of English-language measures and a parent questionnaire on first-language development could adequately discriminate between English-language learners (ELLs) with and without language impairment (LI) when children had diverse first-language backgrounds. Method: Participants were 152 typically developing (TD) children and 26 children with LI; groups were matched for age ( M =5;10 [years;months]) and exposure to English ( M =21 months). Children were given English standardized tests of nonword repetition, tense morphology, narrative story grammar, and receptive vocabulary. Parents were given a questionnaire on children's first-language development. Results: ELLs with LI had significantly lower scores than the TD ELLs on the first-language questionnaire and all the English-language measures except for vocabulary. Linear discriminant function analyses showed that good discrimination between the TD and LI groups could be achieved with all measures, except vocabulary, combined. The strongest discriminator was the questionnaire, followed by nonword repetition and tense morphology. Conclusion: Discrimination of children with LI among a diverse group of ELLs might be possible when using a combination of measures. Children with LI exhibit deficits in similar linguistic/cognitive domains regardless of whether English is their first or second language.

The goal of this study was to determine (a) the similarities and dissimilarities between child L2 and L1 acquisition of complex sentences and (b) the individual difference factors predicting L2 children's acquisition of complex sentences. We analyzed language samples from 187 English L2 children with diverse L1s (Age_mean= 5;10 [years;months]; English exposure_mean= 17 months). Children used various types of complex sentences at all levels of L2 exposure, including sentences with relative clauses, which are late-acquired by L1 learners. Mixed logistic regression modeling revealed that longer exposure to English in school, richer English environments outside school, larger L2 vocabulary, superior verbal memory and visual analytic reasoning contributed to greater use of complex sentences. L1 typology did not impact complex sentence use in the L2. Overall, L2 children used more complex sentences within a few months of English L2 exposure than what is reported for L1 children aged 2;0–4;0, revealing an advantage for an older age of acquisition. The predictive role of input and cognitive factors, as well as vocabulary, in children's use of complex sentences is more consistent with constructivist than generativist accounts of L2 syntactic acquisition.

Aims: In monolingual situations, mothers with higher levels of education are more likely to provide their children with enriched linguistic input. However, in bilingual situations, the relationship between maternal education and input is more complex because education may have occurred in one, but not both, of the languages. This study details this complexity by examining the relationship between maternal education and linguistic input in a group of children learning English as a second language (L2). Method: Participants were 89 immigrant/refugee children, living in Canada with diverse first languages (L1s). They completed a story-telling task in their L2 and parent reports provided a measure of L1 development. Parents also answered detailed questionnaires about family demographics and linguistic input within the family. Results: Regression modeling revealed that cumulative exposure to the L2 in school, maternal L2 fluency, relative quantity of L1/L2 use by the mother (input) and by the child (output) all influenced children’s L1 and L2 development. Relative quantity of input and maternal L2 fluency were, in turn, influenced by the amount of education mothers had completed and the language in which that education occurred. In instances where mothers were educated primarily in the L1, higher levels of education were associated with relatively more L1 input. For mothers who were educated predominantly in the L2, higher levels of education were associated with relatively more L2 input. Across both groups, mothers with higher levels of education had higher L2 fluency. Conclusion: This study revealed a complex relationship between the amount of education a mother has, the language in which that education occurred and the linguistic input she provides to her children. This complexity highlights that monolingual studies about input and environment may not offer a sufficiently nuanced perspective to account for the greater levels of variability found in bilingual situations. Originality: Previous research has offered valuable insights into the relationship between individual difference factors and bilingual acquisition. This study moves the field forward through the consideration of the interaction between factors in shaping bilingual acquisition.

Previous research suggests that increased second language (L2) input at home may not support L2 acquisition in children from migrant backgrounds. In drawing this conclusion, existing work has largely aggregated across family members. This study contrasts the effect of L2 input from older siblings with that from mothers. Participants were 113 child L2 learners of English (mean age = 5;10 [range 4;10–7;2]; mean exposure to L2 in school = 16.7 months [range 2–48 months]). All children had at least one older sibling. Using hierarchical linear regression modelling with controls for age, non-verbal reasoning and phonological short-term memory, we found that greater L2 input from siblings – but not mothers – was associated with stronger L2 abilities in narrative macrostructure, inflectional morphology, and vocabulary. Increased cumulative exposure to the L2 at school and greater maternal L2 fluency were also positively related to children's L2 inflectional morphology and vocabulary scores.