Environmental Factors and Sentence Complexity

in Child Second Language Acquisition

Susan Logue, Christina Sevdali, Raffaella Folli, and Juliana Gerard

1. Introduction

Variability in the linguistic proficiency of bilinguals is often associated with

differences in exposure to the target language (Gathercole, 2014; Unsworth,
2016). The characteristic variation of environmental factors in child second
language (L2) acquisition makes this population ideal for investigating how
external components affect language learning (Paradis & Grüter, 2014).
Research on input effects in child L2 acquisition often comprise quantitative,
qualitative, and distal aspects of exposure. Previous studies investigating the
effects of environmental factors in the morphosyntactic domain for child L2
learners have mostly focused on investigation of production of a number of
complex structures (e.g. Armon-Lotem et al., 2011; Paradis & Kirova, 2014;
Paradis et al., 2017; Unsworth, 2014; 2016). In the present study, we investigate
the comprehension of L2 sentence structures ranging in complexity (active and
passive voice, and subject and object relative clauses), and how their
interpretation by child L2 learners is impacted by a number of environmental
factors (length of L2 exposure; L2 language use at home; richness of the L2
environment; maternal education; and maternal L2 proficiency).
Length of exposure in L2 acquisition refers to the amount of time the
individual has been exposed to the target language and is traditionally measured
in years or months by taking age of first meaningful exposure to the L2 from the
child’s chronological age (Roesch & Chondrogianni, 2016; Unsworth, 2016). In
child L2 acquisition, and where the child is of pre-school age, significant and
consistent exposure (also referred to as meaningful exposure) typically occurs
on commencing nursery or primary school (Paradis, 2011). Previous research
focusing on the effect of length of L2 exposure and sentence structures has
revealed both positive (e.g. Paradis et al., 2017) and negative (e.g. Unsworth,
2016) effects.
L2 language use at home comprises a fine grained measure of quantitative
language input which involves the calculation of detailed L2 exposure time and
use, to allow a more comprehensive representation of the individual’s L2
exposure (Paradis, 2011). Fine grained measures are typically evaluated through

* Susan Logue, Ulster University, [email protected]. Christina Sevdali, Ulster

University. [email protected]. Raffaella Folli, Ulster University, [email protected].
Juliana Gerard, Ulster University, [email protected].

© 2020 Susan Logue, Christina Sevdali, Raffaella Folli, and Juliana Gerard. Proceedings
of the 44th Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Megan M.
Brown and Alexandra Kohut, 336-348. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
 337

the use of parent questionnaires asking parents to rate frequency of daily L2

exposure across settings (e.g. Chondrogianni & Marinis, 2011; Jia & Aaronson,
2003; Jia & Fuse, 2007; Paradis, 2011; Unsworth, 2014, 2016). More fine
grained measures of input generally show no effects on proficiency of sentences
including two clause structures (Paradis and Kirova, 2014; Paradis et al., 2017),
passives (Armon-Lotem-Lotem et al., 2011; Chondrogianni & Marinis, 2011),
and object scrambling (Unsworth, 2016), while other studies (Roesch &
Chondrogianni, 2016; Chondrogianni & Marinis, 2011) have found correlations
for accuracy of wh-questions.
Richness of the L2 environment is a qualitative input factor referring to the
richness of the individual’s L2 exposure time which can include engagement in
L2 activities such as reading, watching TV, and play or social activities (Jia &
Fuse, 2007; Paradis, 2011; Paradis & Kirova; 2014; Paradis et al., 2017).
Qualitative factors, measured through the use of parent questionnaires, can
include asking parents to indicate how often their child attends social or
afterschool activities in the L2, or to rate the language spoken between the child
and the friends they regularly play with. Studies including this factor have found
it impacts accuracy of morphology (e.g. Jia & Fuse, 2007; Paradis, 2011) and
sentence structures (Paradis & Kirova; 2014; Paradis et al., 2017).
Distal input factors impact the situational context in which input is provided
and can include maternal educational attainment and level of L2 proficiency
(Hoff, 2006; Sorenson Duncan & Paradis, 2018). Research investigating
maternal education demonstrate mixed findings with some studies showing no
impact on linguistic scores (Armon-Lotem et al., 2011; Paradis et al., 2017),
whereas others do find an effect (Bohman et al., 2010; Sorenson Duncan &
Paradis, 2018). However, it is noted that the impact of maternal education
demonstrates a complex picture in which its effect can depend on whether the
mother’s education was completed in the L1 or L2, with findings indicating that
L2 children’s productive use of complex sentences is positively influenced by
mothers educated in the L2 (e.g. Sorenson Duncan & Paradis, 2018). Maternal
L2 proficiency may vary considerably as some mothers may be in the early
stages of acquiring the L2, while others who emigrate for employment or study
opportunities may have quite high levels of fluency. It seems intuitive that the
better a mother’s proficiency in the L2, the more successful they will be in
expressing and demonstrating the L2 to their child (Sorenson Duncan & Paradis,
2018). Previous research has revealed a positive association between higher
levels of maternal L2 proficiency and greater acquisition of sentence structures
(e.g. Chondrogianni & Marinis, 2011; Hammer et al., 2012; Sorenson Duncan &
Paradis, 2018).
For the present study, we investigate comprehension of sentence structures
ranging in complexity to allow us to investigate how correlations between input
and interpretation of sentence structures may be affected by the simplicity or
complexity of the sentence construction. This range of complexity is reflected in
the different number of components and relationships between components
within each structure and its impact on acquisition. While children have few
difficulties acquiring sentences with canonical word order (Guasti, 2016), e.g.:
338

(1) Active voice: The dog chased the cat (canonical word order)
(2) Subject relative clauses: The dog that chased the cat (canonical word
order and embedding),

more difficulties are found with structures containing non-canonical word order
and additional clauses or phrases (e.g. Corréa, 1982, 1995; de Villiers et al,
1979; Sheldon, 1974; Slobin & Bever, 1982; Tavakolian, 1981), e.g.:

(3) Passive voice: The cat was chased by the dog (non-canonical word
order and by-phrase)
(4) Object relative clauses: The cat that the dog chased (non-canonical
word order and embedding)

Difficulties with more complex structures have been attributed to saliency of

structures in the input (e.g. Bybee, 1985; Langacker 1988), and the occurrence
of intervening properties (Grillo, 2009; Friedmann et al., 2009) or long distance
dependencies (Riches et al., 2010) within the structure, all of which may put
more burden on computational processing thus affecting comprehension
accuracy (e.g. Chen et al., 2005; Just & Carpenter, 1992; King & Just, 1991;
MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002).
The current study aims to further research in the domain of child L2
acquisition by focusing on identified influential environmental variables (length
of L2 exposure, L2 language use and input at home, richness of the L2
environment, maternal education, and maternal L2 proficiency) and
investigating their correlation with the comprehension of sentences ranging in
complexity by Arabic-speaking children acquiring L2 English.

2. The study
2.1. Research questions

The current study looks to address the following questions:

1. Do environmental factors correlate with comprehension of sentence

structures in child L2 acquisition?
2. Which type of sentence structures (simple to complex) are correlated with
the target environmental factors?

To address these questions, we used two measures: a parent questionnaire

measuring five environmental factors (length of L2 exposure, L2 language use at
home, richness of the L2 environment, socio-economic status, and maternal L2
proficiency), and a colouring task to measure interpretation of four sentence
structures ranging in complexity (active voice, passive voice, subject relative
clauses, and object relative clauses).
 339

2.2. Method
2.2.1. Participants

The child L2 participants were Arabic-speaking children attending primary

school in Belfast, Northern Ireland, aged 5;0 – 12;4 (mean = 8;1, N = 43).
Monolingual English-speaking participants aged 5;0 – 11;0 (mean = 8;1, N = 38)
also took part in the study. Each primary school used English as the language of
instruction and followed the Northern Ireland curriculum. Participants were all
typically developing in relation to language acquisition, cognition, and hearing,
as indicated by the schools. Most child L2 participants were born outside of
Northern Ireland and had emigrated from Arabic-speaking countries. Each was
reported to have begun meaningful (significant and consistent) exposure to
English on commencing a nursery facility or primary school. All participants
spoke Arabic as a first language, and this was the main language spoken at
home. Participants, or their parents, originated from thirteen different Arabic-
speaking countries, with the majority of subjects from Syria, Sudan, and Jordan.

2.2.2. Procedures

Parent questionnaire.
A parent questionnaire, adapted from the Alberta Language Environment
Questionnaire (ALEQ; Paradis, 2011; Paradis, n.d.), was used to obtain a
comprehensive representation of participant demographics and environmental
language factors. The questionnaire was translated to Modern Standard Arabic
(by a native Arabic speaker) and given to participants’ mothers to complete. In
the questionnaire we measured the environmental factors as follows:

 length of exposure was calculated by taking age of first meaningful (i.e.

consistent and significant) exposure to the L2 from the child’s
chronological age (e.g. current age = 8, age of first L2 exposure = 3
years old, length of exposure = 5 years);

 language use at home was measured by asking parents to rate the use of
the L2 at home by each household member (including both adults and
siblings, if applicable) to the child, and from the child to each
household member, by choosing a score from a 5-point rating scale (1 =
Mother tongue always/English never, 2 = Mother tongue
usually/English seldom, 3 = Mother tongue 50%/English 50%, 4 =
Mother tongue seldom/English usually, 5 = Mother tongue almost
never/English almost always);

 richness of the L2 environment was measured by asking the mother to

indicate how often the child engages in social/extracurricular activities
with the L2 as the language of instruction (0 = Almost never/Never, 1 =
At least once a week, 2 = Everyday), and rate the language spoken
between the child and the friends they regularly play with, using a 5-
340

point rating scale (1 = Mother tongue always/English never, 2 = Mother

tongue usually/English seldom, 3 = Mother tongue 50%/English 50%, 4
= Mother tongue seldom/English usually, 5 = Mother tongue almost
never/English almost always);

 maternal education was calculated in terms of the highest qualification

obtained using a 6-point rating scale (1 = Primary education, 2 =
Secondary education, 3 = Higher Educational Institution, 4 =
Undergraduate degree, 5 = Masters, 6 = PhD); and finally,

 maternal L2 proficiency was measured by asking the mothers to rate

their fluency in English using a 5-point rating scale (1 = No
understanding/ speaking ability, 2 = Some understanding and can say
short, simple sentences, 3 = Good understanding and can express
myself on many topics, 4 = Can understand and use English adequately
for work and most other situations, 5 = Can understand almost
everything/very comfortable expressing myself in English in all
situations).

The Coloring book task.

To measure comprehension of target sentence structures, we used The
Coloring Book Task (Pinto & Zuckerman, 2018). This task is a digital colouring
paradigm completed on a touchscreen PC which assesses participants’
comprehension of target structures by way of colouring in characters in the
context according to the sentence they hear (Gerard, 2016; Zuckerman et al.,
2015; Pinto & Zuckerman, 2018). The experimental design uses a simple and
interactive format to reduce processing costs and encourage engagement
throughout the task. The Coloring Book’s computerised application can be
formatted to include specific designs in which children indicate their
grammatical interpretations by colouring in one of the characters in the context
(Zuckerman et al., 2015). Participants were shown a black and white image on a
touchscreen laptop consisting of three animal characters performing the same
action on each other (Figure 1). In the sentence stimuli, one character is the
agent (doing the action) and one is the patient (receiving the action). Children
reveal their grammatical interpretations by colouring one character (choosing
from an array of coloured squares below the characters) according to the
sentence heard. A randomised 2 x 2 sentence design for each set of structures
(active/passive, subject/object relative clauses) was used with 8 items for all
conditions. Test items were alternated with fillers (16 per set), which comprised
simple present tense sentences with an inanimate argument. Each sentence
included a preamble describing the animal characters and requesting the
participant to choose a colour, e.g.: “Ok, so in this picture there’s a sheep, a cow,
and another sheep. Let’s choose a colour now”. Examples of each sentence type
are shown in Table 1. Figure 1 illustrates the picture that would accompany the
sample target sentences in Table 1. The fillers also acted as control sentences. If
participants did not respond at ceiling (75% correct) for controls, their data were
 341

excluded from the analysis. Each participant’s colouring task was video
recorded so that screenshots of answers could be checked and scored. Data
collection was administered over seven months by a native English-speaking
member of the research team. Sessions took place at the participant’s school
during school hours and normally lasted between 25 to 30 minutes.

Table 1. Sample sentences from the colouring task

Condition Example
1. Active voice The cow washed the <colour> sheep.

2. Passive voice The cow was washed by the <colour> sheep.

3. Subject relative Something here is <colour>. Oh look, it’s the sheep

clause that washed the cow.

4. Object relative Something here is <colour>. Oh look, it’s the sheep

clause that the cow washed.

5. Filler Something here is <colour>. Oh look, it drives a

bus.

Figure 1. Sample item from colouring task

3. Results

Scoring.
Children’s accuracy in the colouring task (The coloring book task; Pinto &
Zuckerman, 2018), was scored by calculating the mean for each condition over
the 8 trials, which was then tallied and converted to a percentage score. The
scores for the environmental input variables included different scoring methods:
length of exposure was calculated in months; the score for language use at home
was determined by first summing the scores for the relevant answers and taking
this away from the number of scores x 4 to give a proportional score ranging
342

from 0.00-2.00; similarly, richness of the L2 environment was calculated by

summing the scores for relevant answers and taking this away from the overall
number of scores to give a proportional score between 0.00-1.00; both maternal
education and maternal L2 proficiency were scored by way of rating scales
between 1.00-5.00, and 1.00-6.00, respectively.

Table 2. Summary of mean, SD, ranges, and descriptions of scores for

environmental factors.
Environmental factor Mean SD Range/Description
Length of exposure 3;5 (42.93 2;1 (25.83 0;6 – 10;6 (0.6 – 128
months) months) months)
Language use at home 0.65 0.30 0.25 – 1.91 (scale= 0-2)
Richness of L2 0.75 0.17 0.29 – 1.00 (scale= 0-1)
environment
Maternal education 0.37 0.14 1.0 – 6.0 (scale = 1-6)
Maternal L2 0.36 0.13 1.0 – 5.0 (scale = 1-5)
proficiency
L2 = second language

Descriptive statistics: target sentence structures.

Participant averages from the colouring task on interpretation of target sentence
structures showed that the child L2 learners demonstrated a high ability in
interpreting the simpler sentence structures (active voice = 82%, subject relative
clauses = 88%), and lower ability in interpretation of the more complex
sentences structures (passive voice = 66%, object relative clauses = 64%).
Contrasting these results with the age-matched monolingual controls
demonstrates the difficulties child L2 learners had in interpretation of complex
sentence structures as monolinguals showed a high ability across all structures
(active voice = 96%, passive voice = 93%, subject relative clauses = 97%, object
relative clauses = 86%). Figure 2 presents mean raw score results for the
colouring task in relation to the child L2 learners and age-matched monolingual
participants.
 343

Child L2 learners Monolinguals

1
0.9
Sentence structure score

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Active voice Passive voice Subject relative Object relative
clause clause
Figure 2. Mean accuracy scores for target sentence structures (Colouring
task) for child L2 and monolingual participants.

Correlation between target sentence structures and environmental factors.

Table 4. Correlation matrix of sentence structures and environmental

factors.

L2 = second language; L2 richness = richness of second language environment;

Lang use = second language use at home; LOE = length of exposure; Maternal
educ = maternal level of education; Maternal L2 = maternal second language
proficiency
344

In order to answer our research questions, we ran a correlation analysis to

calculate the correlation coefficients (r value) and significance (p value) between
participant averages for scores on accuracy of interpretation of target sentence
structures and environmental factors. A correlation matrix of the coefficient and
significance levels between variables is shown in Table 4. The analysis revealed
a number of relationships between target factors.
Firstly, correlations between length of exposure and interpretation of
sentence structures show positive trends across structures however, this is weak
for active voice, slightly stronger for subject relative clauses and passive voice
but much more robust for object relative clauses which indicated a significant
correlation.
Language use at home revealed a slight positive correlation with
interpretation of active voice, passive voice and object relative clauses however,
none were significant. Moreover, a negative relationship was demonstrated
between this factor and subject relative clauses.
The correlation coefficient for the richness of L2 environment revealed a
positive trend for all structures with significance found for active and passive
voice while a marginal correlation was found for object relative clauses.
Maternal education had a very weak association with passive voice and
object relative clauses and a clear negative association with both active voice
and subject relative clauses.
Results for maternal L2 proficiency showed a similar pattern with very
weak associations revealed for passive voice and object relative clauses but
negative associations with active voice and subject relative clauses. Thus,
maternal education and maternal L2 proficiency were not significantly
correlated to greater interpretation of any of the target sentence structures.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

The objective of this study was to investigate the correlation between

environmental input factors and comprehension of sentence structures ranging in
complexity in child L2 acquisition. We used two measures: a parent
questionnaire to gather information on environmental input factors (length of
exposure, L2 language use at home, richness of the L2 environment, maternal
education, and maternal L2 proficiency); and a colouring task to measure
interpretation of sentence structures ranging in complexity (active and passive
voice, and subject and object relative clauses). A correlation analysis was used
to calculate correlation coefficients and significance between the mean scores of
environmental factors and sentence structures to address two research questions.
One research question asked if the target environmental factors were correlated
with understanding of sentence structures ranging in complexity in child L2
acquisition. Another research question asked which type of sentence structure
(simple to complex) is correlated with the target environmental factors.
The results show a number of correlations across factors. Firstly, it should
be noted that p values for correlations between environmental variables
themselves demonstrate several significant relationships: length of exposure,
 345

maternal education and maternal L2 proficiency correlate with all other input
factors with the exception of richness of the L2 environment; while language use
at home correlates with all input factors.
Correlations between environmental factors and target sentence structures
reveal length of exposure to be significantly correlated with object relative
clauses however, as this input factor is also correlated with most other input
variables this result must be treated with caution. Richness of L2 environment
was significantly correlated with active and passive voice, while a marginal
effect was revealed for object relative clauses. Although there was not a
significant correlation found for subject relative clauses, a positive trend was
shown between this structure and factor. This result suggests that a child’s L2
exposure from social activities and peers is associated with greater interpretation
of some simpler sentences, and more complex structures involving non-
canonical word order and additional phrases or clauses. This finding may
indicate that these experiences which allow purposeful and naturalistic exposure
to language in play-based settings, are providing children with rich opportunities
to hear and use the target sentence structures. Moreover, as these activities are
carried out in the L2, they may include engagement with native or highly
proficient L2 speakers of the target language who may be providing valuable
modelling of structures. Future research investigating the types of speakers L2
children engage with in these settings, the linguistic structures used between
individuals, and the specific types of social activities engaged in, can provide
greater understanding of how L2 richness impacts L2 children’s understanding
of sentence structures.
Furthermore, richness of L2 environment was significantly correlated with
language use at home. This may indicate that being engaged in play and social
activities in the L2 positively influences the individual’s L2 use in the home
environment. As measurement of language use at home included both the child’s
L2 output and input at home, future research measuring these factors separately
may provide further insight on this association.
Language use at home was not associated with any language measure, a
finding which supports most other research in this domain which has found that
fine grained measures of input are not associated with acquisition of sentence
structures including passives (e.g. Armon-Lotem et al., 2011; Chondrogianni &
Marinis, 2011), embedded clauses (Paradis and Kirova, 2014; Paradis et al.,
2017), and object scrambling (Unsworth, 2016). This result may indicate a
negligible influence of L2 use at home on linguistic development which
previous research has attributed to the diminished quality of the L2 language the
individual receives from non-native speakers such as siblings and parents (e.g.
Hammer et al., 2012; Hoff et al., 2014; Place & Hoff, 2011). However, again, as
this factor includes two measures of language use at home (input and output) it
is difficult to know which type is influencing this correlation with target
structures.
Both maternal education and maternal L2 proficiency did not correlate
significantly with any language measure. This finding for maternal education
both supports (e.g. Armon et al., 2011) and contrasts (e.g. Bohman et al., 2010;
346

Paradis et al, 2017; Sorenson Duncan & Paradis, 2018) previous research.
However, as indicated in Sorenson Duncan & Paradis (2018), the impact of
maternal education may depend on whether the mother’s education was
completed in the L1 or L2, as a positive association has been found between the
child’s L2 language skills and the L2 proficiency of mothers who received their
education in the L2. For the current study, it was noted that mothers of child
participants were a mix of refugees and those completing either their Masters or
PhDs at universities in Northern Ireland, which may mean that the mothers’
English language abilities were mixed. However, as the language of the
mother’s education was not included as a measure in the current study, it is not
known if this has impacted the findings for this factor. In relation to maternal L2
proficiency, it would appear intuitive that the mother’s L2 fluency would have a
positive impact on the child’s language abilities (e.g. through modelling)
however, this was not revealed in the current study. This finding contrasts with
previous research which has suggested that higher maternal L2 proficiency is
related to better morphosyntactic development (e.g. Chondrogianni & Marinis,
2011, Paradis, 2011, Sorenson Duncan & Paradis, 2018). However, it may be
that more comprehensive measurements of maternal L2 proficiency (e.g. using a
proficiency test score) could provide more accurate results for this factor and its
impact on target structures.
Another point to consider is the collinearity present between most input
factors in the present study. This may indicate that research which has included
some but not all of the factors measured, and found effects for language
phenomena, may be attributing findings to the wrong factor. In addition, a
number of internal factors (e.g. age, memory) may also be impacting the target
linguistic phenomena which needs to be accounted for in future research.
In conclusion, further research is needed to explore the role of qualitative
L2 influences such as richness of the L2 environment (e.g. L2 play and social
activities) and the quality of language use at home (e.g. from non-native
speaking siblings and adults), which could include more nuanced evaluations of
factors, to allow further insight on their impact on linguistic proficiency in child
L2 acquisition. Furthermore, the inclusion of additional types of factors (a range
of internal and external) may help to account for and disentangle the causal
factors in this domain.

References

Armon-Lotem, Sharon, Walters, Joel, Gagarina, Natalia. (2011). The impact of internal
and external factors on linguistic performance in the home language and in L2
among Russian-Hebrew and Russian-German preschool children. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 1 (3), 291–317.
Bohman TM, Bedore LM, Peña ED, Mendez-Perez A, Gillam RB. (2010). What you hear
and what you say: Language performance in Spanish-English bilinguals.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 325–344.
Blom Elma. (2010). Effects of input on the early grammatical development of bilingual
children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 422–446.
Bybee, Joan, L. (1985). Morphology, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 347

Chen, Evan, Gibson, Edward, & Wolf, Florian. (2005). Online syntactic storage costs in
sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 144–69.
Chondrogianni, Vasiliki, Maranis, Theodoros. (2011). Differential effects of internal and
external factors on the development of vocabulary, tense-morphology and morpho-
syntax in successive bilingual children. Linguistic approaches to Bilingualism 1 (3),
318-345.
de Villiers, Jill, G., Helen, B. Tager-Flusberg, Kenji, Hakuta, & Michael, Cohen. (1979).
Children’s comprehension of relative clauses, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,
8, 499–518.
Friedmann, Naama, Belletti, Adriana, & Rizzi, Luigi. (2009). Relativized relatives: Types
of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies, Lingua, 119, 67–88.
Gathercole, Virginia, C. Mueller. (2014). Bilingualism matters: One size does not fit all.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38, 359-366.
Gerard, Juliana. (2016). The acquisition of adjunct control: Grammar and processing.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Golberg, Heather, Paradis, Johanne, Crago Martha. (2008). Lexical acquisition over time
in minority first language children learning English as a second language. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 29, 41–65.
Grillo, Nino. (2009). Generalized Minimality: Feature impoverishment and
comprehension deficits in agrammatism. Lingua, 119 (10), 1426-1443.
Guasti, Maria Teresa. (2016). Language Acquisition: The Growth of Grammar. (Second
edition). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hammer, Carol Scheffner Hammera, Eugene Komaroffa, Barbara L. Rodriguezb, Lisa M.
Lopezc, Shelley E. Scarpinod, & Brian Goldstein. (2012). Predicting Spanish–
English Bilingual Children’s Language Abilities. Speech Language & Hearing
Research. 55(5), 1251–1264.
Hoff, Erika. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development.
Developmental Review 26, 55–88.
Hoff, Erika, Welsh, Stephanie, Place, Silvia, & Ribot, Krystal. (2014). Properties of dual
language input that shape bilingual development and properties of environments that
shape dual language input. In Grüter, Theres & Paradis, Johanne (Eds.), Trends in
language acquisition research: Input and experience in bilingual development, 119–
140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jia, Gisela & Aaronson, Doris. (2003). A longitudinal study of Chinese children and
adolescents learning English in the United States. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24 (1),
131-161.
Jia, Gisela, Fuse, Akiko. (2007). Acquisition of English Grammatical Morphology by
native Mandarin speaking children and adolescents. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 50 (5), 1280-1299.
Just, Marcel, A., & Carpenter, Patricia, A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension:
Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 98, 122–149.
King, Jonathan, & Just, Marcel A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing:
The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580–602.
Langacker, Ronald, W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I, Theoretical
Prerequisites, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
MacDonald, Maryellen, C., Christiansen, Morten, H. (2002). Reassessing Working
Memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996).
Psychological Review, 109 (1), 35–54.
Paradis, Johanne. (n.d.). CHESL Centre. Retrieved from
http://www.linguistics.ualberta.ca/CHESL_Centre.aspx (accessed 22 February
2017).
348

Paradis, Johanne. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language

acquisition: comparing child-internal and child-eternal factors. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 1 (3), 213-237.
Paradis, Johanne. & Grüter, Theres. (2014). Introduction to “Input and experience in
bilingual development.” In Grüter, Theres & Paradis, Johanne (Eds.), Trends in
language acquisition research: Input and experience in bilingual development, 1–
14. Amsterdam, Nl: John Benjamins.
Paradis, Johanne, Kirova, Anna. (2014). English second-language learners in preschool:
Profile effects in their English abilities and the role of home language environment.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(4), 342–349.
Paradis, Johanne, Rusk, Brian, Sorenson Duncan, Tamara, & Govindarajan, Krithika.
(2017). Children’s second language acquisition of English complex syntax: The role
of age, input and cognitive factors. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 1-20.
Pinto, Manuela, Zuckerman, Shalom. (2018). Coloring Book: A new method for testing
language comprehension. Behavior Research Methods, 51(6), 2609–2628.
Place Silvia, Hoff, Erika. (2011). Properties of dual language exposure that influence 2-
year-olds’ bilingual proficiency. Child development, 82, 1834–1849.
Riches, Nick, G., Loucas, Tom, Baird, Gillian, Charman, Tony, & Simonoff, Emily.
(2010) Sentence repetition in adolescents with specific language impairments and
autism: an investigation of complex syntax. International Journal of Language &
Communication Disorders, 45, 47-60.
Roesch, Anne, Dorothee, Chondrogianni, Vasiliki. (2016). “Which mouse kissed the
frog?” Effects of age of onset, length of exposure, and knowledge of case marking
on the comprehension of wh-questions in German-speaking simultaneous and early
sequential bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 43, 635-661.
Sheldon, Amy (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses
in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272-281.
Slobin, Dan, I., & Bever, Thomas, G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas:
A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12 (3), 229-265.
Sorenson Duncan, Tamara & Paradis, Johanne. (published online June 13, 2018). How
does maternal education influence the linguistic environment supporting bilingual
language development in child L2 learners of English? International Journal of
Bilingualism.
Tavakolian, Susan. (1981). The conjoined clause analysis of relative clauses. acquisition
and linguistic theory. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Unsworth, Sharon. (2013). Assessing the role of current and cumulative exposure in
simultaneous bilingual acquisition: The case of Dutch gender. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 16(1), 86-110.
Unsworth, Sharon. (2014). Comparing the role of input in bilingual acquisition across
domains. In: Grüter, Theres & Paradis, Johanne (Eds.), Trends in language
acquisition research: Input and experience in bilingual development, 181 – 201.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Unsworth, Sharon. (2016). Early child L2 acquisition: Age or input effects? Neither, or
both? Journal of Child Language, 43, 603-634.
Unsworth, Sharon. (2016). Quantity and quality of language input in bilingual language
development. In Nicoladis, Elena & Montanari, Simona (Eds.), Lifespan
perspectives on bilingualism, 136-196. Mouton de Gruyter/APA.
Zuckerman, Shalom, Pinto, Manuela, Koutamanis, Elly, van Spijk, Yoïn. (2015) A New
Method for Testing Language Comprehension Reveals Better Performance on
Passive and Principle B Constructions. BUCLD 40, 443-456.
Proceedings of the 44th annual
Boston University Conference
on Language Development

edited by Megan M. Brown

and Alexandra Kohut

Cascadilla Press Somerville, MA 2020

Copyright information
Proceedings of the 44th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development
© 2020 Cascadilla Press. All rights reserved

Copyright notices are located at the bottom of the first page of each paper.
Reprints for course packs can be authorized by Cascadilla Press.

ISSN 1080-692X
ISBN 978-1-57473-057-9 (2 volume set, paperback)

Ordering information
To order a copy of the proceedings or to place a standing order, contact:

Cascadilla Press, P.O. Box 440355, Somerville, MA 02144, USA

phone: 1-617-776-2370, [email protected], www.cascadilla.com