CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Language Development and DisordersEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development

Open access
Wang, Xuan, McMillen, Stephanie, Shi, Yan·2025·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1566442PMC PMC12098383
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction: The present study aims to advance our understanding of bilingual children's L2 morpheme acquisition variability by examining the child-internal factor of L1 transfer, child-external factor of L2 exposure, as well as the linguistic factor of morphological salience. Method: Drawing on naturalistic conversational data from a corpus of bilingual children's language samples, we analyzed the production accuracy of five English inflectional morphemes in 21 language samples from Spanish-English bilingual children and 25 language samples from Mandarin-English bilingual children. The two groups were age-matched and gender-balanced, with a mean age of 5 years and 1 month (range: 3; 8–7; 5). Binomial logistic mixed-effects models were employed to examine the accuracy of L2 morpheme production as influenced by L1 transfer, L2 input quantity (months of English exposure), input quality (morphological richness & lexical diversity), and the morphological salience of the target morphemes. Results: The results revealed a significant effect of L1 transfer, with Spanish-English bilinguals demonstrating higher accuracy than Mandarin-English bilinguals, particularly for English plural -s and articles. Besides, months of English exposure emerged as a significant positive predictor of L2 morpheme production accuracy. As regards input quality, while lexical diversity positively contributed to morpheme accuracy in both groups, morphological richness negatively affected morpheme production accuracy among Mandarin-English bilinguals. In addition, our descriptive analyses of morphological salience factors indicate that, across both groups of children, perceptual salience, morphophonological regularity, syntactic category and semantic complexity influence morpheme production accuracy to different degrees. Discussion: The study suggests that L1 transfer plays a critical role in L2 English morpheme production accuracy and underscores the importance of L2 input quantity and quality, such as lexical diversity, in explaining variability in bilingual children's morpheme acquisition. Additionally, difficulties in producing English morphemes may be associated with factors related to morphological salience. Overall, the findings underlie the importance of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 morpheme acquisition.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study examined L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in Spanish-English (SE) and Mandarin-English (ME) bilingual children’s production of five English morphemes. It found significant L1-group advantages for SE bilinguals on plural -s and articles, positive effects of English exposure and lexical diversity, and descriptive links between some salience factors and morpheme accuracy.

Key findings

  • L1 transfer: SE bilinguals had higher overall morpheme accuracy than ME bilinguals (Est. = 0.46, p = 0.023), with significant advantages for plural -s (92% vs. 84%, p = 0.01, η2G = 0.12) and articles (91% vs. 83%, p = 0.02, η2G = 0.11); third-person singular -s was lowest for both groups (63% SE vs. 50% ME).
  • L2 exposure: months of English exposure positively predicted morpheme accuracy (Est. = 0.57, p < 0.001), and lexical diversity also positively predicted accuracy (Est. = 0.08, p < 0.001); experimenter MLU showed a marginal negative overall effect (Est. = −0.43, p = 0.07) and a significant negative effect for ME bilinguals (Est. = −0.74, p = 0.013).
  • Morphological salience: descriptive analyses suggested semantic complexity and syntactic category patterns, with semantically complex third-person singular -s showing lowest accuracy; perceptual salience effects were mixed, and morphophonological regularity showed no clear pattern across morphemes.

Methods

  • Naturalistic conversational data from Paradis’s (2005) CHILDES corpus: 21 language samples from six Spanish-English bilingual children and 25 samples from five Mandarin-English bilingual children, mean age 5;1 (range 3;8–7;5).
  • Production accuracy for five English morphemes (plural -s, third-person singular -s, articles, regular past tense -ed, present progressive -ing) was measured using Target-Like Use (TLU) in the first 200 intelligible utterances per sample; inter-rater reliability averaged Cronbach’s alpha = 0.973.
  • Binomial logistic mixed-effects models (lme4) tested effects of language group, months of English exposure, experimenter MLU, lexical diversity, and interactions, controlling for age and morpheme type with by-subject random intercepts; morphological salience was analyzed descriptively.

Limitations

  • The paper states that naturalistic samples meant the number and types of verbs could not be controlled, potentially inflating accuracy for familiar verbs; the small sample size limits generalizability; and the salience analysis is exploratory/descriptive, requiring future experimental and inferential work.
  • The paper also states that using existing corpus data prevented analysis of current language exposure, focusing instead on cumulative exposure.
  • Evident from the text: the child sample is very small (five ME and six SE children), and the salience predictors have only five unique morpheme-level combinations, making inferential salience modeling inappropriate.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1566442

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

2 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

15 of 41 cited sources checked · 8 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationcitation

    Conducting inferential analyses of morphological salience is inappropriate because the limited variability across predictors at the morpheme level leads to overfitting and unreliable results.

    “This issue was pointed out by Murakami (2014) for the approach used by Goldschneider and DeKeyser;s (2001), where the limited variability across predictors at the morpheme level leads to overfitting and unreliable results. Given the fundamental limitation, conducting inferential analyses is inappropriate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Murakami (2014) source
  • Premisereasoning

    The frequency data used by Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001), based on monolingual English parental input reported in Brown (1973), do not accurately reflect input frequency for bilingual children learning English as an L2.

    “Note that, unlike Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001), we excluded the frequency factor from our analyses, as their frequency data were based on monolingual English parental input reported in Brown (1973), which does not accurately reflect the input frequency for bilingual children who are learning English as an L2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) source

      The Frequency section confirms that Goldschneider and DeKeyser used Brown’s (1973) frequencies from three sets of parents and says these cannot be completely representative of input available to children learning an L2. But the authors expect little variation across input settings and regard the measure as preferable to excluding frequency, so the claim overstates their reservation about its accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Brown (1973) source
  • Premisecitation

    Morphological salience factors explain significant variance in morpheme production accuracy.

    “Their analysis, covering 12 studies (published from 1973 to 1996) with child and adult L2 English learners, revealed that these salience factors explained significant variance in morpheme production accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goldschneider and DeKeyser, 2001 source

      The Multiple Regression Analysis and Results sections report that five factors the authors describe as aspects of salience explained significant variance in oral-production accuracy (R² = .71, p < .001) across 12 studies. The date range is imprecise: Data Selection assigns 1973–1996 to 25 candidate studies and explicitly excludes the 1973 study, rather than describing it as part of the 12-study analysis. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Greater input of a given language is associated with more advanced language outcomes in bilingual children.

    “Findings consistently indicate that more advanced language outcomes are often associated with greater input of a given language (e.g., Bedore et al., 2012; Bohman et al., 2010; Jia and Fuse, 2007; Paradis, 2023, among others).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bedore et al., 2012 source
    • cites Bohman et al., 2010 source
    • cites Jia and Fuse, 2007 source
  • Findingown data

    Lexical diversity positively contributes to morpheme accuracy in both Spanish-English and Mandarin-English bilingual children.

    “As regards input quality, while lexical diversity positively contributed to morpheme accuracy in both groups, morphological richness negatively affected morpheme production accuracy among Mandarin-English bilinguals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 42
  • May combine two claims. 39
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Using at least 50-100 utterances or a 7-10-min language sample yields a representative and reliable measure of a child's language use.

    “Previous research on language sample analysis recommends using at least 50–100 utterances or a 7–10-min language sample to obtain a representative and reliable measure of a child's language use (e.g., Guo and Eisenberg, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Guo and Eisenberg, 2015 source

      The Introduction reports a recommendation of 50–100 utterances, but says those samples take about 10–15 minutes, not 7–10 minutes. The Conclusions support 10-minute samples for specified measures in parent-elicited samples from 3-year-olds; they say 7-minute samples could also be used, while the Clinical Implications note that two measures fell just below the study's reliability benchmark at 7 minutes. The claim overgeneralizes those findings to a child's language use without the study's age, setting, and measure qualifications. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

    Premisecitation

    Morphological salience affects L2 morpheme acquisition.

    “Morphological salience is predicted to affect L2 morpheme acquisition (e.g., Goldschneider and DeKeyser, 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goldschneider and DeKeyser, 2001 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Analyzing the first 200 intelligible utterances for each child ensures a representative language sample at each time point.

    “Following this recommendation, we analyzed the first 200 intelligible utterances for each child to ensure a representative language sample at each time point.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Guo and Eisenberg, 2015 source

      The Clinical Implications section (page unavailable) supports using a sufficiently long conversational sample, but recommends approximately 91 C-units for the measures studied in 3-year-olds—not the first 200 utterances. The Materials and Procedure section says the analysis included only intelligible, complete, spontaneous C-units. The paper does not establish that taking the first 200 ensures a representative sample at each time point. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Input quality-specifically, the number of different English speakers in the input source and the proportion of native English input-has a more significant effect on English vocabulary and grammar learning than input quantity.

    “They found that input quality—specifically, the number of different English speakers in the input source and the proportion of native English input—had a more significant effect on English vocabulary and grammar learning than input quantity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Place and Hoff, 2011 source

      The Results section (page not supplied) finds that the number of English speakers predicts both vocabulary and grammatical complexity beyond input quantity, but native-speaker input is a significant correlate of vocabulary, not grammar. It also does not show a greater effect of input properties than quantity: quantity accounted for 39% of vocabulary variance and 34% of grammar variance, versus an additional 29% and 21% for the properties combined. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Morphological salience values for each morpheme were coded following the protocols outlined by Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001).

    “Morphological salience values for each morpheme were coded following the protocols outlined by Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The inclusion of 200 intelligible utterances exceeds the minimum requirement suggested by Guo and Eisenberg (2015), further enhancing the representativeness of the language samples.

    “The inclusion of 200 intelligible utterance exceeds the minimum requirement suggested by Guo and Eisenberg (2015), further enhancing the representativeness of the language samples.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Guo and Eisenberg, 2015 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Five target English morphemes were tested for salience effects in Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001).

    “Within these 200 utterances, we evaluated five target English morphemes that were tested for salience effects in Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goldschneider and DeKeyser, 2001 source

      The Perceptual Salience section says the study scored salience for six grammatical functors, not five. The Discussion confirms that salience was examined, but the cited paper does not support the claim's count of five target morphemes. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) included both children and adults, so the specific impact of salience on young bilingual children's English acquisition could not be isolated.

    “Even though Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) conducted a meta-analysis with a large number of studies, both children and adults were included in their analysis, and so, the specific impact of salience on young bilingual children's English acquisition could not be isolated.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goldschneider and DeKeyser, 2001 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Greater exposure to L2 English significantly enhanced young bilingual children's acquisition of vocabulary, grammatical complexity, and MLU in English.

    “This finding aligns with the existing literature (e.g., Bedore et al., 2012; Hoff et al., 2012) which found that greater exposure to L2 English significantly enhanced young bilingual children's acquisition of vocabulary, grammatical complexity, and MLU33 in English.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bedore et al., 2012 source

      The Results section (‘Relationships between experience and language dominance and proficiency’; page unavailable) reports that English semantics and morphosyntax scores rose with greater English use. That supports an association with language performance, but the paper does not establish that exposure caused improved acquisition or report an exposure-related improvement in MLU. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Hoff et al., 2012 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Plural -s has three phonological alternations.

    “plural -s has three phonological alternations”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    Plural -s is homophonous with possessive -'s and third-person singular -s.

    “it is homophonous with possessive -'s and third-person singular -s”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The third-person singular -s has three allomorphs ([s], [z], [z]) and four distinct phones in total.

    “the third-person singular -s has three allomorphs ([s], [z], [z]) and four distinct phones in total”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Both groups of children produced plural -s with higher accuracy than other morphemes.

    “Moreover, the significant positive effects of morpheme level 1 (Plural-s; Est. = 0.538, p < 0.001) and morpheme level 4 (Articles; Est. = 0.61, p < 0.001) suggest that both groups of children produced these two morphemes with higher accuracy than other morphemes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    L1 transfer has a significant effect on L2 English morpheme production accuracy, with Spanish-English bilinguals showing higher accuracy than Mandarin-English bilinguals, particularly for English plural -s and articles.

    “The results revealed a significant effect of L1 transfer, with Spanish-English bilinguals demonstrating higher accuracy than Mandarin-English bilinguals, particularly for English plural -s and articles.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    The third-person singular -s has an average of 1.33 phones per allomorph.

    “This results in an average of 1.33 phones per allomorph (4 total phones/3 allomorphs = 1.33).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Regular past tense -ed contains three phonological alternations ([t, d, d]).

    “regular past tense -ed contains three alternations (i.e., [t, d, d])”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    The article is used for definiteness.

    “the article is assigned one point because it is used for definiteness”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Third-person singular -s can be used to indicate present tense, person, and number.

    “third-person singular -s is assigned three points because it can be used to indicate present tense, person, and number”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    L1 transfer has a significant effect on L2 morpheme accuracy; SE bilinguals showed higher accuracy than ME bilinguals, especially for English plural -s and articles.

    “Results revealed a significant effect of L1 transfer on the L2 morpheme accuracy such that SE bilinguals showed higher accuracy than ME bilinguals, especially for English plural -s and articles.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For ME bilingual children, third-person singular -s is semantically complex and displayed the lowest production accuracy.

    “For instance, the third-person singular -s is semantically complex and it displayed the lowest production accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The negative effect of input's morphological richness (MLU) was only significant for ME bilingual children, not SE bilingual children.

    “The effect is only significant for ME bilingual children, rather than SE bilingual children, which could be explained by the L1 morphological typology.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Months of English exposure (MOE) is a significant factor, indicating that more English exposure leads to higher accuracy for both groups of bilingual children.

    “We observed that the months of English exposure (MOE) is a significant factor, indicating that more English exposure leads to higher accuracy for both groups of bilingual children.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For SE bilingual children, the third-person singular -s (low perceptual salience) showed lower accuracy, whereas articles and the present progressive -ing (high perceptual salience) showed higher accuracy.

    “In terms of perceptual salience, the third-person singular -s (3sig) with low perceptual salience showed lower accuracy whereas articles and the present progressive -ing with high perceptual salience showed higher accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For ME bilingual children, MOE has a significant positive effect on morpheme production accuracy; more English exposure is associated with higher accuracy.

    “Model 3 (ME bilingual children) revealed a significant positive effect of MOE, with more English exposure associated with higher accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For SE bilingual children, accuracy tends to decrease with increased morphophonological irregularity, but present progressive -ing, articles, and plural -s demonstrated high accuracy regardless of their morphophonological regularity.

    “As regards morphophonological regularity, although accuracy seems to decrease with increased irregularity, exceptions were observed, such as the present progressive -ing, articles, and plural -s, which demonstrated high accuracy regardless of their morphophonological regularity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the study, there was a significant main effect of Group (SE vs. ME), with the SE group on average having higher accuracy of English morpheme production than the ME group.

    “The significant main effect of Group (SE vs. ME) demonstrates that the SE group on average had higher accuracy of English morpheme production compared to the ME group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The accuracy of plural -s and past tense -ed do not seem to be affected by perceptual salience.

    “For example, the accuracy of plural -s and past tense -ed do not seem to be affected by perceptual salience.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For ME bilingual children, third-person singular -s (greater irregularity) showed lowest accuracy, while other morphemes exhibited high accuracy regardless of their regularity levels.

    “For instance, the third-person singular -s which has greater irregularity showed lowest accuracy, however, other morphemes exhibited high accuracy regardless of their regularity levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ME bilinguals hardly made such commission errors but more omission errors.

    “In contrast, ME bilinguals hardly made such commission errors but more omission errors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    For SE bilingual children, plural -s and articles show higher accuracy than the third-person singular -s (syntactic category gradient).

    “In terms of syntactic category, a general gradient effect was observed, with plural -s and articles showing higher accuracy than the third-person singular -s.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Plural -s and articles are morphophonologically irregular but had high accuracy scores.

    “Notably, while plural -s and articles are morphophonologically irregular, they had high accuracy scores”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For ME bilingual children, present progressive -ing and articles (high perceptual salience) exhibited high production accuracy, whereas third-person singular -s (low perceptual salience) demonstrated low accuracy.

    “As shown in Figure 2 for ME bilingual children, the present progressive -ing and articles, with high perceptual salience, exhibited high production accuracy, whereas the third-person singular -s, which has low perceptual salience, demonstrated low accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the study's results, present progressive -ing and plural -s exhibited higher accuracy, articles showed moderate accuracy, and third-person singular -s demonstrated lower accuracy.

    “the results show that the present progressive -ing and plural -s exhibited higher accuracy, articles showed moderate accuracy, and the third-person singular -s demonstrated lower accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Overall, L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience are important in bilingual children's L2 morpheme acquisition.

    “Overall, the findings underlie the importance of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 morpheme acquisition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A lexical morpheme is typically acquired earlier than a functional morpheme.

    “According to the Functional Category Theory, a lexical morpheme is typically acquired earlier than a functional morpheme, and a free morpheme is typically acquired before a bound morpheme.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zobl and Liceras (1994) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Target-Like Use (TLU) accounts for developmental errors, overgeneralization, and overuse of correct morphemes in children's production.

    “Target-Like Use (TLU) is adopted as a measure of accuracy, as it accounts for the developmental errors, overgeneralization, and overuse of correct morphemes in children's production.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A free morpheme is typically acquired before a bound morpheme.

    “According to the Functional Category Theory, a lexical morpheme is typically acquired earlier than a functional morpheme, and a free morpheme is typically acquired before a bound morpheme.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zobl and Liceras (1994) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Data coding was first completed independently by the first and third authors, and preliminary coding results were compared and discussed to ensure consistency.

    “The data coding was first completed independently by the first and third authors of this study, and the preliminary coding results were compared and discussed to ensure consistency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The model fit for the first two research questions showed no issues with dispersion or outliers.

    “The model fit was assessed with the DHARMa package (Hartig, 2024), which showed no issues with dispersion or outliers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    O'Grady et al. (2017) primarily focused on adult L2 learners, and in their study, salience was operationalized as perceptual acoustic salience, without considering other salience factors.

    “It is important to note that O'Grady et al. (2017) primarily focused on adult L2 learners, and in their study, salience was operationalized as perceptual acoustic salience, without considering other salience factors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O'Grady et al., 2017 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Fewer than four obligatory contexts do not provide reliable information about a child's use of a morpheme.

    “We assigned no scores to a morpheme if it appeared in fewer than four obligatory contexts, as such cases do not provide reliable information about the child's use of that morpheme.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A low vowel has the largest sonorous value (9 being the maximum).

    “a low vowel has the largest sonorous value (9 being the maximum)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Laver (1994) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The two bilingual groups were age-matched and gender-balanced.

    “The two groups were age-matched and gender-balanced, with a mean age of 5 years and 1 month (range: 3; 8–7; 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A stop consonant has the smallest sonorous value (1 being the minimum).

    “a stop consonant has the smallest sonorous value (1 being the minimum)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Laver (1994) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Age of English acquisition, age at testing, and mean length of utterances in morphemes are comparable between the two groups of bilingual children.

    “Age of English acquisition (AOE), the Age at testing (AAT), and mean length of utterances in morphemes (MLUm)2 are comparable between the two groups of bilingual children.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The inter-rater reliability for the coding of the six transcripts was an average Cronbach's alpha of 0.973, indicating high consistency between coders.

    “The inter-rater reliability for the coding of these six transcripts was calculated, yielding an average Cronbach's alpha value of 0.973, indicating high consistency between coders.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The effects of lexical diversity and morphological richness on vocabulary growth have been mixed in prior research.

    “the effects of lexical diversity and morphological richness on vocabulary growth have been mixed in prior research (e.g., Bowers and Vasilyeva, 2011)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bowers and Vasilyeva, 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Input quality and quantity significantly explain variance in L2 vocabulary and verbal morphology, with input quality accounting for a larger proportion of the variance than input quantity.

    “Paradis (2011) found that both input quality and quantity significantly explained variance in L2 vocabulary and verbal morphology, with input quality accounting for a larger proportion of the variance than input quantity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Paradis, 2011 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Three children were removed from the analyses to make the two groups homogeneous with matched age and similar English proficiency, resulting in 25 transcripts from five Mandarin-English bilingual children and 21 from six Spanish-English bilingual children.

    “To make sure the two groups of children were homogeneous with matched age and similar English proficiency, three children were removed in our analyses, resulting in 25 transcripts from five Mandarin-English (ME) bilingual children and 21 from six Spanish-English (SE) bilingual children.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The effect of input quality indicates that bilingual children are sensitive to the linguistic environment and underscores the impact of diverse linguistic interactions on bilingual children's language development.

    “The effect of input quality indicates that bilingual children are sensitive to the linguistic environment and underscores the impact of diverse linguistic interactions on bilingual children's language development.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    SE bilingual children's L1 is morphologically rich, so they are exposed to morphologically rich utterances more than ME bilinguals, which likely facilitates their processing of morphologically complex utterances in English.

    “To illustrate, SE bilingual children's L1 is morphologically rich, so they are exposed to morphologically rich utterance more than ME bilinguals, which likely facilitates their processing of morphologically complex utterances in English.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Prior studies found that the lexical diversity of teachers facilitated bilingual children's L2 vocabulary growth.

    “Prior studies have found that the lexical diversity of the teachers facilitated bilingual children's L2 vocabulary growth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Studies have indicated that children benefit from exposure to short and simple utterances at the early stage of learning.

    “Studies also have indicated that children would benefit from exposure to short and simple utterances at the early stage of learning (e.g., Berko-Gleason, 1977; Furrow et al., 1979).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Berko-Gleason, 1977

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Furrow et al., 1979 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    According to Zobl and Liceras's theory, free lexical morphemes are acquired before bound functional ones.

    “According to their theory, free lexical morphemes are acquired before bound functional ones.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zobl and Liceras (1994) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The effect of lexical diversity on morpheme production accuracy could be explained by children encountering morphemes in different words and contexts, which helps decompose and process morphemes.

    “When children are exposed to more diverse words in the input, they may encounter the use of the morphemes in different words and contexts, which helps decompose and process the morphemes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    ME bilingual children's L1 is less morphologically complex, which may have put them at a disadvantage in processing morphologically complex utterances.

    “In contrast, ME bilingual children's L1 is less morphological complex, which may have put them at a disadvantage in processing morphological complex utterances.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Spanish is morphologically rich/fusional while Chinese is morphologically isolating.

    “Spanish and Mandarin are two typologically different languages, where Spanish is morphologically rich/fusional while Chinese is morphologically isolating (Li and Thompson, 1981).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Li and Thompson, 1981

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study relied on existing corpus data and was unable to analyze the effect of current language exposure, focusing instead on cumulative language exposure.

    “As our study relied on existing corpus data, we were unable to analyze the effect of current language exposure but focused on cumulative language exposure.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011) found that the MLU of teachers' input is negatively associated with bilingual children's vocabulary growth.

    “For example, Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011) found that the MLU of teachers' input is negatively associated with bilingual children's vocabulary growth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The high accuracy of plural -s and articles may be because these morphemes had already been acquired by the bilingual children.

    “possibly because these morphemes had already been acquired by the bilingual children.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Hoff (2006) suggested that higher morphological complexity may increase cognitive processing load.

    “As Hoff (2006) suggested, higher morphological complexity may increase the cognitive processing load.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hoff (2006) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Input quality of the experimenter, particularly lexical diversity, plays a crucial role in morpheme production accuracy, whereas morphological richness may have a negative impact.

    “These findings indicate that input quality of the experimenter, particularly lexical diversity plays a crucial role, whereas morphological richness may have a negative impact.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The added complexity of Spanish past tense inflection might explain why SE bilinguals did not outperform ME bilinguals in past tense -ed production accuracy, as there is less overlap between Spanish and English in past tense morphology.

    “This added complexity might explain why SE bilinguals did not outperform ME bilinguals in past tense -ed production accuracy, as there is less overlap between Spanish and English in past tense morphology.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In Spanish, past tense verbs are inflected for person, number, and formality, with distinct forms for each.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience are important in bilingual children's L2 morpheme acquisition.

    “Overall, the findings underlie the importance of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 morpheme acquisition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Zobl and Liceras (1994) proposed that the acquisition order of functors/morphemes can be explained by grouping morphemes into categories based on their syntactic roles.

    “Zobl and Liceras (1994) suggest that the acquisition order of functors/morphemes can be explained by grouping morphemes into categories based on their syntactic roles.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zobl and Liceras (1994) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    In previous studies, positive transfer has often been observed when a morpheme is shared in both L1 and L2 of bilinguals.

    “In previous studies, a positive transfer has been often observed when a morpheme is shared in both L1 and L2 of the bilinguals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These bilingual children were still in the process of acquiring third-person singular -s, potentially leading to limited variability in production accuracy and the lack of a significant group difference.

    “This suggests that these bilingual children were still in the process of acquiring this morpheme, potentially leading to the limited variability in production accuracy and the lack of a significant group difference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The finding that plural -s and past tense -ed accuracy is not affected by perceptual salience aligns with O'Grady et al. (2017), who questioned the salience-based explanation for variability in inflectional morphemes.

    “This, however, aligns with arguments by O'Grady et al. (2017), who questioned the salience-based explanation for variability in inflectional morphemes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O'Grady et al. (2017) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    O'Grady et al. argued that it is unlikely that learners struggle to perceive word-final -s, as studies show that typically developing children can distinguish no vs. nose and that young infants and children are sensitive to subject-verb agreement errors in preferential looking paradigms.

    “O'Grady et al. argued that it is unlikely that learners struggle to perceive word-final -s, as studies show that typically developing children can distinguish no vs. nose and that young infants and children are sensitive to subject-verb agreement errors in preferential looking paradigms (e.g., Soderstrom et al., 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites O'Grady et al. (2017) source
    • cites Soderstrom et al., 2002

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The descriptive approach used in this study provides some insights into how morphological salience factors might influence bilingual children's L2 English morpheme acquisition, but the findings remain exploratory.

    “While the descriptive approach used in this study provides some insights into how morphological salience factors might influence bilingual children's L2 English morpheme acquisition, our findings remain exploratory.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The small sample size of bilingual children included in this study may limit the generalizability of the findings.

    “Moreover, the small sample size of bilingual children included in this study may limit the generalizability of the findings”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Some children may have produced certain morphemes (e.g., -ing) more accurately with familiar verbs (e.g., eating, sleeping), potentially leading to higher accuracy scores.

    “Some children may have produced certain morphemes (e.g., -ing) more accurately with familiar verbs (e.g., eating, sleeping), potentially leading to higher accuracy scores.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because the language samples are naturalistic and spontaneous, the number and types of verbs included in the transcripts could not be controlled.

    “As the language samples are naturalistic and spontaneous, the number and types of verbs included in the transcripts could not be controlled.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
73 of 73

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No studies thus far have systematically examined morphological salience with bilingual children.

    “However, no studies thus far have systematically examined morphological salience with bilingual children.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Mandarin Chinese does not encode articles, third-person singular -s, past tense -ed, or plural -s in its linguistic system.

    “Mandarin Chinese does not encode articles, third-person singular -s, and past tense -ed, plural -s in the linguistic system.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The typological differences between Spanish and Mandarin are sufficient to evaluate the effects of L1 transfer on L2 morpheme acquisition.

    “The typological differences between Spanish and Mandarin allow us to evaluate the effects of L1 transfer on L2 morpheme acquisition.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Mandarin and Spanish differ in L1 morphological typology.

    “Among the child participants in the corpus, children whose L1 was Mandarin or Spanish were selected as two groups of interest in our study because of the differences in L1 morphological typology.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In Spanish, past tense verbs are inflected for person, number, and formality, with distinct forms for each.

    “In Spanish, past tense verbs are inflected for person, number, and formality, with distinct forms for each (e.g., tú, usted, nosotros, ellos).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Third-person singular -s conveys meanings of person, number, and present tense.

    “For instance, the third-person singular -s, which conveys meanings of person, number, and present tense, showed the lowest accuracy score, reflecting its semantic complexity.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Third-person singular -s has three phonological alternations (/s/, /z/, /z/) and shares homophony with plural -s, making it morphophonologically irregular.

    “the third-person singular -s has three phonological alternations (/s/, /z/, /z/) and shares homophony with plural -s, resulting in relatively high morphophonological irregularity.”
7 of 7

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: F(1,44) = 6.19, p = .01

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .01 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .017. The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .017

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 44) = 6.19reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .017

    “F(1,44) = 6.19, p = .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 44) = 5.62reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .022

    “F(1,44) = 5.62, p = .02”

2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Plural -s regularity score does not follow the stated coding rule

    Minor

    The stated rule assigns three points for phonological alternations and two for a morpheme with homophony. Plural -s therefore scores 5, not 4.

    Reported 4 · recomputed 5

  • Abstract age summary conflicts with participant table

    Minor

    The abstract reports a mean age of 5 years 1 month and a range of 3;8-7;5. Table 1 instead gives group mean ages of approximately 79 months (about 6 years 7 months), with ages ranging from 54 to 103 months across the two groups.

  • Present progressive -ing is assigned both the lowest and a highest syntactic-category value

    Minor

    The coding description gives present progressive -ing the lowest possible value, 1, but the discussion says it has a highest value. These descriptions cannot both reflect the reported coding.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Berko-Gleason, 1977, “Talking to children: some notes on feedback,”, Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition, 199
  2. Blom, 2010, “The acquisition of 3SG-s by L2 children: domain-general or domain-specific learning?,”, Poster presented at the Child Language Seminar
  3. Fenson, 2003, MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: User's Guide and Technical Manual, 2nd Edn.
  4. Fox, 2018, An R Companion to Applied Regression
  5. Jackson-Maldonado, 2003, MacArthur inventarios del Desarrollo de habilidades comunicativas (Inventarios): User's Guide and Technical Manual
  6. Soderstrom, 2002, “English-learning toddlers' sensitivity to agreement morphology in receptive grammar,”, 643

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wang, X., McMillen, S., & Shi, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • Syracuse University (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Wang, Xuan
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2025-05-09
Volume
16
Pages
1566442-1566442
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1566442
PMC
PMC12098383
OpenAlex
W4410248096
Semantic Scholar
2aa7ca7547dea28bb6d97f527a67e40d025ac6e6
Cited by
3
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1
FWCI
5.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
first language influence, L2 exposure, bilingual children, Spanish-English bilinguals, Mandarin-English bilinguals, inflectional morphology, input quality, lexical diversity, morphological richness, perceptual salience, articles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-19.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-19.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review