acquiring complex structures under minority language conditions: bilingual acquisition of plural...

Bilingualism: Language and Cognitionhttp://journals.cambridge.org/BIL

Additional services for Bilingualism: Language and Cognition:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

Acquiring complex structures under minority language conditions:Bilingual acquisition of plural morphology in Welsh

ENLLI MÔN THOMAS, NIA WILLIAMS, LLINOS ANGHARAD JONES, SUSI DAVIES and HANNA BINKS

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition / Volume 17 / Issue 03 / July 2014, pp 478 - 494DOI: 10.1017/S1366728913000497, Published online: 21 November 2013

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1366728913000497

How to cite this article:ENLLI MÔN THOMAS, NIA WILLIAMS, LLINOS ANGHARAD JONES, SUSI DAVIES and HANNA BINKS (2014). Acquiringcomplex structures under minority language conditions: Bilingual acquisition of plural morphology in Welsh . Bilingualism:Language and Cognition, 17, pp 478-494 doi:10.1017/S1366728913000497

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/BIL, IP address: 143.167.2.135 on 27 Jun 2014

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 27 Jun 2014 IP address: 143.167.2.135

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17 (3), 2014, 478–494 C© Cambridge University Press 2013 doi:10.1017/S1366728913000497

Acquiring complex structuresunder minority languageconditions: Bilingualacquisition of pluralmorphology in Welsh∗

E N L L I M Ô N T H O M A SCollege of Business, Law, Education and Social Sciences,Bangor University & ESRC Centre for Research onBilingualism in Theory and PracticeN I A W I L L I A M SCollege of Business, Law, Education and Social Sciences,Bangor UniversityL L I N O S A N G H A R A D J O N E SCollege of Business, Law, Education and Social Sciences,Bangor UniversityS U S I DAV I E SESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism in Theory andPracticeH A N NA B I N K SCollege of Business, Law, Education and Social Sciences,Bangor University

(Received: February 17, 2012; final revision received: August 20, 2013; accepted: August 20, 2013; first published online 21 November 2013)

This study explored the effects of quantity and quality of input on bilingual children’s acquisition of complex pluralmorphology in Welsh. Study 1 explored the quality of adult input and revealed target-like marking of plural forms innaturalistic adult speech. Study 2 presented eighty-eight 7–11-year-old children, across three bilingual language groups (L1Welsh, 2L1, and L2 Welsh), with a plural production task. Results revealed performances approaching L1 adult norms amongL1 Welsh-speaking bilinguals, but delayed progression among 2L1 and L2 Welsh bilinguals, although analyses of errorsrevealed various levels of structural knowledge. Forms requiring the addition of a plural suffix were less difficult to acquirethan those involving alterations to the root, with each type acquired with greater levels of accuracy with increasing levels ofexposure to the language. The implications of these findings for our understanding of bilingual acquisition of complexstructures under minority language conditions are discussed.

Keywords: input, Welsh, bilingual, plural morphology, minority language

Introduction

Studies of language acquisition have demonstrated aclear relationship between the amount of time a childspends hearing and speaking a particular languageand their success with certain linguistic forms in thatlanguage. This has been highlighted for monolinguals(Gathercole, 1986; Gathercole, Sebastián & Soto, 1999;Hart & Risely, 1995; Maratsos, 2000) as well as forbilinguals (Gathercole, 2002a, b, c; Oller & Eilers,2002; Thordardottir, Rothenberg, Rivard & Naves, 2006).Studies have also demonstrated how certain properties ofthe input (e.g., the reliability of form–function mappings)influence the pattern and rate of children’s acquisition of

∗ Part of this work was funded by a Development Fund Grant from theESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism in Theory and Practice.We wish to express our sincere gratitude to all participating schoolsfor their kindness and time, and all parents and children who took partin the research. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers fortheir very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Address for correspondence:Enlli Môn Thomas, School of Education, Bangor University, Normal Site, Holyhead Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2PZ, [email protected]

certain morphosyntactic structures (Lieven & Tomasello,2008; Nicoladis, Crago & Genesee, 2010; Thomas &Gathercole, 2007; Tomasello, 2003). These findingshave been used to support input-driven accounts oflanguage acquisition, as in, for example, those proposedunder an Usage-Based or Constructivist account oflanguage acquisition, whereby frequency of exposureto certain morphosyntactic structures (up to a criticalmass), as well as the consistency of their distributionalproperties, are believed to influence the rate and patternof acquisition (see e.g., Bialystok, 2001; Bybee, 2001;Elman, 2001; Elman, Bates, Johnson, Karmiloff-Smith,Parisi & Plunkett, 1996; Gathercole, 2007a; Gathercole& Hoff, 2007). This paper aims to explore furtherthe role of input quantity (in terms of home languageexposure to language) and input quality (in the formof target-like marking across speakers) in bilingualchildren’s acquisition of complex Welsh plural mor-phology, under various conditions of minority languageexposure.

http://journals.cambridge.org


Plural acquisition in Welsh 479

The role of input frequency has long been thefocus of many studies comparing different types ofbilingual speakers with monolingual controls. Forexample, the studies reported in Oller and Eilers (2002)included a variety of measures of children’s abilitiesin English and in Spanish, including standardizedmeasures of oral language skills, receptive vocabulary,and morphosyntactic structures, and compared bilingualchildren from Spanish-speaking homes or Spanish-and English-speaking homes attending either Englishimmersion or bilingual Spanish–English schools withEnglish monolingual controls. Across all tasks and allstudies, the general pattern to emerge was that the moreinput the child received in a particular language, the betterthey performed in that language. Within the bilingualgroups, children who received English alongside Spanishin the home tended to outperform those from Spanish-onlyhomes on tasks of English, especially at the younger ages.A similar trend was found with regard to school language.Children who attended English immersion schools tendedto outperform those attending bilingual schools on tasksof English, especially at the younger ages. At the olderages, however, children’s performance seemed to “levelout”.

A similar pattern was found for tasks in Spanish.The more Spanish the children received at home and atschool, the better their performance on tasks of Spanishproficiency. At the older ages, any differences that werefound at the earlier ages seemed to become neutralized.The authors argued that bilingual children take longer toacquire the “critical mass” of exposure (see e.g., Maratsos,2000; Marchman & Bates, 1994) to certain linguisticstructures that is necessary in order for them to acquirea productive grasp of their stored knowledge. Others,such as Lanza (1997), have found similar results, whileothers caution against evaluating the role of increasedinput without also taking into consideration factors such associo-economic status, fluency of the input provider, andcommunity context (Goldberg, Paradis & Crago, 2008).These studies are therefore in support of the notion thatthe greater the amount or frequency of exposure, thequicker and “fuller” the acquisition, indicating a specificand important role for input.

The influence of input is especially pertinent, therefore,in bilingual communities where the opportunity to receive,hear, and use any one language may be reduced incomparison to a monolingual speaker exposed to thesame language, and is particularly noticeable for thoselanguages that operate under minority conditions inthose communities (Gathercole, 2007a, b; Gathercole &Thomas, 2009; Montrul, 2008; Oller & Eilers, 2002;Thomas & Mayr, 2010; see also Paradis, Nicoladis &Crago, 2007; Pérez-Leroux, Pirvulescu & Roberge, 2009).These studies also demonstrate how such speakers areable to achieve native-like competence with particular

structures, albeit at a later stage, once they receivethe appropriate “critical mass of exposure” that maybe necessary in order to gain native-like command ofthose structures (Gathercole, 2007a; Oller & Eilers, 2002;Paradis, 2010). This has been demonstrated widely forvocabulary (e.g., Cobo-Lewis, Pearson, Eilers & Umbel,2002a, b; Pearson, Fernández & Oller, 1993; Pearson,Fernández, Lewedeg & Oller, 1997; Umbel, Pearson,Fernández & Oller, 1992; however, see Bialystok & Luk,2012, and Rhys & Thomas, 2013) and certain aspectsof morphosyntactic and early grammatical development(e.g., Blom, 2010; Gathercole, 2002c; Hoff & Elledge,2005; Thordardottir et al., 2006). However, such gainsin native-like competence have not been demonstratedclearly for structures that are complex, even for L1speakers, in so far as they demonstrate opaque form–function mappings (Gathercole, 2007a; Gathercole &Thomas, 2005, 2009; Gathercole, Thomas & Laporte2001; Thomas, 2001; Thomas & Gathercole, 2005, 2007;Polinsky, 1997, 2008). For example, in Welsh, there isno clear form–function mapping between the form of anoun and the gender it encodes. This, in combinationwith a number of other factors that render the systemcomplex (see e.g., Ball & Müller, 1992; Gathercole et al.,2001; Thomas, 2001; Thomas & Gathercole, 2007) meansthat acquiring the Welsh gender system is particularlydifficult in comparison to other Indo-European languages,particularly for bilinguals with less optimal exposure,and may even be “timed ‘off the map’ for acquisition”(Gathercole & Thomas, 2005, p. 871). This notion offalling short of the necessary time-frame within whichspeakers need to gain sufficient exposure to certainlinguistic forms if they are to be learned at all, is consistentwith Montrul’s (2008) notion of “incomplete acquisition”,and that “when language exposure and use is reduced inchildhood, the grammatical system of bilingual childrenin either language, and in some cases of their familylanguage, can be dramatically compromised, especiallyat the level of morphosyntax” (Montrul, 2008, p. 93).Gains in linguistic knowledge, particularly in contexts oflimited exposure, are therefore not necessarily guaranteedfor all bilinguals.

While exposure to a language is clearly necessary forlanguage acquisition in monolinguals and bilinguals alike(regardless of one’s theoretical persuasion), increasing theamount of exposure by itself is not necessarily sufficientto ensure optimal acquisition of any given structure orlanguage. The quality of the input experienced is alsoimportant (Chondrogianni & Marinis, 2011; Döpke, 1988;Hulk & Cornips, 2006). Numerous studies have focusedon quantity issues of input (in terms of amount andlength of exposure), yet fewer studies have focused onor involved a measure of the impact of quality issues inrelation to bilingual acquisition in particular. Of thosethat have looked at the role of quality in acquisition, the



480 Enlli Môn Thomas, Nia Williams, Llinos Angharad Jones, Susi Davies and Hanna Binks

measure of quality varies across studies, including nativevs. non-native input (Hulk & Cornips, 2006; Unsworth,2013), maternal self-rated proficiency (Chondrogianni &Marinis, 2011), sophistication of lexical items and theirdensity in meaningful, instructive interactions (Weizman& Snow, 2001), socio-economic status (Hoff, 2003),number of individuals providing input (Place & Hoff,2011), nature of communicative strategies received bythe interlocutor (Döpke, 1992), and domain of languageexposure (Oller & Eilers, 2002). An additional marker of“quality” would be uniformity of marking across speakers,particularly in cases where children are acquiring complexmorphological structures, with limited form–functionmappings. The plural morphology of Welsh is a case inpoint (see below). Exploring children’s rate and pattern ofdevelopment of various components of the plural system,across speakers receiving various levels of exposure to thelanguage, would help illustrate further the role of quality(uniformity of use) and quantity (amount of exposure tothe language and to the forms) of input in influencingchildren’s ability to acquire complex systems in minoritylanguage settings.

The Welsh plural system

The Welsh plural system involves a complex mechanismfor modifying noun number. The system is loosely basedaround two basic principles: (i) element addition ordeletion (addition of a plural or singular suffix, deletionof singular suffix to denote the plural), and (ii) elementsubstitution (alternating plural and singular suffixes,and/or alternating sound elements within the root) ([P.W.] Thomas, 1996). Each of these principles is discussedin more detail below.

Element addition or deletionAdding a plural suffix to a singular root is the mostfrequent way of marking the plural in Welsh. Eachsuffix carries an additional syllable, resulting in furtheralterations to the final plural form in some instances.These additional alterations take the form of mutation1

and other sound alterations (Thomas, 1996).The most common plural suffixes are -aid, -au, -i,

-od, -oedd, -on and -ydd, often used in combinationwith additional changes in sound quality and/or vowelalternations (e.g., -(i)au: pen (sg) /pɛn/ “head” – pennau(pl) /pɛnːaɨ/ “heads”; -i: pêl (sg) /peːl/ “ball” – peli (pl)/pɛli/ “balls”; -oedd: môr (sg) /moːr/ “sea” – moroedd (pl)/mɔrɔɨð/ “seas”; -od: cath (sg) /kɑːθ/ “cat” – cathod (pl)/kaθɔd/ “cats”). The plural suffixes that are attachable to

1 Mutation, in this context, is independent of the Welsh mutation system(see Ball & Müller, 1992). It refers to the sound alterations affectingsimple vowels and diphthongs that move to the penultimate syllableposition after the addition of a suffix to mark an additional syllable.

the least number of nouns are -aint, -ed, -edd, -en, -(i)achand -yr, affecting only a small, closed set of (mostly)infrequent nouns (e.g., câr (sg) /kɑːr/ “friend, loved one”vs. ceraint (pl) /kɛraint/ “friends/loved ones”; ych (sg)/ɨːχ/ “ox” vs. ychen (pl) /əχɛn/ “oxen”), although someare highly frequent forms among the set (e.g., brawd (sg)/braʊd/ “brother” vs. brodyr (pl) /brɔdɨr/ “brothers”; merch(sg) /mɛrχ/ “girl” vs. merched (pl) /mɛrχed/ “girls”;gwraig (sg) /ɡuraiɡ/ “wife, woman” vs. gwragedd (pl)/ɡuraɡɛð/ “wives, women”).

In relation to the collective-unit system (Roberts &Gathercole, 2006), Welsh also has a reverse process offorming the plural through suffix deletion (e.g., mochyn(sg) /mɔχɨn/ “pig” – moch (collective, pl) /mɔːχ/ “pigs”)(see also King, 1993; Thomas, 1996; Thorne, 1993).

Element substitutionWhile, in many cases, the plural suffix is attached toa singular root (e.g., cath “cat”, cathod “cats”), thereare cases where the plural suffix alternates with asingular suffix (e.g., -en (sg) and -od (pl): cwningen/kunɪŋɛn/ “rabbit” – cwningod /kunɪŋɔd/ “rabbits”). Themost typical substitution, however, involves variouscombinations of internal vowel changes that often occur incombination with sound alterations on penultimate vowels(e.g., /a/–/ε/, /a/–/ai/: dafad (sg) /davad/ – defaid (pl)/dɛvaid/ “sheep”; /a/–/ε/, /ɨ/, alarch (sg) /alarχ/ “swan”– elyrch (pl) /ɛlɨrχ/ “swans”). While there are some soundchanges that are partially predictable based on the vowelsound present in the word stem (e.g., stems including/a/ or /ɛ/ often alternate with /ɨ/ – e.g., alarch /alarχ/ –elyrch /ɛlɨrχ/ “swans”; castell /kastɛɬ/ – cestyll /kɛstɨɬ/“castles”) these patterns are not applied across-the-board(e.g., dafad /davad/ – defaid /dɛvaid/ “sheep”, not ∗defyd/dɛvɨd/; pibell /pibɛɬ/ – pibellau/pibɛɬaɨ/ or pibelli /pibɛɬi/“pipes”, not ∗pibyll /pibɨɬ/) (see Thomas, 1996). Whilesuch phonological cues may help the child build theirknowledge of a small, closed set of items where suchpatterns exist, learning of these items is more likely to beitem-by-item than systematic.

In addition to suffix additions, deletions andalternations, with or without vowel change, the system iscomplicated further by the multifunctionality of particularendings, and by the fact that, in many cases, thereis nothing in common between the singular roots thathelp dictate which plural form they take. For example,many singular nouns indicating person or object have the-ydd suffix (e.g., melinydd “miller”, gobennydd “pillow”);some abstract nouns have -i or -ydd (diogi “laziness”,caledi “hardship”, llawenydd “joy”); and some verb-noun forms (forms that can function both verbally (asinfinitive) and nominally) have -(h)áu (e.g., agosáu “toapproach”, casáu “to hate”). Moreover, a number of verb-nouns and nouns have the same phonological endingsas some of these plural suffixes, including -i (drewi “to




stink”, gweiddi “to shout”), and a number of multi-syllabicsingular nouns end in -od (e.g., tafod “tongue”, cawod“shower”).

Only two suffixes, -au and -oedd, function solely asplural markers. However, while -au affects a numberof words, -oedd affects fewer, and neither pattern ispredictable since there are no common features acrossthe root forms that take either -au or -oedd as their plural.(See Tables 3 and 4 for further indication of the frequencyof certain plural forms in Welsh.)

The plural system in Welsh is thus complex, andlargely involves opaque form–function mappings. Giventhe nature of the system, one could predict that theacquisition of Welsh plural morphology will be protracted.However, in the process of acquisition, forms that followtypical rules of plural formation in Welsh, such as suffixaddition, are likely to be most productive, and the easiestto learn. If children are learning the suffix addition rulesystematically, the -au form is most likely to be the leastproblematic to acquire, due to its frequency in the lan-guage and its unitary function as a plural marker (Thomas,1996), and is most likely to be overgeneralized duringacquisition. Should frequency of exposure to examplarsin the language for the purpose of rule abstraction notmatter, then we would expect similar rates of acquisitionamong different types of bilinguals on these forms. Theaspects of the system that will be most problematic toacquire are likely to be those involving the subtle soundchanges that affect the root, with or without the addition,alternation or deletion of a plural suffix due to their limitedpredictability (Thomas, 1996), and are likely to be highlycontingent on frequency of exposure. Those who receivethe greatest amounts of exposure to the language (and thusto these forms) are likely to demonstrate faster acquisitionof these forms. Finally, suppletives and nouns denoting themass–count distinction may be learned on an individualbasis, due to their limited type frequency in the language(see e.g., Bybee, 2001).

Despite its complexity, however, fluent adult speakersseldom produce the incorrect plural form if pluralizingin Welsh, particularly for concrete nouns that featuregreatly in child input. Speakers will sometimes use theEnglish -(i)(e)s ending (henceforth represented as -s),sometimes by choice (to mark an emphatic statement or tobe humorous), sometimes because they may not know orare unable to recall the correct plural form in Welsh at thatprecise moment in time (e.g., pwrsus /pursɨs/ “purses” forpyrsiau /pərʃaɨ/ as a plural of pwrs /purs/ “purse”), andsometimes because the -s form has been accepted into thelanguage (e.g., ffarmwrs /farmurs/ “farmers” is a frequentcolloquial form which is an acceptable alternative toffermwyr /fɛrmuɨr/ – Griffiths & Jones, 1995). (However,note that this is not very frequent, as shown in Study 1below.) But outside these uses, children are very likelyto be experiencing input that is relatively uniform in

its marking. Consequently, one could hypothesize that ifuniformity of input is important, children will learn theWelsh plural system quickly, and with relative ease (seeLieven & Tomasello, 2008; Tomasello, 2003). However,if children who are receiving the least amount of exposureto Welsh (i.e., children from English-speaking homesattending Welsh-medium schools) are unable to catch upwith peers who are receiving ample exposure to Welsh athome and at school in relation to the Welsh plural system,particularly in relation to those forms that are predicted tobe acquired systematically, then we can conclude that theuniformity of the input is not enough by itself to counteractthe effects of limited amounts of exposure or to “speed up”the accumulation of a critical mass of exemplars neededto sort out complex structures in a minority language.

Predictions

This study involved two components: first, we analysednaturalistic adult–adult speech corpora for instances ofplural usage in order to determine the uniformity ofmarking of the structure among adults, and second, weelicited children’s productions of the plural forms of awide selection of nouns in Welsh.

In relation to the adult speech corpora, we predict thatadults’ use of the plural system in Welsh would be uniformacross speakers, demonstrating few errors in naturalisticspeech. Our analysis would also identify the prominentpatters of forms in the input in order to help identify theforms that are most frequent in the input.

In relation to children’s productive command of theplural system in Welsh, comparing performance of L1Welsh bilinguals (children from Welsh-speaking homes),L2 Welsh bilinguals (children from English-speakinghomes), and 2L1 bilinguals (children from mixed Welsh-and English-speaking families), across two age groups(with adults from similar language backgrounds forcomparison), we explored the role of home languageexposure on bilingual children’s acquisition pattern. Wemade the following predictions:

(i) Due to the higher amount of Welsh input, L1 Welshbilinguals would approach adult-like knowledge ofplural morphology faster than other bilinguals.

(ii) L2 Welsh bilinguals’ command of the system wouldapproach that of L1 Welsh bilinguals as they becameolder, with the 2L1 bilinguals performing somewherein between.

(iii) All bilinguals would demonstrate quicker progres-sion with the less opaque aspects of the system(those requiring suffix addition (+suff)/alternation(�suff)/deletion (–suff) and the suppletives) thanwith the more opaque structures (those requiringsound alteration to the root, with or without suffix




addition (+suff +V)/alternation (�suff +V)/deletion(–suff +V)), with type frequency in the languageinfluencing the pattern of acquisition within theseforms. Among these forms, we predicted that the+suff forms would be the most productive, withitems involving sound alternations more susceptibleto item-by-item learning.

Study 1: Adult use of the system

The dataset

In order to analyse adults’ naturalistic use of the pluralsystem in Welsh, we selected 12 sets of recordingsfrom the Siarad corpus (Deuchar & Davies, 2009)which are already transcribed and available on Childes(MacWhinney, 2000) via Talkbank. This selectionfrom the corpus totalled 405 minutes (6 hours 45minutes) overall. Each recording included naturalisticconversations between two or three acquaintances, whichlasted between 25 and 63 minutes. The 12 recordingswere selected carefully in order to ensure a widesample of participants covering different age groups andrepresenting both male and female speech. Across the 12recordings, there were 27 different speakers, 13 male and14 female, with ages ranging between 14 and 72 years (seeTables 1 and 2). All speakers were native Welsh speakers(all bilingual, with English as their second language; seeDeuchar & Davies, 2009, for more information).

Procedures

Each transcript was analysed for all instances of pluralforms – in Welsh and in English – that appeared withinthe text. Each instance was coded as being correct orincorrect in form, according to prescriptive norms, andany additional information (e.g., an English plural formused in a film title) was also noted.

Results

Frequency of forms in the inputA total of 1078 plural forms was produced during the405 minutes of recordings. Two forms were eliminatedfrom analysis – (g)weithiau “sometimes” (31 tokens)and arddegau “teen years” (1 token) – since they haveno clearly defined forms in the singular. A further 16tokens were eliminated since the classification of theplural “type” could be one of two, depending on thesingular form that the speaker would use – e.g., athrawon“teachers” could be classified either as +suffix with avowel alteration (+suff +V) if the singular form wasathro “teacher (masculine)”, or singular–plural suffixalternation (�suff) if athrawes “teacher (feminine)”.

Table 1. Length of recordings and participantinformation.

Length Male Female

Recording (in minutes) (age, years) (age, years)

Davies2 43 23, 23

Davies6 34 23, 25

Davies7 20 14, 16

Davies10 25 52, 58 63

Davies16 34 16, 16

Fusser7 25 36, 39

Fusser8 63 59, 60, 70

Fusser18 34 41 41

Fusser19 33 37 28

Roberst7 35 34, 66 57

Stammers1 29 61, 72

Stammers4 30 42 40

Table 2. Balancing of the sampleacross age and gender.

Gender

Age (years) Male (n) Female (n)

<20 2 2

20–29 2 3

30–39 2 2

40–49 2 2

50–59 2 2

60–69 2 2

>70 1 1

Total 13 14

Analysis was therefore conducted on the remaining 1030forms, as detailed below.

A variety of plural types was produced among the1030 forms identified, inclusive mostly of suffix additionssuch as -(i)au, -i, -(i)on, -oedd, -od, -(i)aid and -ydd(with or without sound alteration) and mass noun forms,and fewer instances of less common suffixes such as-edd, -(i)ach and -(w)yr, singular–plural suffix alternation,vowel alternations, and suppletive forms. Proportions ofthe plural form productions per “type” are presented inTable 3, followed by type–token ratios in Table 4, wheredistinct classification was possible.

As can be seen from Table 3, suffix addition (+suff)was by far the most prominent plural type among thesample, followed by the use of English cognates (withan English -s ending), suffix addition with sound changes,and suppletives. Suffix alternations (with or without soundchanges) and pure vowel changes were the least common.




Table 3. Proportion of plural types.

Plural type Occurrence in overall sample

+suff

(suffix addition) 45.05% (464/1030)

+suff +V

(suffix addition + sound change

on root)

13.79% (142/1030)

�suff

(singular–plural suffix

alternation)

2.91% (30/1030)

�suff +V

(singular–plural suffix

alternation + sound change

on root)

0.97% (10/1030)

–suff

(mass noun) 0.87% (9/1030)

–suff +V

(mass noun + sound change on

root)

5.83% (60/1030)

V – Sound change on root only 1.84% (19/1030)

Suppletives 11.46% (118/1030)

English forms 17.28% (178/1030)

Among the most prominent plural types (+suff and+suff +V), some forms were more frequent than others(see Table 4). In particular, forms involving an additionof the -au suffix were by far the most prominent formwithin +suff (344 tokens, 87 types) and +suff +V forms (54tokens, 19 types). These patterns reflect the prominenceof these forms as plural markers in the language.

Together, these results suggest that (i) pluralmorphology is marked uniformly across adult speakersin adult–adult interactions, and should remain so in child-directed speech; and (ii) +suff and +suff +V are the mostprominent forms in the input.

Error analysis: Adult formsOf the 1030 plural forms analysed, only 5 (0.49% of thewhole sample) could be classified as “pure” errors. Theseerrors included ∗taids for teidiau “grandfathers” fromthe singular taid “grandfather”, ∗stondins for stondinau“stalls” from the singular stondin “stall”, and ∗haearnsfor heyrn “irons” from the singular haearn “iron”, all ofwhich involved an overgeneralization of the English pluralpattern of adding an -s to an unaltered root. Another error– ∗archfarchnadau for archfarchadoedd “supermarkets” –involved the speaker using the incorrect plural suffix, andin a further error – ∗diwrnodiau for diwrnodau “days” –the speaker used the appropriate suffix -(i)au, but selected

Table 4. Type–token ratio.

Plural type Tokens Types

+suff

-(i)au 344 87 (pethau “things” = 140 tokens)

-s 48 21

-(i)on 22 8

-oedd 17 8

-i 17 11

-ydd 12 3

-od 2 2

-(i)aid 2 2

Total 464 142

+suff +V

-(i)on 70 7 (newyddion “news” = 62 tokens)

-au 54 19

-edd 6 2

-oedd 5 2

-i 2 1

-aid 2 2

-ach 1 1

-od 1 1

-ydd 1 1

Total 142 35

�suff

-wr � -wyr 12 5

-yn/-en � -au 17 2 (hogiau “boys” = 15 tokens)

-yn � -(i)on 1 1

Total 30 8

�suff +V

-yn � -(i)au 10 3 (cardiau “cards” = 8 tokens)

–suff 9 7

–suff +V 19 8

V 19 8

Suppletive 118 10 (pobl “people” = 81 tokens;

blynyddoedd “years” = 21 tokens)

English forms 178 110

the wrong form (i.e., with the -i-). Such “errors” areextremely subtle and may even be dialectal, or couldsimply have reflected a performance error.

An additional 226 forms (21.92% of the whole sample)were English borrowings. Of these borrowings, 22 hadplausible Welsh plural forms; however, the speakers optedto use the English forms instead (e.g., cameras was usedinstead of camerâu, tablets instead of tabledi, artistsintead of artistiaid). Again, these forms cannot be codedas “errors” since it is not clear whether the speaker wasusing the English as a borrowing or simply “Anglicizing”the Welsh form.




Overall, this analysis suggests that adults’ productivecommand of the plural system in Welsh is extremelyuniform across speakers, rendering the quality of theinput to children consistent and reliable. The next sectionexplores children’s productive command of the system viaan elicitation task.

Study 2: Children’s productive command of thesystem

Method

ParticipantsChildrenEighty-eight children took part in the study, 40 boys and48 girls. For the purpose of measuring age progression,the children were divided into two age categories: 7–8years (N = 40, age range 7;4–8;11, M = 8;0) and 9–11years (N = 48, age range 9;0–11;2, M = 10;0). Withineach age category, the children were subdivided into oneof three bilingual groups (as measured by the language(s)spoken by the parent(s) to the child, see Gathercole &Thomas, 2009, and Gathercole, Thomas & Hughes, 2008,for similar coding). L1 Welsh bilinguals were those whowere raised in Welsh-speaking households, where bothparents spoke Welsh to the child from birth. For thesechildren, the acquisition of English developed after theacquisition of Welsh (around age 3). 2L1 bilinguals werethose who were raised in mixed Welsh- and English-speaking households, where one parent spoke Welsh tothe child from birth and one parent spoke English to thechild from birth. Thus, for these children, both languageswere acquired simultaneously. L2 Welsh bilinguals werethose who were raised in English-speaking households,where both parents spoke English to the child from birth,but the children were exposed to Welsh upon startingschool at age 4. Table 5 outlines the number of childrenper age, and per language exposure classification.

The children were recruited from primary schools inGwynedd, a county situated in north-west Wales wherethere is a long-established bilingual education policy andwhere we find the highest proportion of Welsh speakers inthe whole of Wales (Morris, 2010). The schools includedin this study spanned various sub-regions, from regionswhere the majority of the population (and hence the major-ity of children at school) speak Welsh as a home language,to those where the majority of the population (and hencethe majority of children at school) speak English as ahome language. In all cases, children whose parents spokeWelsh to them were themselves bilingual in Welsh andEnglish, while parents who addressed their children inEnglish were typically only English speakers. While iswas impossible to quantify the exact amount of exposureeach child received in each language for this present study,the major difference between the groups related to the age

Table 5. Numbers of children who participated, bylanguage group and by age.

Age L1 Welsh 2L1 L2 Welsh

(years) bilinguals bilinguals bilinguals

7–8 13 16 11

9–11 23 13 12

at which they were exposed to the second language, andwhether that language was English or Welsh.

Adult controlsTen Welsh–English adult bilinguals were recruited foreach of three language group types (10 L1 Welshbilinguals, mean age = 46; 10 2L1 bilinguals, meanage = 28; and 10 L2 Welsh bilinguals, mean age = 36).(All adults recruited for Study 2 were different from thosewho took part in Study 1.) Although none of these adultshad any relation to the children involved in the study,they nevertheless provided a good comparison measureof the ultimate achievement one could expect for childrenreceiving different levels of exposure to Welsh. As wasthe case with the children, the L1 Welsh adults grewup in families where both of their parents spoke Welshto them at all times, but learned English gradually fromexposure in the community and to some extent at school.The 2L1 bilingual adults grew up in families where oneparent spoke Welsh and the other spoke English to them.While it is impossible to quantify how often these speakerswere exposed to either language in the home, they wereall exposed to both languages at home from birth. TheL2 Welsh bilingual adults grew up in families whereboth parents spoke English to them at all times, withtheir exposure to Welsh happening only when they startedschool. All adult participants lived in one of two dominantWelsh-speaking regions of Wales – Gwynedd (where69% of the county spoke Welsh) and Ceredigion (where52.01% of the county had some knowledge of Welsh)(Census, 2001). Apart from two L2 Welsh participants,all adults attended primary schools where the predominantlanguage of instruction was Welsh, and secondary schoolswhere the linguistic provision was either bilingual, orpredominantly Welsh. In the case of the other two L2Welsh adults, their primary school experience was throughthe medium of Welsh, but they attended English-mediumsecondary schools (where Welsh was taught as a subject).However, both adults spoke Welsh on a daily basis asadults, due to the nature of their professions.

Design and proceduresLinguistic stimuliIn order to gain a comprehensive knowledge of children’sproductions of plural forms, we designed an elicitation




Table 6. Number of items per pluraltype.

Plural type Number of examples

+suff 22

+suff +V 17

�suff 12

�suff +V 3

–suff 5

–suff +V 3

V 15

Suppletive 3

task that elicited oral production of these forms. For thistask, we selected a series of 80 target words covering eightof the possible plural “types” in Welsh: (i) +suff (additionof plural suffix – e.g., coes /kɔɨs/ “leg”, coesau /kɔɨsaɨ/“legs”); (ii) +suff +V (addition of plural suffix + internalvowel change – e.g., cwch /kuχ/ “boat”, cychod /kəχɔd/“boats”); (iii) �suff (singular to plural suffix change –e.g., hoelen /hɔɨlɛn/ “nail”, hoelion /hɔɨliɔn/ “nails”); (iv)�suff +V (singular to plural suffix + vowel change – e.g.,deigryn /dɛiɡrɨn/ “tear”, dagrau /daɡraɨ/ “tears”); (v)–suff (mass noun forms – e.g., mochyn /mɔχɨn/ “pig”,moch /moːχ/ “pigs”); (vi) –suff +V (mass noun from +internal vowel change – e.g., aderyn /adɛrɨn/ “bird”, adar/adar/ “birds”); (vii) V (internal vowel/diphthong changeonly – e.g., troed /trɔɨd/ “foot”, traed /traɨd/ “feet”); and(viii) suppletive (plural forms not easily derived from theroot – e.g., llaw /ɬɑːu/ “hand”, dwylo /duɨlɔ/ “hands”).All possible examples that were deemed appropriate forprimary school-aged children were given to each child(see Table 6). All words selected had picturable referentsand covered a range of different frequency counts (asmeasured by the Cronfa Electroneg o’r Gymraeg –a one-million word corpus of written Welsh, Ellis,O’Dochartaigh, Hicks, Morgan & Laporte, 2001).

Scoring of the children’s responses involved 1 for acorrect form (involving all the alternations,additions, andsubtractions required), and 0 for anything else. Sincethe plural suffix -(i)au is often reduced to -(i)a or -(i)ein the spoken dialects of the children involved in thisstudy, forms with these suffixes were accepted as correct(provided that the accompanying sound alteration wasalso performed where appropriate). For this purpose,two native Welsh-speaking researchers, both from NorthWales and aware of the various varieties of the NorthWales dialect, collected the data.

Non-linguistic stimuliChildren (and adult controls) were shown a series of 11coloured picture scenes (in the park, animals at the zoo, the

human body, in the kitchen, at school, in the countryside,in the living room, at the farm, on the street, around thehouse, in the garden) and a slide with additional items thatwe were unable to link thematically. Each page involved anumber of picture items arranged around a central picturescene. Each individual picture scene was placed in thecentre of an A4 size page. Target items were copied fromwithin the scene and framed around the picture on thesame page. The child’s task was to simply provide theform used to refer to more than one of each of the targetitems selected from within the picture. The researcherasked the child to simply tell her what we call more thanone X: Be’ ’dan ni’n galw mwy nag un X? “What do we callmore than one X?”, and she wrote down their responses ona recording sheet. In order that we received the children’sresponses to all target items, the researcher provided thesingular form each time.

Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM)Each child was given a purposefully selected subsetof 12 slides from the Raven’s Progressive Matrices(RPM, Raven, Raven & Court, 1998), covering a rangeof difficulties, as a control measure of non-verbalintelligence. Instructions on how to complete the taskwere provided in the children’s preferred language.(The whole test was not administered due to timerestrictions, therefore analysis was performed on the rawscores.) A univariate ANOVA revealed a main effect ofAge (F(1,87) = 9.02, p = .004) indicating betterperformance among the older children (42.6%) than theyounger children (60.62%), as expected, but no maineffect of Bilingual Group (F(2,87) = .969, p = .384)indicating comparable general abilities across the childrenin each bilingual group within a given age group.

Results

Children’s plural oral production taskAn 8 × 3 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA was conductedon the data, with performance on each of the eight pluralform types (“Plural Type”) (+suff, +suff +V, �suff, �suff+V, –suff, –suff +V, V and suppletive) entered as thedependent variable and Bilingual Group (L1 Welsh, 2L1,and L2 Welsh) and Age (7–8 and 9–11 years) entered asindependent variables.

The results revealed a main effect of Bilingual Group(F(2,82) = 22.408, p = .000), Age (F(1,82) = 7.281,p = .008), and Plural Type (F(7,574) = 16.834, p =.000). Mean percent responses are presented in Table 7.The Age effect was due to the older children (55.96%)outperforming the younger children (42.14%), and theBilingual Group effect was due to more advancedperformance among the L1 Welsh bilinguals (72.04%)as compared to the 2L1 bilinguals (42.09%) orthe L2 Welsh bilinguals (33.03%). There were no




Figure 1. L1 Welsh children (7–8- and 9–11-year-olds combined) vs. L1 Welsh adults’ performance across all plural types.

Table 7. Mean scores on plural oral production task perplural type and language group.

Language group

Plural L1 Welsh 2L1 L2 Welsh

type bilinguals bilinguals bilinguals

+suff 81.28% 58.41% 45.61%

+suff +V 57.83% 34.10% 32.78%

�suff 73.47% 41.00% 36.39%

�suff +V 71.39% 26.41% 24.57%

–suff 86.11% 44.10% 34.35%

–suff +V 85.39% 44.72% 32.78%

V 60.44% 35.00% 20.48%

Suppletive 70.83% 44.83% 39.43%

significant differences between the 2L1 and the L2 Welshbilinguals’ performance. The fact that the 2L1 bilinguals’performance remained so much lower than that of the L1Welsh bilinguals at this age is interesting. We return tothis point in the “Discussion” section below. In contrast,the adult data revealed higher performance across theboard, although the L1 Welsh adults were the onlyones to display ceiling effects for all items with the L2Welsh adults averaging around 65%–80% on most items(see Figures 1–3). In terms of Plural Type, performanceon items involving no alteration to the root form(+suff: 61.5%, �suff: 50.36%, –suff: 55.31%, suppletives:51.27%), was better, typically, than on those involvingsuffix addition, alternation or deletion in addition to soundalteration to the root form (suff +V: 41.41% and �suff +V:40.1%, V: 37.98%) (although performance on those itemsrequiring suffix alternation plus sound alteration (�suff+V: 54.48%) was typically high).

The effect of Plural Type was modified furtherby Bilingual Group (F(7,574) = 2.945, p = .000),demonstrating that while L1 Welsh bilinguals wereapproaching adult norms on each structure, those frommixed or English-speaking homes (2L1 bilinguals andL2 Welsh bilinguals) were progressing at a slower pace(all SEs � 10.6; all ps < .05; mean scores ranging from57.83% (+suff +V) to 86.11% (–suff) for the L1 Welshchildren, from 26.41% (�suff +V) to 58.41% (+suff) forthe 2L1 children, and from 20.48% (V) to 45.61% (+suff)for the L2 Welsh children). Within each bilingual languagegroup, the degree of difference across the various pluraltypes varied, as detailed below.

First, it is noteworthy that the L1 Welsh childrenperformed well on most forms, particularly thoserequiring suffix addition, alternation or reduction withoutadditional vowel change to the root (+suff: 81.28%, �suff:73.47%, and –suff: 86.11%). The poorest performancewas on those items requiring sound alteration to the rootform with or without suffix addition (+suff +V: 57.83%and V: 60.44%) with performance on �suff +V andsuppletives somewhere in between (�suff +V: 71.39%and suppletion: 70.83%). Figure 1 plots their performanceagainst L1 Welsh adult controls.

Interestingly, 2L1 children produced fewer targetforms than L1 Welsh bilinguals in each plural category.For these children, performance was best on category+suff (58.41%), and worst on �suff +V (26.41%).Figure 2 plots their performance against 2L1 adultcontrols.

Finally, while L2 Welsh children’s performance waslow across all plural types, the best performance was againon +suff (45.61%), and worst on �suff +V (24.57%) andV (20.48%), with all other types somewhere in-betweenthese two extremes. Figure 3 plots their performanceagainst L2 Welsh adult controls.




Figure 2. 2L1 children (7–8- and 9–11-year-olds combined) vs. 2L1 adults’ performance across all plural types.

Figure 3. L2 Welsh children (7–8- and 9–11-year-olds combined) vs. L2 Welsh adults’ performance across all plural types.

Together, these results demonstrate the role oftransparency in aiding children’s acquisition of structureswith those items involving sound alteration to the rootbeing the most difficult to acquire for all children.

These results clearly demonstrate the influence ofhome language exposure on children’s progressionwith a complex structure. L1 Welsh-speaking childrenfrom exclusively Welsh-speaking homes are closelyapproaching the adult norm on some forms by age 11.However, although 2L1 and L2 Welsh bilinguals failed toapproach their L1 peers by age 11 (and fell far behind theirrespective adult control norms), there was progressionwith age, for all plural types.

Regardless of these lower scores among the 2L1 and L2Welsh children, ALL children were capable of producingsome correct forms, thus demonstrating that there waslearning in progress. Since scoring on the test was strict inthat the children were given a score of 1 if the whole wordform was correct and a 0 if any or all of it was incorrect,

such a scoring procedure may have concealed additionalinformation regarding children’s knowledge of the system.For this reason, children’s errors were inspected further forthe purpose of identifying any salient patterns among thechildren’s attempts at forming the plural.

Error analysisGiven the relative transparency of the plural systemin English as compared to Welsh, one might expectthat a number of the errors produced by the children,especially the L2 Welsh bilinguals, would involve theovergeneralization of the English -s suffix. However, thiswas not the case for this dataset. While some such formswere present, they were nevertheless rare, with most ofthe forms being attempts at formulating the plural usinga variety of plausible Welsh forms.

In what follows, we discuss (i) zero plural marking(reiterations of the singular form or forms with non-plural suffixes); (ii) use of the English -s; (iii) patterns of




overgeneralizations; (iv) attempts at altering the root, incombination (or not) with the insertion of plural suffixes;and (v) alternation of a singular suffix for a plural suffixwhen no suffix was required.

Zero plural markingProductions of forms that did not carry pluralmorphological features, or did not involve an (incorrect)attempt at sound alteration, were low for all groups(15.26% of all attempts for L1 Welsh children, 25.48% for2L1 children, and 12.54% for L2 Welsh children). Whilesuch attempts were found in all bilingual groups and for allplural types (apart from the older L1 Welsh children whoproduced no such errors for +suff – the most prominenttype), albeit at a slightly higher proportion among the2L1 bilinguals, they were, nevertheless, infrequent errors.(While it is impossible to know for sure why the2L1 bilinguals produced more of these forms than theother bilinguals, one might speculate that since the 2L1bilinguals were exposed to both Welsh and English frombirth, this may have resulted in heightened knowledge, andpossible use, of the English forms, particularly in code-switching, leading to weaker knowledge and production ofthese forms in Welsh.) This suggests that children’s errorsconsisted mostly of attempts at generating the plural form.

English -sContrary to expectation, L2 Welsh children did not relyon the (plausible) use of -s as a default strategy. (Recallthat adults produced only 48 tokens (4.66%) involving -samong their 1030 plural utterances in Study 1.) In fact,the use of -s was minimal across the eight plural typesexamined, for all three bilingual groups, and for all ages,and particularly so among L2 Welsh children (used in anaverage 1.49% of errors as compared to 2.58% of errorsproduced by 2L1 children and 6.34% of errors producedby L1 Welsh children).

Overgeneralizations: -( i)au and -odThe overgeneralization of the -au suffix (followed by -od)to a singular, unaltered root was by far the most commontype of error (from 11.11% to 51.35% across the pluraltypes for L1 Welsh children; 7–8-year-olds’ average:27.69%, 9–11-year-olds’ average: 31.39%). (See Table 8.)Such an overgeneralization pattern was particularly salientamong the 2L1 (6.25%– 59.48% across plural types; 7–8-year-olds’ average: 44.07%, 9–11-year-olds’ average:29.95%) and L2 Welsh children (from 26.67% to 80%across plural types; 7–8-year-olds’ average: 56.58%, 9–11-year-olds’ average: 54.31%). These overgeneralizationerrors are not surprising as they reflect the input patternsdiscussed under Study 1 (refer to Table 5 above). However,while -au was clearly used as a default strategy, its usewas not exclusive. (Only four children used the -(i)ausuffix in over 80% of their responses, three 2L1 children

Table 8. Number of overgeneralizations per homelanguage group.

Language group

Error L1 Welsh 2L1 L2 Welsh

type bilinguals bilinguals bilinguals

Sing + -(i)au 25.84% 41.67% 55.57%

Sing + -od 13.10% 8.22% 7.81%

Sing + -(i)aid 3.43% 1.99% 2.86%

Sing + -(i)on 5.61% 3.67% 3.22%

Sing + -oedd 14.71% 6.04% 4.11%

Sing + -edd 4.27% − −Sing + -ydd 2.40% 0.93% 1.16%

Sing + -i 1.69% 3.05% 1.78%

Sing + -wyr 2% 3.60% 3.08%

(two in the 7–8-years age group and one in the 9–11-years age group) and one L2 Welsh child in the 9–11-years group.) Children from all language backgroundsproduced errors involving -(i)aid, -(i)on, -oedd and -i,in addition to a few examples of -ydd, while L1 Welshchildren and 2L1 children produced, in addition, a fewexamples of -wyr, with one L1 Welsh child producinga single example involving -edd. These suffixes are alsopresent, to various extents, in the input. Such patternsof responding demonstrate a developing knowledge ofthe processes by which plurals are formed in Welsh, yetchildren remain unsure as to the exact process in relationto a given word at age 11.

Alterations to the rootAs shown in the analyses above (see Figures 1–3), itemsrequiring root alterations, with or without plural suffix(+suff +V, �suff +V, V), were the most problematic forthe children. However, there were errors that involved anelement of root form change, only not in the appropriatemanner. For example, ∗geirdd /ɡeirð/ was used insteadof gerddi /ɡɛrði/ as the plural for gardd /ɡarð/ “garden”,and ∗neint /neint/ was used instead of nentydd /nɛntɨð/for nant /nant/ “stream”. However, it is noteworthy thatmost attempts at changing the root form of the word werefound in relation to +suff +V. These patterns suggest thatchildren are aware of the sound-change pattern as a wayof marking the plural of some specific types of roots, andthat children are attending to and extracting out the rulesfrom the input they are receiving. However, they are yet tofully acquire the subtleties of these patterns, presumablydue to the limitations in the amount of input they receive.

Singular–plural suffix alternationChildren’s attempts at forming the appropriate plural viathe deletion of a singular suffix (types –suff and –suff




+V) involved a tendency to alternate the singular suffixwith a plural suffix (usually -au) rather than eliminate asuffix altogether. For example, mochyn “pig” was oftenproduced as ∗mochod instead of moch (with a possibleovergeneralization of the -od because of its propensity inrelation to the plural forms of nouns for animals).

Together, these patterns of errors do demonstrate adeveloping knowledge of the underlying properties of thesystem. The implications of our results from Studies 1and 2 for theories of language acquisition are discussedbelow.

Discussion

The studies reported in this paper aimed to explore therole of input quality (in terms of uniformity of use) andquantity (in terms of amount of exposure) on children’sproductive command of complex plural morphology inWelsh. The results revealed a number of interestingpatterns that warrant further investigations. These patternsare discussed, first, in relation to adult use of the system(uniformity of marking in the input), both in naturalisticspeech and in the experimental task; second, in relation tochildren’s developing knowledge of the system, given theirpatterns of exposure at home (quantity of exposure); and,third, in relation to performance on the more opaque vs.the less opaque structures within the system (transparencyof structure). This is then followed by a discussion oferror patterns, before a more general discussion of theimplications of the findings to theory and practice.

Uniformity of marking in the input

As predicted, analysis of adults’ spontaneous speechdata revealed target-like marking of plural forms. Targetforms were observed across a variety of possible pluralstructures, with a number of those forms found in thespeech of all speakers analysed. On the plural productiontask, adult performance was generally good, with L1Welsh adults performing at ceiling (averaging 97.63%),with the 2L1 adults averaging 88.17% and the L2 Welshadults averaging 77.36%. These provide further evidenceto support the notion that adult input to children – inrelation to plural forms – is relatively uniform, particularlyamong L1 speakers. This uniformity of marking withinthe input may well facilitate children’s acquisition of thesystem, provided that the appropriate amount of exposureis received and from those who use the language on a dailybasis.

Quantity of exposure

As highlighted previously in the literature, our resultsdemonstrated quite clearly a relationship between home-language exposure and performance on the plural task (as

shown by e.g., Gathercole & Thomas, 2009, for gender).However, given the uniformity of plural marking in L1Welsh adult input, we predicted further that L1 Welshchildren would demonstrate the fullest acquisition ofplural morphology. This prediction was partially upheld.Performance of the L1 Welsh children (those from Welsh-speaking homes) approached ceiling on many of theplural types (+suff: 81.28%, –suff: 86.11%, –suff +V:85.39%), with good performance (increasing with age)on other forms (+suff +V: 57.83%, �suff: 73.83%, V:60.44%, suppletives: 70.83%). Such results suggest thatL1 Welsh-speaking children are approaching L1 Welshadult norms on the more transparent aspects of the pluralsystem by age 11, while continuing to acquire the moreopaque structures. Contrary to prediction, however, L2Welsh children’s command of the system did not appearto approach that of their L1 peers (averaging between20.48% and 39.43% across the plural types), neither didits command by simultaneous, 2L1 children (averagingbetween 26.41% and 44.83% across the plural types).This pattern is supported further by the adult data,whereby those from 2L1 and L2 Welsh backgroundsfailed to perform on par with those from L1 Welshbackgrounds, indicating that the target norm for eachtype of bilingual is not the same. This latter effect isinteresting as it demonstrates how receiving Welsh frombirth at home (i.e., having an early Age of Onset) is notsufficient enough by itself to allow for the acquisitionof the plural system by the end of primary school age,or indeed by later adulthood. In fact, the results of2L1 children patterned more like L2 Welsh children,a finding that has been previously reported for aspectsof children’s acquisition of gender and word order inWelsh (Gathercole, Laporte & Thomas, 2005; Gathercole& Thomas, 2005; see also Kupisch, 2012, for similarresults for the acquisition of determiners by simultaneousGerman–Italian bilinguals in their weaker language).There are two main reasons why this may be, includinglanguage-internal and language-external factors. In termsof language-internal factors, given that even the L1Welsh children were still in the process of acquiringthe system while approaching adult norms at age 11,the Welsh plural system may simply be subject to lateacquisition due to its complexity, leading to delayedpattern of performance, particularly among those withless exposure to the language. Further studies need to lookbeyond age 11 in order to gain a more complete patternof development of this structure. In terms of language-external factors, recent studies have identified patternsof “incomplete acquisition” or “incomplete competence”among heritage language speakers who reside in the US,particularly in their knowledge of complex structures,such as Russian gender marking, in their L1 (Polinsky,1997, 2008). Here, heritage language speakers are definedas those who were first exposed to their L1 (Russian)




at home, usually without any further support at school,but whose L1 has subsequently been replaced by anotherlanguage (English) as their primary, most dominantlanguage. Under these conditions, speakers demonstratehuge variation in performance, and, as a group, theirproductions of gender-marked forms and judgements ofgrammaticality differ from those of controls. Similarfindings among L1 heritage speakers have been discussedby Montrul, who describes cases where “the amountof input received was not optimal to fully develop andsustain the linguistic system . . . even when the exposureoccurred early in childhood” (Montrul, 2008, p. 6).While there are many socio-political factors that mayinfluence incomplete knowledge of the heritage languagein contexts such as the US, the fact that children whoare exposed to native Welsh input from birth and later atschool, and who maintain exposure to Welsh alongsideEnglish, show marked delays in acquisition – unlikeother 2L1 bilinguals, such as German–Italian speakersin Germany, who are capable of reaching native-likestandards with gender marking in Italian (Bianchi, 2013) –suggests there are other language-external factors at play.First, in mixed language families where one parent speaksLanguage A (an official minority community language)and the other parent speaks Language B (an officialdominant community language) to their child(ren), thecommon language among the parents is often Language B(the dominant community language). Consequently, whenall members of the family are involved in a conversation,the default language choice is often Language B, whichcan also develop to be the language of choice betweensiblings. Under such circumstances, Language B caneasily become the default language of the home, and,in combination with more prominent use of LanguageB in the wider community, Language B can become thelanguage that is heard and used most frequently. LanguageA is thus limited to a few interactions at home and tothe school domain. At the same time, mixed families whoreside in areas where Language A is used more widely maybe more inclined to use and support the use of Language Ain the home. However, since Welsh is only spoken by 19%of the population of Wales (Welsh Government, 2012),maintaining the use of Welsh as the default language inthe face of English dominance is difficult. Second, dual-language families may socialize with more LanguageB speakers than Language A speakers, and may feelmore culturally affiliated with speakers of Language B.Such practices may influence the language of choice,particularly in peer–peer interactions (Thomas, Lewis &Apolloni, 2012; Thomas & Roberts, 2011), and reducethe scope for minority language exposure that is neededfor successful maintenance and acquisition of structuresin the minority language (Bianchi, 2013). Further studiesare now needed to explore in more depth the nature andcharacteristics of the input afforded to 2L1 speakers,

including the amount and quality of interactions withparents, teachers, siblings, and with friends, and theinfluence of active (vs. passive) engagement with Welshon patterns of linguistic development.

Transparency of structure

As predicted, all children struggled more with itemsrequiring subtle, word-internal sound changes to theroot form that are not predictable than with itemsthat required a more overt structural change. That is,everyone produced more target forms of less opaque items(those requiring suffix addition, alternation or deletion,and suppletives) than of more opaque structures (thoserequiring vowel or sound alterations, with or without suffixaddition, alternation or deletion). Nevertheless, children’sperformance, even on the more predictable +suff forms,differed according to input quantity, whereby the L1Welsh bilinguals far outperformed the 2L1 and L2 Welshbilinguals. Likewise, performance on the more opaqueitems improved with increasing exposure patterns to thelanguage at home (although improvement remained slowfor 2L1 children and L2 Welsh children, as discussedabove). Such results are in line with those of previousstudies looking at the influence of quality of exposurein relation to opacity of the structures (Paradis, 2010;Unsworth, 2013), and provide further support for theConstructivist notion that the greater the opacity of astructure, the greater the amount of exposure necessaryto ensure optimal acquisition (Gathercole, 2007a).

In terms of developmental progression, the 9–11-year-olds outperformed the 7–8-year-olds in each languagegroup and on all plural types (bar “type” �suff +V amongchildren from English-speaking homes, where both agegroups averaged around 24% correct, and –suff amongchildren from Welsh-speaking homes, where both agegroups averaged around 86%). These data demonstrateslow but continual progression, especially among 2L1 andL2 Welsh children.

Considered together, the data revealed in this papersuggest that children are still in the process of developinga full morphological paradigm at age 11, but the buildingof the full plural paradigm is gradual, starting with theeasiest rules (i.e., the addition of the suffix), which maybecome adopted as a default strategy. Forms requiringalterations to the root are the most difficult to acquire,and are likely only to be mapped onto the system oncethe child requires the necessary exposure to the language.L1 Welsh children have a well-developed paradigm inplace, but are still making errors, albeit predictable ones.The 2L1 and L2 Welsh children, on the other hand,are still in the process of building their system, withthe best distinctions acquired being the +suff and +suff+V forms. These issues are discussed in more detailbelow.




Differences across plural typesL2 Welsh and 2L1 children performed consistently betteron items requiring suffix addition without any soundalteration (+suff), which affects the greatest amount ofnouns in the language, and was identified as the mostfrequent type produced by the adults in their peer–peerinteractions (Study 1). Such findings support previousstudies which have also identified the role of frequency ofpatterns in the input on children’s acquisition (e.g., Paradis& Navarro, 2003). However, both groups also tended toperform well on types �suff, �suff +V and suppletives(and on �suff +V for the older children), which are nothighly frequent in the input. Children also demonstratedquicker progression with age on +suff, –suff, –suff +V andsuppletives (and on �suff +V for 2L1 children). L1 Welshchildren also performed well on +suff items, althoughperformance was best on –suff and –suff +V, from age7–8 years. While +suff may be acquired more quickly dueto its higher frequency within the system, types –suff, –suff +V and suppletives may be items that speakers learnindividually due to their uniqueness within the system.Our data suggest that –suff and –suff +V are susceptibleto accelerated learning, presumably due to the relativelow frequency of such forms in the language and to theuniqueness of the process of forming their plural, leadingto individual item learning.

Error patterns

Analysis of children’s errors revealed a number ofinteresting trends. First, all groups, regardless of homelanguage background, tended to overextend the -(i)ausuffix as a default strategy, but not exclusively. Othersuffixes were also produced as errors, but to a lesserextent. These overextension patterns mirror the relativefrequencies of these structures in the input. Second,the overextension of the English suffix -s was minimal,even for L2 Welsh children. In fact, and contraryto our expectation, L2 Welsh children produced theleast number of -s attempts. Unlike the L1 Welsh and2L1 bilinguals, who are most likely to be exposed tocodeswitching from English into Welsh on a regularbasis, L2 Welsh children may be less exposed to suchpractices, leading to a heightened awareness of thedifferences between the two languages as they aredeveloping their competence in the language. Theseresults provide further evidence to suggest that bilingualsdifferentiate their two languages (Nicoladis, 2006), andthat this level of syntactic awareness is present forboth simultaneous and successive bilinguals. Third, mostchildren produced a variety of plausible plural forms, anddisplayed differential knowledge of the necessary type ofpluralization process to apply to a given word. Only ahandful of children chose one specific default form andapplied it across the board. These patterns suggest that

children are developing the rules of the system, but areyet to acquire the full paradigm.

Further studies are now needed to identify the exactnature of children’s underlying knowledge of the system,including their knowledge of typical forms relating tospecific semantic classes (e.g., the recognition of thetendency to pluralize singular nouns for animals with-od or the tendency for plurals denoting collections ofpeople to be pluralized with -iaid), and phonologicalform of the root (e.g., the tendency for words ending in-iadur to pluralize with -on). Explorations of children’sperformance in relation to these partial regularities wouldhelp elucidate the relative role of language-internal cues,and would help identify the extent to which childrenreceiving the greatest amount of exposure to Welshdemonstrate knowledge of these regularities earlier thanother children.

Implications: Theory and practice

The findings reported in the paper have implicationsfor theories of bilingual acquisition and have practicalimplications for education. First, the data clearly showthat children who receive the greatest amount of exposureto Welsh, in terms of home language use, outperformothers on the production of target plural forms. Thesefindings support previous findings in the literature relatingto bilingual children’s acquisition of vocabulary andaspects of morphosyntax (e.g., Gathercole, 2002a, b,c). However, contrary to previous findings, these datarevealed that children from English-speaking homes failto “catch-up” by age 11. More surprising is the fact that2L1 children also failed to progress as fast as their L1Welsh peers. These findings have clear implications in theeducational setting, and have ramifications for languagepolicy planning in the education context. Second, thedata reveal that acquisition of the plural is protracted(see Gathercole et al., 2001; Thomas, 2001; Thomas& Gathercole, 2007), with accelerated learning of theparadigm evident only in the context of increased inputand in relation to items that are frequent in the language,with infrequent forms (such as the –suff, –suff +V and thesuppletives) learned on an individual basis. Given thatmany of our children are exposed to Welsh at schoolonly, schools have an important role to play in guidingchildren’s linguistic experience and knowledge. It is clear,from the error analyses performed above, that children areacquiring knowledge of the plural system, but they are yetto master the subtleties of plural marking involving soundalterations to the root. In the absence of a critical mass ofexposure, increasing children’s attention and exposure toplural forms, and their underlying patterns, may be oneway of addressing this issue, and of reversing the potentialfor incomplete acquisition (Montrul, 2008) among somespeakers.




Conclusion

The data presented in this paper suggest thatsuccess at acquiring Welsh plural morphology undervarious conditions of minority language exposure iscontingent upon external (amount of exposure) andinternal (frequency, transparency, uniformity, and rulepredictability) factors. Children receiving the greatestamount of exposure to Welsh in the home wereapproaching adult norms on some aspects of the task,while those receiving less or no Welsh input at homecontinued to lag behind their peers, and their adultcomparisons, at age 11. Given the opacity of pluralmorphology in Welsh, it may take a long while for2L1 and L2 Welsh children to achieve the criticalmass of exposure that may be necessary in order toacquire the appropriate forms. Analysis of children’serrors revealed knowledge of the various processesof forming the plural in Welsh among all bilingualgroups, and performance on the task seemed to followpredictable patterns, relative to the frequency of forms inthe input. These results are consistent with input-drivenaccounts of bilingual acquisition as discussed in thispaper.

Further research is now required in order to measurethe nature of children’s knowledge of the system, toidentify more specifically the amount of direct exposurevarious types of Welsh–English bilinguals have to eachlanguage, the extent to which reduced input leads tonative-like competence or incomplete acquisition in aminority language context, and in developing teachingand learning tools that can help aid children’s knowledgeof the appropriate plural form in Welsh.

References

Ball, M. J., & Müller, N. (1992). Mutation in Welsh. London:Routledge.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language,literacy, andcognition. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Bialystok, E., & Luk, G. (2012). Receptive vocabulary dif-ferences in monolingual and bilingual adults. Bilingualism:Language and Cognition, 15, 397–401.

Bianchi, G. (2013). Gender in Italian–German bilinguals:A comparison with German L2 learners of Italian.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 538–557.

Blom, E. (2010). Effects of input on the early grammaticaldevelopment of bilingual children. International Journalof Bilingualism, 14, 422–446.

Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Census (2001). Office for National Statistics: Welsh languageprofile. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.html?newquery=language.

Chondrioganni, V., & Marinis, T. (2011). Differential effectsof internal and external factors on the development

of vocabulary, tense morphology and morpho-syntax insuccessive bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches toBilingualism, 1, 318–345.

Cobo-Lewis, A., Pearson, B., Eilers, R., & Umbel, V. (2002a).Effects ofbilingualism and bilingual education on oral andwritten Spanish skills: A multifactor study of standardizedtest outcomes. In Oller & Eilers (eds.), pp. 98–117.

Cobo-Lewis, A., Pearson, B., Eilers, R., & Umbel, V.(2002b). Effects of bilingualism and bilingual educationon oral and written English skills: A multifactor study ofstandardized test outcomes. In Oller & Eilers (eds.), pp. 64–97.

Cohen, J., McAlister, K., Rolstad, K., & MacSwan, J.(eds.) (2005). ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th InternationalSymposium on Bilingualism. Somerville, MA: CascadillaPress.

Deuchar, M., & Davies, P. (2009). Code switching and thefuture of the Welsh language. International Journal of theSociology of Language, 195, 15–38.

Döpke, S. (1988). The role of parental teaching techniques inbilingual German–English families. International Journalof the Sociology of Language, 72, 101–112.

Döpke, S. (1992). One parent – one language: An interactionalapproach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ellis, N. C., O’Dochartaigh, C., Hicks, W., Morgan, M., &Laporte, N. (2001). CronfaElectroneg o Gymraeg/A 1million word lexical database and frequency count forWelsh. Bangor: University of Wales Bangor, School ofPsychology. http://www.bangor.ac.uk/ar/cb/ceg/ceg_cym.html.

Elman, J. L. (2001). Connectionism and language acquisition. InM. Tomasello & E. Bates (eds.), Language development:The essential readings, pp. 295–306. Oxford: Blackwell.

Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A.,Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness:A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Gathercole, V. C. M. (1986). The acquisition of the presentperfect: Explaining differences in the speech of Scottishand American children. Journal of Child Language, 13,537–560.

Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002a). Command of the mass/countdistinction in bilingual and monolingual children: AnEnglish morphosyntactic distinction. In Oller & Eilers(eds.), pp. 175–206.

Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002b). Grammatical gender in bilingualand monolingual children: A Spanish morphosyntacticdistinction. In Oller & Eilers (eds.), pp. 207–219.

Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002c). Monolingual and bilingualacquisition: Learning different treatments of that–tracephenomena in English and Spanish. In Oller & Eilers (eds.),pp. 220–254.

Gathercole, V. C. M. (2007a). Miami and North Wales, so farand yet so near: Constructivist account of morpho-syntacticdevelopment in bilingual children. The InternationalJournal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 224–247.

Gathercole, V. C. M. (ed.) (2007b). Language transmission inbilingual families in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Language BoardConsultation Document.

http://www.bangor.ac.uk/ar/cb/ceg/ceg_cym.html

http://www.bangor.ac.uk/ar/cb/ceg/ceg_cym.html




Gathercole, V. C. M., & Hoff, E. (2007). Input and theacquisition of language: Three questions. In E. Hoff& M. Shatz (eds.), Blackwell handbook of languagedevelopment, pp. 107–127. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gathercole, V. C. M., Laporte, N., & Thomas, E. M. (2005).Differentiation, carry- over, and the distributed character-istic in bilinguals: Structural ‘mixing’ of the two languages?In Cohen et al. (eds.), pp. 838–851.

Gathercole, V. C. M[ueller]., & Sebastián, E., & Soto, P. (1999).The early acquisition of Spanish verbal morphology:Across-the-board or piecemeal knowledge? InternationalJournal of Bilingualism, 3, 133–182.

Gathercole, V. C. M., & Thomas, E. M. (2005). Minoritylanguage survival: Input factors influencing the acquisitionof Welsh. In Cohen et al. (eds.), pp. 852–874.

Gathercole, V. C. M., & Thomas, E. M. (2009). Bilingualfirst-language development: Dominant language takeover,threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism:Language and Cognition, 12, 213–238.

Gathercole, V. C. M., Thomas, E. M., & Hughes, E. (2008).Designing a normed receptive vocabulary test for bilingualpopulations: A model from Welsh. International Journal ofBilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11, 678–720.

Gathercole, V. C. M., Thomas, E. M., & Laporte, N. I. (2001).The acquisition of grammatical gender in Welsh. Journalof Celtic Language Learning, 6, 53–87.

Goldberg, H., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2008). Lexicalacquisition over time in minority first language childrenlearning English as a second language. AppliedPsycholinguistics, 29, 41–65.

Griffiths, B., & Jones, D. G. (1995). Geiriadur yr Academi.Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in everydayexperience of young American children. Baltimore, MD:Paul Brookes Publishing Co.

Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: So-cioeconomic status affects early vocabulary developmentvia maternal speech. Child Development, 74, 1368–1378.

Hoff, E., & Elledge, C. (2005). Bilingualism as one of manyenvironmental variables that affect language development.In Cohen et al. (eds.), pp. 1034–1040.

Hulk, A. J., & Cornips, L. (2006). The acquisition of definitedeterminers in child L2 Dutch: Problems with neutergender nouns. In S. Unsworth, T. Parodi, A. Sorace &M. Young-Scholten (eds.), Paths of development in L1 andL2 Acquisition, pp. 107–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

King, G. (1993). Modern Welsh: A comprehensive grammar.London: Routledge.

Kupisch, T. (2012). Specific and generic subjects in the Italianof German–Italian simultaneous bilinguals and L2 learners.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 736–756.

Lanza, E. (1997). Language mixing in infant bilingualism:A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first languageacquisition from a usage-based perspective. In P. Robinson& N. C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguisticsand second language acquisition, pp. 216–236. New York:Routledge.

MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools foranalyzing talk (3rd edn.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Maratsos, M. P. (2000). More overregularizations after all: Newdata and discussion on Marcus, Pinker, Ullman, Hollander,Rosen & Xu. Journal of Child Language, 27, 183–212.

Marchman, V. A., & Bates, E. (1994). Continuity in lexical andmorphological development: A test of the critical masshypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 21, 339–365.

Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age-factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Morris, D. (ed.) (2010). Welsh in the twenty-first century. Cardiff:University of Wales Press.

Nicoladis, E. (2006). Cross-linguistic transfer in adjective–noun strings by preschool bilingual children. Bilingualism:Language and Cognition, 9, 15–32.

Nicoladis, E., Crago, M., & Genesee, F. (2010). Bilingualchildren’s acquisition of the past tense: A usage-basedapproach. Journal of Child Language, 37, 1–25.

Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (eds.) (2002). Language and literacyin bilingual children. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Paradis, J. (2010). Bilingual children’s acquisition of Englishverb morphology: Effects of language exposure, structurecomplexity, and task type. Language Learning, 60, 651–680.

Paradis, J., & Navarro, S. (2003). Subject realization andcrosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition ofSpanish and English: What is the role of the input? Journalof Child Language, 30, 371–393.

Paradis, J., Nicoladis, E., & Crago, M. (2007). French–English bilingual children’s acquisition of the past tense. InH. Caunt-Nulton, S. Kulatilake & I.-H. Woo (eds.), BUCLD31, pp. 497–507. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller, D. K.(1997). The relation of input factors to lexical learning bybilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 41–58.

Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. [C.], & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexicaldevelopment in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparisonto monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93–120.

Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Pirvulescu, M., & Roberge, Y. (2009).Bilingualism as a window into the language faculty:The acquisition of objects in French-speaking childrenin bilingual and monolingual contexts. Bilingualism:Language and Cognition, 12, 97–112.

Place, S., & Hoff, E. (2011). Properties of dual languageexposure that influence two-year-olds’ bilingual profi-ciency. Child Development, 82, 1834–1849.

Polinsky, M. (1997). American Russian: Language loss meetslanguage acquisition. In W. Browne (ed.), Annual Workshopon Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, CornellMeeting (1995), pp. 370–406. Ann Arbor, MI: MichiganSlavic Publications.

Polinsky, M. (2008). Gender under incomplete acquisition:Heritage speakers’ knowledge of noun categorization.Heritage Language Journal, 6, 40–71.

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). StandardProgressive Matrices: 1998 Edition. Oxford: OxfordPsychologists Press.

Rhys, M., & Thomas, E. M. (2013). Bilingual Welsh–Englishchildren’s acquisition of vocabulary and reading:




Implications for bilingual education. International Journalof Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 633–656.

Roberts, S. H., & Gathercole, V. C. M. (2006). Categorizingcollections of objects: Linguistic and cognitive factorsinfluencing Welsh and English speakers’ judgements. FirstLanguage, 26, 161–185.

Thomas, E. M. (2001). Aspects of gender mutation in Welsh.Ph.D. dissertation, Bangor University.

Thomas, E. M., & Gathercole, V. C. M. (2005). Obsolescenceor survival for Welsh in the face of English dominance? InCohen et al. (eds.), pp. 2233–2257.

Thomas, E. M., & Gathercole, V. C. M. (2007). Children’sproductive command of grammatical gender and mutationin Welsh: An alternative to rule-based learning. FirstLanguage, 27, 251–278.

Thomas, E. M., Lewis, W. G., & Apolloni, D. (2012). Variationin language choice in extended speech in primary schoolsin Wales: Implications for teacher education. Language andEducation, 26, 245–261.

Thomas, E. M., & Mayr, R. (2010). Children’s acquisition ofWelsh in a bilingual setting: A psycholinguistic perspective.In Morris (ed.), pp. 99–117.

Thomas, E. M., & Roberts, D. B. (2011). Exploring bilinguals’social use of Welsh inside and out of the minority languageclassroom. Language and Education, 25, 89–108.

Thomas, P. W. (1996). Gramadeg y Gymraeg. Caerdydd: GwasgPrifysgol Cymru.

Thordardottir, E., Rothenberg, A., Rivard, M. E., & Naves, R.(2006). Bilingual assessment: Can overall proficiency be es-timated from separate measurement of two languages? Jo-urnal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 4, 1–21.

Thorne, D. (1993). A comprehensive Welsh grammar. Oxford:Blackwell.

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-basedtheory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: HavardUniversity Press.

Umbel, V. C., Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, M. C., & Oller,D. K. (1992). Measuring bilingual children’s receptivevocabularies. Child Development, 63, 1012–1020.

Unsworth, S. (2013). Assessing the role of current andcumulative exposure in simultaneous bilingual acquisition:The case of Dutch gender. Bilingualism: Language andCognition, 16, 86–110.

Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical input asrelated to children’s vocabulary acquisition: Effectsof sophisticated exposure and support for meaning.Developmental Psychology, 37, 265–279.

Welsh Government (2012). 2011 Census: First results on theWelsh language (Statistical Bulletin – Bwletin Ystadegol:Knowledge and Analytical Services). Cardiff: WelshGovernment.


acquiring complex structures under minority language conditions: bilingual acquisition of plural...

Documents