Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
FIRST
LANGUAGE
https://doi.org/10.1177/01427237231204167
First Language
2024, Vol. 44(1) 74 –95
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/01427237231204167
journals.sagepub.com/home/fla
Sometimes larger, sometimes
smaller: Measuring vocabulary
in monolingual and bilingual
infants and toddlers
Krista Byers-Heinlein , Ana Maria Gonzalez-Barrero*,
Esther Schott and Hilary Killam
Concordia University, Canada
Abstract
Vocabulary size is a crucial early indicator of language development, for both monolingual
and bilingual children. Assessing vocabulary in bilingual children is complex because they
learn words in two languages, and there remains significant controversy about how to
best measure their vocabulary size, especially in relation to monolinguals. This study
compared monolingual vocabulary with different metrics of bilingual vocabulary, including
combining vocabulary across languages to count either the number of words or the
number of concepts lexicalized and assessing vocabulary in a single language. Data were
collected from parents of 743 infants and toddlers aged 8–33 months learning French
and/or English, using the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories.
The results showed that the nature and magnitude of monolingual–bilingual differences
depended on how bilinguals’ vocabulary was measured. Compared with monolinguals,
bilinguals had larger expressive and receptive word vocabularies, similarly sized
receptive concept vocabularies and smaller expressive concept vocabularies. Bilinguals’
single-language vocabularies were smaller than monolinguals’ vocabularies. The study
highlights the need to better understand the role of translation equivalents in bilingual
vocabulary development and the potential developmental differences in receptive and
expressive vocabularies.
Keywords
Bilingualism, vocabulary development, infants
*Ana Maria Gonzalez-Barrero is now at the School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Faculty of
Health, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Corresponding author:
Krista Byers-Heinlein, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke St. West,
Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada.
Email: k.byers@concordia.ca
1204167FLA0010.1177/01427237231204167First LanguageByers-Heinlein et al.
research-article2023
Article
Byers-Heinlein et al. 75
Age-appropriate vocabulary size is an important marker of typical language develop-
ment and predicts a variety of language, literacy, and academic outcomes (Duff et al.,
2015; Marchman & Fernald, 2008). Given the growing number of immigrant children
and bilingual families (Luk, 2017; Prevoo et al., 2016; Schott et al., 2022), there is an
increasing need for understanding how to best quantify vocabulary development in bilin-
gual toddlers. For monolingual children, the words a child knows can simply be counted
to yield a receptive (words understood) or expressive (words produced) vocabulary
score, which can be compared with age-referenced vocabulary norms (Fenson et al.,
2007). Measuring vocabulary is more complex in bilingual toddlers, as they learn words
in two languages from early in development (Petitto et al., 2001).
Bilingual children’s vocabulary can be measured either in a single language or by
combining their knowledge across their languages. Such measures might point to differ-
ent aspects of children’s development. For example, single-language measures might
reflect children’s ability to communicate in monolingual social or educational situations,
whereas measures that combine across languages might more closely reflect children’s
overall level of conceptual and/or linguistic development. A recent review found that
most studies that measured vocabulary in young bilinguals reported single-language
measures in each language (68%), but many fewer reported a combined measure (43%;
Weisleder et al., 2022). When single-language vocabulary is measured, bilingual chil-
dren tend to have smaller productive vocabularies than monolinguals (e.g. Bialystok
et al., 2010; Hoff & Ribot, 2017; Pearson et al., 1993; Thordardottir et al., 2006; Uccelli
& Páez, 2007). This monolingual–bilingual difference is typically larger in children’s
non-dominant (weaker/least-heard) language than in their dominant (stronger/most-
heard) language (Altman et al., 2018; Cattani et al., 2014; Thordardottir, 2011).
To overcome the limitations of single-language vocabulary assessment, researchers
have long advocated for assessing bilingual vocabulary in a way that considers both
languages (Kohnert, 2010; Pearson et al., 1993). ‘Total vocabulary’ and ‘total conceptual
vocabulary’ are two commonly used combined metrics of bilingual children’s vocabu-
lary development. In the current study, we have updated these terms to be more concise
and transparent, to clarify the interpretation of the outcomes they provide. We call word
vocabulary the measure that combines the total number of words the child knows in each
of their languages (historically referred to as total vocabulary), while we call concept
vocabulary the measure that only includes the number of concepts the child knows in
either language (historically referred to as total conceptual vocabulary). These two met-
rics differ in their treatment of translation equivalents (i.e., cross language synonyms like
English ‘dog’ and French ‘chien’): word vocabulary gives credit for all words the child
produces, including translation equivalents, whereas concept vocabulary does not give
double credit for translation equivalent pairs. As an example, a child who knows both
‘dog’ and ‘chien’ would obtain 2 points for word vocabulary (since they know both
words) but only 1 for concept vocabulary (since both words refer to the same concept).
The key difference between word and concept vocabularies is how they credit chil-
dren’s knowledge of translation equivalents, so it is important to consider how young
bilinguals learn translation equivalents compared with singlets (i.e. words without a
known translation equivalent). Some theories posit that bilingual children avoid learning
translation equivalents due to constraints on learning two labels for the same object
76 First Language 44(1)
(Volterra & Taeschner, 1978), while others posit that children prefer to learn translation
equivalents if it is easier for them to associate a new label with an already lexicalized
referent than to associate a word with a referent that is not already in the lexicon
(Montanari, 2010). Finally, it is possible that bilingual children learn translation equiva-
lents with equivalent difficulty/ease as they learn singlets (Pearson et al., 1995). In a
recent large-scale study, Tsui et al. (2022) found that for children with larger vocabularies,
children’s knowledge of translation equivalents was nearly exactly what would be
expected by chance overlap in the vocabularies in each language. That is, children neither
preferred to learn translation equivalents, nor avoided them. However, children with
smaller vocabularies showed some preference for learning translation equivalents, which
is in line with some other studies (Bilson et al., 2015). Related back to the different com-
bined vocabulary metrics, if translation equivalents are learned with similar difficulty as
singlets, then as for word vocabulary they should be counted twice to yield a score that is
comparable across monolinguals and bilinguals. Alternatively, if translation equivalents
are learned more easily than singlets, then as for concept vocabulary they should not be
double counted to yield a vocabulary score similar across monolinguals and bilinguals.
A number of studies have compared monolinguals and bilinguals on concept and/or
word vocabulary. When comparing expressive word vocabularies at various ages
between 14 and 36 months, multiple studies have reported that bilinguals have similar
vocabulary scores to monolinguals (Spanish–English, Core et al., 2013; Hoff et al., 2012;
Various language pairs, Brito et al., 2014; Russian–Finnish, Silvén et al., 2014). However,
other studies reported that bilinguals have larger expressive word vocabularies than
monolinguals at 18 months (Spanish–Catalan; Bosch & Ramon-Casas, 2014) and
24 months of age (English–German; Junker & Stockman, 2002). Of interest, one study of
20-month-olds found different results depending on cultural and/or linguistic context:
English–Japanese and English–Korean bilinguals had similar expressive word vocabu-
laries to their monolingual peers, while Spanish–English bilinguals had lower word
vocabularies than either Spanish or English monolinguals (Cote & Bornstein, 2014).
In relation to concept vocabulary, some studies have found that this measure disad-
vantages bilinguals (Spanish–English expressive vocabulary, Core et al., 2013; French–
English expressive vocabulary, Thordardottir et al., 2006), while other studies have
found that this approach yields comparable scores across monolinguals and bilinguals
(e.g. Dutch–French receptive and expressive vocabulary, De Houwer et al., 2014;
English–German expressive vocabulary, Junker & Stockman, 2002; Spanish–English
receptive and expressive vocabulary, Pearson et al., 1993). Studies that have looked at
both word and concept vocabulary have had mixed findings, with some suggesting that
word vocabulary (e.g. Core et al., 2013), and other studies suggesting that concept
vocabulary (Junker & Stockman, 2002), is most similar between monolinguals and bilin-
guals, and still others finding that both metrics are comparable (De Houwer et al., 2014).
Finally, another approach has been to develop bilingual-specific norms (receptive and
expressive vocabulary in learners of English and another language, Floccia et al., 2018;
receptive vocabulary in multiple language pairs, Gampe et al., 2018), although currently
these are only available for children of very specific ages.
Additional large-scale data are needed given the mixed findings in the literature regarding
how bilinguals compare with monolinguals when measured on different vocabulary metrics,
Byers-Heinlein et al. 77
particularly given the small sample sizes and/or limited ages assessed in most previous stud-
ies (for a summary of the studies using the [Communicative Development Inventories] CDI,
see Table 1). Such information can provide theoretical insight into the nature of bilingual
vocabulary development, the role of translation equivalents, and the development of recep-
tive versus expressive vocabulary. The research question for the current study was how young
monolinguals and bilinguals compare across age on different vocabulary metrics.
We examined the vocabularies of 743 children aged 8–33 months, a much larger sam-
ple than in previous studies. Children were learning French and/or English in a commu-
nity where languages have similar sociolinguistic status, providing an optimal control for
potentially confounding variables that may differ systematically between monolinguals
and bilinguals in some contexts. While vocabulary development is influenced by multi-
ple variables such as language quality, family language strategies, variation in language
exposure, and age of exposure to each language (e.g. De Houwer, 2011; Unsworth, 2016;
see Byers-Heinlein et al. 2019 for a discussion of key variables in bilingual language
development), in this study we focused on vocabulary metrics that have been consist-
ently used to describe vocabulary development in bilingual children. Uniquely, our study
examined both receptive and expressive vocabulary across four metrics: word vocabu-
lary, concept vocabulary, dominant language vocabulary, and non-dominant language
vocabulary. For single-language vocabularies, both dominant and non-dominant, we pre-
dicted that bilinguals would have smaller vocabularies than monolinguals. For combined
vocabularies, we predicted that bilinguals and monolinguals would have more similar
vocabularies, although we did not make specific predictions as to whether word vocabu-
lary or concept vocabulary would yield the most comparable score.
Method
This research was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki, and was approved
by the Human Research Ethics Board of Concordia University (certification numbers
UH2011-041-1 and 10000439). Parents provided informed consent.
Participants
Data were collected from parents of typically developing infants aged 8–33 months (47%
female) between 2010 and 2018. Recruitment was carried out through government birth
lists, daycares, and online ads. Data were largely cross-sectional, although a subset of
children contributed data at multiple time points (see data analysis section for details on
how statistical analyses accounted for these repeated measures). Children visited the lab
one (75.4%), two (19.9%), three (4.2%), or four (0.5%) times for experimental studies,
and vocabulary data were collected on each visit (see following section for details on
data collection procedures). The analyzed dataset included data from 743 infants who
collectively took part in 947 lab visits. Following criteria similar to the norming sample
for the American English CDI (Fenson et al., 2007), we excluded children who were
born premature (< 36 weeks gestation), who had low birth weight (< 2500 grams), who
presented with major medical conditions (e.g. meningitis, major surgeries), or who fell
outside our target age range of 8–33 months. Children were mainly reported to be of
78 First Language 44(1)
Table 1. Summary of studies comparing combined vocabulary development in monolinguals versus bilinguals using the Communicative
Development Inventories (CDI).
Authors NLanguages Age Findings
Bi Mono (months) Expressive vocabulary Receptive vocabulary
Word Concept Word Concept
Bosch & Ramon-Casas (2014) 24 24 Spanish–Catalan 18 B > M B = M – –
Brito etal. (2014) 18 18 Various 24 B = M – – –
Core etal. (2013); Hoff etal.
(2012)
47 56 English–Spanish 22
25
30
B = M
B = M
B = M
B = M
B = M
B < M
– –
Cote & Bornstein (2014) 90 140 English–Spanish
English–Japanese
English–Korean
20 B < M
B = M
B = M
– – –
De Houwer etal. (2014) 31 30 Dutch–French 13
20
B = M
B = M
–
–
B > M
–
–
–
Junker & Stockman (2002) 10 20 English–German 24–27 B > M
English monolinguals
B = M
German monolinguals
B = M
English monolinguals
B = M
German monolinguals
– –
Pearson etal. (1993) 24 33 English–Spanish 14–30 B = M B = M B = M B = M
Silvén etal. (2014) 28 26 Finnish–Russian 14, 18, 24,
36
B > M – – –
Thordardottir etal. (2006) 8 20 English–French 20–36 B = M B < M
English monolinguals
B = M
French monolinguals
– –
Current Study 416 337 English–French 8–33 B > M B < M B > M B = M
Byers-Heinlein et al. 79
European descent (48%), followed by Other (12%) and Multiple Ethnicities (10%).
Sixteen percent of parents did not report their child’s ethnic background. Other ethnic
groups each made up 5% or less of the sample.
Families lived in Montréal, Québec, a multicultural Canadian city where English and
French are regularly used in everyday life and are both held in high regard (Kircher,
2014). While French is the official language provincially, French and English have offi-
cial status federally. Public schooling is available in both languages, and 46% of indi-
viduals living in Québec identify as French–English bilinguals (Statistics Canada, 2022).
These attributes are ideal for comparison of the two groups, as they avoid confounds
often present in studies that compare monolingual and bilingual samples that differ in the
proportion of immigrants, socioeconomic status, social prestige, and official status of the
two languages (e.g. Cattani et al., 2014; Floccia et al., 2018; Hoff et al., 2014). Parental
education was used as a proxy for socioeconomic status; maternal education was reported
for 98.5% of participant visits, paternal education was reported in a further 0.3% of vis-
its, and parental education was not reported for 1.2% of visits. Overall, parental educa-
tion was high, with an average of 16.7 years for parents of monolinguals and 16.9 years
for parents of bilinguals. All parents with the exception of four mothers of monolinguals
and 10 mothers of bilinguals reported at least some post-secondary education.
Language background assessment
Children’s language background was gathered through a comprehensive interview and
defined based on lifetime exposure to different languages, as assessed by the Language
Exposure Questionnaire (Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés, 2001) using the Multilingual
Approach for Parent Language Estimates (Byers-Heinlein et al., 2019), which has good
reliability for this population (r = .88; Orena et al., 2019). Monolingual children were
exposed to either English or French 90% of the time or more. Following prior research (e.g.
Byers-Heinlein & Werker, 2009), bilingual children were exposed to both English and
French 25%–75% of the time, with no more than 10% exposure to a third language.
Language exposure was assessed at each lab visit. Children were classified as monolingual
at 437 lab visits and bilingual at 510 lab visits. Ten children who participated at multiple
ages experienced differences in their language exposure between visits great enough to
switch their language background category from monolingual to bilingual or vice versa.
A child’s dominant language was deemed to be the language the child had greater
exposure to (or for most monolinguals, exclusive exposure to). For children with per-
fectly balanced exposure (50% of exposure to each language), the dominant language
was the one in which the child was reported to produce the most words. English was the
dominant language at 523 lab visits, and French at 424 visits. For 17 children who par-
ticipated at multiple ages, the language assessed to be their dominant one switched from
English to French or vice versa between visits.
Vocabulary measures
The words children knew in English and/or French were measured via American English
and Québec French adaptations of the MacArthur-Bates CDI (Fenson et al., 2007;
80 First Language 44(1)
Trudeau et al., 1999), using the Words and Gestures form for children aged 8–16 months
(which measures both receptive and expressive vocabulary; 396 items in English, 414
items in French) and the Words and Sentences form for children aged 17–33 months
(which measures expressive vocabulary only; 680 items in English, 664 items in French).
CDIs were administered at each lab visit. Parents completed the CDI either on paper
or on a tablet computer. We asked that the caregiver who was most familiar with the
child’s vocabulary in the specific language being evaluated complete the questionnaire.
Each completion of a specific CDI form (i.e. in English or French) at a specific age was
considered one administration. CDI administrations for monolingual children were filled
out mainly by mothers (59%), fathers (4%), or both parents (1%); the respondent was not
indicated for 36% of administrations. CDI administrations for bilingual children were
completed by mothers (63%), fathers (7%), both parents (4%), or other family members
(< 1%; e.g. grandmother); the respondent was not indicated for 25% of administrations.
We note that among French–English bilingual families in Montreal, the most common
family language strategy is where both parents use both languages with their child
(Sander-Montant et al., 2023), and moreover Canadian mothers spend more time car-
egiving than Canadian fathers (Houle et al., 2017). These factors likely explain why
mothers were most often judged by families to be the best person to complete the CDI in
both languages.
The analyzed dataset consisted of 1338 CDI administrations (n = 647 Words and
Gestures administrations; n = 691 Words and Sentences administrations). We retained the
data from all administrations wherever possible, as our statistical models were able to
account for dependencies in the data for children who contributed data at multiple ages
and children whose language group or language dominance switched between lab visits,
and because the additional data increased statistical power and reliability.
For monolinguals, there were a total of 510 administrations: 277 administrations in
English-learning children (nchildren = 217) and 233 administrations in French-learning
children (nchildren = 199). For bilinguals, there were a total of 828 administrations: 472
administrations in English-dominant children (nchildren = 196) and 356 administrations in
French-dominant children (nchildren = 157). The proportion of administrations where
English was the native/dominant language was similar across monolinguals (54%) and
bilinguals (57%). In cases where bilingual children had missing data in one of the CDI
questionnaires (n = 46, 11 cases missing data in the dominant language, 35 cases missing
data in the non-dominant language), data were excluded for analyses that required the
combination of both questionnaires (e.g. concept vocabulary, word vocabulary), but
were included in analyses that focused on one language (e.g. dominant language, non-
dominant language).
Monolinguals’ vocabulary scores were determined by tallying the number of words
children produced and (when available) understood in their single native language. For
bilinguals, four different scores were calculated for expressive and (when available)
receptive vocabulary. Dominant and non-dominant language vocabulary were calculated
by tallying the number of words bilinguals knew in either English or French, depending
on the child’s dominant and non-dominant languages. Word vocabulary counted the
words bilinguals knew in both languages (English + French). Concept vocabulary
counted the concepts for which bilinguals produced or (when available) understood a
Byers-Heinlein et al. 81
word. To do so, it was necessary to identify words across the two languages that refer to
the same concept (i.e. translation equivalents; a full list of these pairs is available at
https://osf.io/78hua and methodological details are reported in Tsui et al., 2022), then
subtracting these from bilinguals’ word vocabulary.
Results
Data were analyzed using R Version 4.1.3 (R Core Team, 2022). Analysis scripts and the
full dataset are available at https://osf.io/78hua .
Analytic approach
We conducted a series of regression models investigating how bilinguals compared with
monolinguals in receptive and expressive vocabulary – with age as an additional predic-
tor – across four ways of measuring bilinguals’ vocabulary: dominant language, non-
dominant language, concept vocabulary, and word vocabulary. In each model, the same
score was entered for monolinguals (i.e. their vocabulary size in their single native lan-
guage). Because some children contributed vocabulary data at more than one age, we
used the lmerTest package (Kuznetsova et al., 2017) to fit linear mixed-effects models
that included random intercepts for participants, accounting for repeated measures of the
same individual (Bates et al., 2015).1
Previous research has suggested that patterns of early vocabulary size across age are
quadratic (Bauer et al., 2002; Huttenlocher et al., 1991). Data visualizations and model
comparisons showed that a quadratic age term improved fit for expressive vocabulary
models (see https://osf.io/78hua), but not for receptive vocabulary models, possibly due
to the smaller age range available for receptive vocabulary. We thus included a linear age
term for all models, and a quadratic age term for expressive models only. The expressive
models were fit with orthogonal polynomials to remove collinearity of the age predic-
tors, thus, the intercept represents the number of vocabulary words at the average age in
the dataset. To ease comparing expressive and receptive models, and because an inter-
cept of 0 months would be outside our data range, we centered the age term in the recep-
tive vocabulary models at 12 months. We also included the interactions between linear
(and for expressive models, quadratic) age terms and language group, to examine whether
the effect of age on these vocabulary measures was similar for monolinguals and bilin-
guals. We present analyses for expressive vocabulary prior to those for receptive vocabu-
lary, as all children contributed expressive vocabulary data but only children 16 months
and under contributed receptive vocabulary data.
Expressive vocabulary
Figure 1 displays children’s expressive vocabulary across age, comparing monolinguals
with bilinguals measured on word, concept, dominant, and non-dominant language met-
rics. Linear and quadratic terms for age were positive and significant for all models, show-
ing that productive vocabulary size increased in an accelerating fashion (see Tables 2 and 3).
All models showed significant interactions between age term(s) and language group
82 First Language 44(1)
indicating different patterns of vocabulary size across age, but the nature and the direction
of the effect depended on bilinguals’ vocabulary measure. Bilinguals had a steeper
increase in word vocabulary size with age compared with monolinguals, as shown by the
significant positive interaction between linear age term and language group. By contrast,
when bilinguals’ concept vocabulary or dominant vocabulary was measured, monolin-
guals had a higher and more steeply increasing vocabulary, as indicated by the significant
negative interaction between the linear age term and language group. Monolinguals had
larger, more steeply increasing, and more accelerated vocabulary slopes compared with
bilinguals’ non-dominant vocabulary, as indicated by significant negative interactions
between language group and both linear and quadratic age terms.
In sum, when measured by word vocabulary, bilinguals’ expressive vocabulary devel-
opment outpaced monolinguals’, whereas when bilinguals’ vocabularies were measured
by concept, dominant, or non-dominant language vocabulary, monolinguals’ develop-
ment outpaced bilinguals’. The differences with monolinguals were largest when bilin-
guals’ vocabularies were measured in a single language (i.e. dominant and non-dominant
vocabulary).
Receptive vocabulary
Figure 2 displays monolinguals’ receptive vocabulary across age compared with bilin-
guals’ word, concept, dominant, and non-dominant language metrics. Receptive vocabu-
lary size increased with age, as indicated by the significant linear term for age across all
models (see Tables 4 and 5). For word vocabulary, the pattern for receptive vocabulary
was similar to that seen in expressive vocabulary: word vocabularies for bilinguals
increased faster than for monolinguals, as evidenced by the higher bilingual intercept and
Figure 1. A Comparison of Monolinguals’ Expressive Vocabulary Size Across Age to Bilinguals’
Vocabulary Measured Via Four Different Metrics.
Lines show group trajectories, and points show individual scores. Values above 750 have been truncated
for visualization purposes. Note that monolinguals have the same vocabulary score for word, concept,
dominant, and non-dominant vocabulary.
Byers-Heinlein et al. 83
Table 2. Expressive vocabulary – combined measures.
Predictors Word vocabulary Concept vocabulary
Estimates Std. beta Estimates CI pEstimates Std. beta Estimates CI p
Intercept 144.74 −0.04 133.56 to 155.92 <.001 144.78 0.05 135.82 to 153.74 <.001
Age (linear term) 5056.33 22.88 4764.92 to 5347.74 <.001 5059.74 26.46 4826.97 to 5292.51 <.001
Age (quadratic term) 1131.38 5.12 829.37 to 1433.40 <.001 1128.41 5.90 887.07 to 1369.76 <.001
Bilingual 20.28 0.09 3.21 to 37.36 .020 −17.82 −0.09 −31.50 to −4.13 .011
Age (linear term) × bilingual 810.61 3.67 342.56 to 1278.65 .001 −621.68 −3.25 −995.63 to −247.73 .001
Age (quadratic term) × bilingual 267.18 1.21 −197.50 to 731.87 .259 −133.17 −0.70 −504.36 to 238.02 .482
Marginal R2/conditional R2.702/.826 .743/.853
CI: confidence interval.
84 First Language 44(1)
Table 3. Expressive vocabulary – single-language measures.
Predictors Dominant vocabulary Non-dominant vocabulary
Estimates Std. beta Estimates CI pEstimates Std. beta Estimates CI p
Intercept 144.68 0.09 135.94 to 153.42 <.001 145.12 0.25 136.94 to 153.31 <.001
Age (linear term) 5067.86 27.34 4836.73 to 5299.00 <.001 5067.66 29.61 4851.03 to 5284.29 <.001
Age (quadratic term) 1127.43 6.08 888.28 to 1366.57 <.001 1125.85 6.58 901.75 to 1349.96 <.001
Bilingual −35.10 −0.19 −48.46 to −21.74 <.001 −90.00 −0.53 −102.51 to −77.50 <.001
Age (linear term) × bilingual −1188.08 −6.41 −1558.95 to −817.21 <.001 −3101.00 −18.12 −3448.56 to −2753.43 <.001
Age (quadratic term) × bilingual −169.92 −0.92 −538.41 to 198.57 0.366 −660.98 −3.86 −1006.33 to −315.62 <.001
Marginal R2/conditional R2.737/.834 .731/.829
CI: confidence interval.
Byers-Heinlein et al. 85
significant positive interaction between language group and age. For bilinguals’ concept
vocabulary, however, there were no statistical differences in vocabulary size across age
compared with monolinguals. Monolinguals had slightly larger vocabularies when bilin-
guals’ dominant language vocabulary was measured, although the change in vocabulary
size across age was similar for both language groups, indicated by the positive baseline
age term and its non-significant interaction with language group. Monolinguals again
had steeper changes in vocabulary size across age when bilinguals’ non-dominant vocab-
ulary was measured, as shown by the positive age term and its negative significant inter-
action with language group.
To summarize, when measured by combined vocabulary metrics – word vocabulary
or concept vocabulary – bilinguals had receptive vocabularies either larger than or simi-
lar to monolinguals’ vocabularies, depending on the bilingual measure. For single-lan-
guage vocabulary, whether bilinguals were measured in the dominant or non-dominant
language, monolinguals had larger vocabularies, but the differences were less pro-
nounced than for expressive vocabulary.
Discussion
Monolingual and bilingual children face different tasks in building vocabularies, as only
bilinguals must learn words from two different languages. We examined how monolingual
and bilingual language experience impacts vocabulary development across age. In a
large sample of 1338 CDI administrations for 743 children learning French and/or
English, we compared monolingual and bilingual children’s expressive (8–33-month-
olds) and receptive (the subset of children who were 8–16 months old) vocabulary sizes.
The size of our sample gave us the statistical power to detect effects that might have been
missed in previous studies.
Figure 2. A Comparison of Monolinguals’ Receptive Vocabulary Size Across Age to Bilinguals’
Vocabulary Measured Via Four Different Vocabulary Metrics.
Lines show group trajectories, and points show individual scores. Values above 400 have been truncated
for visualization purposes. Note that monolinguals have the same vocabulary score for word, concept,
dominant and non-dominant vocabulary.
86 First Language 44(1)
Table 4. Receptive vocabulary – combined measures.
Predictors Word vocabulary Concept vocabulary
Estimates Std. beta Estimates CI pEstimates Std. beta Estimates CI p
Intercept 92.97 −0.18 82.68 to 103.27 <.001 92.57 −0.07 83.97 to 101.17 <.001
Age 17.32 0.38 13.06 to 21.58 <.001 17.80 0.48 14.43 to 21.16 <.001
Bilingual 44.07 0.46 26.93 to 61.22 <.001 11.39 0.14 −2.91 to 25.70 .118
Age × bilingual 8.54 0.19 1.30 to 15.78 .021 1.16 0.03 −4.57 to 6.89 .690
Marginal R2/conditional R2.260/.549 .243/.655
CI: confidence interval.
Byers-Heinlein et al. 87
Table 5. Receptive vocabulary – single-language measures.
Predictors Dominant vocabulary Non-dominant vocabulary
Estimates Std. Beta Estimates CI pEstimates Std. Beta Estimates CI p
Intercept 92.59 0.05 84.36 to 100.81 <.001 92.59 0.16 84.56 to 100.61 <.001
Age 17.69 0.50 14.43 to 20.95 <.001 17.69 0.51 14.51 to 20.86 <.001
Bilingual −13.79 −0.19 −27.48 to −0.10 .048 −34.94 −0.47 −48.29 to −21.58 <.001
Age × bilingual −2.58 −0.07 −8.12 to 2.96 .361 −6.35 −0.18 −11.76 to −0.94 .021
Marginal R2/conditional R2.229/.628 .247/.636
CI: confidence interval.
88 First Language 44(1)
First, we confirmed that assessing bilinguals in a single language – whether their
dominant or non-dominant – yielded a smaller vocabulary size for bilinguals relative to
monolinguals for both expressive and receptive vocabulary, replicating and extending
previous findings (Bialystok et al., 2010; Thordardottir et al., 2006). Bilinguals’ single-
language vocabularies reflect their reduced exposure to these languages compared with
monolinguals, with a larger discrepancy when bilinguals were measured in the non-dom-
inant (least-heard) compared with the dominant (most-heard) language. While single-
language measures might be appropriate for measuring some aspects of bilingual
children’s ability to communicate in monolingual situations, they do not provide an
adequate measure of their overall conceptual or vocabulary development.
Second, we found that traditional metrics combining bilinguals’ vocabularies across
the two languages also resulted in significantly different patterns of vocabulary size
across age compared with monolinguals. Word vocabulary (traditionally referred to as
total vocabulary size) – which counts all words children know regardless of whether they
know its translation equivalent – advantaged bilinguals in comparison to monolinguals.
This effect was particularly strong in receptive as compared to expressive vocabulary,
and was magnified at older ages. Concept vocabulary (traditionally referred to as total
conceptual vocabulary size) – which gives no additional credit to words for which chil-
dren know a translation equivalent – disadvantaged bilinguals in comparison to monolin-
guals, although only for expressive vocabulary. On the surface, our results appear to
differ from most previous studies undertaking monolingual–bilingual comparisons on
combined metrics, which have largely not found statistically significant differences in
word and/or concept vocabulary (expressive concept vocabulary in Bosch & Ramon-
Casas, 2014; 5 out of six comparisons in Core et al., 2013; two out of three comparisons
in De Houwer et al., 2014; three out of four comparisons in Junker & Stockman, 2002;
four out of four comparisons in Pearson et al., 1993). Nonetheless, when differences
have been reported, the pattern was the same as in the current study: bilinguals had larger
word vocabulary than monolinguals (expressive word vocabulary in Bosch & Ramon-
Casas, 2014; receptive word vocabulary at 13 months in De Houwer et al., 2014; expres-
sive word vocabulary in bilinguals compared with English monolinguals in Junker &
Stockman, 2002; Silvén et al., 2014 although see Cote & Bornstein, 2014, for a counter-
example) and monolinguals had larger concept vocabularies than bilinguals (30-month-
olds in Core et al., 2013; bilinguals compared with English monolinguals in Thordardottir
et al., 2006).
One potential explanation for these patterns is that our sample was larger by an order
of magnitude than those of previous studies (hundreds of children and over a thousand
CDI administrations vs. a few dozen at most). A lack of statistically robust monolingual–
bilingual differences in previous studies might be due to low statistical power and/or a
narrower age range than in the current study, rather than a true null effect. Moreover, our
results indicate that monolingual–bilingual differences in vocabulary size are larger for
older children, which would suggest that previous studies with younger children in par-
ticular might have lacked statistical power to detect monolingual–bilingual differences.
Our study maximized sample size and thus statistical power by combining both cross-
sectional and longitudinal observations, while controlling for dependencies in our data
using linear mixed-effect models. Furthermore, by modeling age continuously rather
Byers-Heinlein et al. 89
than comparing monolinguals and bilinguals at either a single or a small set of ages, we
were able to detect age-related effects that may not have been apparent in previous stud-
ies. Future studies with large samples that include children of different ages – both cross-
sectional and longitudinal – will be needed to confirm our results.
The findings with regard to concept and word vocabularies have implications for
understanding the nature of word learning in bilinguals, particularly regarding transla-
tion equivalents. When evaluated based on whether they yield comparable scores for
same-aged monolinguals and bilinguals, traditional combined metrics of bilingual
vocabulary implicitly assume that learning a second label for a referent is equally diffi-
cult to learning the first label (word vocabulary) or that it is essentially trivial (concept
vocabulary). Our data suggest that the truth lies in between, consistent with studies
reporting a moderate bilingual advantage for translation equivalent learning (Bilson
et al., 2015; Tsui et al., 2022). In the future, it may be possible to develop a ‘bilingual
adjusted vocabulary’ metric, whereby monolingual and bilingual vocabularies can be
equated by giving bilinguals partial credit for translation equivalents, perhaps even in a
way that changes across development.
Our study also demonstrates developmental differences in receptive versus expressive
vocabularies across monolinguals and bilinguals. For word vocabulary, bilinguals’ recep-
tive vocabulary development strongly outpaced that of monolinguals, with a much
smaller advantage seen in expressive vocabulary. For concept vocabulary, bilinguals did
not differ from monolinguals in receptive vocabulary, whereas monolinguals outpaced
bilinguals in expressive vocabulary. This pattern is consistent with the so-called recep-
tive–expressive gap in bilingual children, whereby bilinguals’ receptive language ability
often outpaces their expressive ability (Gibson et al., 2014; Giguere & Hoff, 2020, 2022;
Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Mancilla-Martinez et al., 2018). At the same time, due to the
instruments we used, our study examined receptive vocabulary across a more restricted
age range (8–16 months) than expressive vocabulary (8–33 months), which could attenu-
ate differences as our results consistently showed greater divergence between language
groups at older ages. The only monolingual–bilingual comparison that did not show
group differences was in receptive concept vocabulary, and it is possible that a difference
would have emerged at older ages. Moreover, it is also possible that parents are less
accurate in estimating receptive than expressive vocabulary (although see Ring &
Fenson, 2000). Future studies could test older children using instruments appropriate to
those ages, to see if our observed patterns hold.
The current findings are relevant for clinicians in assessing bilingual vocabulary using
the CDI (e.g. Core et al., 2013; Hoff & Core, 2015). Although bilingual norms have been
developed for specific ages and language pairs (e.g. Floccia et al., 2018), they are cur-
rently limited in their coverage of children learning different languages and of different
ages. In recent years, professional organizations and researchers have increasingly recom-
mended evaluating bilingual children in both of their languages (American Speech-
Language-Hearing Association, 2004; Bedore & Peña, 2008; Kohnert, 2010), but there
are not yet clear guidelines for how to interpret the results obtained from this assessment.
Our results confirm that using a single-language CDI for bilinguals may not yield a score
comparable to monolinguals as they only partially measure bilinguals’ knowledge, and
thus is typically inappropriate except possibly when children are strongly dominant in one
90 First Language 44(1)
language (Cattani et al., 2014; see also Vagh et al., 2009). Both word vocabulary and con-
cept vocabulary yield bilingual scores that are more similar to monolinguals’ scores,
although neither exactly equates the two groups, and on both measures the word gap
between the two groups increases with age. In practice, given the high level of individual
variability observed across both monolinguals and bilinguals, either word vocabulary or
concept vocabulary might be appropriate for the assessment of vocabulary knowledge,
with concept vocabulary being more conservative and word vocabulary being more lib-
eral. Finally, our results revealed that bilinguals strongly outpace monolinguals in early
receptive word vocabulary, thus bilinguals who show limited early comprehension when
both languages are considered might be of particular clinical concern.
Finally, we note that our study examined one particular group of bilinguals, those
learning French and English in Montréal, where both languages have high sociolinguis-
tic status. A strength of data from this population is that results are unlikely to be due to
confounding variables such as socioeconomic or immigration status. However, many
bilingual populations do differ from monolinguals on these dimensions, and it is impor-
tant to understand their development as well. Future studies will be needed to understand
the extent to which our results generalize to bilinguals growing up in other contexts, and
learning other language pairs.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to all the families who participated in this research and the research assis-
tants who assisted with data collection.
Author contributions
Krista Byers-Heinlein: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Methodology;
Supervision; Visualization; Writing-original draft; Writing-review & editing.
Ana Maria Gonzalez-Barrero: Conceptualization; Methodology; Writing-original draft;
Writing-review & editing.
Esther Schott: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Methodology; Visualization; Writing-original
draft; Writing-review & editing.
Hilary Killam: Formal analysis; Methodology; Visualization; Writing-review & editing.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This work was funded by grants from the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC 2011-402470, 2018-04390), grants from the
National Institutes of Health (NIH R03HD079779, 1R01HD095912-01A1), and a Fonds de
Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture grant (FQRSC 2012-NP-145009) to Byers-Heinlein, by
a FQRSC (2018-B3-205717) postdoctoral fellowship to Gonzalez-Barrero, and by a FQRSC grad-
uate fellowship and Concordia University graduate fellowship to Schott. Krista Byers-Heinlein
holds the Concordia University Research Chair in Bilingualism.
Byers-Heinlein et al. 91
ORCID iD
Krista Byers-Heinlein https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7040-2510
Data availability statement
Analysis scripts and the full data set are available at https://osf.io/78hua/, doi: 10.17605/OSF.
IO/78HUA
Note
1. Around one quarter of participants provided data at multiple time points, and to maximize
statistical power, our main analyses included all data by using linear mixed-effects regres-
sion models with a random effect of participant to account for repeated measures. To check
whether the inclusion of longitudinal data affected our conclusions, we ran analogous linear
models with the same predictors, including only data from children’s first lab participation,
such that the data were purely cross-sectional. For combined-measure models (both expres-
sive and receptive) the direction, magnitude, and significance for all predictors was very
similar to the full dataset. For single-measure models, all predictors were similar in direction
and magnitude, although some p-values fell below significance, likely due to the reduced
sample size. Overall, these analyses indicate that our inclusion of both cross-sectional and
longitudinal data in the main analyses did not drive our results.
References
Altman, C., Goldstein, T., & Armon-Lotem, S. (2018). Vocabulary, metalinguistic awareness and
language dominance among bilingual preschool children. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article
1953. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01953
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Preferred practice patterns for the pro-
fession of speech-language pathology [Preferred practice patterns]. https://doi.org/10.1044/
policy.PP2004-00191
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using
lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bauer, D. J., Goldfield, B. A., & Reznick, J. S. (2002). Alternative approaches to analyzing indi-
vidual differences in the rate of early vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics,
23(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716402003016
Bedore, L. M., & Peña, E. D. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of lan-
guage impairment: Current findings and implications for practice. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb392.0
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F., & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in
monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 525–531.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990423
Bilson, S., Yoshida, H., Tran, C. D., Woods, E. A., & Hills, T. T. (2015). Semantic facilitation
in bilingual first language acquisition. Cognition, 140, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cognition.2015.03.013
Bosch, L., & Ramon-Casas, M. (2014). First translation equivalents in bilingual toddlers’
expressive vocabulary: Does form similarity matter? International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 38(4), 317–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414532559
Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). Evidence of early language discrimination abili-
ties in infants from bilingual environments. Infancy, 2(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327078IN0201_3
92 First Language 44(1)
Brito, N. H., Grenell, A., & Barr, R. (2014). Specificity of the bilingual advantage for memory:
Examining cued recall, generalization, and working memory in monolingual, bilingual, and tri-
lingual toddlers. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01369
Byers-Heinlein, K., Schott, E., Gonzalez-Barrero, A. M., Brouillard, M., Dubé, D., Jardak, A.,
Laoun-Rubenstein, A., Mastroberardino, M., Morin-Lessard, E., Pour Iliaei, A., Salama-
Siroishka, N., & Tamayo, M. P. (2019). MAPLE: A Multilingual Approach to Parent
Language Estimates. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(5), 951–957. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1366728919000282
Byers-Heinlein, K., & Werker, J. F. (2009). Monolingual, bilingual, trilingual: Infants’ language
experience influences the development of a word-learning heuristic. Developmental Science,
12(5), 815–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00902.x
Cattani, A., Abbot-Smith, K., Farag, R., Krott, A., Arreckx, F., Dennis, I., & Floccia, C. (2014). How
much exposure to English is necessary for a bilingual toddler to perform like a monolingual peer
in language tests? Language exposure and bilingual screening. International Journal of Language
& Communication Disorders, 49(6), 649–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12082
Core, C., Hoff, E., Rumiche, R., & Señor, M. (2013). Total and conceptual vocabulary in
Spanish–English bilinguals from 22 to 30 months: Implications for assessment. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(5), 1637–1649. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-
4388(2013/11-0044)
Cote, L. R., & Bornstein, M. H. (2014). Productive vocabulary among three groups of bilingual
American children: Comparison and prediction. First Language, 34(6), 467–485. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0142723714560178
De Houwer, A. (2011). Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisi-
tion. Applied Linguistics Review, 2(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.221
De Houwer, A., Bornstein, M. H., & Putnick, D. L. (2014). A bilingual–monolingual comparison
of young children’s vocabulary size: Evidence from comprehension and production. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 35(6), 1189–1211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000744
Duff, F. J., Reen, G., Plunkett, K., & Nation, K. (2015). Do infant vocabulary skills predict school-
age language and literacy outcomes? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(8),
848–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12378
Fenson, L., Marchman, V. A., Thal, D., Dale, P. S., & Bates, E. (2007). MacArthur – Bates
Communicative Development Inventories (CDIs) (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.
Floccia, C., Sambrook, T. D., Delle Luche, C., Kwok, R., Goslin, J., White, L., Cattani, A.,
Sullivan, E., Abbot-Smith, K., Krott, A., Mills, D., Rowland, C., Gervain, J., & Plunkett, K.
(2018). Vocabulary of 2-year-olds learning English and an additional language: Norms and
effects of linguistic distance. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
83(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12348
Gampe, A., Kurthen, I., & Daum, M. M. (2018). BILEX: A new tool measuring bilingual chil-
dren’s lexicons and translational equivalents. First Language, 38(3), 263–283. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0142723717736450
Gibson, T. A., Peña, E. D., & Bedore, L. M. (2014). The receptive–expressive gap in bilingual chil-
dren with and without primary language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 23(4), 655–667. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_AJSLP-12-0119
Giguere, D., & Hoff, E. (2020). Home language and societal language skills in second-genera-
tion bilingual adults. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24(5–6), 1071–1087. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1367006920932221
Giguere, D., & Hoff, E. (2022). Bilingual development in the receptive and expressive domains:
They differ. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(10), 3849–
3858. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2022.2087039
Byers-Heinlein et al. 93
Hoff, E., & Core, C. (2015). What clinicians need to know about bilingual development. Seminars
in Speech and Language, 36(02), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1549104
Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Señor, M., & Parra, M. (2012). Dual language expo-
sure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 39(1), 1–27. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0305000910000759
Hoff, E., & Ribot, K. M. (2017). Language growth in English monolingual and Spanish-English
bilingual children from 2.5 to 5 years. The Journal of Pediatrics, 190, 241–245. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.06.071
Hoff, E., Rumiche, R., Burridge, A., Ribot, K. M., & Welsh, S. N. (2014). Expressive vocabu-
lary development in children from bilingual and monolingual homes: A longitudinal study
from two to four years. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 433–444. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.012
Houle, P., Turcotte, M., & Wendt, M. (2017). Changes in parents’ participation in domestic tasks
and care for children from 1986 to 2015. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-
652-x2017001-eng.htm
Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth:
Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 236–248. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.2.236
Junker, D. A., & Stockman, I. J. (2002). Expressive vocabulary of German-English bilingual
toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(4), 381–394. https://doi.
org/10.1044/1058-0360(2002/042)
Kan, P. F., & Kohnert, K. (2005). Preschoolers learning Hmong and English: Lexical-semantic
skills in L1 and L2. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 48(2), 372–383.
https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/026)
Kircher, R. (2014). Thirty years after Bill 101: A contemporary perspective on attitudes towards
English and French in Montreal. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue Canadienne
de Linguistique Appliquée, 17(1), 20–50. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/
view/21582
Kohnert, K. (2010). Bilingual children with primary language impairment: Issues, evidence and
implications for clinical actions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43(6), 456–473.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.02.002
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests
in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.
org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Luk, G. (2017). Bilingualism. In B. Hopkins, E. Geangu, & S. Linkenauger (Eds.), The Cambridge
Encyclopedia of child development (2nd ed., pp. 385–391). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316216491.062
Mancilla-Martinez, J., Greenfader, C. M., & Ochoa, W. (2018). Spanish-speaking preschoolers’
conceptual vocabulary knowledge: Towards more comprehensive assessment. HS Dialog:
The Research to Practice Journal for the Early Childhood Field, 21(1), Article 1. https://
journals.charlotte.edu/dialog/article/view/751
Marchman, V. A., & Fernald, A. (2008). Speed of word recognition and vocabulary knowledge in
infancy predict cognitive and language outcomes in later childhood. Developmental Science,
11(3), F9–F16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00671.x
Montanari, S. (2010). Translation equivalents and the emergence of multiple lexicons in early trilin-
gual development. First Language, 30(1), 102–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723709350528
Orena, A. J., Byers-Heinlein, K., & Polka, L. (2019). Reliability of the Language Environment
Analysis (LENA) in French–English bilingual speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 62(7), 2491–2500. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_jslhr-l-18-0342
94 First Language 44(1)
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants
and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43(1), 93–120. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00174.x
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1995). Cross-language synonyms in the lexi-
cons of bilingual infants: One language or two? Journal of Child Language, 22(2), 345–368.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s030500090000982x
Petitto, L. A., Katerelos, M., Levy, B. G., Gauna, K., Tétreault, K., & Ferraro, V. (2001). Bilingual
signed and spoken language acquisition from birth: Implications for the mechanisms under-
lying early bilingual language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 28(02), 453–496.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000901004718
Prevoo, M. J. L., Malda, M., Mesman, J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2016). Within- and cross-lan-
guage relations between oral language proficiency and school outcomes in bilingual children
with an immigrant background: A meta-analytical study. Review of Educational Research,
86(1), 237–276. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315584685
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Ring, E. D., & Fenson, L. (2000). The correspondence between parent report and child perfor-
mance for receptive and expressive vocabulary beyond infancy. First Language, 20(59),
141–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/014272370002005902
Sander-Montant, A., Bissonnette, R., & Byers-Heinlein, K. (2023, September). Like mother like
child: Differential impact of mothers’ and fathers’ individual language use on bilingual lan-
guage exposure. [pre-print]. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/uv3tw
Schott, E., Kremin, L. V., & Byers-Heinlein, K. (2022). The youngest bilingual Canadians:
Insights from the 2016 census regarding children aged 0–9 years. Canadian Public Policy,
48(2), 254–266.
Silvén, M., Voeten, M., Kouvo, A., & Lundén, M. (2014). Speech perception and vocabulary
growth: A longitudinal study of Finnish-Russian bilinguals and Finnish monolinguals from
infancy to three years. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(4), 323–332.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414533748
Statistics Canada. (2022). While English and French are still the main languages spoken in
Canada, the country’s linguistic diversity continues to grow (No. 11-001-X). Statistics
Canada.
Thordardottir, E. (2011). The relationship between bilingual exposure and vocabu-
lary development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(4), 426–445. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1367006911403202
Thordardottir, E., Rothenberg, A., Rivard, M.-E., & Naves, R. (2006). Bilingual assessment: Can overall
proficiency be estimated from separate measurement of two languages? Journal of Multilingual
Communication Disorders, 4(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14769670500215647
Trudeau, N., Frank, I., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (1999). Une adaptation en français québecois du
MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory [A Quebec French adaptation of the
MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory]. Revue d’orthophonie et d’audiologie,
23, 31–73.
Tsui, R. K., Gonzalez-Barerro, A. M., Schott, E., & Byers-Heinlein, K. (2022). Are translation
equivalents special? Evidence from simulations and empirical data from bilingual infants.
Cognition, 225, 105084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105084
Uccelli, P., & Páez, M. M. (2007). Narrative and vocabulary development of bilingual children
from kindergarten to first grade: Developmental changes and associations among English and
Spanish skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(3), 225–236. https://
doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2007/024)
Byers-Heinlein et al. 95
Unsworth, S. (2016). Quantity and quality of language input in bilingual language development.
In E. Nicoladis & S. Montanari (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Factors moderat-
ing language proficiency (pp. 103–121). American Psychological Association. https://doi.
org/10.1037/14939-007
Vagh, S. B., Pan, B. A., & Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2009). Measuring growth in bilingual and mono-
lingual children’s English productive vocabulary development: The utility of combining
parent and teacher report. Child Development, 80(5), 1545–1563. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8624.2009.01350.x
Volterra, V., & Taeschner, T. (1978). The acquisition and development of language by bilin-
gual children. Journal of Child Language, 5(2), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500
0900007492
Weisleder, A., Friend, M., Tsui, A., & Marchman, V. A. (2022). Using parent report to measure
vocabulary in young bilingual children: A scoping review [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.
org/10.31234/osf.io/un6yr
