Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40302387›Full record

ArticleLanguage and speech2026

Bilingual Acquisition of Morphology: Norwegian and Russian Influence on Children's Sentence Repetition in Estonian.

Adele Vaks, Virve-Anneli Vihman

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Language and speech, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Adele VaksInstitute of Estonian and General Linguistics, University of Tartu, Estonia.ORCID 0009-0003-3278-3521
Virve-Anneli VihmanInstitute of Estonian and General Linguistics, University of Tartu, Estonia.ORCID 0000-0002-0874-1730

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we investigate whether two structurally distinct languages, Norwegian and Russian, influence the use of Estonian morphosyntax by bilingual 5 to 7-year-olds. Using a sentence-repetition task, we tested the acquisition and use of Estonian morphosyntax by children acquiring Estonian alongside Norwegian and Russian, which differ in their use of morphological marking. We tested 69 children aged 4;9 to 7;10 (24 Estonian-Norwegian and 24 Russian-Estonian bilinguals, 21 Estonian monolinguals), using three sentence structures that vary across the languages (copula clauses, experiencer clauses, and complex conditional sentences). Quantitative results showed no significant differences between the bilingual groups. Both groups were at ceiling for copula clauses, but they performed in opposite directions with the other two structures, suggesting possible effects of the other language. An error analysis revealed small differences in children's use of experiencer and conditional constructions. Contrary to expectations, Norwegian-speaking bilinguals did not produce more errors of omission than of commission in either sentence type. Rather, they used a wider array of cases in the experiencer clauses than Russian-speaking children. In the conditional items, both groups exhibited a tendency to use indicative past in place of conditional present, transferring the use of past forms for conditional meanings from Norwegian or Russian. Other differences are discussed in light of language structure, Estonian exposure, and study design.

Indexed as

Child LanguageLanguage DevelopmentMultilingualismChildChild, PreschoolEstoniaFemaleHumansMaleNorwayRussiaSemanticsBilingual developmentcross-linguistic influenceEstonianNorwegianRussiansentence repetition

Identifiers

PMID40302387
PMCPMC12936146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.