Adults and children learning a second language show difficulty accessing expressive vocabulary that appears accessible receptively in their first language (L1). We call this discrepancy the receptive-expressive gap. Kindergarten Spanish (L1) -English (L2) sequential bilinguals were given standardized tests of receptive and expressive vocabulary in both Spanish and English. We found a small receptive-expressive gap in English but a large receptive-expressive gap in Spanish. We categorized children as having had high or low levels of English exposure based on demographic variables and found that the receptive-expressive gap persisted across both levels of English exposure. Regression analyses revealed that variables predicting both receptive and expressive vocabulary scores failed to predict the receptive-expressive gap. The results suggest that the onset of the receptive-expressive gap in L1 must have been abrupt. We discuss possible mechanisms underlying the phenomenon.Research to be reviewed here shows that learners immersed in a second language (L2) score higher on tests of receptive vocabulary than expressive vocabulary in their first language (L1). Even after controlling for the difference in difficulty between receptive and expressive vocabulary testing tasks, children appeared to have problems accessing their L1 expressive vocabulary. We term this systematically uneven relationship between receptive and expressive vocabulary the receptive-expressive gap.The receptive-expressive gap in bilinguals' L1 is thus counterintuitive and warrants further investigation to assess factors that may influence its occurrence. A first step is a characterization of the phenomenon's robustness, the strong tendency for the receptiveexpressive gap to persist across most children even after having been immersed in L2 for a relatively short period. The current work also considers speculations about causes of the receptive-expressive gap. Few researchers have focused on the receptive-expressive gap explicitly, but embedded in a variety of studies is evidence that this phenomenon is present across languages. Within this literature the evidence of a receptive-expressive gap pertains to children who start school or preschool with L1 skills only, and begin L2 learning in kindergarten (K) or preschool. We will begin with a review of relevant literature.

The purpose of the current study was to explore the influence of language experience on the presence of the receptive-expressive gap. Each of 778 Spanish-English bilingual children screened pre-kindergarten in Utah and Texas were assigned to one of five language experience groups, ranging from functionally monolingual to balanced bilingual. Children’s scores from the language screener semantics subtest administered in both Spanish and English were standardized, and receptive and expressive semantic scores were compared. Children presented with a meaningful gap between receptive and expressive semantic knowledge in English but not Spanish. This gap increased as target-language exposure decreased. Results indicate that current language experience plays a dominant role in influencing the appearance and magnitude of the receptive-expressive gap.

Purpose: In this study, the authors examined the magnitude of the discrepancy between standardized measures of receptive and expressive semantic knowledge, known as a receptive-expressive gap, for bilingual children with and without primary language impairment (PLI). Method: Spanish and English measures of semantic knowledge were administered to 37 Spanish-English bilingual 7-to 10-year old children with PLI and to 37 Spanish-English bilingual peers with typical development (TD). Parents and teachers completed questionnaires that yielded day-by-day and hour-by-hour information regarding children's exposure to and use of Spanish and English. Results: Children with PLI had significantly larger discrepancies between receptive and expressive semantics standard scores than their bilingual peers with TD. The receptive-expressive gap for children with PLI was predicted by current English experience, whereas the best predictor for children with TD was cumulative English experience. Conclusions: As a preliminary explanation, underspecified phonological representations due to bilingual children's divided language input as well as differences in their languages' phonological systems may result in a discrepancy between standardized measures of receptive and expressive semantic knowledge. This discrepancy is greater for bilingual children with PLI because of the additional difficulty these children have in processing phonetic information. Future research is required to understand these underlying processes.A receptive-expressive gap, in which individuals' receptive standard scores are significantly higher than expressive standard scores, appears to be a common feature both of typical bilingual vocabulary development (Gibson, Oller, Jarmulowicz, & Ethington, 2012;Kan & Kohnert, 2005;Miccio, Tabors, Páez, Hammer, & Wagstaff, 2003;Muñoz & Marquardt, 2003;Oller & Eilers, 2002;Yan & Nicoladis, 2009) and primary language impairment (PLI; Dollaghan, 1987;. Clinicians, therefore, may have difficulty determining whether the presence of a receptiveexpressive gap in bilingual children is due to PLI or due to learning more than one language. Motivated by theoretical and clinical considerations, we compared the receptiveexpressive gap in bilingual children with and without language impairment. Theories of PLI must be able to account for both the monolingual and bilingual circumstance, and the receptive-expressive gap in bilingual children with PLI provides a unique test of the predictions made by current theory. Clinically, an understanding of the processes underlying the receptive-expressive gap in bilingual children with and without PLI should inform practitioners' decision making when discriminating language differences from language disorders in bilingual children. As a first step toward understanding the gap between receptive and expressive language, we review the differing developmental trajectories and processing demands of these modalities.

Receptive standardized vocabulary scores have been found to be much higher than expressive standardized vocabulary scores in children with Spanish as L1, learning L2 (English) in school (Gibson et al., 2012). Here we present evidence suggesting the receptive-expressive gap may be harder to evaluate than previously thought because widely-used standardized tests may not offer comparable normed scores. Furthermore monolingual Spanish-speaking children tested in Mexico and monolingual English-speaking children in the US showed other, yet different statistically significant discrepancies between receptive and expressive scores. Results suggest comparisons across widely used standardized tests in attempts to assess a receptive-expressive gap are precarious.

No abstract