{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01806083650190114, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006653992395437262, 'mean_word_length': 5.75, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluating maturational parallels in second language children and children with specific language impairment

In her Keynote Article in this issue, Paradis explores the nature of bilingual language acquisition by examining the question of possible similarities between children learning a second language (L2) and children with specific language impairment (SLI) who are monolingual or bilingual. She evaluates the maturation model of Rice (2004), the extended optional infinitive (EOI) model, that focuses on children's acquisition of finiteness marking during the early childhood period. Paradis alludes to the issue of how to deal with the nonparallels between chronological age and acquisition in the comparison of L2 and SLI language acquisition within maturational models. I explore that issue further in this Commentary, using the available growth templates drawn from the work on English-speaking typically developing children and children with SLI for projected possible growth trajectories for bilingual and L2 children, with and without SLI.