Top 12 Errors in Speech-Language Reports for Bilingual Students

We have the privilege of writing, seeing, and proofing many reports throughout the year because of the number of districts we serve and community members who have reached out to us for help. I say “privilege” because it is truly impressive to see the hard work that SLPs put in on a daily basis reflecting their knowledge on a staggering number of disorder types. The writing skills and experience needed to pull this off creates really beautiful text.

That being said, SLPs are still reaching out for suggestions and help. In classrooms across the United States, speech-language pathologists are serving more bilingual students than ever before. This growing diversity is a wonderful reflection of our communities but it means more testing and more complex cases. One of the biggest challenges? Making sure that the home language influences aren’t being misinterpreted as patterns of disorder.

So, we want to provide a quick hit-list of the most common feedback we give on reports you are writing on bilingual students, along with explanations and examples to guide more accurate, culturally-responsive reporting.

1. Article Errors: When the Native Language Has No Articles

A common reporting mistake is flagging article omissions (“I want apple”) as signs of a language disorder. English relies on articles (“a,” “an,” “the”), but many languages don’t.

For example:

• Mandarin, Japanese, Korean, and Russian do not use articles.
• Vietnamese uses classifiers instead.
• Spanish uses articles but in different contexts.

A child who says “She is teacher” or “I want apple” may be demonstrating first language influence, not disordered grammar.

✅ Correct report phrasing:

“Article omission (‘I want apple’) is consistent with transfer from a language that does not use articles. This is a typical second language pattern.”

❌ Incorrect report phrasing:

“Frequent omission of articles indicates weak grammar development.”

2. Pronouns: When a Language Doesn’t Use Pronouns or Requires Them Differently

Many languages either omit pronouns or use them flexibly.

• Korean and Japanese typically forego pronouns when the subject is clear.
• Spanish and Italian are pro-drop languages (the verb form signals the subject).
• Mandarin uses one spoken form “tā” for he/she/it.

A Korean-English learner who says “Is raining” instead of “It is raining” is not showing a disorder, they are following Korean syntax rules.

✅ Accurate report phrasing:

“Pronoun omission (‘Is raining’) aligns with Korean syntax and is typical for Korean-English bilingual speakers.”

❌ Inaccurate report phrasing:

“Child omits pronouns, suggesting difficulty forming complete sentences.”

3. Word Order: When Sentence Structure Differs Across Languages

Word order varies widely across languages.

• English: Subject–Verb–Object (SVO)
• Korean/Japanese: Subject–Object–Verb (SOV)
• Arabic: Verb–Subject–Object (VSO)

A bilingual student of a SOV language who says “I cake eat” is following their home language structure.

✅ Correct report phrasing:

“The child’s sentence structure reflects transfer from an SOV language pattern. This is a common and expected bilingual feature.”

❌ Incorrect report phrasing:

“The child demonstrates disorganized syntax.”

4. Final Consonant Omission: When the First Language Doesn’t Allow Final Consonants

Final consonant omission (“ca” for “cat”) is often flagged as a phonological disorder, but for many children it’s a predictable language influence.

Languages like Japanese and Hawaiian do not have many final consonants. Korean allows only a few (p, t, k, m, n, ŋ), and Vietnamese restricts final sounds.

✅ Accurate report phrasing:

“Final consonant omissions are expected for speakers of languages without final consonant contrasts and represent normal transfer.”

❌ Inaccurate report phrasing:

“Final consonant deletion indicates a phonological processing deficit.”

5. Verb Tense: When Tense Is Marked Differently (or Not at All)

Many languages express time differently from English and may not even conjugate the verb.

• Mandarin, Vietnamese, Indonesian: use time words, not verb inflections.
• Russian: emphasizes aspect (completed vs. ongoing).
• Spanish: marks tense richly but not always aligned with English use.

So “Yesterday I go to park” or “He eat lunch already” reflects transfer, not disorder.

✅ Correct report phrasing:

“Omission of past tense markers is typical for learners whose first language does not use verb inflections for tense.”

❌ Incorrect report phrasing:

“Inconsistent tense use suggests morphosyntactic weakness.”

6. Plural Marking: When Plurality Is Optional or Marked Differently

In English, we say “dogs,” but in many languages, plurality is indicated by context, not morphology.

• Mandarin, Vietnamese, and Japanese rarely use plural suffixes.
• Spanish and French mark plurality on both articles and nouns.

If a bilingual student says “two dog,” it may be an expected pattern.

✅ Correct report phrasing:

“Omission of plural ‘-s’ is consistent with transfer from a language where plurality is expressed contextually.”

7. Subject–Verb Agreement

English requires verbs to agree with subjects (“He runs”). Many languages don’t mark agreement at all. Mandarin, Vietnamese, and Thai verbs remain unchanged. So, “He go to school” may reflect normal second language development.

✅ Correct report phrasing:

“Lack of subject–verb agreement is a predictable influence from a language without verb agreement morphology.”

8. Copula and Auxiliary Verbs

Languages like Russian, Arabic, and Mandarin often omit the copula (“to be”) in present tense sentences. A bilingual child saying “She happy” may not have syntax issues depending on their home language.

✅ Correct report phrasing:

“Copula omission is a typical influence from languages that do not require the linking verb ‘to be’ in present tense.”

9. Overgeneralization of English Morphology

Bilingual children, like young monolinguals, may overgeneralize newly learned rules.

• “He goed home.”
• “Two mouses.”

These are signs of rule learning, not impairment.

✅ Correct report phrasing:

“Morphological overgeneralization (‘goed’) reflects active rule application typical of English language learners.”

10. Vocabulary and Conceptual Scoring

A bilingual child may know “perro,” but not “dog.” If a test only credits English responses, the child’s abilities appear weaker than they are.

Best practice: use conceptual scoring which credits correct answers in either language to reflect the child’s total knowledge base (Peña, 2007).

✅ Correct report phrasing:

“When conceptual scoring is applied across both languages, the student’s expressive vocabulary is age-appropriate.”

11. Limited English Exposure Misinterpreted as Delay

A child recently exposed to English will naturally produce shorter utterances or omit inflections. This is the normal silent period and early stage of second language acquisition (Tabors, 2008).

Reports should specify:

• Age of first English exposure
• Duration and context of English use
• Percentage of exposure and use to each of their languages

Without this, “delay” may be incorrectly attributed to a disorder.

12. Cultural and Pragmatic Differences Misinterpreted as Social Deficits

Behaviors like avoiding eye contact, pausing before responding, or indirect answering may be cultural norms, not pragmatic weaknesses.

✅ Correct report phrasing:

“The student’s communication style (e.g., reduced eye contact) aligns with cultural norms and does not indicate a social communication disorder.”

Putting It All Together: Principles for Accurate Reporting

To ensure equity and accuracy, speech-language reports for bilingual students should:

1. Identify all languages spoken, order of acquisition, and current levels of exposure and use of each language.
2. Describe language behavior across both languages, not just English.
3. Explain errors through linguistic transfer rather than deficit.
4. Use conceptual scoring where appropriate.
5. Avoid deficit-based language in favor of descriptive, explanatory wording.
6. Include cultural context when interpreting pragmatic or social communication skills.

By following these principles, SLPs write reports that reflect the whole child and not just their English performance. We’ve made this job easier for you with our book, Difference or disorder? Understanding speech and language patterns in culturally and linguistically diverse students and the new World Language Library.

References

• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2023). Code of Ethics. ASHA.
• Bedore, L. M., & Peña, E. D. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1), 1–29.
• Goldstein, B. A. (Ed.). (2012). Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.
• Kester, E. (2014). Difference or disorder? Understanding speech and language patterns in culturally and linguistically diverse students. Bilinguistics.
• Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. (2021). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning (3rd ed.). Brookes Publishing.
• Peña, E. D. (2007). Lost in translation: Methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Development, 78(4), 1255–1264.
• Tabors, P. O. (2008). One child, two languages: A guide for early childhood educators of children learning English as a second language (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.
• Thordardottir, E. (2015). The relationship between bilingual exposure and morphosyntactic development. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(2), 97–114.