Exploiting Language Variation to Better Understand the Cognitive Consequences of Bilingualism

Abstract

Within the past decade, there has been an explosion of research investigating the cognitive consequences of bilingualism. However, a controversy has arisen specifically involving research claiming a “bilingual advantage” in executive function. In this brief review, we re-examine the nature of the “bilingual advantage” and suggest three themes for future research. First, there must be a theoretical account of how specific variation in language experience impacts aspects of executive function and domain general cognition. Second, efforts toward adequately characterizing the participants tested will be critical to interpreting results. Finally, designing studies that employ converging analytical approaches and sensitive methodologies will be important to advance our knowledge of the dynamics between bilingual language experience and cognition.

Bilingual Alignments

“…The storing of multiple alignments requires some level of co-activation of elements of different language components in both languages, but does not necessarily involve multiple grammars. This view is compatible with the notion that the production task requires more resources than the receptive task, even among populations considered less heterogeneous than those living in dynamic contact situations (Beatty-Martínez and Dussias 2019; De Bruin 2019; Fricke et al 2019;Takahesu Tabori et al 2018). Notice that adult immigrants continue to show evidence of access to the alignment with topicality as central to its information structure component in both tasks.…”

Early Language Environments Predict Aspects of Explicit Language Awareness Development

“…Although the importance of the quantity and quality of language input for lexical development has been well documented (e.g., Cartmill et al., ; Hart & Risley, ; Hurtado, Marchman, & Fernald, ; Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, & Lyons, ), there is still a need to understand what characteristics of the language environment—beyond direct language input—may predict language development more broadly. Moreover, there has been much discussion in recent literature in the field of bilingualism about the need to consider the multidimensionality of bilingualism in order to better understand the cognitive consequences of bilingualism (e.g., Abutalebi & Green, ; Bialystok, ; Green & Abutalebi, ; Kroll & Bialystok, ; Laine & Lehtonen, ; Luk & Bialystok, ; Surrain & Luk, ; Takahesu Tabori, Mech, & Atagi, ). For instance, there have been calls to treat bilingualism as a continuous variable (e.g., Luk & Bialystok, ), to examine the contexts of bilinguals’ language use (e.g., Abutalebi & Green, ; Green & Abutalebi, ), and more generally, to consider the diversity in language experience that exists among bilinguals (e.g., Flores, Gürel, & Putnam, ; Ortega, ; Takahesu Tabori et al., ).…”

“…Moreover, there has been much discussion in recent literature in the field of bilingualism about the need to consider the multidimensionality of bilingualism in order to better understand the cognitive consequences of bilingualism (e.g., Abutalebi & Green, ; Bialystok, ; Green & Abutalebi, ; Kroll & Bialystok, ; Laine & Lehtonen, ; Luk & Bialystok, ; Surrain & Luk, ; Takahesu Tabori, Mech, & Atagi, ). For instance, there have been calls to treat bilingualism as a continuous variable (e.g., Luk & Bialystok, ), to examine the contexts of bilinguals’ language use (e.g., Abutalebi & Green, ; Green & Abutalebi, ), and more generally, to consider the diversity in language experience that exists among bilinguals (e.g., Flores, Gürel, & Putnam, ; Ortega, ; Takahesu Tabori et al., ). Similarly, findings from this study—as well as those from others (e.g., Akhtar et al., ; Howard et al., ; Menjivar & Akhtar, ; Rojo & Echols, )—suggest that monolinguals may not be a homogenous group either, much like bilinguals.…”

Why not both? Rethinking categorical and continuous approaches to bilingualism

“…In order to account for the full spectrum of bilinguals' experiences and abilities, some scholars have proposed that bilingualism should be viewed and analyzed as a continuous variable (Baum & Titone, 2014;de Bruin, 2019;Kaushanskaya & Prior, 2015;Takahesu Tabori et al, 2018). Under such an approach, the continuum would span the range from completely monolingual (i.e., never having any exposure to a second language) to fully proficient bilingual (i.e., "balanced;" see Figure 3).…”