1 | P a g e

Bilingualism and Cognitive control: Is bilingualism a cognitive advantage?

Bhoomika Rastogi Kar, Vatsala Khare & Tanya Dash

bhoomika@cbcs.ac.in

Centre of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences

University of Allahabad

Allahabad

Introduction

Bilingualism or being a bilingual has been looked upon as having both advantages and

disadvantages in real life. Research points out at bilinguals outperforming monolinguals at all

ages in numerous cognitive tasks and abilities ranging from perceptual disembedding problems

(Duncan & De Avila, 1979 as cited in Bialystok, 1997) and the Simon task (Bialystok, Craik,

Klien & Vishvanathan, 2004). It was also viewed as resulting in cognitive retardation or causing

detrimental effects on intelligence and language development (Yang & Lust, 2004). This view,

however, changed by the work of Peal and Lambert in 1962 (cited in Bialystok, 1997)

concluding with positive outcomes of bilingualism. Bilinguals who have the merit of knowing two

or more languages have been more expressive in thoughts, ideas and their communication skill

is improved and facilitated tremendously.

Cognitive control involves filtering out of irrelevant information i.e. interference

suppression, inhibiting an inappropriate response, maintaining goals of the task in hand even in

conflicting conditions, switching conditions or switching between tasks and selecting among

different responses. Cognitive control has been experimentally found to be associated with a

wide range of processes and is not restricted to a particular cognitive domain. For instance,

presence of impairments in cognitive control functions may be associated with specific deficits in

attention, memory, language comprehension and emotional processing. In the procedure of

2 | P a g e

selecting a word it has been found that it gives rise to interference between different

representations that are activated and that the selection of the correct word is made possible

through the mechanism of cognitive control (Rodriguez-Fornells, De Diego Balaguer, & Münte,

2006). And prefrontal cortex is importantly engaged in this phenomenon of cognitive control

(Badre and Wagner, 2004).

Effects of Bilingualism on Cognitive Abilities

Over the years, there has been a transition from a pessimistic approach towards a more

optimistic orientation in looking at bilingualism and its role in shaping cognitive abilities.

Classically, knowing two languages was considered as a disadvantageous process. And it was

the work of Peal and Lambert (1962) (cited in Bialystok, 1997) which lead to opposition to these

initial claims, by showing that bilinguals show superior linguistic abilities as compared to

monolinguals and there was no considerable difference in nonverbal skills.

Effects of bilingualism is considered an having 2 views

a) A subtractive view - that is learning a second language means subtracting something

from the monolingual state, looking at deficiencies in the processing of the first and

second languages as well as in memory systems.

b) An additive view - that is, knowing a second language extends rather than diminishing

an individual's capabilities.

Subtractive view

Early research supporting the subtractive view paid limited amount of attention to the core issues

as the nature of bilingual population tested or the interpretation of the test used. As an apparent

default cognitive ability was taken to be determined by performance on IQ tests as best

questionable measure of intelligence.

3 | P a g e

Deficiency in processing the L2

Many researchers have stated that L2 users are less efficient in the second language than are

native monolinguals, in terms of accuracy and speed. A typical effect with syntax can be seen

in an experiment dealing with the binding relationship between pronouns and their

antecedents (cited in Cook, 1997). One issue is whether the few L2 learners who become

balanced bilinguals are actually processing L2 in the same way as monolingual speakers?

Coppetires (1987) demonstrated that successful bilingual American residents in France still

differed in grammaticality judgments from native French speakers. This difference was covered

by the notion of the bilingual's dominant language in which there were more word

associations to a given stimulus and reaction times were faster. Thus the overall point is that

people process a second language less swiftly that their first. It is not that all L2 users are

ignorant of the syntax or the vocabulary of the language or that they necessarily make more

mistakes, it is just that they use it more slowly.

Deficiency in processing LI

The presence of L2 in the mind some way detracts from LI. This effect was established in a

series of experiments by Magiste, 1979. German children aged 13 to 18 were studied. The

German children were learning Swedish in Sweden, using a variety of tasks, such as timing how

long the children took to name objects in LI and L2. After about 5.5 years in Sweden, the

children responded as fast in Swedish as in German, and gradually they became faster in

Swedish (cited in Cook, 1997)

Short term memory

Early L2 research aimed to show that STM span was comparatively limited in a second

language. Researchers asked learners to repeat or write down strings of words or numbers and

then calculated the individual’s maximum span. Cook (1979) linked span to age and found that

4 | P a g e

though digit span improved in both languages by 0.7 digits for English secondary school children

learning French between the ages of 12-14, they had a short fall of 2.8 digits in French at both

ages. It seemed that this type of task also revealed a cognitive deficit in STM in L2.

Working memory

The source of L2 deficit might be in the central executive, which decides how to handle information

or in the phonological store, which stores information provided to it through the articulatory loop, or

in the articulatory loop itself, which recycles information continuously in phonological form.

Researchers such as Hakuta, Ferdman and Diaz (1987) and Grosjean (1998) challenged the

reliability of all such research suggesting cognitive consequences for bilinguals and that the data

is inconclusive because of the methodological and conceptual issues.

Additive view

Metalinguistic awareness and L2 users

One view of the virtues of L2 is that it sharpens the individual's awareness of the nature of

language and the language learning as an end in itself. Greater sensitivity to a language and a

greater precision in the choice of words are often claimed to be the spin-offs from the ability to

use another language. The metalinguistic awareness has been limited to three types of tasks

namely the phonological awareness, tasks involving grammatical judgments, and tasks testing

whether a person can separate the form of language from the meaning - the awareness of the

arbitrariness of words.

Phonology and metalinguistic awareness

Work by Cohen et al (1967) and Rubin et al (1989) as cited in Kroll and de Groot (2004)

suggest of a phonological advantage for bilinguals in task demanding reproduction of

sound sequence not present in their first language as well as advantage in phoneme

segmentation task.

5 | P a g e

Bialystok, Luk and Kwan (2005) compared three groups of bilingual speakers

differing in language combinations and writing systems and a fourth group of monolingual

English speakers. And their result indicates a better performance of all the bilingual groups

on tasks of decoding as well as phonological awareness. It was interesting to note that the

amount of bilingual facilitation required for early reading skills depends on relation between

the languages and the writing system, as there was a larger advantage for the group with

similar language and the writing system, i.e. Spanish-English group showed more

advantage than Chinese-English bilingual group (Chinese and English differ both in

language and writing system which is not the case with Spanish and English).

Bilingualism and Cognitive Control

In order to bring a responsible link between bilingualism and cognitive benefits, many of the

researchers have attempted looking at the causal relationship between bilingualism and

cognitive control. Most of the research rests on the assumption that bilingualism is associated

with cognitive advantage and cognitive abilities also in turn enhance language learning. There

have been researchers like Hakuta and Diaz (1985) who had used statistical analysis

techniques in order to investigate this issue and finally concluded that bilingualism is more likely

to cause increased cognitive abilities than the reverse. Bilingualism has been found to be

advantageous especially in the domain of executive attention. Attention research investigates

how voluntary control and subjective experience arise and the way in which they regulate our

behavior. Executive attention provides the mechanisms by which bilinguals command two or

more language systems with equivalent language fluency as those who maintain use of one

language. The underlying mechanism of bilingual cognitive advantage may stem from executive

attention (Bialystok, 1999). Recent neuropsychological studies have expressed the essential

need for attentional resources in humans to select critical information in the context of

6 | P a g e

overwhelmingly massive amounts of environmental stimuli. The theory of Cognitive Complexity

and Control has explained bilingual cognitive benefits in a domain – general way (Zelazo &

Frye, 1998). The theory consists of a representational ability to construct a mental hierarchy

among rules and a control ability to disregard irrelevant information and act on rules. A person’s

ability for being good or adequate at cognitive abilities has been credited to be a result of

bilingualism.

Research has also shown that cognitive control is not a unitary system but rather it

emerges from interactions among many other systems in human brain which have been

engaged in performing different functions of a certain task. The activity in BA 9, 46, 47 may be

related to selection processes between competing alternatives (Rodriguez-Fornells et al., 2006).

Anterior cingulate cortex has shown activations for conditions requiring conflict monitoring,

attention and error monitoring. Basal ganglia activations have been found for tasks requiring

language selection, set switching, language planning, and lexical selection. Inferior parietal lobe

activations have been found for maintenance of representations in working memory. Neural

circuitry involving left anterior cingulate, left caudate & left prefrontal circuitry may be

responsible for a control mechanism that prevents interference from the non target language.

Bilingualism has been considered to be advantageous especially in the domain of executive

attention. There are two ways in which the relationship between bilingualism and cognitive

control has been explained in literature

1) It is the bilingual experiences which tune our circuitry for cognitive control to be

advanced as compared to monolinguals for linguistic as well as non linguistic tasks.

2) Executive attention provides the mechanism by which bilingual’s command of two

language systems with equivalent language fluency as compared to monolingual

language use.

7 | P a g e

The ability to switch between different languages is an interesting phenomenon in

bilingual speakers given that different languages partially share neuro-anatomical

representations (Klein, Milner, Zatorre, Zhao, & Nikelski, (1999). Producing a word in a

particular language activates a conceptual system and not only the lexical representation of the

word in the target language but also the lexical representation in the non-target language. Not

only are the lexical representations of the non-target language activated, but also the

phonological properties of the word. To select a word should give rise to interference between

these representations and it has been suggested that selection of the correct word is made

possible through cognitive control processes. (Rodriguez-Fornells, De Diego Balaguer, &

Münte, 2006).

Cognitive control processes enables goal-oriented behaviour through constraint of

thoughts and responses, which include controlled retrieval of relevant information from long-

term memory, inhibition of irrelevant responses, selection of relevant responses, ability to

handle competing representations and task-switching. Prefrontal cortex is crucial to cognitive

control (Badre and Wagner, 2004). Craik and Bialystok (2005) have proposed distinction

between two types of executive function based on two components of intelligence. It is a known

fact that intellectual abilities decline from young to older adult, but this decline is uneven, task

involving fluid intelligence (concerned with inhibitory control) show marked decrements in

performance whereas tasks involving crystallized intelligence (representation and utilization of

knowledge) show little change with age. As Horn (1982) explains, fluid and crystallized

intelligence represent separate components of the overall organization of general intelligence

and reflect the ability to solve different types of problem (cited in Craik & Bialystok, 2005).

Authors further argued that intelligence comprises two major elements: knowledge (procedural

and propositional aspect) and control (means by which person utilizes stored knowledge to best

adaptive advantage); based on this authors prefer to state this as processing difference rather

8 | P a g e

than ability difference. Knowledge base is constructed in response external and internal

demands which is organized as distributed network. Control on the other hand was considered

initially as organism external process, but this primitive observation is not completely

satisfactory as animals are passive responders to environmental influence. Thus it was

proposed that control takes place internally without getting influenced by the external

environment and flexible control is achieved through evolution of working memory or “working

attention”.

Based on this model, knowledge and control are interrelated, and both the elements

develop phylogenetically and ontogenetically which creates autonomous executive system. And

the function of this system is construction of mental representation and control of attentional

processes. Task involving knowledge representation is not enhanced by bilingualism but tasks

involving control is vulnerable. Obvious level of advantage for bilinguals for control are because

of greater ability to maintain task relevant working memory and greater responsiveness and

flexibility in both set formation and translation of stimuli into appropriate response.

Language control refers to the cognitive mechanism that controls which language to use

at a given moment and context. It allows the bilinguals to selectively communicate in one target

language while minimizing the effect from the non target language. For studying cognitive and

language control various experiments were conducted using behavioural studies, ERP studies

and eye movement based studies. Most of the results suggest an obvious advantage in

cognitive control for bilinguals as compared to monolingual as well as there is lifespan related

advantage for bilinguals, suggesting slowing in the process of cognitive decline.

Rodriguez- Fornell, Balaguer and Munte (2006) in their article described cognitive control

possessing 2 properties:

1) The ability to filter out irrelevant information in the environment (interference

suppression)

9 | P a g e

2) The ability to inhibit inappropriate responses or thoughts( response inhibition)

And cognitive control develops gradually in infants and is thought to be related to the slow

maturation of the prefrontal cortex.

Further they proposed the bilingual speech production mechanism by using two interrelated

control/inhibitory mechanism

1) A top down control inhibitory mechanism could be implemented by the prefrontal cortex

when language schemas are activated.(regulates local inhibitory system)

2) This prefrontal selection/inhibition mechanism could interact with more local and bottom

up inhibitory mechanism that regulates the level of activation of the non target language.

Colzota et al (2007) compared monolinguals and bilinguals with regard to three phenomena that

can be argued to tap into different aspects of inhibition: stop signal performance, inhibition of

return and attentional blink. Monolinguals and bilinguals didn’t differ in stop signal reaction time

and were comparable in terms of active inhibitory efficiency. There was presence of stronger

inhibition of return effect and pronounced attentional blink. They suggest no significant

difference in monolingual and bilingual active inhibition but some circumstances may indirectly

lead to more pronounced reactive inhibition of irrelevant information. In this case, stop signal

was considered as direct test of active inhibition, authors emphasized that stop signal task

assess broad range of inhibitory processes but it is unlikely to cover all of them, which implies

we cannot rule out the role of inhibitory benefits in bilinguals.

Bialystok (2006) reported three main outcomes from her study. First, for general

language proficiency, bilingual children tend to have a smaller vocabulary in each language

than monolingual children in their language. Nonetheless, their understanding of linguistic

structure called metalinguistic awareness is often better than that of comparable

monolingual children. Second, the acquisition of literacy skills in these children depends on

10 | P a g e

the relationship between the two languages and the level of proficiency in the second

language. Specifically, children learning to read in two languages that shares a writing

system show accelerated progress in learning to read; children whose two languages are

written in two different systems show no special advantage, but neither do they demonstrate any

deficit compared to monolinguals. The benefit of learning to read in two languages however

requires that the children be bilingual and not second language learners whose competence in

one of the languages is weak. Thirdly, bilingual children between 4 and 8 years old

demonstrate a large advantage over comparable monolinguals in solving problems

requiring controlling attention to specific aspects of a display and inhibiting attention to

misleading aspects that are salient but not associated with an incorrect response. This

advantage is not confined to language processing, but includes a variety of non-verbal tasks

that require controlled attention and selectivity in such problems as forming conceptual

categories, seeing alternative images in ambiguous figures, and understanding the

difference between appearance and functional reality of a misleading object.

In general, there are evidences suggesting that the older bilingual adults will show

smaller processing cost as compared to older monolinguals, thereby suggesting that being a

bilingual slow down the process of overall cognitive decline due to aging. Bialystok et al (2004)

have reported evidences suggesting faster response by bilinguals in both congruent and

incongruent trials but also produced smaller Simon effect, indicating less disruption from the

incongruent items regardless of speed. It was interesting to know that bilingualism reduced the

age related increase in the Simon effect, implying that the lifelong experience of managing two

languages attenuates the age related decline in the efficiency of inhibitory processes.

11 | P a g e

Language proficiency and cognitive control

According to Bialystok (2001) language proficiency is the ability to function in a situation that is

defined by specific cognitive and linguistic demands, to a level of performance indicated by

either objective criteria or normative standards. Learning a second language is in itself quite a

task, to learn to handle two entirely different language systems and to efficiently and

interchangeably use a large group of words from both the languages requires effort and also a

lot of cognitive effort. Researchers have asserted that learning a second language also puts

demands of a certain level of organizational changes in the neural circuitry as well (Rodriguez-

Fornells, Balaguer, & Münte, 2006; Kciuk, 2009; Bialystok & Craik, 2009). As bilinguals begin

and learn to use a second language efficiently, the neural circuitry adapts itself to use the two

languages effectively and interchangeably, such an adaptation of the neural circuitry to

constantly switching between the two task sets has been termed as advantageous by scores of

studies in which balanced bilinguals have been shown to outperform monolinguals and also

unbalanced bilinguals (Christoffels, Firk & Schiller, 2007).

In contemporary research with bilinguals, proficiency is outlined and used as one of the

most important factors that play a role in classification of the bilingual population and formation

of hypotheses on the basis of these classifications. Indeed, on the basis of proficiency two types

of classification are used: High vs. Low proficient bilinguals; wherein the high proficient bilingual

is generally considered to be more proficient in the use of the second language (L2) in

comparison to the low proficient bilingual. Another classification on the basis of proficiency uses

the term Balanced vs. Unbalanced bilinguals; herein the balanced bilingual is one who is

considered almost equally and highly proficient in using the first language (L1) and second

language (L2) respectively, while in case of an unbalanced bilingual the discrepancy between

the proficiency of the language two known languages is far greater. Depending upon the two

classification researchers have proposed and investigated research hypotheses; the prominent

12 | P a g e

trends reporting cognitive and linguistic advantages for the high proficient and balanced group

of bilinguals over low proficient and unbalanced bilingual groups (Christoffels, Firk, & Schiller,

2007).

What needs to be highlighted in the above findings is that both the advantaged groups differed

only in terms of higher second language proficiency with the other two groups of bilinguals;

reflecting that as the proficiency of a bilingual in the second language increases there are

advantages in terms of linguistic and cognitive capabilities (Bialystok & Craik, 2009). However,

apart from a score of studies that have found bilingual advantage over monolinguals; there are

studies which have found advantage for bilinguals having higher proficiency in the second

language. Kroll & Stewart’s (1994) revised hierarchical model of bilingualism described that the

bilingual needs to selectively access and manage the two languages, wherein though the first

language (L1) shall always enjoy a greater degree of prominence in terms of ease of

expression, use and performance.

However, recent research claims that both languages may have more or less equal

degree of prominence as far as activation of phonological, lexical and semantic cohorts are

concerned (Brysbaert & Douyck, 2010). However, this does not still support the need for a

mechanism postulated by Bialystok et al (2004) that a control mechanism is definitely needed to

handle the double task of performing in one language and managing interference from the other

at the same time. Such a system that can control the interchangeable handling of the two known

languages, in essence is helping the individual to switch between two tasks. However, research

by Bialystok (2006) suggests that the presence of such a system also makes a bilingual adept in

handling two tasks of different ‘types’. Hence, a control mechanism which is initially developed

to act as an advantage for language processing, also leads to a general advantage in other

cognitive tasks. As Abutalebi & Green (2007) highlight, a lot still remains to be resolved as far

as the complex and dynamic interactions of two languages in the bilingual brain is concerned.

13 | P a g e

There is a need to examine if better cognitive control in bilinguals is a general cognitive

advantage as a result of bilingual language processing or if it is a mechanism specific to

language control. In other words, do language control mechanisms in bilinguals strengthen the

general purpose control mechanisms and result in a general cognitive advantage for bilingual

individuals. In the context of normative multilingualism present in India and the complexity

associated with it in terms of the different combinations of languages being acquired, it is

important to know about the wider influence of language on other cognitive processes

particularly the regulatory process like cognitive control. The influence of language on other

cognitive processes and vice versa, particularly attentional control in bilingual adults highlights

the involvement of a larger cognitive network entailed by language processing. Several factors

such as language proficiency, language use, and cognitive distance between languages known

could influence the cognitive control mechanisms. Second language acquisition and proficiency

could influence the development of cognitive control mechanisms in bilingual individuals.

There have been limited empirical researches in this area which actually compare

bilinguals or categorize bilinguals based on language proficiency. Few of the basic concerns in

such kind of an approach would be looking at “bilingualism” as a matter of degree rather than as

categorical variable (Carlson and Meltzoff, 2008). In the past, bilingualism has always been

considered as a categorical variable; i.e. high vs. low proficient or balanced vs. unbalanced

bilinguals. This demarcation is based on level of language proficiency. Most of the researches

use methods like confrontation naming (i.e. in the form of PPVT) and self reported

questionnaires to depict the level of bilingualism (Carlson and Meltzoff, 2008; Yang and Lust

2004, Bialystok et al, 2004). Yang and lust (2004) support the validity of language proficiency as

an important measure based on the assumption that as linguistic knowledge improves with age

so does executive attention and it can be the influence of language proficiency on this

advantage in executive attention. While supporting the inhibitory control model, Okuniewska

14 | P a g e

(2007) in their bilingual Stroop task predicted that the amount of inhibition was depended on the

difference between the proficiency levels of the two languages of the bilinguals. And this results

in increase in between language interference with increasing language proficiency.

In this chapter, we will also discuss the findings of our study on Hindi–English bilingual

adults in which we examined the effect of second language proficiency (tested with self-report

as well as objective measures of language proficiency) on language control and general

purpose cognitive control particularly with respect to attentional processes like alertness,

orienting and executive control and inhibitory control of interference.

Second Language Proficiency and Cognitive Control in Hindi English Bilingual Adults

Most of the research on cognitive effects of bilingualism has established this effect in

comparison with monolingual population. Second language proficiency may vary across

bilinguals. Those with high level of proficiency in both the languages that are known and used

are high proficient bilinguals and those with considerably greater or lesser proficiency are low

proficient bilinguals. In our study, high proficient bilinguals were better with respect to second

language proficiency as compared to the low proficient bilinguals. However, high proficient

bilinguals were better with respect to L1 proficiency as well. Low proficient bilinguals were better

with respect to L1 proficiency and not with second language proficiency. We attempted to

examine if second language proficiency would have different effects on cognitive control

functions of executive attention and inhibitory control while processing linguistic versus

nonlinguistic stimuli. In the context of normative multilingualism present in India and the

complexity associated with it in terms of the different combinations of languages being acquired

by different people, it was relevant to study the wider influence of language on other cognitive

processes and a regulatory process like cognitive control. The influence of language on other

cognitive processes and vice versa, particularly attentional control in bilingual adults highlights

15 | P a g e

the larger cognitive network entailed by language processing. Despite many efforts to

investigate and explore the ways in which two or more languages are represented and

controlled in the human system the matter still remains controversial. Bilinguals have been

reported to have an added cognitive advantage as language processing is considered as an

attention directing system. One needs to know if better cognitive control in bilinguals is a

general cognitive advantage as a result of bilingual language processing or is it a mechanism

specific to languages known. We will now discuss the findings of one of our studies looking at

the effect of second language proficiency on cognitive control among bilingual adults.

We examined the effect of second language proficiency in Hindi English bilingual young

adults on cognitive control as a general cognitive advantage. Two experiments were conducted

one with linguistic stimuli and another with nonlinguistic stimuli.

Experiment 1: Inhibitory control in bilingual adults

We examined inhibitory control in bilingual adults as a function of language proficiency based on

a flanker paradigm using the lexical decision task. It was hypothesized that the High proficient

bilingual adults will have smaller compatibility effect as compared to monolinguals.

Method

Participants

15 High proficient and 15 Low Proficient Hindi-English bilingual adult volunteers participated in

the study. These participants were all of 18-25 years of age (mean age=21.5 years, 11 males

and 19 females). All participants had normal corrected or to normal vision. All were right handed

individuals.

16 | P a g e

Stimuli and Procedure

Hindi and English words and non-words were used as stimuli. A set of three words were

presented in a row. A central word / non word as the target were presented on the screen,

which was flanked by two words or non words. A fixation cross was presented on the centre of

the screen for 400 ms. Hindi as well as English words and non-words were presented. The

flanker type was determined only by the word type and not language. Central word or non-word

could be flanked by word or non-word of the same language. These words were presented in

white ink on a black background. These were presented using the flanker paradigm that is to

say that the participants were asked to judge and report by making a lexical decision whether

the center presented word was a word or a non word by pressing the Z and the / (slash) keys.

The stimuli stayed on screen till the participants’ response. The experiment had four blocks

which used four manipulations with the presentation of the stimuli. The stimuli were presented

on an Intel P4 processor, connected to a 17” monitor.

Stimuli were manipulated as follows:

Word (English) - Non word (English) - Word (English)

Non word (Hindi) - Word (Hindi) - Non word (Hindi)

Non word (English) - Word (English) - Non word (English)

Word (Hindi) - Non word (Hindi) - Word (Hindi)

Word (Hindi) – Non-word (Hindi) – Word (Hindi)

These four blocks also had switch trials embedded in them which were compatible with the

manipulation of the block type they were embedded in. If the block type were in L1 then the

switch would make the participant respond in L2.

17 | P a g e

Results and discussion

Accuracy and RTs were the measures of performance. 2 x (groups: high proficient and low

proficient) x 2 (languages: Hindi and English). ANOVA was computed to compare the high and

the low proficient group of bilingual adults over the word/non-word judgment. The main effect of

proficiency was found to be significant F(1, 28) = 12.521, p < 0.01, also the effects of language

were significant F(1, 28) = 114.234, p < 0.01. The results for the interaction of proficiency and

language was not significant F(1, 28) = 0.986, p > 0.05.

Figure 1: Comparison of Mean RTs of high and low Hindi-English proficient bilingual adults

Note: LP- Low proficient, HP- High proficient.

This experiment was designed based on the flanker paradigm and examined the participants on

a lexical decision task. The High proficient bilinguals were significantly faster than low proficient

bilinguals on both languages (L1- Hindi and L2- English). The high proficient bilinguals showed

no difference in their performance on L1 and L2 in the animacy judgment task. The low

proficient bilinguals were slower for both languages but they showed faster RTs on their first

language as compared to the second language. Results show that the high proficient bilingual

adults were better at responding in L2 (English). This result may be because of relatively high

usage of L2 over L1 and as also their medium of education and sphere of work demands them

18 | P a g e

to continuously be engaged with using L2. Low proficient bilinguals performed slower across all

conditions which could be due to their low proficiency in both the languages respectively and

also when they had to alternatively respond to one of the two languages. Results suggest that

second language proficiency could be one of the determinants of cognitive advantage in

bilinguals. The lexical decision judgment task (word/non-word judgment) found the high

proficient bilinguals to be faster at responding to both the languages than the low proficient

Hindi-English bilingual adults. The effect of language has been significant for the two groups.

Experiment 2: Attentional control in bilinguals

Objective and hypothesis

This experiment examined the relationship between second language proficiency in bilinguals

and the efficiency attention networks, using the standard ANT task (Fan, McCandliss, Sommer,

Raz & Posner, 2002). It was hypothesized that bilinguals with greater second language

proficiency will be better in terms of the efficiency of attentional networks, particularly with

respect to executive control.

Participants

Twenty participants from both groups (high proficient and low proficient) participated in the

study, after relevant language background, handedness, visual acuity and proficiency related

assessments. Proficiency was operationalized in terms of semantic and syntactic correctness

using an indigenously developed translation test and a picture naming test as well as through

the language background questionnaire (self-rated proficiency).

Stimuli and Procedure

The ANT task was employed to examine the three most important facets of attentional

processing viz. alerting, orienting and executive attention networks (Fan, McCandliss, Sommer,

19 | P a g e

Raz & Posner, 2002). The Alerting Network’s functioning is studied by presenting a cue before

target stimulus: responses are faster when the target is preceded by an alerting cue.

The Orienting network is explored by presenting a cue that signals the position of the target

stimulus will appear: responses are faster when cue signals the position of the target than when

it does not convey information about the target’s spatial location. The Executive

attention network has responses that tend to be slower for incongruent than for congruent trials,

revealing the time needed to resolve the conflict between the target stimulus and to be ignored

flanker information. The experiment has two within factors: “Cue Type” (no cue, centre cue,

double cue, spatial cue), and “Flanker type” (neutral, congruent, incongruent). As apparent the

1stfactor depicts where a cue shall appear so that the participant can make use of it and the

2nd factor depicts the nature of the cue information.

In this task the target array is a black colored single arrow or a horizontal row of five

arrows, presented above or below fixation, over a grey background. The participant was

required to respond whether the central target arrow was pointing to the left or right by pressing

the corresponding left or right key on the keyboard. The ANT consisted of a total of 24 practice

trials and three experimental blocks of 48 trials in each. Each trial represented one of 12

conditions in equal proportions: three target types (congruent, incongruent and neutral) and four

cues (no cue, central cue, double cue and spatial cue) are employed.

Results and Discussion

Data obtained with the ANT task was analyzed with respect to alerting effect, orienting effect,

and conflict effect.

20 | P a g e

Figure 2. Efficiency of the three networks of attention: Alerting, orienting and executive attention

in the HP and the LP Hindi- English bilingual adults.

The main effect of the differences in the two groups for the target detection rates in terms of RT

was found to be significant, F(1,40)= 30.756, p<0.01. It was found that the high proficient

bilinguals were significantly faster across all conditions with respect to flanker type and cues.

They were also found to have faster target detection rates than that of the low proficient

bilingual adults. Alerting Effect showed a significant difference between the two groups of

proficiency, F(1,39) = 5.421, p < 0.05. Low proficient bilinguals showed greater alerting effect

compared to the high proficient bilinguals. Orienting effect did not show a significant difference

between the two groups F(1,39) = .000, p > 0.05. Conflict Effect (measure of executive control

network efficiency) showed a significant difference between the two groups F(1, 39) =

13.909, p < 0.01. Low proficient bilinguals were better with respect to conflict effect. However

this could be misleading as conflict effect score is a difference score and does not indicate the

trend.

The main effect for group for the compatibility effect across all cue conditions except no

cue condition was found to be significant (compatibility effect for centre cue, F(1, 39) =

4.482, p < .05, compatibility effect for spatial cue was marginally significant, F(1, 39) =

21 | P a g e

4.003, p < 0.05; compatibility effect for double cue, F(1, 39) = 19.758, p < 0.01 for the No Cue

condition F(1, 39) = 0.854, p > 0.05. High proficient bilinguals showed greater compatibility

effect for centre cue, spatial cue and double cue conditions. The main effect 2 (group: high

proficient & low proficient) x 2 (Flanker type: Compatible and Incompatible) x 4 ( mean RTs for

cue conditions: spatial cue, double cue, no cue and center cue conditions) for group with

respect to the mean reaction time on Centre Cue condition for the congruent means of the two

groups of proficiency was significant at the level of F(1, 39) = 20.240, p < .01 and significance

has also been achieved for the incongruent condition at the levels of F(1, 39) = 12.538, p <

.01Also, compatibility, effect of the spatial and double cue conditions reached significance. The

main effect of the differences in the two groups for the target detection rates in terms of RT was

found to be significant, F(1,40)= 30.756, p<0.01. It was found that the high proficient bilinguals

were significantly faster across all conditions with respect to flanker type and cues. They were

also found to have faster target detection rates than that of the low proficient bilingual adults.

Accuracy was found to be similar for the two groups with the low proficient bilingual group

attaining Mean (%) =97.56 and the high proficient bilingual group attaining Mean (%) =97.3.

Performance of the two groups was compared with respect to the alerting, orienting and

executive attention network efficiency scores.

ANOVA for group (high proficient and low proficient) x network efficiency scores

(alerting, orienting, executive control) was computed. Alerting Effect showed a significant

difference between the two groups of proficiency, F(1,39) = 5.421, p < 0.05. Low proficient

bilinguals showed greater alerting effect compared to the high proficient bilinguals. Orienting

effect did not show a significant difference between the two groups F(1,39) = .000, p > 0.05.

Conflict Effect (measure of executive control network efficiency) showed a significant difference

between the two groups F(1, 39) = 13.909, p < 0.01. Low proficient bilinguals were better with

respect to conflict resolution.

22 | P a g e

In order to further examine conflict resolution with respect to different attentional manipulations

in terms of cue conditions in addition to the network efficiency scores, a three way ANOVA for

group (high proficient and low proficient bilingual adults) x Flanker types (neutral, congruent,

incongruent) x cue conditions (Double Cue, Spatial Cue, No Cue, and Central Cue) was

computed.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

CC SC DC NC

Tim

e in m

illis

econds

HP LP

Figure 3. Flanker compatibility effects for each of the four cue conditions (Center cue, Spatial

cue, Double cue and No cue) among the high proficient and the low proficient Hindi- English

bilingual adults.

Note: Note: HP- High proficient bilingual adults, LP - Low proficient bilingual adults, CC: Center

cue, SC: Spatial cue, DC: Double cue and NC: No cue.

The main effect for group for the compatibility effect across all cue conditions except the

no cue condition was found to be significant (compatibility effect for centre cue, F(1, 39) =

4.482, p < .05, compatibility effect for spatial cue was marginally significant, F(1, 39) = 4.003, p

< 0.05; compatibility effect for double cue, F(1, 39) = 19.758, p < 0.01 for the No Cue condition

F(1, 39) = 0.854, p > 0.05. High proficient bilinguals showed greater compatibility effect for

centre cue, spatial cue and double cue conditions.

23 | P a g e

The compatibility or conflict effects only indicate the difference between the congruent

and incongruent flanker types and do not inform about what determines the conflict effect in

terms of the trends observed with respect to lower RTs on a particular condition. Therefore, the

mean RTs of each cue condition for congruent and incongruent flanker types were analyzed

separately. ANOVA was performed to compare the two groups on the mean RTs of each cue

condition. High proficient bilingual adults were found to be faster on all cue conditions for both

the flanker types.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

HP LP

Me

an

RT

s

Congruent

Incongruent

Figure 3. Compatibility effect for the Center Cue Condition in the high proficient and the low

proficient Hindi- English bilingual adults.

Note: HP - High proficient bilingual adults, LP - Low proficient bilingual adults.

24 | P a g e

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

HP LP

Me

an

RT

s

Congruent

Incongruent

Figure 4. Mean RTs for the Spatial Cue Condition for the high proficient and the low proficient

Hindi- English bilingual adults.

Note: HP - High proficient bilingual adults, LP - Low proficient bilingual adults

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

HP LP

Me

an

RT

s

Congruent

Incongruent

Figure 5. Mean RTs for the Double Cue Condition for the high proficient and the low proficient

Hindi- English bilingual adults

Note: HP - High proficient bilingual adults, LP - Low proficient bilingual adults

25 | P a g e

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

HP LP

Me

an

RT

s

Congruent

Incongruent

Figure 6. Compatibility effect for the No Cue Conditions in the high proficient and the low

proficient Hindi- English bilingual.

Note: HP - High proficient bilingual adults, LP - Low proficient bilingual adults

General discussion

In this study we examined if second language proficiency contributes to the difference in

performance of bilingual adults on tasks which involve control processes like executive attention

and inhibitory control using linguistic and nonlinguistic stimuli. It was hypothesized that there is a

constant involvement of attentional and executive control processes like in interference control,

distracter inhibition in bilingual language processing and would cognitive control would thus be

enhanced in bilinguals irrespective of the fact whether linguistic or nonlinguistic stimuli are being

processed. It was assumed that cognitive control in bilinguals could be largely determined by

language proficiency. Research with bilingual adults (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) and children

(Bialystok, 1988) has shown that the cognitive and linguistic consequences of bilingualism are

more salient for those bilinguals who are relatively balanced in their proficiency.

26 | P a g e

Control processes involved in language processing in bilinguals may transfer as a general

cognitive advantage enhancing ones cognitive control efficiency in terms of attentional functions

and executive control. ANT was employed to test overall attentional functions in high proficient

and low proficient bilinguals. Even though low proficient bilinguals were bilinguals, they were

found to be less flexibly processing both the languages and we assume that this may have

affected their efficiency with respect to control processes involved in language processing and

also otherwise. ANT is a measure of executive attention in terms of conflict resolution and it also

informs the efficiency of alerting, orienting, and executive control networks of attention. As

hypothesized, the results on this task found the high proficient Hindi-English bilinguals had an

advantage in terms of executive attention and they were found to be better at resolving conflicts

than the low proficient bilingual adults. So from this task we come to a conclusion that the non-

linguistic processing of the high proficient bilingual adults differ from those of the other group of

bilinguals as a function of proficiency. High proficient bilinguals were faster than the low

proficient bilinguals with respect to overall response latencies on all conditions. High proficient

bilinguals were found to be better on alerting network effect. Attentional facilitation was

observed in both the groups. It appears that when attentional demands are balanced in case of

incongruent condition demanding attentional inhibition of distractors.

Conclusion

Bilinguals have cognitive advantage in terms of better performance on tasks of attentional

processes and control processes. The cognitive advantage is not only with respect to language

control but also extends to general purpose cognitive control. This advantage has mostly been

establishes among bilinguals as compared to monolinguals. Bilinguals also show different

degrees of cognitive benefits determined by interplay of some factors relevant to bilingualism.

Factors like usage, age of second language acquisition, second language proficiency among

bilinguals may interact with the effects bilingualism has on cognitive control processes. It is

27 | P a g e

evident from our study that second language proficiency plays an important role with respect to

the cognitive advantage associated with bilingualism. Bilinguals have been found to show

cognitive advantage as compared to monolinguals but within the bilingual population it may vary

as a function of second language proficiency. High proficient bilinguals with higher second

language proficiency showed greater efficiency of alerting, orienting and executive attention

networks and greater interference control as compared to low proficient bilinguals. It is to be

noted that both the groups were comparable with respect to proficiency in their first language.

Enhanced cognitive control in bilingualism could develop as a result of language control

mechanisms and may transfer as a general cognitive advantage. However, the cognitive

advantage associated with bilingualism seems to be largely determined by factors like second

language proficiency. Further, studies are required to investigate the mechanisms underlying

such a benefit and effect of factors like use and cognitive distance across languages. In our

future studies we intend to find out if language control and general purpose cognitive control are

shared or independent systems associated with bilingualism.

References

Abutalebi, J. & Green, D. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of

language representation and control, Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 242-275.

Badre, D. & Wagner, A. D. (2004). Selection, integration, and conflict monitoring: Assessing the

nature and generality of prefrontal cognitive control mechanisms. Neuron, 41, 473-487.

Bialystok E., Craik F. I., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive

control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290-303.

Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child

Development, 70, 636-644.

28 | P a g e

Bialystok, E. (1997). Consequence of bilingualism for cognitive development. In de Groot A. M.

B. and Kroll, J. F. Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, 279-300.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Bialystok, E. (2006). Effect of bilingualism and computer video game experience on the

Simon task. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology , 60, 68 – 79.

Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: evidence from

the dimensional change card sorting task. Developmental Science, 7, 325–339.

Bialystok, E., & Craik, F. I. M. (2009). Cognitive and Linguistic Processing in the Bilingual Mind.

Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 19, 19-23.

Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read:

Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 43-

61.

Brysbaert, M. & Duyck, W. (2010). Is it time to leave behind the Revised Hierarchical Model of

bilingual language processing after 15 years of service? Bilingualism: Language and

Cognition. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7171396

Carlson, S. M. & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Bilingual experience and executive functioning in young

children. Developmental Science, 11, 282-298.

Christoffels, I. K., Firk, C., Schiller, N. O. (2007). Bilingual language control: An event-related

brain potential study. Brain Research, 1147, 192-208.

Colatzo L. S. et al. (2007). How does bilingualism improve Control? A comparison of

active and reactive inhibition mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 302-312.

29 | P a g e

Cook, V. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In de Groot A. M.

B. and Kroll, J. F. Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, 279-300.

Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near native speakers.

Language, 63, 544-573.

Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence

from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory

and Language, 50, 491–511.

Craik, F. I. M., & Bialystok, E. (2006). Cognition through the lifespan. Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 10, 131-138.

Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the

efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive

Neuroscience, 14, 340–347.

Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism:

Language and Cognition, 1, 131-149.

Hakuta, K. & Diaz, R. M. (1985). The relationship between degree of bilingualism and cognitive

ability: a critical discussion and some new longitudinal data. In K. E. Nelson (Ed),

Children’s Language, Volume 5, NJ: Hilldale.

Hakuta, K., Ferman, B. M., & Diaz, R. M. (1987). Bilingualism and cognitive development: three

perspectives. In S. E. Rosenberg (Ed), Advances in applied psycholinguistics, Vol.2. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Kciuk, O. (2009). The bilingual brain: understanding the neural bases of language

representation and control. Journal of Undergraduate Life Sciences, 3, 76-78.

30 | P a g e

Klein, D., Milner, B., Zatorre, R. J., Zhao, V., & Nikelski, J. (1999). Cerebral organization in

bilinguals: A PET study of Chinese-English verb generation. Neuroreport, 10, 2841-2845.

Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspective.

New York: Oxford university press.

Kroll, J. F. & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming:

evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal

of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.

Okuniewska, H. (2007). Impact of second language proficiency on the bilingual Polish-English

Stroop task. Psychology of language and Communication, 11, 49-63.

Rodriguez-Fornells, A., Balaguer, R. D., & Münte, T. F. (2006). Executive Control in Bilingual

Language Processing. In Gullberg, M. and Indefrey, P. (Ed), The Cognitive Neuroscience

of second language acquisition. Michigan: Blackwell.

Yang, S. & Lust, B. (2004). Testing effects of bilingualism on executive attention: comparison of

cognitive performance on two non-verbal tests. Poster presented at the Boston University

Conference on Language Development, Boston. (retrieved from

http://128.197.86.186/posters/29/YangBUCLD2004.pdf)

Zelazo, P. D. & Frye, D. (1998). Cognitive Complexity and Control: II. The Development of

executive Function in Childhood. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 7, 121-

126.

Citation: Kar, B. R., Khare, V. & Dash, T. (2011). Bilingualism and Cognitive Control: Is bilingualism a Cognitive Advantage? In R. K. Mishra & N. Srinivasan, Language and Cognition: State of the Art. Munich: Lincom Europa.