Abstract
There have been many studies exploring the advantages that bilingualism confers to individuals’ working memory and metacognition (see Ransdell, 2006; Del Missier et al., 2010). The hypothesis of language critical period states that if no language learning and teaching happen during the critical period, an individual will never be able to fully grasp any language to a full extent (Fromkin et al., 1974). This study investigates whether late bilingualism (second language acquisition after the critical period) will positively affect a person’s working memory and metacognition just like early bilingualism (second language acquisition before the critical period) does. Sixty Chinese persons between the ages of 18 and 35 participated in my online experimental protocol, including a language experience questionnaire, a reading comprehension exam, and a reading span task. I found that late bilingualism poses a similar advantage to an individual’s working memory as early bilingualism, while it negatively affects an individual’s metacognitive awareness of their own language ability. 
Highlights
Working memory uses information temporarily stored in a person’s brain to perform cognitive tasks such as reasoning, comprehension, and learning
There have been many studies exploring the advantages that bilingualism confers to individuals’ working memory and metacognition
This study investigates whether late bilingualism will positively affect a person’s working memory and metacognition just like early bilingualism does
Summary
Working memory uses information temporarily stored in a person’s brain to perform cognitive tasks such as reasoning, comprehension, and learning. Working memory is one of three functions (with inhibition and shifting) considered collectively fundamental components of the brain’s executive function. Studies have shown a bilingual advantage in executive function: mastering two languages while speaking enhances one’s cognitive flexibility (Yang, 2017). One method researchers use to measure a person’s working memory is the reading span (RS) test (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Daneman & Merikle, 1996). As Whiteney et al suggested in their 2001 study, how well an individual performs on the RS test depends on one’s “manipulation capacity” and “susceptibility to interference” (Whitney et al, 2001). Because of their experiences in navigating two language systems—constantly activating, inhibiting, and switching between language codes—excel at RS which requires attention control and ignoring useless information, even in a monolinguistic context (Bialystok, 2007; Ransdell, 2006)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
