Abstract
In a commentary on a review article by Paap and colleagues [1], and a response to that review by Saidi and Ansaldo [2], I examine the key arguments for and against the existence of a ‘bilingual advantage’ in cognitive functions, including the effects of small samples, and of confounding variables in studies on both sides of the debate. While accepting that the behavioural evidence here is inconclusive, I argue that the evidence for wide-ranging, plastic change in the bilingual brain would seem to predict that bilingualism may have similarly wide-ranging effects on behaviour. Finally, I note that bilingual cognitive advantages - if any exist - are inherently longitudinal phenomena, in the sense that they are thought to emerge as a function of the transfer of practice effects from linguistic to non-linguistic cognitive control skills. In that context, the most direct way to characterise those advantages, and the mechanisms that make them possible, may be with longitudinal studies, which also naturally control for many of the factors that may confound the cross-sectional studies which have dominated the field so far.
Highlights
Research suggests that bilinguals activate both of the languages they use even when only one is required
Many of the early results that seemed to confirm this hypothesis (e.g. [10,11,12,13,14]) have recently been called into question, as outlined in the review article by Paap and colleagues in this special issue [1]. Some responses to those criticisms have been made in the same special issue, by Saidi and Ansaldo [2]. After briefly discussing this debate, as represented by these two commentaries, I argue that: (a) the apparently wide-ranging effects of bilingualism on the brain would make a wholly specific impact on language the more surprising result; and (b) the cross-sectional studies which dominate research in this area may be less informative than longitudinal studies, which attempt to measure when and to what extent practice effects are transferred across the boundary from linguistic to non-linguistic cognitive domains
While ‘strong modularity’ seems unlikely, for the reasons mentioned in the last section, the evidence suggests that linguistic and non-linguistic control cannot be considered one and the same, because qualitative differences have been observed between patterns of switch costs in linguistic and non-linguistic tasks [41]. These results suggest that, if bilingual advantages really do emerge as a result of practice, they must be transferred across the boundary between at least partially distinct systems responsible for linguistic and non-linguistic cognitive control
Summary
Research suggests that bilinguals activate both (or all) of the languages they use even when only one is required. Cross-lingual interaction has even been reported to accumulate over three languages, with cognates in Dutch, English, and German associated with greater facilitation for fluent speakers of those languages than those in Dutch and German but not English [5]. Some responses to those criticisms have been made in the same special issue, by Saidi and Ansaldo [2] After briefly discussing this debate, as represented by these two commentaries, I argue that: (a) the apparently wide-ranging effects of bilingualism on the brain would make a wholly specific impact on language the more surprising result; and (b) the cross-sectional studies which dominate research in this area may be less informative than longitudinal studies, which attempt to measure when and to what extent practice effects are transferred across the boundary from linguistic to non-linguistic cognitive domains
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
