Bilingual Advantage Research Articles

Cognitive Control and Bilingualism: The Bilingual Advantage Through the Lens of Dimensional Overlap.

Past research shows that the bilingual experience may enhance cognitive executive function. In this experiment, we evaluated cognitive control in bilinguals relative to monolinguals by using a dimensional overlap model to predict performance in a task composed of Stroop and Simon stimuli. A group of 24 Spanish monolinguals and 24 bilinguals with differing first languages and all having Spanish as a second language (L2) did a picture naming task and a task composed of Stroop and Simon stimuli, where the effect of different overlap conditions (spatial/color) between stimuli and responses were examined. The tasks were performed in Spanish for both groups and performance was indexed with behavioral and electrophysiological measures. We hypothesized that the bilinguals’ daily language practice in L2 reflected overlap conditions similar to the Simon task. Both naming a picture in L2 and the Simon task would involve conflict at the response level. L2 picture naming entails interference between two potential oral responses, to name in L2 vs. L1 (correct vs. incorrect responses, respectively). Similarly, incongruent stimuli in the Simon task produce interference because the irrelevant dimension (spatial location) overlap with an incorrect response. In contrast, the manual Stroop task involves a different type of conflict between two overlapping stimulus dimensions (the ink color and the color meaning). We predicted for these reasons a superior performance in Simon tasks over Stroop tasks for bilinguals, while monolinguals were expected to have a similar performance in both tasks. We also expected to see a correlation between the performance on the picture naming task and the Simon task in bilinguals. However, the behavioral results did not confirm these hypotheses. In fact, both groups had similar congruency effects as measured by reaction times and error rates, and there was no correlation between the picture naming and Simon task in bilinguals. Despite this, the electrophysiological data suggested a relationship between the picture naming task and the P300 congruency effect in bilinguals. Our findings provide insights into the neurocognitive bases of language and serve as a research avenue for language behaviors in bilinguals.

Cognitive Mechanisms of Monolingual and Bilingual Children in Monoliterate Educational Settings: Evidence From Sentence Repetition.

Sentence repetition (SR) tasks have been extensively employed to assess bilingual children’s linguistic and cognitive resources. The present study examined whether monoliterate bilingual children differ from their monolingual (and monoliterate) peers in SR accuracy and cognitive tasks, and investigated links between vocabulary, updating, verbal and visuospatial working memory and SR performance in the same children. Participants were two groups of 35 children, 8–12 years of age: one group consisted of Albanian-Greek monoliterate bilingual children and the other of Greek monolingual children attending a monolingual-Greek educational setting. The findings demonstrate that the two groups performed similarly in the grammaticality scores of the SR. However, monolinguals outperformed the monoliterate bilinguals in SR accuracy, as well as in the visuospatial working memory and updating tasks. The findings did not indicate any bilingual advantage in cognitive performance. The results also demonstrate that updating and visuospatial working memory significantly predicted monolingual children’s SR accuracy scores, whereas Greek vocabulary predicted the performance of our monoliterate bilingual children in the same task. We attribute this outcome to the fact that monoliterate bilingual children do not rely on their fluid cognitive resources to perform the task, but instead rely on language proficiency (indicated by expressive vocabulary) while performing the SR.

Current research in bilingualism and its implications for Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies

This article discusses research in the field of bilingualism that has the potential to inform the related, albeit disconnected, field of Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies (CTIS). It reviews issues such as lexical access and the multilingual mental lexicon, inhibitory control and the “bilingual advantage debate”. This debate refers to the question whether bilingualism leads to cognitive advantages that monolinguals do not develop. Although these claims have not been fully tested in translators and interpreters – both novice and advanced professionals – it is plausible that if there are indeed cognitive advantages that arise from managing “two languages in one mind”, such benefits may correlate with neural and cognitive changes due to the training, accumulated experience and expertise of translators and interpreters. These topics merit inclusion in the expanding set of prominent research themes in CTIS. Future research in CTIS can use findings from bilingualism and the bilingual advantage debate to account for the peculiarities of translational cognition.

Characterizing Bilingual Effects on Cognition: The Search for Meaningful Individual Differences.

A debate over the past decade has focused on the so-called bilingual advantage—the idea that bilingual and multilingual individuals have enhanced domain-general executive functions, relative to monolinguals, due to competition-induced monitoring of both processing and representation from the task-irrelevant language(s). In this commentary, we consider a recent study by Pot, Keijzer, and de Bot (2018), which focused on the relationship between individual differences in language usage and performance on an executive function task among multilingual older adults. We discuss their approach and findings in light of a more general movement towards embracing complexity in this domain of research, including individuals’ sociocultural context and position in the lifespan. The field increasingly considers interactions between bilingualism/multilingualism and cognition, employing measures of language use well beyond the early dichotomous perspectives on language background. Moreover, new measures of bilingualism and analytical approaches are helping researchers interrogate the complexities of specific processing issues. Indeed, our review of the bilingualism/multilingualism literature confirms the increased appreciation researchers have for the range of factors—beyond whether someone speaks one, two, or more languages—that impact specific cognitive processes. Here, we highlight some of the most salient of these, and incorporate suggestions for a way forward that likewise encompasses neural perspectives on the topic.

Bilingualism, executive function, and beyond: Questions and insights ed. by Irina A. Sekerina et al.

Reviewed by: Bilingualism, executive function, and beyond: Questions and insightsed. by Irina A. Sekerina et al. Kenneth R. Paap Bilingualism, executive function, and beyond: Questions and insights. Ed. by I rinaA. S ekerina, L aurenS pradlin, and V irginiaV alian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2019. Pp. 337. ISBN 9789027202437. $149 (Hb). The focus of Bilingualism, executive function, and beyondis the hypothesis that managing two languages requires domain-general executive functioning (EF) and that this ubiquitous practice leads to an enhancement of cognitive control. This hypothesis was first challenged in the context of a failed replication by Morton and Harper in 2007, and the ensuing debate continued to pick up steam for fifteen years and counting. The dominant view expressed throughout the book is that bilinguals do adapt to the demands of managing multiple languages and that these adaptations affect and enhance general control mechanisms. However, each bilingual's experience is distinctive, as determined by the specific languages acquired, the age of acquisition, the proficiency attained, the amount of use, and the pattern of use. The latter emphasizes a distinction between single-language contexts, where a single language dominates in each context (e.g. English at school, Spanish at home), and dual-language contexts, where there is frequent language switching depending upon changes in conversational partners or topics. With the further refinement and adoption of the theoretical framework that general cognitive control is best viewed as a set of interrelated component processes, one comes to appreciate that different types of bilinguals will recruit and strengthen different component processes of EF. Thus, another major theme of the book is that the hypothesis of a bilingual advantage in EF (the bilingual advantage hypothesis) cannot be tested with a simple comparison between bilinguals and monolinguals but must take the type of bilingual into account; this requires advances in the methods used to measure different facets of bilingualism and in the tasks used to measure different components of EF. The book does a good job of laying out this agenda, although there is no attempt to integrate the separate [End Page 836]chapters into something like a continuous narrative that tells this story. This is not surprising given the book's origin, as briefly described next. The book's genesis was a 2015 NSF-sponsored workshop held at the CUNY Graduate Center. Eleven papers from that workshop were published in 2016 as a special issue of Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. They constitute a little more than half of the contents of this volume. Nine posters from the workshop were written up as articles and form the rest of the book. Unfortunately, the time between the development of these papers and their appearance in this book means that the book was not able to benefit from advances in research and theory over the intervening years. During this time the vigorous debate about the bilingual advantage hypothesis has grown more intense, as new empirical studies and reviews seem to appear by the dozen every month. A potential weakness of the book is that it will mislead a new generation of researchers into adopting the view that evidence has confirmed the hypothesis that bilingualism enhances components of general EF. In the remainder of this review I make the case that the narrative is too rosy and incomplete. The critique is organized with respect to four issues: (i) new meta-analyses paint a very pessimistic picture for the bilingual advantage hypothesis, (ii) the presumption that domain-general executive control exists may be false, (iii) despite intensive effort, the necessary and sufficient conditions for generating bilingual advantages are nowhere in sight, and (iv) Ellen Bialystok's (e.g. 2016) program for separating signal from noise took some dubious steps and has not been successful. M eta-analyses do not support the hypothesis The book presents a distorted and incomplete view of the evidence because it fails to take into account the recent march of formal metaanalyses (von Bastian et al. 2017, Lehtonen et al. 2018, Donnelly et al. 2019, Paap 2019, Gunnerud et al. 2020, Lowe et al. 2021, Monnier et al. 2021) that cast the relevant research in a new light. A broad summary is...

The ‘Bilingual Advantage’ in the Workplace: Theoretical Frameworks and Evidence from the US Labor Market

Multilingual hires are a burgeoning feature of the workplace, but there is little evidence on the returns to language skills. This study puts forth a theoretical framework that comprehensively relates language and non-language skills to labor market outcomes drawing upon a variety of fields: linguistics, economic theory, and sociology. We derive testable hypotheses and evaluate them using US Census data. Non-language skills are instrumented with the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) task descriptors and condensed down to cognitive, manual, and interpersonal components using sparse principal component analysis. Findings validate extant evidence that the US economy does not bestow a premium upon bilingual speakers while not upholding a cognitive advantage of bilinguals that transfers to compensations. Furthermore, late learners have a wage advantage over monolinguals captured by unobservable characteristics rather than non-language skills.

A Review on the Relationship between Bilingualism and Working Memory

In the research on individuals’ linguistic development, bilingualism has received much attention, because bilingual’s cognitive ability is believed to differ from monolingual’s. With particular interest on how bilingualism would impact working memory, the authors reviewed the pertinent studies published in the journal of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition in recent three years (2017-2019). 7 out 49 studies were screened out for comparing and analyzed for their research design and results. By carefully reviewing these studies, the authors find bilingualism generally facilitates working memory capacity, especially for the visuospatial component. However, the bilingual advantage in verbal component is still under somewhat debate, and needs further research.

Sociocultural advantages of bilingualism

Sociocultural advantages of bilingualism

Executive functions in French-Greek early bilinguals: In search of the suggested bilingual advantage

Bilinguals must manage two languages on a daily basis, which requires, among other things, dealing with cross-linguistic interference. Such cognitive training is assumed to underlie better performance of bilinguals, relative to monolinguals, in non-verbal cognitive tasks. Ηowever, the suggested advantage has recently been questioned. The present study aimed at shedding light into this debate, focusing on French-Greek early bilingual adults. Exposure to two languages from the first few years of life has been suggested to favour the demonstration of an advantage. Bilinguals were compared to Greek-speaking monolingual adults (matched for age, gender, non-verbal intelligence, and SES) on executive function tasks, tapping switching, inhibition, and updating processes. Task demands were also manipulated. In line with the suggested advantage and as expected, in the switching paradigm, bilinguals performed faster overall and demonstrated a smaller mixing cost; this can be assumed to reflect better general monitoring and top-down processing for bilingual participants. In contrast, the groups did not differ on switching cost, neither on the inhibition and updating measures. Moreover, contrary to what was expected, the cognitive measures did not correlate with an index of how balanced bilingualism was. Findings do not support a general and robust cognitive advantage in a sample of early bilinguals. Factors that might influence its observation are discussed, along with lines of future research.

Bilingual Advantage

A finding that has not received much attention in the metalinguistic awareness literature is that bilingual children may be better at identifying gender mismatches between a subject and a predicate. This phenomenon is not well understood, nor has it been studied systematically. In the present study we present a systematic investigation of the phenomenon involving all three levels of metalinguistic awareness (identification of the mismatch, correction and explanation) in a language pair that has not been tested previously. We tested a group of six-year-old Arabic–English bilingual children in comparison with two monolingual control groups. Results reveal that bilinguals performed better than monolinguals at the correction level. The study reveals a bilingual advantage in this population for the first time, while enhancing our knowledge of the development of metalinguistic awareness.

Exploration of Attentional and Executive Abilities in French-Speaking Children Immersed in Dutch Since 1, 2, 3, and 6 Years.

Advantages in diverse aspects of cognitive functioning have been reported in early bilinguals (Bialystok, 2011) as well as in children frequenting an early bilingual immersion school program (Nicolay and Poncelet, 2015). However, during the last decade, some studies failed to replicate these advantages. Currently, the presence of cognitive benefits in children frequenting an immersion program remains debated. The lack of consistency between the studies could come from the fact that time spent by children within the immersion program is variable from one study to the other and that studies used different tasks to assess the same cognitive function. The main aim of the present study was to determine how time spent in immersion affects the emergence of cognitive advantages along the primary schooling. We compared 196 immersed Dutch-speaking children since they were 5 years old and 195 non-immersed French-speaking children, from different grades of the primary schooling (i.e., at 6, 7, 8, and 12 years old) by using the same attentional and executive tasks as those used in previous studies having shown a bilingual advantage. Furthermore, these groups were matched on a set of variables known to influence cognitive functioning. After 1, 2, and 3 years of enrolment in this program, performances of immersed compared to non-immersed children did not differ for any task. However, after 6 years, immersed children outperformed non-immersed children on the cognitive flexibility and the working memory tasks. These results show that, in French-speaking children immersed in Dutch, cognitive advantages could depend on the length of time spent in immersion since they are not present at the beginning (after 1, 2, and 3 years) but seem to emerge at the end of it (after 6 years). In contrast, in previous studies conducted in English immersion, advantages appear at the beginning of the primary schooling but are absent at the end of it. Furthermore, these results suggest that the emergence of cognitive advantages may vary depending on the second language learned. The results are discussed in terms of linguistic characteristics and status of the languages at stake.

The Impact of Bilingualism on Cognitive Functioning in Older Adults

Research on bilingualism has found inconsistent results regarding its potential benefit on the cognitive abilities of older adults. The goal of the current study was to evaluate differences in cognition on a wide array of neuropsychological assessments between monolingual and bilingual cognitively healthy older adults who specifically speak only English and/or Spanish. The sample included cognitively intact older adults who were either monolingual (n=247) English speakers or bilingual (n=42) in English and Spanish. Performance was compared between groups from a battery of neuropsychological assessments that measured executive function, attention, short-term memory, and episodic memory. Compared to English and Spanish bilinguals, monolingual English speakers performed significantly better on a variety of tasks within the domains of executive function, attention, and short-term memory. No significant differences were found in favor of the bilinguals on any domain of cognitive performance. In the present study, we failed to observe a significant advantage for English and Spanish bilingual speakers on the cognitive performance of older adults when compared to monolingual English speakers. This study suggests that the bilingual advantage may not be as robust as originally reported, and the effects of bilingualism on cognition could be significantly impacted by the languages included in the study.

Executive Functions and Their Relationship with the Development of Russian Speech in Bilingual and Monolingual Children

The article discusses the results of a study of the relationship between executive functions (inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, working (speech and visual) memory and the development of Russian speech in children with natural bilingualism and monolinguals in older preschool age. The study involved 63 preschool children (50.8% - boys) aged from 5.6 to 7.3 years (M = 6.42, Med = 6.4) from preschool institutions of Izhevsk (Udmurt Republic). The sample included 31 children with natural bilingualism (Udmurt/Russian language) and 32 monolinguals (Russian language). Standardised methods in the Russian-language version were used to identify the executive functions: the method of verbal-colour interference of by J. Stroop (inhibitory control), the method of studying the learning ability by A.Y. Ivanova (cognitive flexibility) and the test tasks Speech Memory and Visual Memory (working memory). The level of speech development was measured using the test tasks Speech Antonyms, Speech Classifications and Arbitrary Mastery of Speech developed by L.А. Yasyukova. The following mathematical statistics methods were used: descriptive statistics, Mann - Whitney U-test and Spearman rank correlations. According to the results of the study, the facts of the advantages of bilingualism in older preschool age in executive functions, in particular, in inhibitory control cognitive flexibility and speech memory were confirmed. At the same time, no general patterns were determined in the development of Russian speech (L2) in connection with the development of the executive functions of bilingual children: this is explained by the individualisation of the processes of linking the components of speech activity in the second language and cognitive control. In monolingual preschoolers, the speech development in their native language (L1) is associated with the formation of higher mental (executive) functions and the development of the ability to control information processing.

Is bilingualism related to a cognitive advantage in children? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bilingual people are often claimed to have an advantage over monolingual people in cognitive processing owing to their ability to learn and use two languages. This advantage is considered to be related to executive function (EF). However, no consensus exists as to whether this advantage is present in the population or under which conditions it prevails. The present meta-analysis examines the bilingual advantage in EF of children aged 18 years and under for different components of inhibition (hot; rewarding stimuli/cold; neutral stimuli), attention, switching, monitoring, working memory, and planning in 143 independent group comparisons comprising 583 EF effect sizes. The bilingual advantage in overall EF was significant, albeit marginal (g = 0.06), and there were indications of publication bias. A moderator analysis showed significant group differences on EF in favor of bilinguals for studies of children from middle-class socioeconomic backgrounds and studies from one specific lab. The EF components of cold inhibition, switching, and monitoring expressed significant bilingual advantages, but monitoring and cold inhibition were affected by publication bias. As for switching, this remained significant after controlling for publication bias. Thus, given the small mean effect size and small-study effects, this meta-analysis gives little support for a bilingual advantage on overall EF. Still, also after the moderator analysis, there was a large heterogeneity of true effects and a large amount of unexplained heterogeneity in the effect sizes. Thus, there might be bilingual advantages (or disadvantages) under conditions that this study is not able to identify through the analysis of 12 moderators. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Cognitive differences between healthy monolingual and bilingual anglophones on the English version of the Dépistage Cognitif de Québec: A new screening tool for atypical dementia

AbstractBackgroundCognitive abilities between monolingual and bilingual individuals may differ, making it important to validate new cognitive screening tools using psychometric testing. Otherwise assessments could be subject to misinterpretation, leading to inaccurate diagnoses. The current project aimed to compare healthy older monolingual and bilingual anglophones on the English version of a new cognitive screening test designed for better recognition of atypical dementia; the Dépistage Cognitif de Québec (DCQ, www.dcqtest.org). The DCQ was developed at la Clinique Interdisciplinaire de mémoire de Québec, and its psychometric properties have been well studied, including its sensitivity and specificity to detect atypical dementia compared to current standardized cognitive screening tests (Laforce et al., 2018; Sellami et al., 2018).MethodsThe DCQ was administered by qualified psychometricians to 85 healthy native English‐speaking participants aged 50 years and over, in various sites across North America. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to determine participants’ eligibility. Language proficiency was established using the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP‐Q).ResultsAmidst the anglophone participants recruited, 30 monolingual anglophones and 29 bilingual anglophones met the inclusion criteria. The two groups had similar age, education and MoCA scores. Monolinguals and bilinguals were compared on their total DCQ scores as well as on each of the 5 indexes of the DCQ: Memory, Visuospatial, Executive, Language and Behavioural. Statistical analysis showed a significant advantage for the bilingual participants on the total DCQ scores and on the Language index, which was later washed out following a Bonferroni correction. No significant differences were found between groups on any of the other indexes.ConclusionThis study is the first to explore psychometric properties of the DCQ in older monolingual and bilingual participants tested in their native language. The results highlight the importance of identifying and characterizing linguistic diversity before using new screening tools in clinical settings. The potential cognitive advantages of bilingualism, even in healthy older adults, should be considered when interpreting test data and explicitly discussed in neuropsychological reports. Similar studies should be conducted for all future cognitive screening measures, especially to further examine the differences between groups on language‐related tasks.

Does Critical Period Affect Bilingual Advantage for Working Memory and Metacognition?

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. 

Word learning in monolingual and bilingual children: The influence of speaker eye-gaze.

The current study examined the impact of a speaker's gaze on novel-word learning in 4-5-year old monolingual (N = 23) and bilingual children (N = 24). Children were taught novel words when the speaker looked at the object both times while labeling it (consistent) and when the speaker looked at the object only the first time (inconsistent). During teaching, bilingual children differentiated between the target object (that matched the label) and non-target object (that did not match the label) earlier than the monolingual children on trials without eye-gaze information. However, during testing, monolingual children showed more robust retention of novel words than bilingual children in both conditions. Findings suggest that bilingualism shapes children's attention to eye-gaze during word learning, but that, ultimately, there is no bilingual advantage for utilizing this cue in the service of word retention.

A bilingual advantage in memory capacity: Assessing the roles of proficiency, number of languages acquired and age of acquisition

Aims and objectives: This study examines whether different types of bilingualism modulate memory capacity differently. More specifically, the study assesses the effects of age of acquisition, number of languages acquired and proficiency in the second language (L2) on phonological short-term memory, visuospatial memory and semantic memory. Design: Memory capacity was measured by means of three tasks: the digit span task (phonological short-term memory); the Corsi block task (visuospatial memory); and the word span task (semantic memory). Participants were divided into five groups based on the number of languages acquired, age of acquisition and proficiency: monolinguals, intermediate L2 learners, advanced L2 learners, simultaneous bilinguals and multilinguals. Data and analysis: Analyses of variance were used to analyze participants’ scores for each of the memory tasks. Findings and conclusions: For the word span task, no significant differences were found among the groups, which supports the notion that semantic memory is language independent. Furthermore, intermediate and advanced L2 learners and multilinguals presented significantly higher phonological short-term memory spans compared to simultaneous bilinguals. Finally, intermediate L2 learners and multilinguals significantly outperformed monolinguals on visuospatial memory spans. Results suggest that L2 acquisition might strengthen both visuospatial and phonological short-term memory, which in turn tend to improve as L2 proficiency increases. Originality: While previous studies have provided evidence of a bilingual advantage in memory capacity, these studies have generally grouped different types of bilinguals together (e.g., L2 leaners and heritage speakers). This study takes a step forward by examining differences in memory capacity across different types of bilinguals and in comparison to their monolingual peers in order to better understand the cognitive effects of bilingualism. Significance and implications: When considering age of acquisition, number of languages acquired and proficiency as grouping factors, different effects of bilingualism on memory capacity can be observed. Future studies on this matter should include bilingual participants that are comparable with regard to the aforementioned variables.

Searching for the bilingual advantage in executive functions in speakers of Hunsrückisch and other minority languages: a literature review

The issue of a bilingual advantage on executive functions has been a hotbed for research and debate. Brazilian studies with the minority language Hunsrückisch have failed to replicate the finding of a bilingual advantage found in international studies with majority languages. This raises the question of whether the reasons behind the discrepant results are related to the language’s minority status. The goal of this paper was to investigate the bilingual advantage on executive functions in studies with minority languages. This is a literature review focusing on state of the art literature on bilingualism and executive functions; as well as a qualitative analysis of the selected corpus in order to tackle the following questions: (1) is there evidence of a bilingual advantage in empirical studies involving minority languages? (2) are there common underlying causes for the presence or absence of the bilingual advantage? (3) can factors pertaining to the language’s minority status be linked to the presence or absence of a bilingual advantage? The analysis revealed that studies form a highly variable group, with mixed results regarding the bilingual advantage, as well as inconsistent controlling of social, cognitive and linguistic factors, as well as different sample sizes. As such, it was not possible to isolate which factors are responsible for the inconsistent results across studies. It is hoped this study will provide an overview that can serve as common ground for future studies involving the issue of a bilingual advantage with speakers of minority languages.

Comparing bilingual and monolingual performance on the attention network test: meta-analysis of a literature inspired by Albert Costa

Are there differences between bilinguals and monolinguals in non-linguistic cognitive processes related to attention? Recent interest in this question, which has a long history, was stimulated by ideas presented in Bialystok’s 2001 book: Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Because attention is a multi-faceted construct Costa et al. (Cognition 106(1):59–86, 2008, Cognition 113(2):135–149, 2009) sought to answer this question using the attention network test (ANT), a simple-to-administer tool that was designed to measure the efficacy of three attention networks: alerting, orienting and executive control. Using the ANT Database, a recently developed repository of data extracted from studies that have used the ANT to answer any question, we identified 16 papers that followed Costa’s pioneering use of the ANT to address the question whether bilingualism is associated with differences in attention. In this paper we begin by reviewing the methods and findings from Costa’s studies, and then report the results of three meta-analyses (conducted separately for children, young adults and middle-aged adults) of the data reported in these 16 papers. Whereas, there were no noteworthy effects of language status on alerting or orienting in any group, our meta-analysis of the studies that tested young adults revealed, in agreement with Costa et al. (2008) a bilingual advantage in executive control. A similar bilingual advantage was not observed in the other age groups.