Category: Bilingual Education

Introduction

“Handwriting is a complex human activity that entails an intricate blend of cognitive, kinesthetic, and perceptual-motor components” (Hanover Research, 2012, p.5). For this reason it requires instructions and practice in order to write neatly and fluently. However, when a pupil has firstly learned to write in a different writing system, the development of his handwriting in a second system can be influenced. Through this paper, Tom, a Chinese-English bilingual will be taken into analysis. He is from the United Kingdom, he moved several times and he is currently studying in an International school in Denmark, in year 4.

After having explored several theoretical perspectives related to bilingualism and handwriting, the methodologies used and the case will be presented. Then, the analysis will be divided into the categorization of the bilingualism of the pupil, a discussion about the interview conducted and an interlanguage analysis of Tom’s texts.

Problem formulation and research question

Bialystok (2001) analysed how different types of bilingualism affects literacy development. One of the observations was“the phonological awareness skills developed in one language transferred to reading ability in another language” (p.172). However, in the same analysis they noticed that for pupils with two different writing systems, such as for Chinese-English bilinguals, in the early ages the two alphabets/characters may cause confusion. This is because the Chinese system uses characters, whereas the Roman system, used in English, is alphabetical. Therefore, the correspondence between sounds and letters/characters is not direct, as it would be for a English-Spanish bilingual (Bialystok, 2001). However, this issue has not been noticed in older ages, and the development of literacy in biluangals has been proved to be facilitated with any first language learned.

According to the Cambridge curriculum, followed by the International School attended by Tom, one of the ongoing learning objectives is the development of handwriting. This means that throughout the whole year the teacher should remind learners of the different styles and purposes of handwriting. These are divided into three groups: personal (for notes and letters), fast and fluent (the most commonly used, it should be legible and quick) and presentation writing (used for specific situations, it should be slow and neat). Furthermore, students should be able to use joined-up handwriting. One of the reasons for this learning objective is teaching to spell “kinaesthetically as well as orally and visually” (Cambridge University International Examination, n.d., p.6). The curriculum states that these ongoing objectives should be taught, improved and developed throughout the school year, and in case of students with difficulties in letter formation, additional support should be offered.

Therefore, by taking into consideration the handwriting difficulties, due to the fact that Tom has learned to write in Mandarin before English, and the requirements of the Cambridge curriculum, this paper aims to answer the following research question: How can learning a second writing system affect handwriting compositions and how can teachers improve this language skill?

Bilingualism – Definition and terminology

Bilingualism is a concept difficult to define, in particular because a person can be bilingual in different ways. One general definition can be that “bilinguals know more than one language to different degrees and use these languages for a variety of purposes” (Brisk & Harrington, 2010, p.4). The knowledge of these languages can vary according to the context, but also throughout the life of a bilingual. Moreover, a bilingual is also biliterate, which includes not only the ability to read and write, but also being able to encode and decode different linguistic systems. This ability can have different degrees according to the language used and the genre. On the other hand, the knowledge of a language supports the literacy of others, in particular the awareness of genre rules. For instance, the structure of a letter usually does not change in different languages, therefore knowing the structure of the text in one language helps the composition in a second one. Another important aspect included by Brisk and Harrington (2010) in the definition of bilingualism, is being bicultural, which concerns having knowledge of more cultural contexts, rules and characteristics related to the cultural origins of the languages spoken.

As mentioned before, bilingualism includes different dimensions. One that is relevant to consider, is the distinction between circumstantial and elective bilingualism (Valdés & Figueroa, 1994, as cited in Baker,‌ ‌2001). Circumstantial is when “bilinguals learn another language to survive”, whereas elective bilinguals “choose to learn a language” (p.3). In other words, the first group has to learn a new language in order to communicate and integrate in a new society. Differently, elective bilinguals have the opportunity to learn a new language without the risk of losing the first one, this situation happens usually in school.

Another relevant distinction to mention is between simultaneous and sequential bilingualism (Baker, 2001, p.91). These terms refer to the development of it, which can happen through an exposure to two or more languages from birth, or in a sequential way, thus a second language is learned later. Simultaneous bilinguals usually are pupils with parents with different nationalities, who speak to them in more languages. Instead, sequential bilingualism is when a second language is learned in a context outside the family, such as at school or in another community (Baker, 2001).

A last important term to mention is functional bilingualism, which concerns “when, where, and with whom people use their two languages” (Fishman, 1965, as cited in Baker, 2001, p.12). Usually bilinguals use the two languages with different people (family, neighbours, friends, colleagues, and so on) and in different domains (work, hobbies, visual and printed media, etc.). Therefore, when defining bilingualism it is important to consider all these aspects, since every bilingual pupil is different and he can have different degrees of language proficiency according to the context that surrounds him.

Language use and fluency

As mentioned before, “bilinguals use their languages for different purposes, in different domains of life, to accomplish different things. Their level of fluency in a language depends on their need for that language” (Grosjean, 2012, p.7). Moreover, fluency can vary in their four different skills, some bilinguals may be better in speaking and listening a language but not in writing or reading. This depends on several variables, for instance in which domains a bilingual uses the languages and how much they use them. Therefore, if a pupil uses a language in an extensive number of domains this can bring to a higher fluency. On the other hand, if a language is not used frequently, language loss or language attrition is a phenomenon that can happen (Grosjean, 2012). The use and fluency of languages changes throughout the lifespan of the bilingual, and this may include forgetting or improving a language, as well as the two or more languages can influence each other. All these processes depend on the importance of a given language in that particular life period of the bilingual, and this is why it is fundamental for the teacher to know the language history of the bilingual students.

Handwriting

“Research has shown that improved handwriting skills have benefits for cognitive development and motor skills” (Hanover Research, 2012, p.2). Furthermore, it can also support writing and reading skills. However, in a world always more digital, the opponents to handwriting teaching are various, for several reasons. First, communications nowadays are mainly digital, rarely pen writing is being used to interact. Another reason is that teaching handwriting may waste time during lectures, which could be used for other topics. On the other hand, the high variety of the benefits of teaching handwriting have been confirmed by several authors (Hanover Research, 2012). Planning, spelling, grammar, text production, self-monitoring are some of those benefits. At the same time, handwriting proficiency is also beneficial across all the subjects, because when students spend less time thinking about letter formation and writing composition, they can focus more on the content. Therefore, handwriting difficulties can lead to reduce the quality and quantity of the pupils’ compositions.

In order to further support this point of view, other authors (Medwell, Wray, Moore, & Griffiths, 2017) have claimed that “handwriting is an important factor in composition, and that a proportion of children suffer from low levels of handwriting automaticity, which may be interfering with their composition” (p.69). This is why teaching handwriting is not just important to improve the presentation of the pupil’s writing, but also to improve his composition skills. Having difficulties in handwriting may cause other problems, for instance in recognizing phonemes, and also slowness in typing (Medwell et al., 2017). It is common to give less importance to handwriting nowadays, since the computer starts to be used increasingly during the lectures and to study in general. However, there is evidence that if a pupil has difficulties in handwriting, he tends to have them in typing too.

Methodology

In order to answer the research question, an interview with Tom (Appendix 1), a questionnaire answered by his mother and qualitative observations from the teaching practice period will be used. The interviewee has been asked different questions about his language knowledge and the contexts he uses them. The interview has been introduced with a brief explanation of the subject, the purpose and the permission to use a sound recorder. The questions asked were structured to be brief and simple, in particular because of the age of the student, to fit his background knowledge and vocabulary. This is also a reason why the questions asked were mainly direct or specifying questions, since these types help to formulate precise descriptions (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).

The qualitative observations have been conducted during five weeks of teaching practice in the year 4 classroom, by recording the engagement of Tom during writing activities and by collecting pictures of his writings. The observations aimed to produce descriptive and narrative recordings, since these systems are flexible and simple to reanalyse in conjunction with the data collected (Simpson & Tuson, 2003).

The student analysed for this paper is called Tom, from the UK, currently attending the fourth grade in an International School in Denmark. He is eight years old, but he has already attended five different schools, in three different countries. He started by attending a kindergarten in Singapore where the main language spoken was Mandarin. Then, after the first year of primary school in China, he moved with his family to the UK, and finally, at the age of 7, in Denmark. English has been the main language used at home and now also at School, where he is also learning Danish. However, in China he learned to write in Mandarin before English and this may have influenced the acquisition of the second language writing system, Roman. Tom has some difficulties in writing compositions and in letters formation. Most of his writings are difficult to read, and this can be a problem for the teacher when assessing his works.

Analysis

The following grids will be used in order to define the bilingualism of Tom, in terms of language use and language fluency in two different periods of time (Grosjean, 2012). These datas are approximations, created according to the information given from the interview to Tom and a questionnaire filled by Tom’s mother.

The first grid shows that at 5 year old, the pupil was speaking Chinese and English daily, and the language fluency was high for both of them. At 8 years old, instead, Tom is not required anymore to use the Chinese language, thus the level of fluency is also diminishing. Moreover, at 7 years old he started to learn another language, Danish, which he uses a few days a week, and the fluency is still quite low. Therefore, Tom`s bilingualism can be classified as circumstantial, and sequential. Circumstantial because he learned the second language (Chinese) in order to integrate in the community he found himself. Sequential, due to the fact that his whole family is British and he started to speak Mandarin only in the school domain.

Interview ‘s analysis

From the interview conducted two observations regarding the language use of Tom can be drawn: the predominance of the domains in which he uses English and the absence of contexts where he can use the Chinese language. As he said, in Denmark he has no opportunities to speak Mandarin and therefore he mainly speaks English, because in family, school and leisure contexts he is not required to use other languages. He also mentioned being able to speak French and Spanish, however in the questionnaire these languages have not been written, and the use of this language has not been observed during the teaching practice. An hypothesis about it can be that he learned a few words by being in contact with other international pupils in school.

Another relevant observation is the fact that he is aware about the differences between the languages. “I am good at Chinese and Spanish. Those languages are easy to learn. You don’t need like a tongue twister, like in Danish” (Appendix 1). He is able to recognize the different pronunciations required, and he has noticed some difficulties in learning Danish, due to the sounds of the language. Baker (2017) claimed that “bilingualism permits increased linguistic awareness, more flexibility in thought, more internal inspection of language” (p.234). These metalanguage abilities can be noticed in his answers, beside he did not know the meaning of bilingualism.

Finally, an important point to notice is that he does not mention having handwriting difficulties. This can be due to the formulation of the question, the focus is more about writing in general. Indeed, he is usually highly engaged during writing activities, he is a creative student and he enjoys writing about imaginative characters. These characteristics have been noticed during the English lectures, since they explore the Fantasy topic for five weeks. Anyhow, the interviewee shows that his handwriting is not perceived from him as a limitation.

Interlanguage analysis

For this analysis two short handwritten texts by Tom are taken into consideration. The first text has been written as a task after the Christmas holidays, where the learners were required to write about an object, a person and a moment they were grateful for. The second text was given as homework and it refers to the book The firework-maker’s daughter by Philip Pullman, read in class by the teacher.

In the first text the students did not answer successfully to the task, since he wrote a fantasy story about Christmas, whereas the second text has been understood correctly and he gave good reasons for his statements. The general cohesion of the texts is quite good, in the first we can observe a good command of paragraph division, for example. He is also able to correctly use cohesive devices, as the pronouns him or myself, and co-ordinating conjunctions, as and and but. Overall the student shows a good knowledge of past tense, both for regular (e.g. called, worked) and irregular (e.g. was, tought) verbs. He is aware of the use of capital letters at the start of the paragraph and for names (Razvani). However, he often uses capital letters in the middle of the sentence, sometimes to emphasize the concept (e.g. YES BOMBS!; STOP ME), but mostly without a particular purpose. This is a common mistake in early years, since lowercase letters can be considered difficult to write (Medwel et al., 2010). A, e and f are the letters that he mostly writes in capital letters, however throughout the text the same letters are also written lowercase. Therefore, he knows how to write in cursive both of the forms.

Abstract

This study investigates the presence, or lack thereof, of a bilingual advantage in inhibition control and executive processing while considering the different interactional contexts as per the adaptive control hypothesis posited by Green and Abutalebi (2013). 849 University of Melbourne students enrolled in an undergraduate psychology course participated in this study. The data was collected through a Flanker task and an online questionnaire that sorted participants into the appropriate interactional contexts of monolingual, single-language, and dual-language contexts. The Flanker effect was calculated and a one-way ANOVA test and post-hoc tests were used to examine any significant differences between the three groups. No significant differences were found between the baseline monolingual group or the bilingual groups of both interactional contexts, in contrast to previous literature that supports a domain-general bilingual advantage. It thus prompts further research into whether a non-behavioural difference between monolinguals and bilinguals of various interactional contexts may exist.

Adaptive Control Hypothesis

The field of research regarding the potential advantages of bilingualism on cognitive processing is wide and varied, investigating the age-old question as to whether learning additional languages holds any benefits. A wealth of literature supports the claim of a bilingual advantage, with bilinguals performing significantly better than monolinguals on tasks that measure inhibitory control, task-switching, or working memory (Bialystok, Craik, Green, & Gollan, 2009).

The reason behind this alleged bilingual advantage lies the innate tendency to process prompts even in the language not actively used, as demonstrated in a study by Guttentag, Haith, Goodman, & Hauch (1984). Bilinguals had a significant delay in response time when presented with peripheral information in their second language, indicating a simultaneous activation of both languages despite the given context. Building off this theory, Bialystok et al. (2009) posits that the joint activation of both languages forces bilinguals to constantly inhibit unnecessary information from the irrelevant language, consequently developing more refined domain-general inhibitory control processes than monolinguals.

From a non-behavioural perspective, a neuro-imaging study found that when compared to monolinguals, bilinguals were more efficient in utilising the anterior cingulate cortex, an area typically associated with domain-general executive function, thus supporting how inhibition of a non-relevant language is plausibly generalised (Abutelabi et al.,2012). Similarly, an examination of the effects of bilingualism on a task-switching exercise found that bilinguals were significantly faster than monolinguals when switching between tasks, suggesting a proficiency that indicates better developed cognitive control (Garbin et al., 2010).

Notably, most studies involve young adults, who typically perform better than children or older adults on tasks that test executive processing (Friedman, Nessler, Cycowicz, & Horton, 2009). An extension of investigation into older adults still found that older bilinguals consistently performed better on tasks that involved greater utilisation of working memory (Bialystok, Craik, Klein, & Viswanathan, 2004).

Other studies hold more critical views on the subject. Paap and Greenberg (2013) tested for the bilingual advantage through the Flanker and Simon tests, discovering not only a lack of significant differences in measurements of the bilingual advantage in their studies, but also a disadvantage in bilinguals’ executive processing. A meta-analysis of 152 consolidated studies bears similar inconclusive results (Lehtonen et al., 2018). Thus, the ambiguity of the topic prompts the consideration of alternative approaches.

Most studies consider bilingualism as a whole, with little differentiation within the group itself. Green and Abutalebi (2013), however, introduce the Adaptive Control Hypothesis (ACH) as a means of differentiating between the ways bilinguals interact with others under situational circumstances. They propose that the processes required to resolve joint activation problem differs per interactional context. Bilinguals whose language use differs per environment fall into the ‘single-language context’, while bilinguals whose language use differs per conversational partner within the same environment fall into the ‘dual-language context’. A third context was also proposed, called the ‘dense code-switching context’, wherein the speaker uses both languages within the same interaction. The different demands on language control processes contributes to a variation on the level of demand on the cognitive system, prompting further study with attention paid to a distinction between interactional contexts.

This study thus aims to investigate whether the consideration of the ACH aids in demonstrating a possible bilingual advantage. In the case of the present study, the term ‘bilinguals’ includes individuals who speak more than one language fluently. In testing via the Flanker effect, it is hypothesised that (a) bilinguals in the single-language context will demonstrate an advantage in inhibition control over monolinguals, and (b) bilinguals in the dual-language context will demonstrate an advantage in inhibition control over monolinguals and bilinguals in a single-language context.

Materials and Measures

Participants first completed a standard arrow Flanker task adapted from Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, Raz, and Posner (2002). On each trial, a fixation cross appeared for 500 ms, which was then replaced by a line of five arrows. Participants were instructed to make a left or right button-press response according to the direction in which the central arrow was pointing, and to ignore the arrows on both sides of the central arrow, which were pointing in either the same or the opposite direction to the target. The arrows remained on-screen until a response was made, and the time from stimulus presentation until response was recorded. In the event of an incorrect response, the word “WRONG” was presented for 800 ms before the next trial began; no feedback was given for correct responses. The intertrial interval was 1000 ms. There were 120 trials in total (60 congruent trials and 60 incongruent trials), divided across four blocks of 30 trials each, with accuracy displayed at the end of each block. The trial order was randomized for each participant.

Participants then completed a questionnaire about their language background and usage. They were asked to list the languages they spoke, and to rate their proficiency in and frequency of use of each language from one to ten. Then, they were given a list of seven common situations and were asked to rate their agreement from one to seven with three items for each situation: “I tend to speak to some people in one language, and other people in a different language”, “I tend to only speak in one language”, and “I tend to use more than one language within one sentence”. These items reflected the dual-language, single-language, and dense-code switching interactional context, respectively. The scores for each situation were weighted according to the percentage of time participants estimated themselves to spend in each situation in a given week, and then scores for each item were summed across all situations to produce a total score for each of the three items.

Data Processing

Participants who achieved below 80% accuracy on the Flanker task were excluded from analyses, resulting in the loss of 1 (0.12%) participant. Of those remaining, RTs faster than 200 ms or slower than 1000 ms were excluded from the analyses, which resulted in 0.58% of trials lost. A Flanker Effect (FE) was calculated for each participant by computing the average RT for correct trial responses in each of the congruent and incongruent conditions and then subtracting the average for the congruent condition from the average for the incongruent condition.

For the language questionnaire, participants were classified as monolingual if they reported speaking only one language or if they reported speaking more than one language but rated their proficiency or frequency of use in their additional languages as two or less. The remaining participants were classified into the dual-language, single-language, or dense code-switching context based on the corresponding item on which they scored the highest. Participants who fell into the dense code-switching group were then excluded from the analyses. To ensure a balanced design, 182 participants were then randomly selected from the two largest groups in order to match the size of the smallest group, giving 182 participants in each group.

Results

The Flanker effect was calculated by finding the difference between the mean RT in congruent and incongruent trials. Monolinguals had the smallest FE of all three, while the dual-language had the largest FE.

A one-way ANOVA test was used to identify any significant differences in magnitude between any of the three trials. The analysis found no statistically significant differences between the means, as well as a small effect size as per Cohen’s (1988) rule of thumb, F(2, 543) = 2.96, p = 0.53, η2 = .01. However, considering the lack of specificity regarding differences between the groups in the ANOVA test, post-hoc tests with Bonferroni corrections were also conducted to examine the differences in greater detail.

Post-hoc tests revealed no significant differences between the monolingual and single-language contexts (MD = .07, p = 1.00). Furthermore, no significant differences were found between the monolingual and dual-language contexts (MD = 4.15, p = .102). No significant differences were also found between the single-language and dual-language contexts (MD = 4.08, p = .112).

Discussion

The results from the study revealed no significant differences between the monolingual and single-language contexts, the monolingual and dual-language contexts, nor the single-language and dual-language contexts. Thus, both hypotheses, that (a) the single-language context would demonstrate an advantage over monolinguals, and (b) bilinguals in the dual-language context would demonstrate an advantage over monolinguals and bilinguals in a single-language context, were not supported by the findings.

The lack of significant results are somewhat surprising, and seemingly at odds with the wealth of research that supports a bilingual advantage. If the arguments for a domain-general bilingual advantage are true, then it would be likely to identify significant behavioural differences in the monolingual and bilingual cases in both interactional contexts (Bialystok et al., 2009; Abutalebi et al., 2012). However, the non-significant results of the present study appear to suggest otherwise, prompting further investigation into the reasons that lie behind such.

In considering the ACH, the present study accounted for differences in interactional contexts. It may have left other factors unaccounted for, potentially either overlooked or unfeasible for the scope of this study.

The characteristics of the present participants may have played a role in influencing the results of the study. The participants for the study were students enrolled in a second-year psychology course at the University of Melbourne. Despite the cultural diversity of the cohort, a sample that draws from a university group could still run the risk of homogenization, for example in terms of cognitive ability or age range, further contributing to smaller and less significant differences between monolinguals and bilinguals. Furthermore, an average accuracy of 98.26% was observed in the Flanker task, which could indicate a potential ceiling effect that skews results.

Another methodological factor that may have influenced the results could have been the number of trials conducted. Granted the large number of both congruent and incongruent trials, participants may have become familiar enough with the task to the extent of rendering the bilingual advantage non-significant, as theorised by Hilchey and Klein (2011).

In terms of how the present study relates to prior studies, the findings appear to support that of Paap and Greenberg (2013), who were unable to replicate previous studies on the bilingual advantage. Measuring inhibitory control through the Flanker test, they were unable to find any trend significantly indicative of a bilingual advantage, with any differences being rather marginal. Instead, they found data that suggested a monolingual advantage instead, which, upon further examination, appears to be somewhat supported by the present study’s data as well — despite bilinguals seeming to have an advantage in mean reaction times, they have a marginal global disadvantage in their FE scores. Though it falls beyond the scope of the current study, it is possible that an examination of other highly fluent bilinguals, such as the dense code-switching bilinguals, may offer additional insight.

Furthermore, the non-significant results thus seem to indicate the absence of observable behavioural differences in the bilingual advantage. Electrophysiological study, which was beyond the scope of the present study, was examined by Kousaie and Phillips (2012) to identify any potential non-behavioural differences. They found inconsistent variations in the electrophysiological data, and posited that processing differences varied across their usage of the Stroop, Simon, and Flanker tasks. With this in mind, it is possible that differences between monolinguals and the two bilingual interactional contexts may benefit from being examined not only through other tasks such as the Simon and Stroop tasks, but also in terms of electrophysiological or neuro-imaging data, which allows an investigation beyond behavioural measures.

The non-significance of the results collected in this study provide further insight into the controversial topic at hand, adding to the cases against a coherent bilingual advantage, and seemingly contributing to a balance between the two opposing sides. The present study seeks to bolster the current field of literature by building upon and testing Green and Abutalebi’s (2013) adaptive control hypothesis on a behavioural basis. In doing so, it opens up opportunities for further research into the conditions that draw out the bilingual advantage, if there is one at all, perhaps eventually leading to a more conclusive board of information to resolve the question of whether learning multiple languages is truly beneficial.

References

1. Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P.A., Green, D.W., Hernandez, M., Scifo, P., Keim, R., Cappa, S.F., & Costa, A. (2012). Bilingualism Tunes the Anterior Cingulate Cortex for Conflict Monitoring. Cerebral Cortex, 22(9), 2076–2086.
2. Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Green, D., & Gollan, T. (2009). Bilingual Minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(3), 89-129.
3. Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, Aging, and Cognitive Control: Evidence From the Simon Task. Psychology and Aging, 19(2), 290-303.
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
5. Friedman, D., Nessler, D., Cycowicz, Y.M., Horton, C. (2009). Development of and change in cognitive control: A comparison of children, young adults, and older adults. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 9(1), 91-102.
6. Garbin, G., Sanjuan, A., Forn, C., Bustamante, J.C., Rodriguez-Pujadas, A., Belloch, V., Hernandez, M., Costa, A., & Avila, C. (2010). Bridging language and attention: Brain basis of the impact of bilingualism on cognitive control. NeuroImage, 53(4), 1272-1278.
7. Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 515-530.
8. Guttentag, R. E., Haith, M. M., Goodman, G. S., & Hauch, J. (1984). Semantic processing of unattended words by bilinguals: A test of the input switch mechanism. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 178-188.
9. Hilchey, M.D., & Klein, R.M. (2011). Are there bilingual advantages on nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(4), 625-658.
10. Kousaie, S., & Phillips, N.A. (2012). Conflict monitoring and resolution: Are two languages better than one? Evidence from reaction time and event-related brain potentials. Brain Research, 1446, 71-90.
11. Lehtonen, M., Soveri, A., Laine, A., Järvenpää, J., de Bruin, A., Antfolk, J. (2018). Is bilingualism associated with enhanced executive functioning in adults? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(4), 394-425.
12. Paap, K.R., & Greenberg, Z.I., (2013). There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing. Cognitive Psychology, 66(2), 232-258.

The authors recognized that little attention had been given to the impact of language context for monolinguals. As a result, they did research to present data detailing the effect of ambient linguistic diversity on monolinguals’ ability to acquire a different language. The authors aimed at using recent research to challenge the traditional assumptions that language processing is uniformly homogeneous and that differences in the performance of native language always result from cognitive resource constraints. They believe that language processing may reflect fluency differences and may not be as stable as it is assumed to be since it changes for bilinguals who are proficient. The authors tend to think that both past and new experiences influence changes in the native language while learning a new one. Before the study, they predicted that monolinguals in contexts with linguistic diversity have a much better language experience apart from English than monolinguals in homogeneous unilingual contexts and hence are less monolingual like.

The authors made a comparison of monolinguals in two different contexts. The first is Central Pennsylvania, which has a relatively homogeneous unilingual setting where the predominant language is English, while the second is Southern California with linguistic diversity where many languages are spoken. They sampled 34 monolingual participants, where 21 of them were females. Out of the 34, 18 were from the Pennsylvania community and the rest from the University of California-Riverside. All participants were native speakers of the English language within the ages of 18-35 and had to be free from epilepsy, color blind, speech disorders, concussion, and have normal vision. A questionnaire on language history was given to the subjects requiring them to report any languages they can speak more than just the greetings and the time proportion they were exposed to each of those languages they reported.

The key finding from the collected data was that California monolinguals were sensitive to non-native phonological contrast in the process of learning the language while Pennsylvania monolinguals did not. This finding suggests critical differences in the learning process in the two locations. Results from learning task behavior showed that the two groups had the ability to learn mappings of the finish words they had studied, although none of the groups could generalize the harmony pattern of vowels to novel words. However, results of the brain activity pattern revealed that the two groups had notable effects of ERP for words studied with Pennsylvania having a broader distribution effect while monolinguals in California were more restricted to the posterior sites. Both behavioral learning task and brain activity results reveal that the two locations were able to differentiate violations in behavior and studied words, with monolinguals from Pennsylvania performing higher.

The results from behavioral changes might be beneficial in assuming that monolinguals were in no way sensitive to differentiating between the vowel and novel harmony violations. This was the case with monolinguals in Pennsylvania, where there were no significant waveform differences, as shown by the ERP results. The differences in ERP results between the studied monolingual groups reveals that linguistic diversity and factors co-involved in it may positively impact on the learning of new languages. The regional dialects might be affected by living among linguistic diversity as well as increasing the interaction numbers with accented speakers. These effects may prepare people for a particular new language learning aspects. In addition, the role played by immersion in learning language can also be explained from the reported results and the period that the monolinguals have lived where they are.

Microstructural plasticity in the bilingual brain

The inspiration to carry out this experiment was the lack of a quantitative evaluation of the vivo microstructural properties from past studies. Most of them did neuroimaging, which only dealt with qualitative analysis as they were exclusively derived from uncalibrated TI-weighted images sensitive to tissue microstructure and organization multiple features. Therefore, to achieve the quantitative evaluation of vivo microstructural properties, the authors utilized the qMRI technique to facilitate computation for macromolecular tissue volume (MTV) of the brain as well as quantitative TI analysis as it contributes linearly to myelin and iron concentrations. The authors also needed to identify executive and bilingual processing relationships. They, therefore, predicted a valid approximation of the myelin volume provided by MTV because the proteins and membranes account for the most substantial part of brain macromolecules.

The experiments involved fifty bilingual participants of native speakers from China who learned the English language as a second language. Among them, twenty-five were bilinguals who had learned the English language between 0-6 years while the other twenty-five were late bilinguals and learned English after nine years. All of them were college students, left-handed and with physically healthy, normal, and neurologically typical children without drug abuse. The participants were given a questionnaire with proficiency and qualitative language experience to complete to allow for their language experience assessment. To evaluate ability of the subjects, the researchers used the reading and listening sub-sections of the IELTS. Administration of cognitive tests was done individually, while the nonverbal intelligence of participants was measured with the Standard Progressive Matrices of the Raven using the standard version of China. Other tests were component search, subsets of the WAIS and rapid automatized naming of numbers, numeric working memory test, phoneme counting, deletion, and Stroop tasks. A 3 T Discovery MR750 system was used to perform the MRI experiments using a head coil of 8 channels. For the TI and MTY quantitative values, spoiled gradient echo (SPGE) images were used to by utilizing various angles. Analysis of the fMRI was performed using SPM12 software package in MATLAB. The mrQ software package was used to process images of SEIR and SPGE, which generated quantitative TI map and macromolecular tissue volume (MTV) for each of the participants. Statistical analysis use of IBM SPSS and ANOVA and evaluated the TI and MTV group difference per ROL.

Results revealed three regions activated strongly in the functional task for the whole of the analysis of the brain using fMRI. Notable variations in the microstructure regarding the AoA were observed in the left middle fusiform and left the anterior region. MTV in the left anterior showed the trend of negative correlation with AoA, while the positive trend was demonstrated with the TI. Researchers found no notable qMRI measure difference between late and early bilinguals in that particular region. This study succeeded in proving that the identification of microstructural plasticity in young bilinguals was possible using the qMRI technique. It confirmed that proficiency and AoA are able to play unique roles that contribute to the bilingual brain microstructure. Further, for the first time, the research demonstrates that acquiring the second language early is attributed to enhanced development of the microstructure within the brain of the bilingual and which can provide significant evidence for the high executive functions in young adult bilinguals as compared to the monolinguals.

Working memory training involves learning new skills

The field of intensive training for intellectual capacity expansion has been advancing progressively towards the understanding of its effects on not only structure but also the functioning of the neural networks. However, detailed the cognitive changes that occur have not been accounted for fully, which made the authors of this article to explore a new framework and describe what they could be including how to constrain and enable novel situations transfer. To do this, they explored the Working memory, which is among the cognitive training areas. The research characterizes the task elements that stimulate transfer within the working memory. They first predicted that this transfer takes place significantly when one acquires cognitive skills that are new and complex from training and which are easy to apply to activities no trained.

For study 1, the researchers carried out a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to experiment if after the transfer that comes after working memory comes up when certain task features are shared by transfer tasks as well as training activities. Various studies were carried out to achieve the objectives of the study. First, for visuospatial material, stimulus input modality, and verbal recall modality, the extent for transfer mediation by usual components of both the trained and untrained tasks was assessed. The primary research method and source of evidence for their argument was the literature search. Collected searches were collated, and duplicates taken away to review the data’s abstract meaning. Single working memory tasks were paired with every untrained one during the training program, after which the two tasks were coded as per the response modality and paradigm, complex and backward, stimulus type, stimulus domain, and Type of the stimulus. For particular tasks, it necessitated the coding of several features within one category. The meta-analytic procedure, on the other hand, involved the recording of data for each task transfer. Version 3.3 of the Meta-analysis comprehensive program was used for conducting the data analysis. The analysis plan included conducting analysis for the summed comparisons in all categories, unmatched features, and matched conditions for every element. Moderator analyses tested any significant effect on the effect size multitude. Crucial results of the moderator analyses were the R^2 and p-value. For study 2, the boundary conditions to task transfer within the working memory were comprehensively analyzed to transfer within the working memory. Participants used for this study had low working memory scores.

Across all the one hundred and thirteen task pairs used for trained and untrained working memory, the mean effect size was found to be 0.42, SD=0.54. The analysis mainly evaluated the statistical importance of the effects sizes as per the matched and unmatched features with the condition of feature matching acting as the transfer moderator. The results produced revealed a large effect size for matched pairs of tasks that is, d=0.994 and for unmatched pairs, it was smaller, however significant (d=0.357). For letters, the effect sizes were significant, although small, for matched stimuli in trained and untrained tasks. Based on words and non-words, the effect size was moderate and quite substantial for matched pairs, although, for unmatched pairs, it was non-significant. Objects also showed comparable and reasonable magnitudes for both matched and unmatched stimuli.

Through meta-analysis, the features associated with working memory transfers were evaluated in RCTs of adaptive working memory training using current conditions of control training. The transfer strength for 113 pairs after the 24 studies ranged between small to moderate for both trained and untrained tasks. The high transfer was observed in cases where tasks used similar paradigm, i.e., either complex span, backward span, or serial recall paradigms. The research findings broadly support cognitive routine network predictions. This basis showed that quite large transfer following working memory training occurred in cases when trained and untrained activities imposed similar and unfamiliar demands of tasks not supported by the already existing working subsystems of the working memory. This research helps in new cognitive routines construction and transfer only for those tasks that are exposed to have the same routines.

Balancing Type 1 error and power in linear mixed models

The authors of this article carried out a simulation to show that the additional cost in the potential overfitting of Linear mixed models (LMM). The cost comes about in that protection against Type I errors means a considerable increase in the Type II error rate. This means a loss of the power of statistics to detect the importance of fixed effects. Additionally, the researchers aimed at showing that selecting a parsimonious linear mixed model is a quite promising option to the maximal model in balancing the rate and power of Type I error. The experiment involved demonstrating the problem of maximal models approach introducing costs i.e., statistical power through simulating, estimation of the Grand Mean, and single fixed effects.

The fixed effects used were and a residual error, where c represents the condition, s subject, and I item. The generating process with y as the dependent variable and subscripts mimicked an experiment where twenty items were presented to fifty subjects under conditions. That meant collecting times for response with 25 milliseconds as experimental effects and 2000millisecond grand mean. They were mainly concerned with the fixed effects significance and the way the complex effects of the random structure of the linear mixed model affects the estimate concerning the Type I error and power. The generating process involved subjects where each had a random intercept and slope for the conditions. Each of the items was also given a slope and an intercept. Both standard deviations for subject and items were varied on an interval of 1-120, which found a correlation of the item specific random effects.

Moreover, the model residuals were independent and also identical distribution. A sample was drawn from the process of generation, and the researchers fitted five linear mixed models to the data producing a difference in the random structure effects part. Next was the estimation of the models under the null hypothesis alternative of zero fixed effect which had a value of 25. The maximal model was the first one and included estimating the correlation parameters fixed in the generating process. It was found that the model exactly matched the generating process apart from cases where random slope variances were set to zero.

The determination of error rates simulation involved two runs. The first run involved estimation of the model Type I error. Each iteration simulation consisted of drawing a sample from the generating process with set to zero. After getting the estimates of the type one error and power, a comparison was made for the maximal model specification and parsimonious model performance. In the second run, power was determined by drawing samples from the generating process with set to 25. Simulation scenarios were two, the worst-case scenario and the small random slopes scenario. The worst-case scenario showed evident deficits of the maximal model, while in the second scenario, the maximal model showed the worst performance than the parsimonious model even when with the generating process matching the maximal model. Yields from the simulations were in agreement with theory in showing that the maximal linear model guarded against increasing the Type I error by ignoring the significant variance component. The research is vital in that it showed that determining a parsimonious model by selecting a standard model can be a logical choice in finding the model ground between power and Type I error.

Bilingual advantage is the notion that the practice of employing two languages, choosing one while inhibiting the other enhances executive function. Executive function is a faction of top-down psychological processes vital in attention, inhibition, and planning (Diamond, 2013). Bilinguals have been shown to have advantages in tasks concerning interference repression- inhibition of inappropriate tasks (Bunge et al, 2002). But research on the bilingual advantage in executive function has often generated contradictory evidence. The Simon, Stroop, Flanker and Attentional Network tasks have frequently been employed as a measure of executive function. For the purpose of this written piece, one will focus on the Simon task, which is a measure of inhibition, with children as the target population. One will also examine reasons behind the conflicting evidence for the bilingual advantage regardless of studies often utilising similar tasks and target populations. Additionally, the methodological issues that may have affected the contradictory outcomes will be considered.

As previously pointed out, the simon task is commonly used as an assessment of inhibition in bilingual advantage studies. For instance, De Cat, Gusanto and Serratrice (2017) assessed inhibition using 174 children. A computer-based version of the simon task was used where the compatibility of stimulus and response was according to its shape and position. Two conditions were involved, a mismatching condition where the square was aligned by the button with the wrong colour and a matching condition where the colour of the square was corresponded with the position of the button. There were 8-practice trials along with 48 critical trials and children were instructed to press the button as quickly and accurately as possible. Children’s responses were noted. They found that bilingualism did not have an effect in inhibition. However, a fascinating discovery from this study was that children in the highly heterogeneous bilingual group benefitted from a socioeconomic advantage. This suggests that an advantage in executive function may stem from an advantage background rather than solely based on bilingualism.

Nevertheless, using a similar methodology, Ross and Melinger (2017) provide support for the bilingual advantage. In their study using the Simon task, there were 174 children between the ages of 6 and 9 years- there were 54 bilingual speakers, 45 monolinguals and 48 bidialectal speakers. There were 48 trials evenly allocated between the two colours (red and blue squares) and locations(left vs right). The precision and speed of responses were assessed. Findings showed that bilinguals made fewer errors than monolinguals in the Simon task but no evidence for 8-year-olds were found. This indicate that the bilingual effect on executive function might be age-specific-implying that not children of all ages show the bilingual advantage.

These refuting results suggest that there are methodological issues concerning bilingual advantage studies. One of these problems might be sample size. For example, Ross and Melinger used a smaller sample compared to Decat and colleagues. Small sample sizes are argued to generate positive outcomes. But this is problematic because small samples decrease the statistical power of studies. It means that findings from such studies cannot be generalised to every bilingual child because the samples used in such studies are not representative of bilingual children. Moreover, the refuting evidence is perhaps due to the impurity of cognitive control tasks. For example, the simon task may not offer a pure measure of a sole control skill instead, it might stem from several components of cognitive control.

Nevertheless, Namazi & Thordardottir (2010) did not find supporting evidence for the bilingual advantage in EF irrespective of using a smaller sample. In a study involving 45 children, the Simon task was employed where children were required to push a red button when a red square appeared on the computer screen and press a blue button when a blue square emerged. The test-trials contained 36 congruent and 36 incongruent trials shown at random. Children’s reaction time was assessed. A bilingual advantage was not found because bilingual and monolingual children demonstrated similar performance on the Simon task. However, it was found that children with enhanced visual working memories performed considerably better on the Simon task as they were more precise and quicker. This suggests that an advantage in executive function might not be due to a bilingual advantage effect but other factors affecting it.

The fact that the same task was used in this study and Melinger and Ross’ study yet conflicting evidence was discovered demonstrates that factors other than the sample size or task swayed the outcomes. It is argued that, children for these studies are often designated to dichotomous groups but bilingualism is a multidimension and continuous phenomenon so this might have an influence on the outcomes. Although, it is claimed that small sample sizes often generate positive findings, Melinger and Ross used a sample larger than Namazi and Thordardottir yet found evidence for the bilingual advantage which implies that factors other than sample size impacts the outcomes of bilingual advantage studies. For example, since random assignment is not feasible in quasi-experimental studies, it may be possible that comparing monolinguals to bilinguals leads to a possibility of bilingualism covarying other factors that affect EF.

In a study exploring non-linguistic effects of language control in early second language learners, bilinguals, and trilingual, Poarch and Van Hell (2012) found evidence for the bilingual advantage in German children. This study consisted of 75 German children aged between 5 and 8 years old. The Simon task was used with twenty-four practice trials and 84 critical trials. Participants were examined on their speed and precision. They found the Simon effect advantage for bilingual children over monolinguals. Bilinguals also had a greater conflict resolution over monolinguals and second-language learners. These findings suggest that bilinguals have an advantage in certain tasks of EF. The refuting results is possibly due to the number of trials used. While Namazi & Thordardottir (2010) used only 36 critical trials, Poarch and Hell used 84 critical trials. This means that children could have improve on their accuracy as the trials progressed. Moreover, cultural influences may have affected the outcomes of this study. For instance, While Namazi and Thordardottir used French and English monolinguals and bilinguals, Poarch and Hell used German children.

Comparable to Namazi & Thordardottir findings, Morton and Harper (2007) found no evidence for the bilingual advantage in 6- and 7-year olds. But socioeconomic status was taken into consideration. There were 34 children (17 monolinguals and 17 bilinguals) whose socioeconomic status was assessed through a parental information questionnaire. All children were from a well‐educated middle‐class family. Subjects were required to complete a computer‐based version of the Simon task with 28 trials. It was found that both bilingual and monolingual children exhibited comparable performance in the Simon task. For the incongruent trials, both groups were slower and more prone to make errors than the congruent trials. Moreover, bilingual children failed to demonstrate an advantage regardless of their control of two languages. However, socioeconomic status had an effect- children from higher economic backgrounds demonstrated smaller cost of conflict in the Simon task in terms of errors. These findings demonstrate that, it may not be bilingualism that influence executive function, but rather external factors such as socioeconomic status.

These inconsistent findings indicate that there are issues of reliability in research on the bilingual advantage. Perhaps it could be the fact that tests for bilingual advantage in EF often employ mixed-factorial designs with two language groups and two types of trials. For instance, in the Simon task, interference outcomes are the difference between the congruent and incongruent trials. As a result, if bilinguals have better inhibitory control, the interference scores should be smaller for bilinguals compared to monolinguals, but this is not the case. Additionally, the study by Morton and Harper was not representative because it only focused on children from well-educated middle-class families. This is an issue because children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may perform differently from those from middle-class families so the results cannot be generalised to all children. Furthermore, academics such as Paap et al (2015) argue that there is a small proportion of supporting outcomes on the bilingual advantage which may be due to factors such as type 1 errors or confounds. For example, Baker et al (2012) found that it is easy for scholars to exaggerate type 1 errors when they apply hidden degrees of freedom in their analyses. Thus, researchers may select the most desirable outcomes by letting the sample size depend on the results of significance tests. A meta-analysis by Zhou and Krott involving 68 experiments showed that researchers also use data trimming procedures where longer responses in their analysis often yield a bilingualism effect. All these issues influence the outcomes of the bilingual advantage in EF.

In conclusion, this essay has explored the empirical evidence for the Bilingual Advantage in Executive Function-specifically focusing on inhibition in children. Based on the studies evaluated, one has concluded that there is no bilingual advantage in executive function. studies that often find evidence faces methodological scrutiny such as the use of small samples, task impurity and individual differences. Although there is some evidence to support the bilingual advantage, it seems like it is both task-specific and social economic factors as well as cultural factors seem to influence it-implying that further research in bilingual advantage in children is essential.

Our minds are required to process a vast amount of sensory information in order to perceive the perceptual world around us. This process involves both the integration and discrimination of multisensory information. Audiovisual interactions are commonly used to investigate multisensory processing. Multisensory processing refers to how the information presented to one sensory modality can impact the way information is processed and perceived in another modality (Briscoe, 2016). Previous research has suggested that there are differences between monolinguals and bilinguals with regards to such multisensory processing (Marian et al., 2018; Bidelman and Heath, 2019). This study will investigate the difference between monolinguals and bilingual’s performance on multisensory processing using a temporal order judgement (TOJ) task. Furthermore, the study will have a specific focus on the discrimination of audiovisual speech perception as this is an underdeveloped field of research.

Existing literature investigating audiovisual speech perception has suggested that there is a difference between how bilinguals and monolinguals integrate the visual and auditory inputs. Bilinguals have been found to place a stronger reliance on the visual input, over auditory input, when dealing with audiovisual processing, relative to monolinguals (Marian et al., 2018). Marian et al. (2018) conducted an experiment on multimodal processing with a focus on the McGurk effect; a phenomenon whereby what we see changes what we hear. For example, hearing the auditory stimulus of “ba” but seeing the visual stimulus of “ga” will make people think they heard “da” which is an intermediate sound. They found that bilinguals experienced more McGurk-type effects, suggesting that they placed a heavier reliance on the visual input compared to monolinguals. This demonstrates that language background has an impact on the way we integrate audiovisual information.

Furthermore, there is a vast amount of research into audiovisual processing which has focused on non-linguistic stimuli. For example, Shams, Kamitani and Shimojo’s (2002) research into audiovisual processing revealed a visual illusion called the double flash illusion whereby, when participants were presented with a single visual flash alongside multiple auditory beeps, they perceived more than one flash. Bidelman and Heath (2019) further investigated the double-flash illusion comparing monolinguals and bilingual’s performance. In their study, participants were presented with one visual flash alongside multiple auditory stimuli and had to make a judgement as to how many flashes they saw. They also measured the temporal binding window, a period of time where paired sensory stimuli are integrated or discriminated (Navarra et al., 2005), by varying the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA’s) between the visual and auditory stimuli. They found that bilinguals responded faster and were less susceptible to the double flash illusion compared to monolinguals. Therefore, bilingualism may enhance the cognitive ability to discriminate between audiovisual stimuli.

With regards to the temporal binding window, much of the current literature indicates a relationship between the width of the temporal binding window and the accuracy of audiovisual processing. More specifically, it has been shown that individuals with a narrower temporal binding window are less susceptible to illusions such as the McGurk effect and double flash illusion (Stevenson et al., 2012). Bidelman and Heath’s (2019) research found that bilingual individuals have a more refined temporal binding window for audiovisual processing, therefore experiencing fewer double flash illusions, compared to monolinguals. Research concerning why bilinguals have a narrower temporal binding window suggests that this could be due to the auditory and visual system experiencing increased functional connectivity (Erickson et al., 2014 as cited in Bidelman and Heath, 2019).

A common method used to assess audiovisual processing is a TOJ task. Typically, a TOJ task displays different sensory information at varying milliseconds in time (SOA) and asks participants to judge which sensory input came first. Practice trials are usually administered to familiarise participants with the task. For example, Thompson and Frank (in prep) used a TOJ task with varying SOA’s (e.g, 100 milliseconds between audio and visual presentation) to assess audiovisual processing. Participants were required to view (flash) and listen (beep) to the stimuli and make a decision as to which stimuli was presented first. They found that bilinguals were faster and more accurate at discriminating between which stimuli was presented first relative to monolinguals.

Although evidence suggests that bilinguals are proficient at executive function tasks outside of language, they may have difficulty with regards to language-based tasks. Bialystok and Feng (2009) highlighted that a crucial aspect of most evidence suggesting that bilinguals are better at executive function use non-verbal stimuli within their study. Generally, research has shown that bilinguals have a lexical retrieval disadvantage (Bialystok and Feng, 2009), smaller vocabulary (Portocarrero, Burright and Donovick, 2007) and display advantages in nonverbal creativity whereas monolinguals displayed advantages in verbal creativity (Kharkhurin, 2010). Additionally, the frequency-lag hypothesis proposes that as bilinguals know two languages, they divide their frequency-of-use between both languages thus using them less frequently, which consequently leads to slower lexical retrieval compared to monolinguals (Gollan et al., 2008; Emmorey, Petrich and Gollan, 2013). Therefore, the use of language measures in executive function tasks may impact bilingual’s performance relative to monolinguals.

When dealing with multisensory events, the sensory input is subject to natural lagging when being sent to and processed in the different sensory streams (Vroomen and Keetels, 2010). The speed at which the auditory stimuli reaches the sensory receptors is slower compared to the visual stimuli in audiovisual processing (Van Eijk et al., 2008). However, the processing speed for auditory input (approximately 10 milliseconds) is faster than for visual input (approximately 50 milliseconds) (Vroomen and Keetels, 2010). When audio and visual input arrives simultaneously, the brain activation for the auditory input occurs 30-50 milliseconds before the visual input (Van Eijk et al., 2008). Consequently, although the visual input reaches the sensory receptors first, it takes longer to process therefore individuals perceive this as the same multisensory event. Moreover, if the visual was presented before the auditory stimuli, individuals would still perceive this as the same event as the visual stimuli takes longer to process. However, if the auditory was presented before the visual stimuli, individuals would be more likely to view these as two separate events as the auditory stimuli has a fast processing speed. Therefore, individuals are more tolerant of a lag in an auditory stimulus over a lag in a visual stimulus suggesting that they would be better at detecting asynchronies when the audio is presented first (Van Eijk et al., 2008). However, Marian et al. (2018) suggested that bilinguals place a heavier reliance on the visual stimulus over the auditory stimulus they receive. Nevertheless, research suggests that visual information can enhance bilingual auditory ability (Navarra and Soto-Faraco, 2007). Therefore, it could be possible that bilingual’s reliance on the visual input enhances their processing of the auditory input.

In the original version of Ferguson’s model, ‘bilingualism’ referred to the coexistence of two unrelated languages within one speech community. In more recent literature, this term is used as a psycholinguistic term referring to a speaker’s proficiency in two or more languages. The existence of two languages for a long period of time sets the scene for the language ideology of the society. Spolsky posits that ‘language ideology’ is language policy with the manager left out, what people think should be done (Spolsky 2004). Where people use a language is important in its maintenance. Thus, there are domains for language such as home, workplace, religious worship places, schools, government offices, etc. It makes sense for language to be sustained repetitively in these domains.

In The Maghreb case, bilingualism refers to the coexistence of Arabic and French (and to some degree of Arabic and Berber/Tamazight). There are distinct patterns of code mixing and borrowing between Arabic and French. The present linguistic situation in the Maghreb is a product of its roots in the colonial period, in which the French language became indissolubly connected with the region. Unlike British colonial policy, the French authorities aimed at the assimilation and integration of the indigenous population. The official point of view was that France did not colonise other countries in order to exploit them, but in order to bring them French civilisation.

Independence and Arabicisation in the Maghreb

During the colonial period, some half-hearted efforts had been made by the colonial administration to introduce bilingual education for Arabic-speaking children, but in the few schools that provided this system Arabic was relegated to the position of an extracurricular curiosity.

After independence, French remained the language of instruction for ‘important’ subjects, such as mathematics and physics. Arabic on the other hand was used in classes on literature and religion.

Syria and French colonisation

Islamic education had a very long history in the region, focusing on rote learning; is a memorization technique based on repetition. Modern education had taken a variety of forms in the Ottoman Empire and often followed the flow of political events. Syria was conquered by France after the World War and a Mandate was declared by the League of Nations. ‘By 1920, the French had moved east from Lebanon and crushed an attempt by a coalition of Syrians under the Arabian Prince Faisal. It cannot be said that the French moved quickly on education though key administrative steps were taken to analyse the situation and allocate funding.” It is likely that alongside the administrators’ French tradition for strongly grasping social situations, there was a great deal of international pressure as well.

Article 6 of the Mandate stressed “respect for the personal status of the various peoples and for their religious interests”. Seeing that religious teachings were embedded into the educational system, this also applies to respecting and keeping the status of the language associated with the religious teachings. Article 8 was similar in the sense that it stated “encourage public instruction, which shall be given through the medium of the native languages in use in the territory”. Alongside were the demands of international education and their parent nations. As Syrian and Lebanese elites grew frustrated by French attempts in regards to education as well, tensions rose that lead to the revolution of 1925. Highly educated Syrians would go on to take up prominent roles in organising the Great Syrian Revolt.

The Ottoman experience had taught the new French rulers that purveyors of dissent tended to be the highly educated, as is the case for Morocco as well. Even prior to the introduction of the French Mandate, elites in the Arab domains had recognised the importance of educational access for political coherence. In both the Maghreb and the Syria-Lebanon case, the French authorities made selective use of their funding as an essential instrument in tying elites via improvised education. “ Direct pensions paid to elite for “political reasons” were used alongside the stipends for educational establishments that were paid through the Instruction Publique.

An example of the method of French language implementation was making sure that there were enough French teachers. In the city of Hama, Instruction Publique decision makers encouraged the funding and refurbishing of the Greek-Orthodox school, singled out because of its language was French. Even schools in the Haran mountains had at least one French teacher per village classroom. Relating back to Article 8 of the Mandate that mentions the encouragement of public institutions, French rulers went against this when they strived for financial promotion of schools in the form of the establishment of “great centres of propaganda” (Robinson, 1959).

In contrast to the Maghreb case, in some ways was more subtle. Education in territories under French Mandate based on religion

For many generations, the territory was governed by the Turks who followed a policy of “divide and rule”. This was done through differentiating between the religious beliefs of the people. Western government interfered under the pretext of protecting the Christian minorities and accentuated the hostility and division among the various religious sects. The Muslim schools usually receive support from an endowment known as wakf, a form of endowment for religious purposes.

The faculty of Medicine includes a medical course and schools of pharmacy, dentistry, and midwifery. Its program is patterned on the official French Government program. The degree granted at the end of the medical course proper is a French State degree permitting the holder to practice the medical profession in France.

“There is an excessive emphasis on foreign language in both the program of the elementary and secondary schools. In Lebanon, half of the elementary school program is taught in French and half in Arabic.” Through this excessive emphasis on foreign language, elementary education is rendered superficial and limited since they are required to solve problems in arithmetic in French, to grasp some of the principles in French – rather than in their native and mother tongue. This is rather even more difficult due to the added task of comprehending them in a foreign language. The ability to speak and read a foreign tongue is taken as the main criterion for judging success in the elementary school period. This becomes even more crucial and essentially required in secondary school in order to perform well in the majority of offered courses. The examinations for the Baccalaureate demand an equal knowledge of two languages and literature – the Arabic and the French. The standards of examinations are intense and extremely demanding. This had rendered the Syrian and Lebanese Baccalaureate diploma rather more difficult to obtain than the French one. Since in France, the equal knowledge on subjects in two languages is not as stressed as it is in these Arab countries.

Position of French vs. English in regards to Arabic in Lebanon

Until today, French-language schools or schools that follow the French curriculum still dominate over schools teaching mainly in English or following the British or American curricula. However, French is losing ground since English is considered more globally useful language than both Arabic and French. Many schools offer good instruction in Arabic, English, and French, and trilingual competence is valued. The educational system in Lebanon is thus in most ways dominated by schools in which the main language of instruction is not Arabic, or schools that follow non-Lebanese curricula. Many Lebanese pupils then are encouraged to follow two intense curricula.

Position of French vs. English in regards to Arabic in Morocco

Due to the nature of which French is tied to the Maghreb both culturally and economically, the people are more at ease with utilizing French than English. Although English is used more and more in the global sense, French has not lost its magnitude in importance in countries like Algeria and Morocco. The education of the population also explains why these countries at large still are considered Francophone.

Curricula for History and its tie to Identity

School choice is related to class, religious affiliation, and language preferences. The school landscape is quite complex, ranging from very expensive non-religious international English-medium schools to French government-supported schools, to foreign schools with a non-Lebanese Christian element, and Lebanese schools run by religious establishments of all kinds. The wealthy class often cuts across religious affiliation, and the reverse is generally true for the poor. In an educational system as such, students typically socialize with ones from a similar background.

During an educational conference in 2013, a principal from a well-known Islamic educational philanthropic voiced concern over how various Lebanese groups viewed each other (Oruc, 2019). She claimed that Lebanese diversity was not regarded as an asset in education or in society. This reflects the identity factor in the country, where many see the French language as belonging to their culture, and others completely reject that and demand the revival of only Arabic.

Language attitudes

The civil war in Lebanon has rearranged the linguistic market, especially in the media. One of its effects may be a greater public presence of dialect Arabic.

The linguistic situation in North Africa has changed. During the colonial period, only a very small proportion of the people received an education in a school system which was based entirely on French. As a result, this elite became bilingual in French and in the vernacular, and in some cases, depending on the situation at home and the degree of schooling, French even became their dominant language.

Versteegh offers more insight into the post-colonial bilingual society and their view on the bilingual situation of the region. Bentahila’s 1983 study delved into a study of the attitudes towards both Standard Arabic and French. He observed that French was generally regarded more favorably than Arabic, provided that it was of “high quality”. Ones that spoke French and the French people overall were perceived as sophisticated and educated, whereas the North Africans who spoke their native tongue were rated higher on elements such as sociability and friendliness. I think that this comes with the association of a mother tongue to a feeling of closeness to home and the identity of home.

Polyglotism vs Bilingualism

A multilingual person is a person who learned his languages due to some objective external reasons (family, work, etc.). For example, he or she was raised by parents who are native speakers of different languages. Or, he or she moved to a different country for work or study reasons, and had to learn the language of that country. Or, he or she was born and lives in a country where the official language differs from his or her mother tongue. In other words, a multilingual person learns languages out of necessity. This fundamentally applies to the linguistic scene in Morocco, where majority of the multilingual Moroccans utilize their language skills in order to succeed in their education and careers later on. Due to the importance of French in society nowadays, it is nested in system with Arabic as well.

A polyglot learns his languages out of his love of languages, interest in different cultures, or intellectual curiosity. In other words, his or her knowledge of languages is not necessitated by external reasons. A polyglot may apply his knowledge of languages to earning an episodic income or even may choose a career in language teaching or become a translator, interpreter, researcher, etc., but those money-earning activities are mere consequences of his or her initial interest in languages. The polyglot Lebanese sees French and Arabic as true components of a unique Lebanese identity and cherishes both.

Polyglotism is usually not a common phenomenon to occur in a given society. It arises from peaceful or violent outside political intervention, bringing with it a new language that is eventually used by the common people (Baladi, 2018). Due to the melange of different languages in Lebanon, in addition to the incredibly globalized and cosmopolitan world we live in, one can imagine the magnitude of the “identity crisis” taking place today in this Middle Eastern country. Between its Arab heritage and unquestionable openness to Western influence, the Lebanese are torn between Western and Oriental identification. The discourse revolving around whether to embrace multiculturalism and Western traditions (when it comes to culture and language) or to celebrate Pan-Arabism and solely identify with Arab culture is heavily rotated between people.

Difference between how the French approached ingraining the language

• In morocco – economically and through education
• In Lebanon – helped a lot through religion

The French were adamant to further their influence in Mount Lebanon due to their favorable relationship with the Maronites, giving them greater power in the Levant as well as the opportunity to spread their language and culture overseas (Baladi, 2018).

Missionary education not only led to greater Western influence in Lebanon, but also to positive relations and mutual understanding between the Lebanese, the French and the British in terms of language, culture, religion and ideals. These schools were viewed very favorably by the Lebanese and eventually came to dominate the educational sphere in metropolitan Lebanon, notably in the capital Beirut (Baladi, 2018).

In partnership with Lebanese Arabic, bilingualism developed at all levels of society from educational to governmental institutions. Although many remained monolingual or preferred another language to French for their bilingualism, Arabic-French bilingualism was by far the most prevalent in 20th century Lebanon. This form of bilingualism grew to be extremely ingrained in the lives of the Lebanese; it is so prevalent that “it surprises neither the one who talks nor his or her interlocutor.” (Baladi, 2018)

Introduction

In an increasingly interconnected world, where communication and understanding between diverse cultures are paramount, bilingual education emerges as a powerful and transformative force. This unique approach to learning empowers students to acquire proficiency in two languages, instilling within them a host of cognitive, social, and professional advantages. Bilingual education goes beyond merely teaching languages; it embodies a dynamic and inclusive educational philosophy that enriches minds and expands horizons.

At its core, bilingual education recognizes the intrinsic value of linguistic diversity and cultural pluralism. By fostering fluency in two languages, students are equipped with the tools to bridge linguistic gaps and forge meaningful connections with people from different backgrounds. The ability to comprehend and communicate in multiple languages opens doors to new perspectives and insights, breaking down barriers of misunderstanding and facilitating genuine cross-cultural exchanges.

Beyond the realm of language, bilingual education stimulates cognitive development in profound ways. It nurtures executive functions like critical thinking, problem-solving, and adaptability, enabling students to navigate the complexities of an ever-changing world with ease. As students engage with diverse linguistic structures, their minds become agile and receptive to the nuances of language, imparting an intellectual flexibility that transcends academic disciplines.

Furthermore, bilingual education cultivates an appreciation for cultural diversity, fostering empathy and tolerance. Students emerge from this educational journey not only proficient in languages but also with a deeper understanding of the rich tapestry of human experiences. These empathetic and culturally aware individuals form the foundation of a harmonious and interconnected global community.

Developing Brain Power

Bilingual education, with its multifaceted advantages, plays a transformative role in enhancing cognitive development and brain power. As young minds engage with two languages simultaneously, they embark on a journey that stimulates intellectual growth and nurtures an array of cognitive abilities.

The process of learning two languages requires students to constantly toggle between linguistic systems, a cognitive feat that exercises their brains in unique ways. This cognitive workout, akin to a mental gym, strengthens neural connections, leading to heightened executive functions and improved problem-solving skills. Research has consistently shown that bilingual individuals possess enhanced attentional control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory. They display a greater ability to focus amidst distractions, seamlessly switch between tasks, and hold and manipulate information in their minds. These cognitive skills not only bolster academic performance but also prove invaluable in real-world scenarios that demand adaptability and quick thinking.

Moreover, bilingualism fosters a deeper understanding of language structure and grammar, a phenomenon known as metalinguistic awareness. As students navigate the intricacies of two languages, they become more attuned to linguistic nuances, honing their language analytical abilities. This heightened sensitivity to language extends to their native tongue as well, significantly improving overall language proficiency and literacy skills. As a result, bilingual learners often excel in their linguistic abilities, an asset that carries over into various aspects of communication, from verbal fluency to written expression.

Bilingual education not only impacts linguistic skills but also influences other cognitive domains. The ability to switch between languages and adapt to different linguistic contexts fosters enhanced problem-solving abilities. Bilingual individuals develop a unique perspective, as they learn to approach challenges from multiple linguistic angles, showcasing creativity and innovative thinking.

Studies have revealed that bilingualism can confer protective benefits against cognitive decline in old age. The cognitive reserve built from managing two languages strengthens the brain’s resilience, delaying the onset of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s. This protective effect highlights the lifelong advantages of bilingual education, as the cognitive benefits persist well into adulthood and beyond.

Bilingualism transcends language and permeates the brain, shaping neural pathways that facilitate lifelong learning and intellectual agility. By engaging in a bilingual educational journey, students develop a more flexible and adaptive mindset, empowering them to excel academically and navigate the complexities of an increasingly interconnected world.

Enhance Social Life

Bilingual education, far beyond its linguistic merits, plays a pivotal role in enriching students’ social lives, fostering empathy, tolerance, and an appreciation for cultural diversity. By immersing students in two languages and cultures, bilingual education lays the foundation for a more interconnected, inclusive, and harmonious global society.

Language and culture are deeply intertwined, and bilingual education allows students to explore and embrace diverse ways of life. As they learn about different customs, traditions, and histories, students develop a heightened cultural awareness, cultivating respect and curiosity for the richness of human experiences. This exposure to diverse cultures fosters empathy, as students gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and triumphs faced by people from different backgrounds.

In addition, bilingual students are more likely to develop an appreciation for diversity and inclusivity. They understand that language is a vital aspect of cultural identity, and this realization instills a profound respect for linguistic and cultural differences. Bilingual education serves as a bridge between communities, encouraging dialogue and fostering mutual understanding among people with varying backgrounds and perspectives.

The ability to communicate in multiple languages creates opportunities for cross-cultural friendships and meaningful connections. Bilingual students effortlessly break down language barriers, forging genuine bonds with individuals from different linguistic backgrounds. Such friendships not only enrich personal experiences but also contribute to building a more interconnected global community, promoting mutual respect and cooperation.

In a rapidly globalizing world, bilingualism also empowers students to become effective communicators in international settings. By mastering languages that are spoken around the world, students are better equipped to engage with individuals from diverse backgrounds, facilitating diplomatic and economic ties between nations. Bilingualism, thus, becomes a tool for promoting intercultural understanding and fostering peaceful international relations.

So, bilingual education encourages students to explore cultural events, festivals, and traditions outside their immediate community. This involvement in multicultural activities nurtures a sense of global citizenship, encouraging active participation in a diverse and interconnected world. As students celebrate cultural diversity, they learn to appreciate the value of pluralism and inclusivity, laying the groundwork for a more tolerant and compassionate society.

Job Opportunities

In today’s interconnected global landscape, bilingual education serves as a key catalyst in unlocking diverse and promising job opportunities for graduates. Proficiency in multiple languages has become an invaluable asset sought after by businesses and organizations across various industries.

Bilingual individuals possess a unique advantage in the job market, as they can effectively communicate with diverse clientele and navigate international markets with ease. From multinational corporations to local businesses with a global reach, employers recognize the value of language skills in expanding their operations and fostering international collaborations.

The demand for bilingual professionals extends beyond traditional language-related careers. Industries such as healthcare, hospitality, and tourism seek bilingual individuals to cater to a diverse customer base, enhancing customer satisfaction and ensuring smooth interactions with foreign visitors.

Conclusion

In the end, bilingual education emerges as a transforming force, improving minds, lives, and chances for the future. Bilingualism becomes a cornerstone to success in a linked society by promoting cognitive growth, encouraging empathy, and opening up different work prospects. Bilingual education provides students with intellectual agility and problem-solving skills that transcend academic borders. Bilingual learners create a global perspective by embracing cultural variety, increasing empathy and understanding. Furthermore, the increasing demand for multilingual employees reinforces the long-term significance of language ability in a variety of businesses. By promoting bilingual education, we are laying the groundwork for a more inclusive, enlightened, and unified global community.

Introduction

In an increasingly interconnected world, where communication and understanding between diverse cultures are paramount, bilingual education emerges as a powerful and transformative force. This unique approach to learning empowers students to acquire proficiency in two languages, instilling within them a host of cognitive, social, and professional advantages. Bilingual education goes beyond merely teaching languages; it embodies a dynamic and inclusive educational philosophy that enriches minds and expands horizons.

At its core, bilingual education recognizes the intrinsic value of linguistic diversity and cultural pluralism. By fostering fluency in two languages, students are equipped with the tools to bridge linguistic gaps and forge meaningful connections with people from different backgrounds. The ability to comprehend and communicate in multiple languages opens doors to new perspectives and insights, breaking down barriers of misunderstanding and facilitating genuine cross-cultural exchanges.

Beyond the realm of language, bilingual education stimulates cognitive development in profound ways. It nurtures executive functions like critical thinking, problem-solving, and adaptability, enabling students to navigate the complexities of an ever-changing world with ease. As students engage with diverse linguistic structures, their minds become agile and receptive to the nuances of language, imparting an intellectual flexibility that transcends academic disciplines.

Furthermore, bilingual education cultivates an appreciation for cultural diversity, fostering empathy and tolerance. Students emerge from this educational journey not only proficient in languages but also with a deeper understanding of the rich tapestry of human experiences. These empathetic and culturally aware individuals form the foundation of a harmonious and interconnected global community.

Developing Brain Power

Bilingual education, with its multifaceted advantages, plays a transformative role in enhancing cognitive development and brain power. As young minds engage with two languages simultaneously, they embark on a journey that stimulates intellectual growth and nurtures an array of cognitive abilities.

The process of learning two languages requires students to constantly toggle between linguistic systems, a cognitive feat that exercises their brains in unique ways. This cognitive workout, akin to a mental gym, strengthens neural connections, leading to heightened executive functions and improved problem-solving skills. Research has consistently shown that bilingual individuals possess enhanced attentional control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory. They display a greater ability to focus amidst distractions, seamlessly switch between tasks, and hold and manipulate information in their minds. These cognitive skills not only bolster academic performance but also prove invaluable in real-world scenarios that demand adaptability and quick thinking.

Moreover, bilingualism fosters a deeper understanding of language structure and grammar, a phenomenon known as metalinguistic awareness. As students navigate the intricacies of two languages, they become more attuned to linguistic nuances, honing their language analytical abilities. This heightened sensitivity to language extends to their native tongue as well, significantly improving overall language proficiency and literacy skills. As a result, bilingual learners often excel in their linguistic abilities, an asset that carries over into various aspects of communication, from verbal fluency to written expression.

Bilingual education not only impacts linguistic skills but also influences other cognitive domains. The ability to switch between languages and adapt to different linguistic contexts fosters enhanced problem-solving abilities. Bilingual individuals develop a unique perspective, as they learn to approach challenges from multiple linguistic angles, showcasing creativity and innovative thinking.

Studies have revealed that bilingualism can confer protective benefits against cognitive decline in old age. The cognitive reserve built from managing two languages strengthens the brain’s resilience, delaying the onset of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s. This protective effect highlights the lifelong advantages of bilingual education, as the cognitive benefits persist well into adulthood and beyond.

Bilingualism transcends language and permeates the brain, shaping neural pathways that facilitate lifelong learning and intellectual agility. By engaging in a bilingual educational journey, students develop a more flexible and adaptive mindset, empowering them to excel academically and navigate the complexities of an increasingly interconnected world.

Enhance Social Life

Bilingual education, far beyond its linguistic merits, plays a pivotal role in enriching students’ social lives, fostering empathy, tolerance, and an appreciation for cultural diversity. By immersing students in two languages and cultures, bilingual education lays the foundation for a more interconnected, inclusive, and harmonious global society.

Language and culture are deeply intertwined, and bilingual education allows students to explore and embrace diverse ways of life. As they learn about different customs, traditions, and histories, students develop a heightened cultural awareness, cultivating respect and curiosity for the richness of human experiences. This exposure to diverse cultures fosters empathy, as students gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and triumphs faced by people from different backgrounds.

In addition, bilingual students are more likely to develop an appreciation for diversity and inclusivity. They understand that language is a vital aspect of cultural identity, and this realization instills a profound respect for linguistic and cultural differences. Bilingual education serves as a bridge between communities, encouraging dialogue and fostering mutual understanding among people with varying backgrounds and perspectives.

The ability to communicate in multiple languages creates opportunities for cross-cultural friendships and meaningful connections. Bilingual students effortlessly break down language barriers, forging genuine bonds with individuals from different linguistic backgrounds. Such friendships not only enrich personal experiences but also contribute to building a more interconnected global community, promoting mutual respect and cooperation.

In a rapidly globalizing world, bilingualism also empowers students to become effective communicators in international settings. By mastering languages that are spoken around the world, students are better equipped to engage with individuals from diverse backgrounds, facilitating diplomatic and economic ties between nations. Bilingualism, thus, becomes a tool for promoting intercultural understanding and fostering peaceful international relations.

So, bilingual education encourages students to explore cultural events, festivals, and traditions outside their immediate community. This involvement in multicultural activities nurtures a sense of global citizenship, encouraging active participation in a diverse and interconnected world. As students celebrate cultural diversity, they learn to appreciate the value of pluralism and inclusivity, laying the groundwork for a more tolerant and compassionate society.

Job Opportunities

In today’s interconnected global landscape, bilingual education serves as a key catalyst in unlocking diverse and promising job opportunities for graduates. Proficiency in multiple languages has become an invaluable asset sought after by businesses and organizations across various industries.

Bilingual individuals possess a unique advantage in the job market, as they can effectively communicate with diverse clientele and navigate international markets with ease. From multinational corporations to local businesses with a global reach, employers recognize the value of language skills in expanding their operations and fostering international collaborations.

The demand for bilingual professionals extends beyond traditional language-related careers. Industries such as healthcare, hospitality, and tourism seek bilingual individuals to cater to a diverse customer base, enhancing customer satisfaction and ensuring smooth interactions with foreign visitors.

Conclusion

In the end, bilingual education emerges as a transforming force, improving minds, lives, and chances for the future. Bilingualism becomes a cornerstone to success in a linked society by promoting cognitive growth, encouraging empathy, and opening up different work prospects. Bilingual education provides students with intellectual agility and problem-solving skills that transcend academic borders. Bilingual learners create a global perspective by embracing cultural variety, increasing empathy and understanding. Furthermore, the increasing demand for multilingual employees reinforces the long-term significance of language ability in a variety of businesses. By promoting bilingual education, we are laying the groundwork for a more inclusive, enlightened, and unified global community.