Running head : Consequences of bilingualism Consequences of Bilingualism for Cognitive Development

Research addressing the possible cognitive consequences of bilingualism for children’s development has found mixed results when seeking effects in domains such as language ability and intelligence. The approach in the research reported in this chapter is to investigate the effect that bilingualism might have on specific cognitive processes rather than domains of skill development. Three cognitive domains are examined: concepts of quantity, task-switching and concept formation, and theory of mind. The common finding in these disparate domains is that bilingual children are more advanced than monolinguals in solving problems requiring the inhibition of misleading information. The conclusion is that bilingualism accelerates the development of a general cognitive function concerned with attention and inhibition, and that facilitating effects of bilingualism are found on tasks and processes in which this function is most required.  A significant portion of children in the world enter the realm of language learning being exposed to multiple languages, required to communicate using different systems and proceed to school where the instructional discourse bears no resemblance to the language at home. Normally, few questions are asked and few concerns are expressed by parents, teachers, or politicians. In many cultures, this quiet acceptance indicates that the experience is either so common that it is not detected as anomalous or so crucial for survival that it is futile to challenge it. Yet, an experience as broad in its impact as the way in which language is learned and used in the first years may well impact on the child’s cognitive development. This chapter explores research that has addressed itself to identifying whether childhood bilingualism alters the typical course of cognitive development, either favorably or deleteriously, for children whose language acquisition has proceeded by building two linguistic systems. The cognitive effect of the linguistic environment in which children are raised appears on the surface to be an issue of psychological and educational relevance but it conceals an underlying dimension that is explosively political. Children who are recipients of this experience, for better or worse, are not randomly chosen, nor are they randomly distributed through the population. They tend to belong to specific ethnic groups, occupy particular social positions, and be members of communities who have recently immigrated. It is not surprising, then, that historically some attempts to investigate the psychological and educational questions that follow from this situation have failed to meet standards of scientific objectivity. Instead, the judgment about the effect of bilingualism on children’s development in early studies was sometimes used to reflect societal attitudes towards such issues as immigration and to reinforce preconceived views of language and its role in education. Consequences of bilingualism 4 In some nontrivial way, bilingual minds cannot resemble the more homogenous mental landscape of a monolingual. Although there is debate about the precise manner in which languages and concepts are interconnected in bilingual minds (discussed below), it is uncontroversial that the configuration is more complex than that of a monolingual for whom concepts and languages ultimately converge in unambiguous and predictable manners. Monolinguals may have multiple names for individual concepts, but the relation among those alternatives, as synonyms for example, does not invoke the activation of entire systems of meaning, as the alternative names from different languages is likely to do. From the beginning, therefore, bilingualism has consequence. What is not inevitable, however, is that one of these consequences is to influence the quality or manner of cognitive development. Early research on the cognitive consequences of bilingualism paid virtually no attention to such issues as the nature of bilingual populations tested, their facility in the language of testing, or the interpretation of the tests used. As an apparent default, cognitive ability was taken to be determined by performance on IQ tests, at best a questionable measure of intelligence (see Gould, 1981). For example, Saer (1923) used the Stanford Binet Test and compared Welsh children who were bilingual with monolingual English children and reported the inferiority and “mental confusion” of the bilinguals. Darcy (1963) reviewed many subsequent studies of this type and pointed to their common finding that bilinguals consistently scored lower on verbal tests and were often disadvantaged on performance tests as well. Although Darcy cautioned that multiple factors should be considered, a more salubrious account of this research is offered by Hakuta (1986) who attributes the inferior results of the bilinguals in comparison to their new native-speaking peers to the tests being conducted in a language they were only beginning to learn. Consequences of bilingualism 5 The antidote to the pessimistic research was almost as extreme in its claims. In a watershed study, Peal and Lambert (1962) tested a carefully selected group of French-English bilingual children and hypothesized that the linguistic abilities of the bilinguals would be superior to those of the monolinguals but that the nonverbal skills would be the same. Even the expectation of an absence of a bilingual deficit was radical departure from the existing studies. Not only was the linguistic advantage confirmed in their results, but they also found an unexpected advantage in some of the nonverbal cognitive measures involving symbolic reorganization. Their conclusion was that bilingualism endowed children with enhanced mental flexibility and that this flexibility was evident across all domains of thought. Subsequent research has supported this notion. Ricciardelli (1992), for example, found that few tests in a large battery of cognitive and metalinguistic measures were solved better by bilinguals, but those that were included tests of creativity and flexible thought. In addition, balanced bilinguals have been found to perform better on concept formation tasks (Bain, 1974), divergent thinking and creativity (Torrance, Wu, Gowan, & Alliotti, 1970), and field independence and Piagetian conservation (Duncan & De Avila, 1979). In a particularly well-designed study, Ben-Zeev (1977) reported bilingual advantages on both verbal and nonverbal measures, in spite of a significant bilingual disadvantage in vocabulary. Her explanation was that the mutual interference between languages forces bilinguals to adopt strategies that accelerate cognitive development. Although she did not develop the idea further, it is broadly consistent with the explanation proposed elsewhere (Bialystok, 2001) and below. Researchers such as Hakuta, Ferdman, and Diaz (1987), MacNab (1979), and Reynolds (1991) challenged the reliability of many of those studies reporting felicitous cognitive consequences for bilingualism and argued that the data were not yet conclusive. MacNab (1979) Consequences of bilingualism 6 was the most critical, but conceded that bilinguals consistently outperformed monolinguals in generating original uses for objects, an ability compatible with the claim of Peal and Lambert for an increase in flexibility of thought. Reynolds’ (1991) reservation depended in part on his requirement that evidence for bilingual superiority should be presented in the context of an explanation for why such effects occur. The purpose of the present review is to describe some selected cognitive processes and evaluate the evidence for bilingual influences on their development and to interpret those effects within an explanatory framework. Peal and Lambert’s idea that bilingualism would foster flexibility of thought has persisted, often accompanied by supporting evidence. Their explanation was that the experience of having two ways to describe the world gave bilinguals the basis for understanding that many things could be seen in two ways, leading to a more flexible approach to perception and interpretation. We shall return to this idea in the conclusions. The majority of the more recent literature has focused on the consequences of bilingualism for the development of children’s linguistic and metalinguistic concepts. It is entirely plausible that learning two languages in childhood could alter the course of these developments, but documenting those abilities has revealed unexpected complexity. Bilingualism is often (but not consistently) found to promote more rapid development of metalinguistic concepts. In contrast, oral language proficiency, particularly in terms of early vocabulary development, is usually delayed for bilingual children. Reading and the acquisition of literacy is less well studied, but the existing evidence gives little reason to believe that bilingualism itself significantly impacts on the manner or ease with which children learn to read. The effect of bilingualism on all these language-related developments are discussed elsewhere and will not be reviewed here (e.g., Bialystok, 2001, 2002). This chapter will examine only the Consequences of bilingualism 7 nonverbal cognitive consequences of becoming bilingual in childhood. The possibility that bilingualism can affect nonverbal cognitive development is steeped in an assumption – namely, that linguistic and nonlinguistic knowledge share resources in a domain-general representational system and can influence each other. In some theoretical conceptions of language, language representations and processes are isolated from other cognitive systems (e.g., Pinker, 1994). Although it may be possible in these views to understand that bilingualism would influence linguistic and metalinguistic development, it is difficult to imagine that the effect of constructing two languages would extend b