Cognitive Effects of Bilingualism During Early Childhood

Submitted By: Fatima Noor

Roll Number: 2021-1304

Instructor: Miss Sayeda Zahra Batool

Programe: BS English Language Teaching and Linguistics (ELTL)

Session: 2021-2025

Semester: 6th Semester

Department: Institute of Education and Research (IER)

University of the Punjab, Lahore

Date of Submission: 29 August 2024

Introduction
In the multilingual global South, though the dominant languages enjoy a certain hierarchy,
the symbolic value of the regional languages remains in constant flux across different
domains. Pakistan, one of the eight countries comprising South Asia, is a multilingual and
multicultural state. Eberhard et al. (Ethnologue: languages of the world, SIL International,
2020) report 77 languages used by people in Pakistan. Many children in Pakistan grow up
hearing and using more than one language. According to the World Atlas of Languages by
UNESCO, Pakistan, like many other countries, exhibits a high degree of multilingualism. It is
estimated that more than half of the world’s population is multilingual to some degree
(Bialystok, 2017). In the early 20th century, bilingualism was seen as harmful to bilingual
children's language development. With research and more sufficient methods for assessing
bilingualism, the negative views started to change in the latter part of the 20th century (Peal
& Lambert, 1962). Furthermore, studies have presented results suggesting that the bilingual
experience might have an impact on cognitive abilities, resulting in what is known in the
literature as; bilingual advantages (O. Adesope, Lavin, Thompson & Ungerleider, 2010). The
bilingual advantages reviewed in this paper involve three major executive controls, that are,
inhibition control, working memory and cognitive flexibility which are believed to influence
other sub-controls that assist with abilities such as, concentration and shifting between tasks.
Executive controls are not only a fundamental topic in contemporary literature on
bilingualism but they also play an important role for individuals in general. This essay aims at
discussing the idea that bilingual advantages might commence very early, even before any
speech production begins. The focus of this essay is on early bilinguals, a term used for
describing bilingual individuals that have successfully used both their L1 and L2 from birth
and continue to actively use both languages daily. Therefore, it will begin with an overview
of the rapid development of bilingual studies in the 20th century. In addition, this essay aims
at presenting different variations of bilingual experiences and bilingual types as well as
presenting the elements that need to be addressed when answering the question of who is
bilingual. Thirdly, it reviews the major executive controls mentioned earlier, inhibition
control, working memory and cognitive flexibility in a general manner. The final discussion
summarises the essay's overall review for explaining the positive influence of early
bilingualism in the development of executive control and how this might affect socio-cultural
behaviours and academic achievement as a goal-directed performance.

Bilingualism
In order to understand the phenomenon of bilingualism, one must get familiar with the
concept of language. The World Atlas of Languages (WAL) applies a wide definition of
language that includes and embraces all communication systems created, defined, described
and used. However, the prime focus is on natural human signed/spoken languages, used
across and within countries, regions, and communities. Bilingualism should be thought of as
being on a continuum, where one can have varying levels of proficiency in two languages,
regardless of how and when they were acquired. In its simplest form, bilingualism is defined
as “knowing” two languages (Valdez & Figueora, 1994). However, a major difficulty occurs

1
in defining what it means to “know” a language. Some bilinguals are highly proficient in
both languages they speak, while other bilinguals clearly have a dominant or preferred
language. Therefore, when classifying bilinguals it is important to consider varying degrees
of bilingualism. Researchers suggest that native-like proficiency in both languages, referred
to as “true” bilingualism, is rare (Cutler, Mehler, Norris, & Segui, 1992; Grosjean, 1982).

Baumgart and Billick (2017) stated that “Bilingualism is generally categorised by equal or
near-equal proficiency in two languages that have been used regularly by the subject for the
majority of their life” (p 273–283). Current views on bilingualism are positive, with
dual-language acquisition being encouraged rather than suppressed. However, as this essay
will later review, bilingualism was once viewed as having negative effects on children's
language development.

Due to bilingualism being a multidimensional experience, there is not one universally valid
approach for distinguishing bilingualism and the criteria used for evaluating the bilingual
degree vary between studies. One factor to consider in defining types of bilingualism is when
the two languages are acquired in relation to each other.

Simultaneous bilingualism is considered to occur when two languages are acquired from birth
or prior to one year of age (De Houwer, 2005).

For Sequential bilingualism, when one language is acquired following another, the age of L2
acquisition is important (Flege, 1992). Researchers are discovering that sensitive periods for
native-like L2 acquisition occur at younger ages than previously believed. For example, brain
organisation is different for L2 acquisition after 5 years of age in contrast to before age 5,
when native-like organisation for language is possible (De Houwer, 2005; Weber-Fox &
Neville, 1996). In older language learners (preadolescents and older), age of acquisition is
related to the learner’s ability to perceive and produce speech sounds in their second language
(Flege, 1992).

The criteria employed in bilingual studies often aim at matching together bilingual and
monolingual individuals that correspond in areas such as language proficiency, age and
amount of second language usage. Although bilingual studies in the 21st century differ from
the studies presented in the early 20th century in many aspects, the most notable change is the
methods used for choosing which participants belong in the bilingual groups and which
belong in the monolingual ones (Cummins, 2000; Luk, De Sa & Białystok, 2011; Yanping &
Ping, 2015; Anderson, Mak, Chahi & Bialystok, 2017)

Categories of Bilinguals

In the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, researchers began
placing bilingual individuals into categories depending on various socio-cultural factors as

2
well as participants's L1 and L2 proficiency. In the latter part of the 20th century, Cummins
presented the threshold hypothesis, his hypothesis was widely recognized and used as a
device in bilingual studies (2000). The threshold hypothesis categorised bilingual individuals
into three levels; balanced bilinguals, dominant bilinguals and the third level, semilinguals.

Balanced bilinguals are regarded as individuals that have achieved high competence in both
L1 and L2.

Dominant bilinguals prefer one language over the other and therefore, develop more
competence in one of their languages.

Semilinguals are thought to be individuals that have lost significant amount of competence in
both their L1 and L2.

Peal and Lambert (1962) were the first to introduce the term balanced bilinguals to the
literature. Peal and Lambert's study (1962) and Cummins's (2000) threshold hypothesis,
researchers have developed a more detailed interpretation of bilingualism whereas the age of
L2 acquisition as well as the amount of L1 and L2 usage are important factors (Luk, De Sa &
Bialystok, 2011). In addition to classifying when languages are acquired in relation to each
other, the reasons why the L2 is acquired can be used to categorise bilinguals (Valdez &
Figueora, 1994).

Elective bilinguals learn another language in a formal setting, typically as an additional

course credit at school, while continuing to use their L1 most of the time. They are also
classified as “additive bilinguals” because the L2 is learned in addition to an L1 that is
maintained at a high level.

Circumstantial bilinguals, however, learn their L2 because they are required to do so to

attend school or to find work. They are usually immigrants learning the societal language.
These bilinguals are often classified as “subtractive bilinguals” because L1 skills usually
decrease or are lost in favour of the majority language, the L2. Subtractive bilingualism is
particularly common in children of immigrants.

An additional consideration in the definition of bilingualism includes the concept of language

dominance. Most bilinguals have stronger skills in one language, their dominant language.
However, their dominant language need not be their L1. In addition, it is possible to show
language dominance in one language for one domain (e.g. L1 for home) and dominance in
the other language for another domain (e.g. L2 for work).

3
The relative degree of proficiency in the two acquired languages has consequences for
language and cognitive skills of bilinguals. As we mentioned, being bilingual has certain
benefits, but it also poses some challenges. The cognitive differences inherent in those who
speak more than one language are also important because they can inform whether or not
differences in the performance of an individual bilingual child arise due to learning
difficulties etc., or whether they are a consequence of being bilingual.

“Early bilinguals” is a term used for describing bilingual individuals that have successfully
acquired two languages from a very young age. In contemporary bilingual studies, age of
second language acquisition, L2 proficiency and the duration of L2 exposure are factors that
affect whether individuals are regarded as being bilingual. Luk, De Sa and Bialystok (2011)
suggested that the onset age of active bilingualism (speaking two languages daily) represents
the age of when bilingualism begins rather than the onset age of L2 acquisition. In
accordance with Luk and colleagues research, this essay focuses on early bilinguals that use
both their L1 and L2 daily thus, balanced bilinguals.

Metalinguistics: Monolinguals and Bilinguals

An additional area of difference between monolinguals and bilinguals is metalinguistic

awareness. Metalinguistic awareness is thought to be acquired differently in monolinguals
and bilinguals (Bialystok, 2007). Metalinguistic awareness includes the awareness of the
form of language, such as the awareness of sounds (phonological awareness), grammatical
“rules” (syntactic awareness) and grammatical markers (morphological awareness). Some
studies have shown that bilingualism enhances metalinguistic ability (Yelland, Pollard &
Mercuri, 1993). However, evidence that supports a bilingual advantage for the acquisition of
phonological awareness is not consistent, with some studies showing no differences between
monolinguals and bilinguals and other studies showing this advantage for bilinguals (Bruck
& Genesee, 1995; Carvalos & Bruck, 1993). These relationships may depend on the degree
of similarity between languages and the degree of consistency within a language. For
example, the Spanish language has a very consistent orthography, where sounds map onto
letters (phonemes to graphemes) quite readily (see Ziegler & Gosami, 2005). In contrast,
Chinese script does not map onto the level of individual sounds. One study found higher
levels of English phonological awareness for Spanish-English speakers in comparison to
Chinese-English speakers (Bialystok, Luk, & Kwan, 2005).

Research conducted on learning to read English as a third language extends these differences
in literacy skills that have been found between monolinguals and bilinguals. For example,
one study found that children who had proficiency in two languages (Hebrew and Russian)

4
and were learning English as a third language, outperformed children with less proficiency in
these two languages and also outperform monolingual children who were learning English
only as an L2 on measures of phonological awareness, nonword reading, and nonword
spelling (e.g., barp, stip) (Schwartz, Geva, Share, & Leikin, 2007). Thus, research seems to
show support for the trend that acquiring more than one language has benefits for literacy
acquisition. Schwartz et al. (2007) described this phenomenon as a form of additive
multilingualism.

Bilingualism Research in the 20th Century

The study of bilingualism evolved significantly during the 20th century, reflecting broader
shifts in linguistic theory, cognitive psychology, and sociocultural studies. Studies conducted
before the 1960s were, for the most part, found to be negative in attitude towards bilingual
education. Studies during this period often concluded that bilingualism was a burden,
especially for children, who were thought to struggle with mastering two languages and
therefore suffer from reduced cognitive capacity.

Saer conducted a study on the connection between bilingualism and intelligence in 1923.
Saer’s research indicated that on the Stanford-Binet scale (an intelligence test used to
measure cognitive abilities and intelligence levels in children), rural bilingual children were
placed in a lower position than rural monolingual children. The study was performed with
children at the age of 7, the most noteworthy outcome of his study was the statistic that
showed the lower position of bilingual children on the scale increasing with each year from
the age of 7 to 11. Saer stated that bilingual children must be undergoing a “mental
confusion” (Saer, 1923, p.14).

In addition, Pintner (1932) conducted a study comparing the performance of

English-speaking and non-English-speaking groups across three schools using both language
and non-language tests. The non-English-speaking group likely used another language at
home. The results were inconsistent: in one school, monolinguals outperformed bilinguals; in
another, bilinguals performed better; and in the third, there was no difference between the
groups. At the time, bilingualism was often seen as a problem, with Pintner referring to it as a
"language handicap," reflecting the prevailing view that bilingualism hindered children's
language development.

The middle of the 20th century saw a gradual shift in the understanding of bilingualism,
partly due to more rigorous research methods and a broader recognition of cultural and
environmental factors. Researchers began to challenge the earlier deficit hypothesis, which
stated working-class children's comparative lack of success in school was due in large
measure to their failure to acquire the language of formal education (Basil Bernstein, 1960s).

A landmark study by Peal and Lambert (1962) in Montreal, Canada, was one of the first to
suggest that bilingualism might actually confer cognitive advantages. The most fundamental
aspect of Peal and Lambert’s study was the matching of bilingual and monolingual

5
participants in terms of socioeconomic status, language proficiency, language experience,
gender and age. This sort of thorough examination and assessment in a bilingual study had
never been seen before. They found that bilingual children outperformed monolingual
children in both verbal and non-verbal intelligence tests, suggesting that bilingualism could
enhance cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, and metalinguistic awareness. Uriel
Weinreich’s seminal work "Languages in Contact" introduced the idea of bilingualism as a
natural and beneficial outcome of language contact. He argued that bilingualism should be
seen as a linguistic resource rather than a problem (Weinreich, 1953).

The late 20th century also saw the rise of sociocultural perspectives on bilingualism.
Researchers began to emphasise the role of social, cultural, and educational contexts in
shaping bilingual experiences and outcomes. Joshua Fishman (1967) proposed work on
language maintenance and shift, highlighting the importance of bilingualism in cultural
identity and community cohesion. He introduced the concept of "diglossia," where two
languages are used in different social contexts within the same community.

The 20th century laid the groundwork for contemporary bilingualism research, transforming
the field from one focused on deficits to one that recognizes the multifaceted cognitive,
social, and cultural benefits of bilingualism.

Executive Controls
According to Friedman and Miyake (2017), executive controls are high-level cognitive
processes that deal mainly with controlling lower-level processes that assist with
goal-directed behaviour. In addition, executive controls have often been associated with the
frontal lobes of the brain that control various important cognitive abilities in human
individuals. The three main executive controls are inhibition control, working memory and
cognitive flexibility. These cognitive processes underpin a wide range of abilities, from basic
self-regulation to complex problem-solving, and are closely linked to academic achievement
and social competence.

Inhibitory control is the ability to suppress irrelevant or distracting information and impulses,
allowing for focused and goal-directed behaviour. Inhibition control assists individuals with
ignoring irrelevant information as well as inhibit persuasive internal desires. (Diamond,
2013). Therefore, this is a highly important ability for an individual's everyday
responsibilities such as focusing on a task and controlling unsuitable behaviour. Inhibition
control that assists the brain with suppressing irrelevant information from a distracting
stimulus (attention control) has received the most focus in the literature.

Working memory refers to the cognitive system responsible for temporarily holding and
processing information. Individual's working memory is immensely important for abilities
such as planning, reasoning, problem solving and comprehension (Cowan, 2013). For
instance, in bilingual children, working memory is constantly engaged when switching
between languages. If a child fluent in both Urdu and English is asked to translate a sentence
from Urdu to English, they must hold the original sentence in mind, recall the corresponding

6
vocabulary and grammar rules in English, and reconstruct the sentence accurately in the
second language.

Cognitive flexibility is often referred to as set-shifting; the ability to switch between tasks. In
addition, the fundamental aspect of cognitive flexibility involves the ability to change
perspectives (Diamond, 2013). As the third primary executive control, cognitive flexibility is
often talked about in accordance with inhibition control and working memory. According to
Diamond (2013), to switch between mental tasks or change perspectives, individual's must
first inhibit previous perspectives and load into working memory for activating a different
perspective.

It is not uncommon to think about executive controls as a one whole because executive
controls are often regarded as devices that function together (Kroll, Bobb & Hoshino, 2014).
Miyake et al., (2000) presented an analysis for three different executive controls in terms of
unity and diversity, their analysis gained a lot of recognition and acceptance. At the time,
their analysis focused on shifting (cognitive flexibility), updating (working memory) and
inhibition (attention control) and their roles as executive controls. One of their findings
demonstrated that the three targeted executive controls, shifting, updating and inhibition were
distinctly different yet-, moderately correlated controls.

Miyake and Friedman (2012) discuss the term ‘task-impurity’ in their report which implies
that arguably the most problematic aspect of executive control tasks is that any targeted
executive control must be fixed within a specific task context. For an example, Miyake and
Friedman demonstrated how the Stroop task requires participants to name the colour of ink
wherein colour words are written (for an example, RED written in green ink). The problem
with executive control tasks, for example, the Stroop task, is that it might require the
processing of non-executive control aptitudes as in colour processing and articulation speed.
Therefore, it might become difficult to distinctively measure the targeted executive control
because of non-executive control variables that also become involved in the tasks. Moreover,
their study showed that an individual's executive control remains relatively stable throughout
development, the idea does not suggest that executive control abilities do not change to some
extent.

Bilingualism and Executive Control

The topic of whether bilingualism affects executive control has been and remains immensely
controversial (Paap, Johnson & Sawi, 2015). However, recent studies in the literature indicate
that bilingual individuals might exhibit advantages involving increased inhibition control
(especially attention control), working memory and cognitive flexibility (set-shifting). More
importantly, studies suggest that cognitive development, including specific bilingual
advantages, may begin even before speech production, with benefits arising from
dual-language exposure from birth.

Studies investigating the roles of executive control in the bilingual brain have been ongoing
for a long time. However, studies examining the effects of bilingualism on executive control
from early development began approximately two decades ago (Garon, Bryson, & Smith,

7
2008). According to most research conducted on bilingualism in the 21st century, bilingual
individuals might benefit from certain advantages, particularly in inhibition processes and
attention control. Although it is challenging to determine why bilinguals, especially children
exposed to two languages from birth, develop increased executive control, evidence
consistently shows that bilingual children exhibit stronger executive control than monolingual
children (Garon, Bryson, & Smith, 2008). This essay will further explore the theories behind
these bilingual advantages in detail.

Research has shown that inhibitory control is a strong predictor of social-emotional

development and academic success in early childhood (Blair & Razza, 2007). Studies on
bilingualism have often highlighted the advantages of bilingual children in inhibitory control,
as the constant need to suppress one language while using another may enhance their ability
to inhibit competing responses (Bialystok, 2001). For example, the flanker task, which is
primarily designed to assess a person's ability to suppress responses that are inappropriate in
a given context, has consistently shown that bilinguals, especially those who acquired both
languages early, demonstrate superior performance in managing interference compared to
monolinguals (Luk, De Sa, & Bialystok, 2011).

These findings are further supported by research utilising the Attention Network Task (ANT),
which builds upon the Flanker Test by assessing multiple components of attention, including
alerting, orienting, and executive control. In the ANT, participants must focus their attention
and ignore distractions. Research shows that bilingual children generally perform better than
monolingual children on such tasks requiring inhibition control. Additionally, some studies
indicate that early and intensive bilingual exposure can lead to stronger executive control,
particularly in children who learn a second language early and use it frequently.

Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) model of working memory, which includes components like the
phonological loop (responsible for verbal and auditory information) and the visuospatial
sketchpad (handling visual and spatial information), has been influential in understanding
how information is processed and stored. Research has demonstrated that children with
stronger working memory capacities tend to perform better in tasks requiring sustained
attention and problem-solving skills (Gathercole & Alloway, 2008). In bilingual children,
working memory is believed to play a critical role in managing two languages, particularly in
tasks that require holding one language in mind while using another (Bialystok, 2009).

Studies, such as those by Morales, Calvo, and Bialystok (2013), also suggest that bilingual
children outperform monolingual children on working memory tasks. In their research, they
compared the performances of 5- and 7-year-old bilingual and monolingual children, finding
that early bilinguals (who used both languages daily) consistently outperformed monolinguals
on tasks requiring working memory control. These results align with Miyake and Friedman's
(2012) discussion on the unity and diversity of executive controls, particularly in how
bilinguals manage interference. Additionally, research by Blom et al. (2014) on
Turkish-Dutch bilingual children showed cognitive advantages in both visuospatial and
verbal working memory, supporting the idea that bilingual children exposed to both

8
languages in the same environment may develop stronger cognitive abilities due to managing
linguistic interference.

Bilingualism has been linked to enhanced cognitive flexibility, as managing two languages
requires frequent switching between linguistic systems, which may generalise to
non-linguistic cognitive tasks (Bialystok & Craik, 2010). Research by Carlson and Meltzoff
(2008) found that bilingual children tend to outperform their monolingual peers in tasks
requiring cognitive flexibility, suggesting that bilingualism may strengthen this aspect of
executive function. One such task is the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS), where
children must sort cards by one dimension (e.g., colour) and then switch to sorting by another
dimension (e.g., shape). Bilingual children were better able to switch sorting rules without
losing focus, indicating greater cognitive flexibility. This finding is consistent with the idea
that managing two languages enhances the brain's ability to adapt to changing circumstances
and tasks.

Neuroimaging Insights

Recent neuroimaging advances have enhanced our understanding of bilingualism's effects on

brain structure and function, particularly regarding executive control. Studies using magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) and functional MRI (fMRI) consistently show that bilingualism
induces both structural and functional changes in brain regions associated with executive
functions. Notably, Kroll and Bialystok (2013) found that bilingual individuals have
increased grey matter density in the prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex, areas
crucial for decision-making, conflict resolution, and cognitive flexibility. This increased grey
matter density reflects the brain's adaptation to the demands of managing and switching
between multiple languages.

Further support comes from fMRI studies, which reveal that bilinguals exhibit more efficient
neural activation in these regions during executive control tasks, such as the Flanker Test.
This efficiency is linked to the regular practice of suppressing one language while using
another, which enhances executive control mechanisms. These findings indicate that the
cognitive demands of bilingualism foster long-term structural and functional brain changes,
contributing to the cognitive advantages observed in bilingual individuals.

Socio-Cognitive Development

Research indicates that bilingual children are more adept at recognizing the communicative
needs of their conversational partners compared to their monolingual peers. They exhibit an
early awareness when someone speaks a language they do not understand, which enhances
their sensitivity to language barriers (Girotto & Gonzalez, 2002). This heightened awareness
extends to understanding the beliefs and intentions of others. For instance, bilingual children
are often quicker to grasp the concept of false beliefs—that others can hold inaccurate
perceptions of reality—which is a fundamental aspect of theory of mind.

9
Bilingualism also contributes to the development of perspective-taking skills. Bilingual
children learn that objects or events can be represented in multiple ways due to their exposure
to two or more linguistic systems (Bialystok, 2001). This ability to perceive and interpret
multiple representations of a single concept fosters a more nuanced understanding of different
viewpoints, thereby enhancing their overall cognitive flexibility and empathetic
understanding.

Past research with monolingual children has shown that learning new labels for objects with
already known labels, like learning "brown" for a horse already known as "horse," can be
challenging due to the principle of mutual exclusivity. However, Yoshida and Smith (2007)
found that bilingual children, aged 2 and 3, demonstrate greater cognitive flexibility in novel
word-learning tasks compared to monolinguals. Bilingual children were better able to inhibit
competing meanings and adapt to new labels, reflecting a superior capacity to manage lexical
overlap and competing meanings (Davidson et al., 1997). This aligns with models of lexical
access such as the Bilingual Interactive Model of Lexical Access (Léwy & Grosjean, 2000)
and the TRACE model (Elman & McClelland, 1985), which suggest that bilinguals’
continuous practice in managing multiple languages enhances their cognitive flexibility and
word-learning abilities.

Bilingual individuals experience lexical competition, where newly learned words in one
language may conflict with existing words in both languages. This contrasts with older
theories that posited separate cognitive systems for each language. Recent evidence suggests
that bilingualism involves interactive cognitive processes, facilitating the transfer of
knowledge across languages. For example, bilingual children can apply mathematical
concepts learned in one language when acquiring new terms in another, demonstrating how
bilingualism supports cognitive flexibility and integration (Charmian, 2007). Furthermore,
bilinguals often develop unique conceptual understandings influenced by their dual language
experience. This ability to adapt knowledge across different contexts highlights the deeper
cognitive benefits associated with bilingualism, such as improved problem-solving and
abstract thinking. Bilingual children’s capacity to generalise and apply learned concepts
underscores how bilingualism fosters advanced cognitive skills and conceptual integration
(Bialystok, 2001; Yoshida & Smith, 2007; Kroll & Białystok, 2013).

The cognitive advantages of bilingualism extend beyond childhood and early adulthood, with
significant implications for cognitive aging. Recent research indicates that bilingualism may
offer protective effects against cognitive decline in older adults. This is particularly relevant
in the context of neurodegenerative conditions such as dementia and Alzheimer's disease. A
landmark study by Craik, Bialystok, and Freedman (2010) demonstrated that bilingual
individuals exhibited symptoms of Alzheimer's disease approximately four to five years later
than their monolingual counterparts. This delayed onset was observed even after controlling
for variables such as education and occupational status, underscoring the robust influence of
bilingualism on cognitive health.

The protective effects of bilingualism are thought to arise from the sustained engagement of
executive control mechanisms throughout life. By continuously engaging in the cognitive

10
demands of managing two languages, bilingual individuals enhance their executive control
abilities, which in turn may buffer against age-related cognitive decline (Bialystok, 2009;
Craik et al., 2010).

Bilingualism, particularly from an early age, has been shown to enhance executive control
through the practice of code-switching, or alternating between languages. Research indicates
that bilingual individuals, including infants exposed to multiple languages, develop superior
attention control, cognitive flexibility, and inhibition compared to monolinguals (Bialystok,
Craik, Klein & Viswanathan, 2004; Kovács & Mehler, 2009; Costa, Hernández &
Sebastián-Gallés, 2008). Studies demonstrate that these cognitive advantages arise from the
continuous management of two active linguistic systems, which strengthens the brain's ability
to switch between tasks and suppress interference from the non-used language (Hartanto &
Yang, 2016; Prior & MacWhinney, 2010). However, findings on bilingualism's effect on
working memory remain inconsistent (Martin et al., 2009; Mehrani & Zabihi, 2017).

The cognitive advantages associated with bilingualism are notably amplified when language
acquisition begins at an early age. Research has consistently demonstrated that early
bilinguals—those exposed to two languages from birth—tend to exhibit superior executive
control compared to their monolingual peers. Early bilingualism contributes to more efficient
cognitive processing by establishing robust neural pathways that support executive functions
(Bialystok & Craik, 2010). Furthermore, the early integration of two languages helps
bilingual individuals develop adaptive cognitive strategies that enhance their ability to control
and manage competing information, reinforcing the notion that the benefits of bilingualism
are most pronounced when language learning occurs from a young age (Kroll & Białystok,
2013). Thus, early bilingualism not only enriches cognitive development but also fortifies
executive control abilities, offering long-term advantages that extend throughout an
individual's lifespan.

Executive Control and Bilingual Academic Achievement

Executive controls are crucial tools for successful academic achievement, as they are
consistently employed in learning situations. Yadava and Yadava (2018) define academic
achievement as "performance outcomes that indicate the extent to which a person has
accomplished specific goals that were the focus of activities in school, college, and
university." These executive controls are the cognitive abilities individuals use to organise,
concentrate, and solve problems. In academic settings, students frequently encounter tasks
that necessitate the use of executive controls. These controls assist with goal-directed
behaviour, which is essential for completing most academic tasks.

The relationship between bilingualism and academic achievement is well-supported by

research, suggesting that bilingual students often excel in school, particularly in tasks that
demand complex problem-solving and critical thinking (Prior & MacWhinney, 2010). The
bilingual experience fosters cognitive flexibility, enabling students to adapt to new learning
situations and think creatively.

11
However, while bilingualism enhances certain aspects of executive control, the overall impact
on academic achievement is influenced by multiple factors, including the context of language
use, proficiency levels in both languages, and the educational environment (Mehrani &
Zabihi, 2017). Additionally, some studies have found that bilingualism may pose challenges
in specific linguistic tasks, such as lexical retrieval, where bilinguals may experience slower
word production compared to monolinguals (Bialystok, Barac, Blaye, & Poulin-Dubois,
2010).

Methodological Considerations
In examining the relationship between bilingualism and cognitive advantages, especially in
executive control, methodological considerations play a critical role in ensuring the accuracy
and reliability of research findings. One significant challenge is the variation in how
bilingualism is defined and how language proficiency is measured across different studies.
For instance, Paap and Greenberg (2013) argue that inconsistent definitions of
bilingualism—ranging from early versus late bilinguals to balanced versus dominant
bilinguals—can lead to conflicting results and obscure the true effects of bilingualism on
cognitive processes.

Moreover, the methods used to measure language proficiency and cognitive abilities are
crucial. Some studies rely on subjective measures such as self-assessments, which can
introduce bias and variability, while others employ objective, standardised tests that offer
more reliable data. As Gathercole and Thomas (2009) point out, the use of standardised
assessments, such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (a measure of receptive
vocabulary) or the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (a test of cognitive flexibility), is essential for
ensuring comparability across studies. These tests not only provide a consistent measure of
cognitive and linguistic abilities but also help to isolate the specific components of executive
control that are influenced by bilingualism.

Further compounding the methodological challenges are factors such as socioeconomic status
(SES), cultural background, and education level, which can confound the relationship
between bilingualism and cognitive outcomes. Research by Calvo and Bialystok (2014)
demonstrates that SES, in particular, can interact with bilingualism to either amplify or
diminish cognitive advantages, making it essential for studies to control for these variables.
Additionally, the context in which bilingualism is practised—whether in an immersive
environment or in a more segregated setting—can also influence cognitive outcomes, as
shown in studies by Carlson and Meltzoff (2008). These methodological considerations are
vital for advancing a more nuanced and accurate understanding of how bilingualism affects
executive control and, by extension, academic achievement.

Implications for Education and Policy

Research on bilingualism highlights the importance of implementing effective bilingual

education programs. According to Cummins (2005), such programs support both language
proficiency and cognitive development, leading to improved academic outcomes. Policies

12
that promote bilingual education can enhance language learning by integrating both
languages into the curriculum, thereby catering to diverse linguistic backgrounds and
fostering educational equity. These policies not only help bilingual students achieve
proficiency in multiple languages but also bridge gaps in academic achievement between
different linguistic groups.

Bilingual education plays a crucial role in preserving minority languages and cultural
heritage. Genesee (2015) emphasises that bilingual programs contribute to the maintenance
and revitalization of endangered languages by incorporating them into educational settings.
This approach not only supports the linguistic development of minority language speakers but
also strengthens cultural identity and continuity. By embedding minority languages into the
educational framework, bilingual education helps ensure that these languages are passed
down to future generations, thereby safeguarding cultural heritage and promoting diversity.

Conclusion

The extensive body of research highlights the significant cognitive benefits associated with
bilingualism, particularly when acquired from an early age. The reviewed studies collectively
demonstrate that bilingualism enhances various aspects of executive control, including
working memory, cognitive flexibility, and attentional control. These cognitive advantages
extend across different stages of life, from childhood through to older adulthood.

Research by Morales, Calvo, and Bialystok (2013) provides evidence that bilingual children
outperform their monolingual peers on working memory tasks. The findings are supported by
Miyake and Friedman’s (2012) exploration of executive control, which confirms that
bilingual individuals exhibit superior management of cognitive interference. Additionally,
Blom et al. (2014) highlight that bilingual children, such as Turkish-Dutch bilinguals,
demonstrate notable improvements in both visuospatial and verbal working memory,
reinforcing the idea that bilingualism fosters advanced cognitive skills through the
management of linguistic interference.

The benefits of bilingualism also manifest in enhanced cognitive flexibility, a critical

component of executive function. Carlson and Meltzoff (2008) found that bilingual children
excel in tasks requiring cognitive flexibility, such as the Dimensional Change Card Sort
(DCCS). This ability to switch between sorting rules without losing focus reflects a broader
cognitive adaptability, a skill that bilingual individuals develop through the constant practice
of managing two linguistic systems. Bialystok and Craik (2010) further emphasise that
bilingualism contributes to a more flexible cognitive framework, enabling better adaptation to
varied and changing tasks.

Neuroimaging studies provide additional insight into the structural and functional changes in
the brains of bilingual individuals. Research by Kroll and Bialystok (2013) indicates
increased grey matter density in the areas critical for executive functions. Functional MRI
studies reveal more efficient neural activation in these regions during executive control tasks,

13
highlighting how bilingualism enhances the brain's efficiency in managing cognitive tasks
(Kroll & Białystok, 2013).

The socio-cognitive advantages of bilingualism are also notable. Bilingual children exhibit a
heightened awareness of communicative needs and an advanced understanding of others’
beliefs and intentions, as evidenced by Girotto and Gonzalez (2002). This heightened ability
to interpret and adapt to multiple linguistic and conceptual frameworks underscores the
broader cognitive benefits of bilingualism. Furthermore, bilingualism offers protective effects
against cognitive decline in older adults. This protective effect is attributed to the continuous
cognitive challenges posed by managing multiple languages, which may buffer against
age-related cognitive decline (Bialystok, 2009; Craik et al., 2010).

Despite these advantages, methodological considerations must be addressed to fully

understand bilingualism's cognitive impacts. Variations in definitions of bilingualism and
methods of measuring cognitive abilities can lead to inconsistent findings. Paap and
Greenberg (2013) highlight the importance of standardised definitions and assessments to
provide clearer insights into bilingualism's effects. Additionally, factors such as
socioeconomic status and the context of language use can influence cognitive outcomes,
making it crucial for future research to account for these variables (Calvo & Bialystok, 2014;
Carlson & Meltzoff, 2008).

In conclusion, bilingualism, especially when acquired from an early age, provides substantial
cognitive benefits that extend throughout life. These benefits include enhanced executive
control, improved cognitive flexibility, and protective effects against cognitive ageing.
Addressing methodological challenges and considering contextual factors will further refine
our understanding of how bilingualism influences cognitive development and achievement.
As research continues to evolve, it is crucial to maintain a nuanced and rigorous approach to
studying bilingualism to fully appreciate its impact on cognitive processes.

References

Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis of the Cognitive Correlates of Bilingualism. Review of Educational
Research, 80(2), 207-245. doi: 10.3102/0034654310368803

Anderson, J. A., Mak, L., Chahi, A. K., & Bialystok, E. (2017). The language and social
background questionnaire: Assessing degree of bilingualism in a diverse population.
Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 250-263. doi: 10.3758/s13428- 017-0867-9

Arredondo, M. M., Hu, X., Satterfield, T., & Kovelman, I. (2016). Bilingualism alters
children's frontal lobe functioning for attentional control. Developmental Science, 20(3). doi:
10.1111/desc.12377

14
Baumgart, C. Q., & Billick, S. B. (2017). Positive Cognitive Effects of Bilingualism and
Multilingualism on Cerebral Function: A Review. Psychiatric Quarterly, 89(2), 273-283. doi:
10.1007/s11126-017-9532-9

Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). Relations between executive function and
academic achievement from ages 5 to 17 in a large, representative national sample. Learning
and Individual Differences, 21(4), 327-336. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.007

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition.

Cambridge University Press.

Bialystok, E., Barac, R., Blaye, A., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2010). Word Mapping and
Executive Functioning in Young Monolingual and Bilingual Children. Journal of Cognition
and Development, 11(4), 485-508. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2010.516420

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual Minds.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(3), 89-129. doi: 10.1177/1529100610387084

Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children:
Evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science, 7(3), 325-339.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00351.x

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, Aging, and
Cognitive Control: Evidence from the Simon Task. Psychology and Aging, 19(2), 290-303.
Retrieved from https://oce.ovid.com/article/00002004- 200406000-00005

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240-250. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001

Bialystok, E. (2017). The Bilingual Adaptation: How Minds Accommodate Experience.

Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 233-262. doi: 10.1037/bul0000099

Blom, E., Küntay, A. C., Messer, M., Verhagen, J., & Leseman, P. (2014). The benefits of
being bilingual: Working memory in bilingual Turkish–Dutch children. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 128, 105-119. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2014.06.007

Brito, N., & Barr, R. (2012). Influence of bilingualism on memory generalization during
infancy. Developmental Science, 15(6), 812-816. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 7687.2012.1184.x

Carlson, S. M., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Bilingual experience and executive functioning in
young children. Developmental Science, 11(2), 282-298. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00675.x

Chen, H-C., & Leung, Y-S. (1989). Patterns of lexical processing in a nonnative language.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. 15(2), 316-325. doi:
10.1037/0278-7393.15.2.316

15
Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism aids conflict
resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106(1), 59-86. doi:
10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.013

Cowan, N. (2013). Working Memory Underpins Cognitive Development, Learning, and

Education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 197-223. doi:
10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive Functions. Annual Review
of Psychology, 64, 135-168. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

Engel de Abreu, P. M. J. (2011). Working memory in multilingual children: Is there a

bilingual effect? Memory, 19(5), 529-537. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2011.590504

Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of executive functions: Individual
differences as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex, 86, 186-204. doi:
10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.023

Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive Function in Preschoolers: A
Review Using an Integrative Framework. American Psychology Association, 134(1), 31-60.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31

Hartanto, A., & Yang, H. (2016). Disparate bilingual experiences modulate task- switching
advantages: A diffusion-model analysis of the effects of interactional context on switch costs.
Cognition, 150, 10-19. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.01.016

Kapa, L. L., & Colombo, J. (2013). Attentional control in early and later bilingual children.
Cognitive Development, 28(3), 233-246. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.01.011

Kovács, Á M., & Mehler, J. (2009). Cognitive gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants.
Psychology, 106(16), 6556-6560. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811323106

Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Hoshino, N. (2014). Two Languages in Mind: Bilingualism as a
Tool to Investigate Language, Cognition, and the Brain. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 23(3), 159-163. doi: 10.1177/0963721414528511

Luk, G., De Sa, E., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Is there a relation between onset age of
bilingualism and enhancement of cognitive control? Bilingualism, 14(4), 588- 595. doi:
10.1017/S1366728911000010

Martin, C. D., Dering, B., Thomas, E. M., & Thierry, G. (2009). Brain potentials reveal
semantic priming in both the ‘active’ and the ‘non-attended’ language of early bilinguals.
NeuroImage, 47(1), 326-333. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.025

16
Martin-Rhee, M. M., & Bialystok, E. (2008). The development of two types of inhibitory
control in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism, 11(1), 81-93. doi:
10.1017/S1366728907003227

Mehrani, M. B., & Zabihi, R. (2017). A Comparative Study of Shifting Ability, Inhibitory
Control and Working Memory in Monolingual and Bilingual Children. Psychological Studies,
62(4), 421-427. doi: 10.1007/s12646-017- 0432-8

Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The Nature and Organization of Individual
Differences in Executive Functions: Four General Conclusions. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21(1), 8-14. doi: 10.1177/0963721411429458

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D.
(2000). The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex
“Frontal Lobe” Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49-100. doi:
10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

Morales, J., Calvo, A., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Working memory development in
monolingual and bilingual children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(2),
187-202. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.002

Paap, K. R., Johnson, H. A., & Sawi, O. (2015). Bilingual advantages in executive
functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined
circumstances. Cortex, 69, 265-278. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.014

Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological
Monographs: General and Applied, 76(27), 1-23. doi: 10.1037/h0093840

Pintner, R. (1932). The Influence of Language Background on Intelligence Tests. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 3(2), 235-240. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1932.9919147

Poulin-Dubois, D., Blaye, A., Coutya, J., & Bialystok, E. (2011). The effects of bilingualism
on toddlers’ executive functioning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(3),
567-579. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.10.009

Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2010). A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism,
13(2), 253-262. doi: 10.1017/S1366728909990526

Ronjat, J. (1913). Le développement du langage observé chez un enfant bilingue. Retrieved

from https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2376686_2/component/file_2376685/conten

Rueda, M., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Halparin, J. D., Gruber, D. B., Lercari, L. P., &
Posner, M. I. (2004). Development of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia,
42(8), 1029-1040. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.12.012

17
Saer, D. J. (1923). The effect of bilingualism on intelligence. British Journal of Psychology,
14(1),25-38. Retrieved from
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2376853_2/component/file_2376852/content

Thomas-Sunesson, D., Hakuta, K., & Bialystok, E. (2016). Degree of bilingualism modifies
executive control in Hispanic children in the USA. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 197-206. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2016.1148114

Yadava, S., & Yadava, A. (2018). Cognitive predictors of academic achievement in middle
school students. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 9(1), 158-162. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1992816735?rfr_id=info%3ax 2%2Fsid%3

Aprimo Yanping, D., & Ping, L. (2015). The cognitive science of bilingualism. Language and
Linguistics Compass, 9(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12099

Yoshida, H., Tran, D. N., Benitez, V., & Kuwabara, M. (2011). Inhibition and Adjective
Learning in Bilingual and Monolingual Children. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2011.0021

18