Cognitive Effects of Bilingualism A modified research study Ben Chauvette Spring 2009

Language Acquisition Two big schools: Nativist Functionalist

Nativist Language Acquisition Device Universal Grammar Flip grammatical switches Noam Chomsky

Functionalist Interconnected with other cognitive processes Gestalt-like

Dr. Ellen Bialystok Ph.D. from University of Toronto (1976) Member of Royal Society of Canada (2003) Distinguished Research Professor of Psychology at York University, Toronto, CA

Ellen Bialystok Published 6 books and over 100 articles Awards: Killam Research Fellowship Walter Gordon Research Fellowship Dean’s Award for Outstanding Research Learning Distinguished Scholar in Residence

Developmental Theory The knowledge of two languages is greater than the sum of its parts. Different structures in languages force more complicated thinking More complicated thinking leads to more cognitive development

Theory (cont.) Executive Processing: ability to attend to or inhibit responses to stimuli last cognitive ability to develop in children (~5 years)

For Example…

HungerAttendInhibit EatStarve

Theory (cont.) Bilingual children have multiple ways to express the same idea Depends on environment, context, etc. More need for executive processing “Is this the right way to express this?” Improves executive processing

For Example…

Soccer Monolingual

versus…

Where am I? Home School Who’s here? Family Friends They know German ? No Ja English DeutschFußball Soccer Bilingual

This Study Modified version of a study by Bialystok Designed to test executive processing Uses ambiguous figures to force attention and inhibition control

Ambiguous Figures Figures which can be generally interpreted as having more than one “correct” interpretation Two types Figure-ground Content-Meaning

Figure-Ground

Content- Meaning

Ambiguous Figures To see both interpretations, you have to inhibit interfering visual stimuli i.e., use executive processing

Hypothesis Bilingual children will be better able than monolingual children to determine both meanings of both types of ambiguous figures.

Method Children tested individually Showed each child 3 ambiguous figures: Test image Figure-Ground Content-Meaning ★ Counter-balanced for order

Test Figure- Ground Content- Meaning

Method (cont.) Told pictures were “special pictures” Asked what they first saw Asked to point out at two features of it After a reminder, were asked to find second meaning Given two hints, then told second meaning

Method (cont.) Calculated three scores: Total score (All four pictures) Figure-Ground Content-Meaning

Rubric Identification After…Score No Hints4 One Hint3 Two Hints2 Being Told1 Failed to identify alternate0

Participants Peak Preparatory 10 children (5 boys, 5 girls) Mean Age = 7.32 years All bilingual

Participants (cont.) Holy Family of Nazareth 12 children (6 boys, 6 girls) Mean Age = 7.12 years Only one bilingual?

Results No significance: Bilingualism — p =.584 Age — r =.100, p =.667 Gender — p =.193 School — p =.440

Results (cont.) Significance for: Results by type of Ambiguous Figure Mean Score (F-G): 6.59 Mean Score (C-M): 5.41 p =.002 Correlated! r =.431, p =.045

Results (cont.) Also significance for: First-seen interpretations Indian / Inuit — 18 / 4 Faces / Trophy — 16 / 6 p =.004

Recap Bilingualism, age, gender, and school didn’t matter Type of ambiguous figure mattered Children almost always saw faces first

Hypothesis? Not supported Bilingualism not related to better performance (Probably b/c of design problems) ☹

But… Other fun stuff, though! Children found faces first Figure-Ground may be easier than Content- Meaning ☺

Limitations Bilingualism or schools? Bilingual ability Environment Classroom activities Other adult (HFN) Cultural bias

Nature / Nurture Nature Nurture Cognitive development requires feedback from the environment and practice

Questions? Comments?