Dataset Information

Bilinguals are better than monolinguals in detecting manipulative discourse.

ABSTRACT: One of the most contentious topics in cognitive science concerns the impact of bilingualism on cognitive functions and neural resources. Research on executive functions has shown that bilinguals often perform better than monolinguals in tasks that require monitoring and inhibiting automatic responses. The robustness of this effect is a matter of an ongoing debate, with both sides approaching bilingual cognition mainly through measuring abilities that fall outside the core domain of language processing. However, the mental juggling that bilinguals perform daily involves language. This study takes a novel path to bilingual cognition by comparing the performance of monolinguals and bilinguals in a timed task that features a special category of stimulus, which has the peculiar ability to manipulate the cognitive parser into treating it as well-formed while it is not: grammatical illusions. The results reveal that bilinguals outperform monolinguals in detecting illusions, but they are also slower across the board in judging the stimuli, illusory or not. We capture this trade-off by proposing the Plurilingual Adaptive Trade-off Hypothesis (PATH), according to which the adaptation of bilinguals' cognitive abilities may (i) decrease fallibility to illusions by means of recruiting sharpened top-down control processes, but (ii) this is part of a larger bundle of effects, not all of which are necessarily advantageous.

SUBMITTER: Leivada E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8423309 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In this study, we examined the role that cognitive control and language regulation ability play in mediating readers' susceptibility to prediction error costs when reading in the native language (L1) or a second language (L2). Twenty-four English monolinguals (Experiment 1) and 28 Chinese-English bilinguals (Experiment 2) read sentences in English while their EEG was recorded. The sentences varied in the predictability of an upcoming expected word and in whether that prediction was confirmed. Monolinguals showed sensitivity to sentence contexts in which expectations were not met (i.e., when unexpected words were encountered) in the form of a late, frontally-distributed positivity, but for bilinguals this effect was more complex. For both groups, performance on the prediction task was modulated by individual differences on the AX-CPT, a measure of inhibitory control. However, the bilinguals' reading performance in the L2 was affected not only by inhibitory control, but also by their performance on an L1 verbal fluency task that indexed language regulation and production capability, related to their language dominance and immersion context. Bilinguals with better regulation of the L1 generated a larger frontal positivity in response to unexpected words in the L2, an effect that was attenuated by inhibitory control ability. In contrast, bilinguals with lower regulatory ability generated a larger, late negativity, which was also mediated by control. These findings suggest that the ability to regulate the native language when immersed in a second language environment can influence mechanisms underlying the prediction process when reading in the L2. In addition, cognitive control ability, specifically inhibitory control, appears to mediate the difficulty readers incur when predictions are disconfirmed, not only in the native language, but also for proficient bilinguals reading in the L2. We argue that the mechanisms engaged during prediction in the L1 and L2 are fundamentally the same, and that what differs for bilinguals are the additional demands imposed by their language experience and language use.

Project description:Bilinguals have been shown to outperform monolinguals on word learning and on inhibition tasks that require competition resolution. Yet the scope of such bilingual advantages remains underspecified. We compared bilinguals and monolinguals on nonverbal symbolic learning and on competition resolution while processing newly-learned material. Participants were trained on 12 tone-to-symbol mappings, combining timbre, pitch, and duration of tones. During subsequent processing, participants viewed a display with four symbols, and were instructed to identify the symbol that matched a simultaneously-presented tone. On competition trials, two symbols matched the tone in timbre and pitch, but only one matched the tone on timbre, pitch, and duration. No learning differences emerged between 27 Spanish-English bilinguals and 27 English monolinguals, and more successful learners performed better on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary task. During the processing task, competition trials yielded responses with lower accuracies and longer latencies than control trials. Further, in both groups, more successful learning of tone-to-symbol mappings was associated with more successful retrieval during processing. In monolinguals, English receptive vocabulary scores also influenced retrieval efficiency during processing, with English/Spanish vocabulary less related to the novel processing task in bilinguals. Finally, to examine inhibition of competing stimuli, priming probes were presented after each tone-symbol processing trial. These probes suggested that bilinguals, and to a lesser extent monolinguals, showed residual inhibition of competitors at 200 ms post-target identification. Together, findings suggest that learning of novel symbolic information may depend in part on previous linguistic knowledge (not bilingualism per se), and that, during processing of newly-learned material, subtle differences in retrieval and competition resolution may emerge between bilinguals and monolinguals.

Dataset Information

Bilinguals are better than monolinguals in detecting manipulative discourse.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets