BILINGUALISM

A Review of Bilingual Effects on Cognitive and Linguistic Developent! Role of

Language" Cultu#al Bac$g#ound" and Education% &' Raluca Ba#ac and Ellen Bial'sto$
B'
()MANG SA*+A ,ERMADI
,R)GRAM ,ASCA SAR-ANA
,ENDIDI(AN BA.ASA INGGRIS
UNI/ERSI*AS ,ENDIDI(AN GANES.A
0123
A Review of Bilingual Effects on Cognitive and Linguistic Development: Role of Language,
Cultural Background, and Education ! Raluca Barac and Ellen Bial!stok
B!
"omang #at!a $ermadi
24 Int#oduction
A researc% in linguistic development of ilingual c%ildren %as een widel! applied at t%is
time& 't is often t%at t%e ilingual c%ildren in case of linguistics development are different from
t%eir monolingual peers& (%e! also more affected to nonveral cognitive development&
)evert%eless, t%e ilinguals were ver! poor in linguistics task or in t%e assessment vocaular!
rat%er t%an t%e monolingual& But still, in man! test of e*ecutive control +task switc%ing, conflict
resolution, etc&, t%e ilinguals are performed etter +Bial!stok, Barac, Bla!e, - $oulin.Duois,
/010,&
(%ese effects are complicated ! t%e fact t%at ilingualism is often correlated wit%
variales t%at ma! t%emselves influence performance& 2urt%ermore, t%ese effects are
strengt%ened ! t%e report from 3orton and 4arper +/005, in Barac - Bial!stok +/016, w%ic%
was claimed t%at ilingual advantage was due to socioeconomic differences etween ilingual
and monolingual c%ildren& Bial!stok +/007, argued t%at t%ere was no dout t%at socioeconomic
status +#E#, was a powerful influence on e*ecutive control, ut it does not undermined t%e od!
of literature for w%ic% ilingual advantages %ad een recorded& 3eanw%ile, #aag%, 8u,
Carlson, 3oses, - Lee +/009, in Barac - Bial!stok +/016, also claimed t%at cultural effects
favored Asian c%ildren on tests of e*ecutive control must e separated from t%e role of
ilingualism to s%aped performance&
2rom t%e reason aove, it was clear t%at t%e test of e*ecutive control must e separated
from t%e ilinguals& (%is stud! addressed t%ese issues ! e*amined t%ree groups of ilingual
c%ildren and one group of monolinguals t%at performed veral and nonveral tasks& (%e ilingual
c%ildren differed in terms of similarit! etween Englis% and t%eir ot%er language, cultural
ackground, and educational e*perience& (%is stud! was compared specific groups to address
eac% of t%ese factors&
Role of Cultu#e and Iig#ation .isto#'
(wo previous studies %ave e*amined t%e role of culture and immigration %istor! on t%e
cognitive outcomes of ilingualism& 'n t%e first researc%, Bial!stok and :iswanat%an +/007,
compared t%ree groups of ;.!ear.old c%ildren on an e*ecutive control task& C%ildren were
matc%ed on educational e*perience and social class and were Englis%.speaking monolinguals in
Canada, ilinguals in Canada +mi*ed cultural ackgrounds, immigrants,, or ilinguals in 'ndia
+#out% Asian culture, nonimmigrants,& (%e results s%owed t%at t%e two ilingual groups
outperformed t%e monolinguals on t%e conflict conditions, wit% no difference etween t%e two
ilingual groups&
'n anot%er stud!, Bial!stok, Barac, et al& +/010, compared a group of ilinguals wit% two
monolingual groups an Englis%.speaking group in Canada and a 2renc%.speaking group in
2rance& Again, t%ere was no difference etween t%e two monolingual groups and etter
performance ! t%e ilinguals on all t%e conflict tasks& 4owever, t%ese results supported t%e
generalit! of t%e ilingual effects over t%e influence of immigration and culture on nonveral
tests of e*ecutive control&
,5onological Awa#eness
Be!ond from t%e cognitive outcome, some groups in ilinguals are aware wit% t%e
p%onological s!stem& $%onological awareness appears to transferred easil! across languages&
#panis%.Englis% ilinguals outperformed ot% monolinguals and C%inese.Englis% ilinguals on a
test of Englis% p%onological awareness& (%is weakness was ecause t%e degree of similarit!
etween t%e languages +Bial!stok, 3a<umder, - 3artin, /006,& (%e conventional spelling
s!stem of a language in #panis% %ad consistent letter=sound mappings, and t%is factor mig%t also
contriute to t%e en%anced performance of #panis%.Englis% ilinguals on p%onological
awareness tasks& )ot onl! #panis%.Englis% %ad conducted t%is Englis% p%onological awareness
test, t%e ot%er ilingual group also did t%is test, suc% as> Englis%.2renc% ilinguals, and Englis%.
Cantonese ilinguals t%at indicated a common asis for t%is ailit! across languages +Luk -
Bial!stok, /00;,& (%en once again, in a stud! comparing #panis%.Englis%, 4erew.Englis%, and
C%inese.Englis% ilingual c%ildren on a decoding task in ot% languages, etter performance
t%an monolinguals was found for t%e #panis% and 4erew groups, wit% no advantage for t%e
C%inese.Englis% group +Bial!stok, Luk, - "wan, /00?,&
2rom t%e facts aove, t%e p%onological awareness in relation etween languages %as
different effects on t%e development of asic metalinguistic and literac! concepts& (%ere was no
correlation in decoding ailit! etween Englis% and C%inese ecause t%e languages is different in
writing s!stems, ut it %as strong cross.language correlations wit% Englis% for ot% #panis% and
4erew, languages wit% more similar writing s!stems&
(%is stud! was e*amined t%e effects of specific language pairs, cultural ackground, and
educational e*perience on veral and nonveral performance& (%e language factor reflected t%e
possiilit! t%at t%e effect of ilingualism depends on t%e relation etween t%e two languages&
#ome studies %ave een used %eterogeneous and %omogeneous sample& 'n %eterogeneous sample,
it determine c%ildren speaking a variet! of language pairs, meanw%ile in %omogeneous sample, it
determine t%e spoke of same two languages ut wit% different languages across studies
+Bial!stok - 3artin, /00@ in Barac - Bial!stok, /016,& (%is stud! also compared %omogenous
groups of ilingual c%ildren and manipulated t%e similarit! etween t%e two languages& But it is
still unclear, w%et%er ilingual c%ildren of different cultural ackgrounds +i&e&, Asian, non.Asian,
w%o are raised in t%e same communities and attend t%e same sc%ools would s%ow comparale
patterns of linguistic and cognitive performance&
't appears t%at t%e language of education ma! also affect t%e ilinguals& Englis% receptive
vocaular! researc% t%at conducted ! Bial!stok, Luk, et al& +/010, in Barac - Bial!stok +/016,
s%owed t%at words associated wit% sc%ooling were responded to eAuall! well ! monolingual
and ilingual c%ildren, w%ereas compre%ension of words primaril! associated wit% %ome was
etter in monolinguals& (%e development of emerging literac! skills was strongl! predicted !
t%e degree to w%ic% c%ildren engaged in %ome activities involving reading and writing practice
ut t%ere was no researc% t%at controls for w%ic% language is used in sc%ool& Also studies to date
%ave compared ilingual groups w%o are instructed in different languages to assess t%e effects on
language and cognitive functions&
2urt%ermore, t%is researc% was compared ilingual c%ildren w%ose two languages were
Englis% plus one of C%inese +3andarin or Cantonese,, 2renc%, or #panis%, wit% a group of
Englis%.speaking monolingual c%ildren& 2or consideration t%at 2renc% and #panis% %ave some
similarit! wit% Englis% and %ave s%ared similar words and comparale grammatical structures
+2inkenstaedt - Bolff, 1756 in Barac - Bial!stok, /016,, ut C%inese is different from t%e ot%er
languages in t%ese dimensions& At t%e p%onological level, C%inese is a tonal language meanw%ile
Englis%, 2renc%, and #panis% are nontonal languages +Ce - Connine, 1777 in Barac -
Bial!stok, /016,& 'n terms of writing s!stem, 2renc%, #panis%, and Englis% use an alp%aetic
s!stem, meanw%ile w%ereas C%inese is a logograp%ic language& 3orp%ologicall!, C%inese differs
from Englis% and ot%er alp%aetic languages in t%e relative numer of compound words, t%e!
represent aout 5?D of all words in t%e C%inese language ut onl! a ver! small proportion in t%e
alp%aetic languages& (%ese facts s%owed different language families> Englis%, 2renc%, and
#panis% are 'ndo.European and C%inese is #ino.(ietan& (%is interpretation was seen ver! clear
aout %ow t%e similarit! etween languages affects t%e linguistic and nonlinguistic outcomes of
ilingualism&
(%erefore from t%e comparison aove, C%inese.Englis% ilingual c%ildren and t%e ot%er
two ilingual groups allowed for t%e e*amination& All t%e c%ildren lived in an Englis%.speaking
communit!& 2renc%.Englis% ilingual c%ildren were given t%e medium of instruction w%ile
c%ildren in t%e ot%er t%ree groups were instructed in Englis%& All testing was conducted in
Englis%, so t%e language of sc%ooling mig%t independentl! impact performance&
Considering from previous researc% t%at discussed t%e differences in e*ecutive control for
ilingual c%ildren are not influenced ! immigration %istor! and cultural variale, t%is stud! was
used t%e veral tasks t%at covered t%ree aspects of language proficienc!: receptive vocaular!,
grammatical ailit!, and metalinguistic knowledge& (%e nonveral task was also used as a task.
switc%ing paradigm +e*ecutive control,& (%is task was c%osen ecause it +a, involves processes
similar to t%ose c%ildren use to switc% attention etween languages> +, distinguis%es etween
gloal and local switc% costs, eac% of w%ic% inde*es different cognitive processes wit% different
developmental tra<ectories> and +c, %as een used wit% c%ildren +Bial!stok - :iswanat%an,
/007, and adults in order to s%ow to s%ow ilingual advantages in gloal ut not local costs& 'n
addition, e*ecutive control components, particularl! switc%ing and fle*iilit!, %ave een less
studied&
.'pot5esis
'n order to otain t%e data successfull!, t%is researc% also provided / possiilities for t%e
effect of language similarit! on e*ecutive control& (%e first is t%at languages t%at are more
similar reAuire more control to discriminate and t%erefore lead to more en%anced control
mec%anisms& Contrar!, it ma! e t%at languages t%at are more distant reAuire more switc%ing and
monitoring and t%at ma! e t%e source of greater en%ancement& (%is stud! t%en %!pot%esiEes t%at
ot% t!pes of e*periences s%ould lead to eAuivalent en%ancement ecause ot% reAuire effortful
attention& (%us, we e*pected t%at all t%ree ilingual groups would perform similarl! on
nonveral test of control ut t%at t%e relation etween t%e two languages and t%e language
e*perience in education would affect t%e outcomes of t%e veral tasks, wit% etter performance
! c%ildren&
04 Met5od
,a#ticipants
$articipants were 10@ c%ildren composed of /9 Englis% monolingual c%ildren, 60 C%inese.
Englis% ilingual c%ildren, /; 2renc%.Englis% ilingual c%ildren, and /0 #panis%.Englis%
ilingual c%ildren& All t%e c%ildren lived in a large multicultural cit! and attended pulic sc%ools&
(%e 2renc%.Englis% ilinguals attended a sc%ool in w%ic% t%e language of instruction was
2renc%, all ot%er c%ildren received sc%ool instruction in Englis%& All parents completed t%e
Language and #ocial Background Fuestionnaire +L#BF, in w%ic% t%e! answered Auestions
aout language use patterns on a scale from 1 to ?, w%ere 1 indicated t%e e*clusive use of
Englis%, ? indicated t%e e*clusive use of a non.Englis% language, and 6 indicated alanced use of
t%e two&
(%e Englis% monolingual group +3G 51&? mont%s, #D G 9&6, range G 9/&@=;9&5 mont%s> 16
girls and 16 o!s, reported little e*posure to a non.Englis% language& 'n t%e C%inese.Englis%
ilingual group +3 G 51&? mont%s, #D G 9&?, range G 96&6=;5&0 mont%s> 1@ girls and 19 o!s,,
s%owed t%at parents used C%inese more freAuentl! to communicate wit% t%e c%ildren& 2or t%e
2renc%.Englis% ilingual group +3 G 5@&; mont%s, #D G 6&;, range G 95&@=;1&0 mont%s> 1/ girls
and 19 o!s, donHt use Englis% at t%eir %ome at all& 2inall!, in t%e #panis%.Englis% ilingual
group +3 G 5@&@ mont%s, #D G 7&7, range G ?9&@=71&0 mont%s> 10 girls and 10 o!s, indicated
more e*posure to #panis% t%an Englis%&
Resea#c5 Design
Comparing t%e t%ree ilingual groups in terms of %ome language e*posure, a onewa!
anal!sis of variance +A)I:A, indicated a main effect of language group& $ost %oc Bonferroni
contrasts s%owed t%at C%inese.Englis% ilingual c%ildren received more %ome e*posure to t%e
non.Englis% language t%an t%e 2renc%.Englis% ilinguals, wit% t%e #panis%.Englis% ilinguals
not significantl! different from t%e ot%er two groups& A one.wa! A)I:A for t%e %ome language
spoken ! t%e c%ild s%owed no differences among t%e t%ree groups&
,#ocedu#es and *as$s
C%ildren were tested individuall! at t%eir sc%ool ! t%e same female e*perimenter during
a single session& $rior to testing, parents gave written con sent, and c%ildren provided veral
assent efore testing& All tasks were administered in Englis%&
(%e tasks were administered in a fi*ed order: Bugs, $$:(=''', 2ormulated #entences,
color=s%ape task switc%ing, o* completion and "B'(& (%is order was c%osen to ensure t%at
t%ere was enoug% variet! in t%e tasks to keep c%ildrenHs interest during t%e testing session&
C%ildren were given stickers after t%e completion of eac% task&
Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, /nd edition +"B'(=/,& (%e 3atrices sutest of t%e
"B'(=/ was administered to assess fluid reasoning (%e test consists of @9 items divided into
t%ree sections of increasing difficult!& In eac% trial, t%e c%ild was presented wit% visual stimuli
representing eit%er drawings of concrete o<ects or astract figures& 'n t%e first part of t%e test t%e
c%ild saw one target drawing at t%e centre of t%e page and five additional drawings elow it and
was asked to identif! one of t%e five stimuli matc%ing t%e target image& 2or t%e ot%er two
sections t%e c%ild saw an incomplete displa! of / X / or 6 X 6visual stimuli wit% one stimulus
missing, and five stimuli elow t%e displa!& (%e task was to c%oose t%e stimulus to complete t%e
displa!ed pattern&
Box completion& (%is task is a measure of ps!c%omotor speed +#alt%ouse, 1779 in Barac
- Bial!stok, /016,& (%e c%ild was presented wit% a letter.siEed s%eet of paper containing an
arra! of 6? t%ree.sided sAuares arranged in five columns and seven rows& (%e c%ildHs task was to
complete t%e sAuares ! filling in t%e fourt% side as fast as possile using a cra!on& C%ildren
were s%own e*amples of %ow to perform t%e task efore testing egan&
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 6rd edition& (%is is a standardiEed test of receptive
vocaular! +Dunn - Dunn, 1775 in Barac - Bial!stok, /016, in w%ic% c%ildren select a picture
from four options to matc% a word given ! t%e e*perimenter&
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, @
t%
edition +CEL2=@,& (%e 2ormulated
#entences sutest was used to assess c%ildrenHs ailit! to construct sentences w%ic% are
grammaticall! and semanticall! intact +#emel, Biig, - #ecord, /006,& 2or eac% item, c%ildren
were presented wit% a picture and a target word and were asked to create a sentence aout t%e
picture t%at incorporated t%e target word&
(%e Bugs test& (%is test assesses c%ildrenHs ailit! to appl! morp%ological rules of
Englis% +Berko, 17?;, to unfamiliar forms, t%ere! reflecting c%ildrenHs metalinguistic
awareness& C%ildren were s%own /5 pictures illustrating novel o<ects, animals, plants, and
actions& (%e e*perimenter pointed to eac% picture and read t%e associated te*t& (%irt! of t%e 66
te*ts introduced a target nonsense word +e&g&, wug, kaE%, gutc%, etc&, and t%e remaining t%ree
included Englis% target words +glass, melt, ring,& C%ildren needed to complete t%e sentence using
t%e target word ! appl!ing Englis% morp%olog! to t%e new words& (%e rules were t%e formation
of noun plural, past tense, t%ird person singular for simple present tense, singular and plural
possessives, comparative and superlative of ad<ectives, diminutives, derived ad<ectives,
compounded words, progressive, and derived agentive&
Color=s%ape task switc%ing& (%is test assesses c%ildrenHs ailit! to switc% etween tasks,
a central component of t%e e*ecutive function +3i!ake et al&, /000,& (%e task was programmed
in 3acromedia 2las% $la!er 5 and administered on a Lenovo 891 talet computer wit% a 1/.in&
touc%.screen monitor& (%e stimuli were sc%ematic drawings of a cow and %orse t%at were red or
lue& A lue %orse and a red cow appeared on t%e top of t%e screen, eac% surrounded ! a lack
sAuare& In eac% trial, a stimulus red %orse or lue cow, appeared on t%e ottom center of t%e
screen wit% a visual cue indicating w%et%er t%e stimulus was to e matc%ed ! color or s%ape to
t%e targets& C%ildren responded ! touc%ing t%e target picture t%at matc%ed t%e stimulus on t%e
designated dimension&
Reaction time +R(, and accurac! were recorded for eac% trial& Jloal and local switc%
costs were calculated from t%e R(s of correct trials& Jloal cost was calculated as t%e difference
etween mean R( for nonswitc% trials in t%e two nonswitc% locks and mean R( of nonswitc%
trials in t%e switc% locks&
34 Result
$reliminar! two.wa! A)I:As of gender and language group for eac% task indicated no
main effects of gender and no interaction etween gender and language group in an! anal!sis&
ConseAuentl!, t%e anal!ses reported elow were performed ! collapsing across gender groups&
Ine.wa! A)I:As wit% language group as a etween.su<ect factor indicated no
difference etween groups for "B'(=/ scores, or o* completion times& Ine.wa! A)I:A on
$$:( scores s%owed a main effect of language group& $ost %oc Bonferroni contrasts indicated
t%at t%e monolingual c%ildren and t%e #panis%.Englis% ilingual c%ildren outperformed t%e ot%er
two ilingual groups w%o did not differ from eac% ot%er& wit% post %oc Bonferroni contrasts
s%owing t%at monolingual and #panis%.Englis% ilingual c%ildren outperformed t%e 2renc%.
Englis% ilingual group& C%inese.Englis% ilinguals were not significantl! different from an! of
t%e ot%er t%ree language groups& 2inall!, t%e A)I:A on Bug scores s%owed a main effect of
language group, 2+6, 100, G 5&9?, p K &0001, in w%ic% t%e #panis%.Englis% ilingual c%ildren
outperformed t%e ot%er t%ree groups& $ost %oc Bonferroni tests s%owed t%at all t%ree ilingual
groups %ad faster R(s t%an t%e monolingual c%ildren wit% no difference among t%e t%ree
ilingual groups& $ost %oc Bonferroni tests indicated t%at t%e t%ree ilingual groups e*perienced
smaller gloal costs t%an t%e monolingual c%ildren, wit% no difference among t%e ilingual
groups&
64 Discussion
(%e purpose of t%is stud! was to investigate t%e effects of language similarit!, cultural
ackground, and educational e*perience on t%e veral and nonveral outcomes of ilingualism&
#i*.!ear old monolingual and ilingual c%ildren wit% eAuivalent ps!c%omotor speed, general
cognitive level, and #E# performed language tasks measuring vocaular!, grammar, and
metalinguistic knowledge, and a nonveral e*ecutive control task assessing task switc%ing& (%e
t%ree ilingual groups differed on several factors !et demonstrated similar performance in task
switc%ing, e*ceeding t%at of t%eir monolingual peers& Consistent wit% ot%er researc%, ilingual
c%ildren s%owed smaller gloal switc% costs t%an monolingual c%ildren& (%ese results offer
strong support for t%e claim t%at ilingualism acts independentl! of variales suc% as language
similarit!, cultural ackground, and language of sc%ooling in influencing nonveral outcomes&
4owever, researc% wit% ilinguals onl! s%ows advantages on conflict tasks wit% no
advantage on dela! tasks +e&g&, Carlson - 3eltEoff, /00; in Barac - Bial!stok, /016,&
(%erefore, it ma! e t%at influences of Asian culture affect dela! in%iition independentl! of
ilingual effects on conflict resolution& 'n t%e present stud!, C%inese.Englis% ilinguals did not
differ from t%e #panis%. and 2renc%.Englis% ilinguals on e*ecutive control, suggesting t%at
cultural ackground did not contriute to performance aove and e!ond ilingualism&
'n contrast to nonveral performance, scores on t%e veral tasks were mediated !
language similarit! and language of sc%ooling& (%e #panis% ilingual c%ildren outperformed t%e
2renc% ilingual c%ildren on all t%ree measures +receptive vocaular!, grammatical knowledge,
and metalinguistic awareness, and t%e C%inese ilinguals on two of t%em +receptive vocaular!
and metalinguistic awareness,& 'mportantl!, t%e #panis% ilinguals were not different from t%e
ot%er two ilingual groups in terms of t%e amount of language e*posure and language production
at %ome& (%e #panis% ilinguals and C%inese ilinguals were ot% eing educated in Englis%, ut
Englis% metalinguistic performance was etter onl! for t%e #panis% c%ildren, possil! ecause of
greater similarit! etween #panis% and Englis%& #pecificall!, t%e metalinguistic task was solved
relativel! etter ! t%e 2renc%.Englis% and C%inese.Englis% ilinguals t%an were t%e linguistic
tasks in t%at t%e! performed as well as t%e monolinguals instead of more poorl!& Cet t%e #panis%.
Englis% ilinguals, w%ose linguistic asis was eAuivalent to monolinguals performed etter t%an
monolinguals on t%e metalinguistic task& (%us, all t%ree ilingual groups s%owed an advantage in
t%e metalinguistic task relative to t%eir performance in t%e linguistic measures&
74 Conclusion
(%e present stud! provides evidence for t%e distinction etween t%e linguistic and
cognitive outcomes of ilingualism& (%e results endorse t%e conclusion t%at ilingualism itself is
responsile for t%e increased levels of e*ecutive control previousl! reported& Bilingual c%ildren
were etter ale t%an monolinguals to maintain a task set across a mi*ed lock, an advantage
found eAuall! in all t%ree ilingual groups& 'n contrast, performance on t%e linguistic tasks varied
wit% educational e*perience and similarit! etween t%e two languages& Alt%oug% cultural
ackground and language similarit! are correlated for t%e C%inese group, t%eir effects are
separale& (%e C%inese. Englis% ilinguals were onl! different from t%e ot%er ilinguals on t%e
language measures, and since it is %ard to imagine %ow cultural influences would e responsile,
t%is stud! attriute t%ose effects to degree of language similarit!& 'n contrast, t%ere were no
differences among an! of t%e ilingual groups on t%e nonveral measure, ruling out ot%
language similarit! and cultural ackground as contriutors to t%at performance& (%ese results
refined our understanding of %ow e*perience in general and ilingualism in particular, s%ape
development&
RE8ERENCES
Bial!stok E& +/007,& Claiming evidence from nonevidence! a reply to "orton and
#arper$%evelopmental &cience& Retrieved Decemer 0@, /016, from,
%ttp:LLresearc%&a!crest&orgLeial!stok
Bial!stok E& +/007,& Bilingualism! T'e good( t'e bad( and t'e indifferent& Bilingualism!
Language and Cognition& Retrieved Decemer 0/, /016, from,
%ttp:LLresearc%&a!crest&orgLeial!stok
Bial!stok, E&, Barac, R&, +/01/, Bilingual Effects on Cognitive and Linguistic %evelopment! )ole
of Language( Cultural Bac*ground( and Education& Retrieved )ovemer /7, /016, from,
%ttp:LLresearc%&a!crest&orgLeial!stok
Bial!stok, E&, Barac, R&, Bla!e, A&, - $oulin.Duois, D& +/010,& +ord mapping and executive
functioning in young monolingual and bilingual c'ildren$ ,ournal of Cognition and
%evelopment& Retrieved Decemer 0@, /016, from, %ttp:LLresearc%&a!crest&orgLeial!stok
Bial!stok, E&, Luk, J&, - "wan, E& +/00?,& Bilingualism( biliteracy( and learning to read!
Interactions among languages and -riting systems& Retrieved Decemer 0@, /016, from,
%ttp:LLresearc%&a!crest&orgLeial!stok
Bial!stok E&, Luk J&, $eets "&2& - Cang #& +/010,& )eceptive vocabulary differences in
monolingual and bilingual c'ildren$ Bilingualism! Language and Cognition& Retrieved
Decemer 0/, /016, from, %ttp:LLresearc%&a!crest&orgLeial!stok
Bial!stok, E&, 3a<umder, #&, - 3artin, 3& 3& +/006,& %eveloping p'onological a-areness! Is
t'ere a bilingual advantage. Retrieved Decemer 0@, /016, from,
%ttp:LLresearc%&a!crest&orgLeial!stok
Bial!stok E& - :iswanat%an 3& +/007,& Components of executive control -it' advantages for
bilingual c'ildren in t-o cultures$ Cognition& Retrieved Decemer 06, /016, from,
%ttp:LLresearc%&a!crest&orgLeial!stok
Luk, J&, - Bial!stok, E& +/00;,& Common and distinct cognitive bases for reading in Englis'
Cantonese bilinguals& Retrieved Decemer 0@, /016, from,
%ttp:LLresearc%&a!crest&orgLeial!stok