Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-15T14:07:43.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of script variation, literacy skills, and immersion experience on executive attention: A comparison of matched monoscriptal and biscriptal bilinguals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2017

SUJIN YANG ,
HWAJIN YANG  and
ANDREE HARTANTO
SUJIN YANG*
Affiliation:
Ewha Womans University
HWAJIN YANG
Affiliation:
Singapore Management University
ANDREE HARTANTO
Affiliation:
Singapore Management University
*
Address for correspondence: Sujin Yang, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Ewha Womans University, 52, Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, South Korea, Postal Code: 03760[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To examine script effects, monoscriptal Spanish–English (SE) bilinguals, who use two similar Roman alphabetic systems, were compared to biscriptal Chinese–English (CE) bilinguals, who use logographs and Roman alphabets. On the Attention Network Test, script effects were most evident in global processing efficiency (i.e., inverse efficiency and reaction time) and in the local network of executive control in favor of biscriptal CE bilinguals over matched monoscriptal SE counterparts. Literacy effects were found on the executive control network among Chinese–English bilinguals of high L1-literacy skills over their script- and immersion-matched counterparts, who varied only in low L1 literacy. In a similar vein, results of the multiple regression analysis demonstrated that script and literacy are significant predictors of executive control capacities. Our results suggest that script variation in a bilingual's language pair is an important modulating factor that enhances overall attention efficiency.

Keywords

script variationliteracy skillsbilingualismexecutive attentionAttention Network Test (ANT)
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 142 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea Grant (NRF-2016-S1A3A295502). The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study, interpretation of the data, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References

Abutalebi, J., Guidi, L., Borsa, V., Canini, M., Della Rosa, P. A., Parris, B. A., & Weekes, B. S. (2015). Bilingualism provides a neural reserve for aging populations. Neuropsychologia, 69, 201–210.Google Scholar
Ang, I., & Stratton, J. (1995). The Singapore way of multiculturalism: Western concepts/Asian cultures. Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 10, 65–89.Google Scholar
Armstrong, R. A. (2014). When to use the Bonferoni correction. Ophthalmic & Psychological Optics, 34, 502–508.Google Scholar
Bell, N. L., Lassiter, K. S., Matthews, T. D., & Hutchinson, M. B. (2001). Comparison of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third edition and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third edition with university students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 417–422.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 3–13.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F., & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (4), 525–531.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 240–250.Google Scholar
Briggs, P., & Goryo, K. (1988). Biscriptal interference: A study of English and Japanese. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 515–531.Google Scholar
Coderre, E.L., & van Heuven, W.J.B. (2014). The effect of script similarity on executive control in bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.Google Scholar
Davidse, N. J., Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G. (2013). Explaining common variance shared by early numeracy and literacy. Reading and Writing, 27, 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9465-0Google Scholar
De Souza, D. (1980). The politics of language: Language planning in Singapore. In Afendras, E.A. and Kuo, E.C.Y. (eds.) Language and Society in Singapore, pp. 203–232, Singapore: Singapore University Press.Google Scholar
Fan, J., McCandliss, B.D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M.I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340–347.Google Scholar
Folke, T., Ouzia, J., Bright, P., De Martino, B., & Filippi, R. (2016). A bilingual disadvantage in metacognitive processing, Cognition, 150, 119–132.Google Scholar
Friesen, D.C., Luo, L., Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2015). Proficiency and control in verbal fluency performance across the lifespan for monolinguals and bilinguals. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 30, 238–250.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V.C.M., & Thomas, E.M. (2009). Bilingual first-language development: Dominant language takeover, threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 213–237.Google Scholar
Gopinathan, S. (1998). Language policy changes 1979–1997: Politics and pedagogy. In Gopinathan, S., Pakir, Anne, Ho, Wah Kam & Saravanan, Vanithamani (Eds), Language, society and education in Singapore, 2nd edition (pp. 19–44). Singapore: Times Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gray, J.R., Chabris, C.F., & Braver, T.S. (2003). Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience, 6 (3), 316–322.Google Scholar
Green, D. W., Rickard Liow, S., Tng, S. K., & Zielinski, S. (1996). Are visual search procedures adapted to the nature of the scripts? British Journal of Psychology, 87, 311–326.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexicosemantic system. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 1 (02), 67–81.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2016). The Complementarity Principle and its impact on processing, acquisition, and dominance. In Silva-Corvalán, Carmen & Treffers-Daller, Jeanine (eds), Language Dominance in Bilinguals: Issues of Measurement and Operationalization. pp. 33–65. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hartanto, A., & Yang, H. (2016a). Disparate bilingual experiences modulate task-switching advantages: A diffusion model analysis of the effects of compound bilingualism on switch costs. Cognition, 150, 10–19.Google Scholar
Hartanto, A., & Yang, H. (2016b). Does Active Bilingualism enhance Inhibitory Control and Monitoring?: A Propensity Matching Analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Singapore Management University.Google Scholar
Hoosain, R. (1991). Psycholinguistic implications for linguistic relativity: A case study of Chinese. Hillsdale, CA: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jia, G., Aaronson, D., & Wu, Y. (2002). Long-term language attainment of bilingual immigrants: Predictive variables and language group differences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 599–621.Google Scholar
Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). Reading in different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In Frost, R. & Katz, L. (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam: New Holland.Google Scholar
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test-II. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S.C., Misra, M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica, 128, 416–430.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for language processing and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 (5), 497–514.Google Scholar
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5–55.Google Scholar
Ma, W., & Li, G. (2016). Chinese-heritage students in north American schools: Understanding hearts and minds beyond test scores. Routledge: New York.Google Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within-and betweenlanguage competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6 (2), 97–115.Google Scholar
McBride, C.A. (2016). Is Chinese special? Four aspects of Chinese literacy acquisition that might distinguish learning Chinese from learning alphabetic orthographies. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 523–549.Google Scholar
Paap, K. R., Darrow, J., Dalibar, C., & Johnson, H. A. (2014). Effects of script similarity on bilingual advantages in executive control are likely to be negligible or null. Frontiers in Psychology, 5Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Paap, K. R., & Greenberg, Z. I. (2013). There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 232–258.Google Scholar
Pasquarella, A., Chen, X., Gottardo, A., & Geva, E. (2015). Cross-language transfer of word reading accuracy and word reading fluency in Spanish–English and Chinese–English bilinguals: Script-universal and script-specific processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 96–110.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42.Google Scholar
Prior, A., & Gollan, T. H. (2011). Good language-switchers are good task-switchers: Evidence from Spanish–English and Mandarin–English bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17, 682–691.Google Scholar
Redick, T.S., & Engle, R.W. (2006). Working memory capacity and attention network test performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 713–721.Google Scholar
Rhodes, N., & Pufahl, I. (2011). Foreign language instruction in US schools: Results of a national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 258–288.Google Scholar
Rueda, M.R., 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, 1029–1040.Google Scholar
Streiner, D.L., & Norman, G.R. (2011). Correction for multiple testing: Is there a resolution? Chest, 140: 16–18.Google Scholar
Sullivan, M. D., Janus, M., Moreno, S., Astheimer, L., & Bialystok, E. (2014). Early stage second-language learning improves executive control: Evidence from ERP. Brain and Language, 139, 84–98.Google Scholar
Sun-Alperin, M.K., & Wang, M. (2011). Cross-language transfer of phonological and orthographic processing skills from Spanish L1 to English L2. Reading and Writing, 24, 591–614.Google Scholar
Tan, C. (2006). Change and continuity: Chinese language policy in Singapore. Language Policy, 5, 41–62.Google Scholar
Tan, L. H., Liu, H. L., Perfetti, C. A., Spinks, J. A., Fox, P. T., & Gao, J. H. (2001). The neural system underlying Chinese logograph reading. Neuroimage, 13, 836–846.Google Scholar
Tao, L., Marzecová, A., Taft, M., Asanowicz, D., & Wodniecka, Z. (2011). The efficiency of attentional networks in early and late bilinguals: The role of age of acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 123, 1–19.Google Scholar
Tavassoli, N. T. (2002). Spatial memory for Chinese and English. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 415–431.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (2015). Bilingualism and cognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 3–24Google Scholar
Verreyt, N., Woumans, E., Vandelanotte, D., Szmalec, A., & Duyck, W. (2016). The influence of language-switching experience on the bilingual executive control advantage. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 181–190.Google Scholar
Wang, M., Park, Y., & Lee, K.R. (2006). Korean–English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language phonological and orthographic transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 148–158.Google Scholar
Wang, M., Perfetti, C.A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese–English biliteracy acquisition; Cross-language and writing system transfer, Cognition, 97, 67–88.Google Scholar
World University Rankings (2016). The Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank_label/sort_order/asc/cols/rank_only.Google Scholar
World University Rankings (2015). The Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2015/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank_label/sort_order/asc/cols/rank_only.Google Scholar
Xie, Z., & Dong, Y. (2015). Contributions of bilingualism and public speaking training to cognitive control differences among young adults. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–14. doi:10.1017/S1366728915000474Google Scholar
Yang, S., & Lust, B. (2007). Cross-linguistic differences in cognitive effects due to bilingualism: experimental study of lexicon and executive attention in 2 typologically distinct language groups. BUCLD 31 Proceedings (pp. 602–703). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Yang, H., Hartanto, A., & Yang, S. (2016). The importance of bilingual experience in assessing bilingual advantages in executive functions. Cortex, 75, 237–240.Google Scholar
Yang, H., & Yang, S. (2015). Are all interferences bad? Bilingual advantages in working memory are modulated by varying demands for controlled processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000632Google Scholar
Yow, W.Q., & Li, X. (2015). Balanced bilingualism and early age of second language acquisition as the underlying mechanisms of a bilingual executive control advantage: Why variations in bilingual experiences matter. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: 164 . doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00164.Google Scholar
Zhou, B., & Krott, A. (2016). Data trimming procedure can eliminate bilingual cognitive advantage. Psychological Bulletin Review, 23, 1221–1230.Google Scholar