Introduction; The Bilingual child vs. The Monolingual
description
Transcript of Introduction; The Bilingual child vs. The Monolingual
1
Attention and Inhibition in Bilingual Children: evidence from the dimensional change card sort Task
By: Ellen Bialystok and Michelle M.Martin
2
The studies presented in this article examine the ability of
monolinguals and bilinguals to solve a cognitive problem;
Bilingualism
Specific cognitive processes in children’s Development
3
Introduction;The Bilingual child vs. The Monolingual
Differences in specific cognitive processes
Analysis of representations; The process of constructing mental representations that are increasingly capable of recording information that is detailed, explicit and abstract
Control of Attention; attention is selectively directed to specific aspects of a representation/ Inhibition
4
a. Associating words from two languages requires more advanced representation because it exists at a higher abstract level- Hierarchical semantic structure
b. Attending one set of labels and ignoring equally meaningful labels from the other language requires control of Attention.
Introduction;The Bilingual child vs. The Monolingual
5
Recent Studies have shown…
Bilinguals…
a. Better at judging the grammaticality of sentences with distracting semantic anomalies
b. The meaning of a printed word does not change when it accompanies a different picture
6
Dimensional Change Card Sort Task Frye, Zelazo & Palfai, 1995; Zelazo, Frye & Rapus, 1996)
The Findings of their Research…
WHY (cognitive complexity and control theory)
7
Bialystok’s Study
Participants: Children 4-5 years old Method: Dimensional Card Sort Task. Result: Bilingual Advantage Discussion: a. it is difficult for children at this stage, to conceptualize the
stimuli and the rules to build a mental representationb. Children need to inhibit the response tendency set up by the
initial stage of sorting- two sorting of inhibition are required: response inhibition (familiar motor action) and conceptual inhibition ( attending previously relevant features).
c. The Proposal is that the difficulty in card sort problem is in Conceptual Inhibition
8
This study show that bilingual children may be better at representation, response inhibition and conceptual inhibition
However…
It could not distinguish between them
9
Three hypothesized outcomes!
If the bilingual advantage in the previous study was from:
Greater representational Ability: that advantage should increase in all conditions as the conceptual demands increase. (perceptual vs. semantic)
Greater ability to execute response inhibition- bilinguals should outperform the monolinguals in all conditions
Enhanced ability in conceptual inhibition, then the prediction depends on an interaction between representation and inhibition demands
10
Study 1
Method:
participants; 67 children
36 English monolinguals – 59.1 months31 Chinese- English bilinguals- 58.9 months
11
Materials and Procedure
Step I: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised;
standardized test of English receptive vocabulary
12
Step II
Forward Digit span; working memory capacity
6, 4, 7, 2 , …1, 9, 4, 7, …
13
Step III
Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices; measure of general intelligence, reasoning by analogy,
14
Step IV
Computerized Dimensional Change Card Sort
a. Color Game…To press X or O
X O
15
b. Color shape Game
OR
X O
16
C- Color Object Game…Meaningful objects instead of shapes
OR
X O
17
D- function-Location Game
OR
X O
18
Results
19
Results
0-3 4-6 7-10
20
Discussion- The results are close to the third hypothesized outcome; the bilingual
advantage is based on conceptual inhibition.
In the color game; the post- switch phase depended on response inhibition, but both groups were equally able to suppress a familiar motor response to execute the updated classification- a thing that rules out inhibition as a source of task difficulty.
Conceptual inhibition- tasks that involve two dimensions- bilinguals outperform monolingual. BUT- function location game?
Conceptual inhibition depends on the complexity of the representation to which attention is directed./ the process of re-attributing the targets requires both inhibiting the original description and representing the stimulus in a new way. (perceptual feature vs. semantic feature)
The groups were equivalent in their ability to represent the stimuli. WHY
21
Thus, the first study rules out both the representational ability and response inhibition as the factors standing for the differences between monolinguals and bilinguals.
The Next STUDY explores the differences between them that led or did not lead to a BILINGUAL advantage
22
Study 2
Method;
Participants:15 English monolinguals- 5;115 French English Bilingual- 4;6
23
Method
Materials and Procedure:
Step I: PPVT-R Step II: Digit spanStep III: EVIPStep IV: manual versions of the
dimensional change card sort task. (color shape and function location games)
24
Results
The means scores out of 10/
25
Discussion
Clear bilingual advantage in the color shape game, but a more sporadic advantage in function-location game.
The Demands for response inhibition are the same in both games and the hierarchical rule structure (presented by Zelazo and his colleagues) is also the same. So, Why this is so?
Color-Shape Game Function-Location Game
Perceptual feature Semantic Feature
26
Since the two games are similar in every other respect, this must be responsible for the divergence in performance by the two groups
The next STUDY attempts to confirm this explanation by expanding the conditions based on this distinction between perceptual and semantic classification.
27
Study 3
Participants;27 English monolingual- 4,2 years 26 Chinese-English Bilinguals- 4,4 years
28
Materials and Procedure
Step I- PPVT-R Step II- The four conditions of the card sort task;- Color Shape Game- Color Object Game- Function Location Game- Kind Place Game
Perceptual Games
Semantic Games
29
Function-Location Game vs. Kind-Place Game
Fish-like entities
Car-like objects
30
Results
The chi-square analysis proved that the first two conditions were significant among both language groups
31
Were different from chance for both groups
Were not different from chance for both groups
32
Discussion
Significant differences between Perceptual features and semantic features
Bilinguals out performed monolinguals in certain tasks only (perceptual vs. semantic)
33
Summary of the Results
34
General Discussion
Three main goals of these series of studies: Bilingual advantage (perceptual vs. Semantic conditions) In which conditions the bilingual advantage appears:
Representation, response inhibition or conceptual inhibition Understanding the cognitive demands of the task
and how children develop these abilities
35
Conclusion
The demand for attention and inhibition
Early childhood bilingualism modifies children’s development of control of attention while having little impact on their analysis of representations
The bilingual advantage appeared mainly when the target presented perceptual features rather semantic features
36