Being fluent in two languages has been put forward as a way of significantly accelerating cognitive abilities, by allowing two modes of thinking, and by generally making the brain more flexible and creative.

Bialystock (see 2017 for a general review) in particular believes that having two languages means that the brain develops enhanced executive (control) functions. It is argued that these are necessary to choose which language to use in different situations. Differences have been shown in tests of complex thinking such as the ‘Stroop Test’, where the task is to correctly identify the colour a word is written in, where the word is actually in a different colour. For example:

 

This task is difficult as we cannot stop ourselves from automatically reading the words, and processing this to the level of meaning. This immediately interferes with the process of colour identification and we need to suppress (control) this information to arrive at the correct answer. It can be argued that this control is a general skill and can be useful in other activities.

Further comparisons have indicated that the brains of bilinguals have different physical structures which could be associated with this, particularly for the frontal lobes. Not surprisingly, such ideas have led to the promotion of bilingualism in children as a form of brain training, for instance with “Bilingual is Better” (Flores and Soto, 2012).

At the other end of the age range, Bialystock found that bilinguals are less likely to suffer from various forms of dementia, with an onset delay of about 4 years. A possible explanation is based on the idea that the increased demands on the bilingual brain means that there is enhanced capacity, resulting in greater resistance to eventual decline. Again, this has been taken to imply that older people should take up a foreign language; in this case as a means of maintaining their cognitive abilities.

More recently however, there have been concerns that the case for bilingualism has been over-stated. Konnicova (2015) in particular has summarised findings that there has been a bias towards over-representation of positive research – that there has been a sort of fashion to believe in the benefits of bilingualism. As part of this, some researchers believe that many studies have been poorly controlled, for instance with bilingual immigrants showing higher level abilities (including brain development) simply due to generally having better health (Fuller-Thomson & Kuh, 2014). Other work such as de Bruin et al (2015) has controlled for a range of variables which could interefere with results (such as education, I.Q., gender etc.), and has failed to find any differences between mono and bilinguals.

There is also the possibility that there is a price to pay for functioning in two languages. Although total vocabulary (all word concepts in either language) tends to be roughly the same for bilinguals and monolinguals, the vocabulary in a specific language tends to be lower for a bilingual (e.g. Bialystock & Luk, 2012). The overlap between languages (those verbal concepts known in both languages) tends to be about 30%, which leaves a large proportion of words which are specific to a particular language. These tend to relate to particular contexts – such as the home, or school. Because of this, as Grosjean (2010) describes, it can be difficult for a bilingual to use language in a context where they are not used to doing so – sometimes simply leading to simply to avoid the topic, or attempts to switch the code (language). This is therefore not just moving to a different language that is more powerful in a particualr domain, but rather avoiding one where the speaker is particularly weak.

The need for bilinguals to switch between languages also shows up in deficits such as greater processing times, or retrieval problems (‘tip of the tongue’ experiences), which may be important in some contexts (Li et al 2017), particularly when there is pressure on overall processing capacity.

Many of the established benefits for bilingualism have been based on the meaningful use of language in two significantly different contexts, over a long period of time (Grosjean, 2010). Simply taking classes in a new language, or taking it up relatively late in life may be unlikely to duplicate these effects.

Finally, there is evidence that learning a new language may have some effect to (partially) displace or interfere with the old one. This can be seen at its most extreme with immigrants who adopt the language of their new country and lose significant amounts of their original language. This starts to happen from the earliest stages, with Haman et al (2017) finding a range of negative effects on most language domains in their first language for young Polish immigrants. Even studying a second language can affect pronunciation, the structures used, and vocabulary in the first language (Cook, 2003). I can personally attest to this effect, having recently become unable to easily recall the low-frequency word ‘intern’, but having no problem generating ‘stagiaire’.

 

I am generally somewhat sceptical of language learning as a form of ‘brain training’. Recent reviews of a range of activities which were once believed to improve cognitive abilities indicate that they simply don’t work (Kable et al 2017). History is littered with other psychological fads such as left- vs right-brain emphases and the use of learning styles (Pashler, 2008).

At this point, you may be asking yourself, why bother? Well, there are many robust and plausible positive effects, such as vocabulary and structural improvement in the first language. This includes cognates (partially similar words, with a common developmental background), words or phrases in the second language which have new meanings, and a greater understanding of the general structure and use of language.

However, perhaps we shouldn't worry too much about any cognitive enhancement, and simply treat French language learning for what it is – a fascinating communication system, and a way into a different culture with many links to our own.

 

 

References

 

Bialystok, E. (2017) The Bilingual Adaptation: How Minds Accommodate Experience. Psychol Bull. 2017 Mar; 143(3): 233–262.  Link

 

Bialystok, E. and LUK, G. (2012) Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual adults. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15 (02) (April 11): 397-401. Link

 

Cook, V. (Ed.). (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

de Bruin, A., Bak, T. and Sala, S. (2015) Examining the effects of active versus inactive bilingualism on executive control in a carefully matched non-immigrant sample. Journal of Memory and Language Volume 85, November 2015, Pages 15-26. Link

Flores, A., & Soto, R. (2012). Bilingual is better. Madrid: Bilingual Readers.

Grosjean, F. (2010) What a Bilingual's Languages are Used For. Different aspects of life require different languages. Link

Haman, E., Wodniecka, Z., Marecka, M., Szewczyk, J., Białecka-Pikul, M., Otwinowska, A., Mieszkowska, K., Łuniewska, M., Kołak, J., Miękisz, A., Kacprzak, A., Banasik, N., and Foryś-Nogala, M. (2017) Front Psychol.Sep 4;8:1444. Link

Kable,J., Caulfield, K., Falcone, M., McConnell, M., Bernardo, L., Parthasarathi, T., Cooper, N., Ashare,R., Audrain-McGovern, J., Hornik, R., Diefenbach, P., Lee, F. and Lerman, C. (2017) No Effect of Commercial Cognitive Training on Brain Activity, Choice Behavior, or Cognitive Performance. Journal of Neuroscience 2 August 2017, 37 (31) 7390-7402. Link

Konnikova, M. (2015). Is Bilingualism Really an Advantage?. The New Yorker, Jan 22. Link

Li, C., Goldrick, M. and Gollan, T. (2017) Bilinguals’ twisted tongues: Frequency lag or interference? Memory & Cognition, May, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 600–610. Link

 

Pashler,H., McDaniel, M., Doug Rohrer, D. and Bjork, R. (2008) Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Volume 9 Number 3 December. Link