Linking Early-life Bilingualism and
Cognitive Advantage in
Older Adulthood
(BALLARIN ET AL., 2023)
Student: Lương Nguyễn Hương Nguyên - Maria Jimena Flores Alejo
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Esli Struys
Word count: 2175
Table of Contents
Introduction.............................................................................................3
Discussion................................................................................................5
Reflection.................................................................................................6
Bibliography............................................................................................9
2
2023 Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Introduction
The objective of the article being discussed in this paper is to analyze the link between
bilingualism and a reduced cognitive decline resulting from aging. In other words, the authors
aim to identify the effects of bilingualism throughout the different life stages of individuals and
the collective effect of bilingualism throughout life to determine if bilinguals can outperform
monolinguals on tasks aimed at testing cognitive functions and cognitive control. To a lesser
extent, the authors also mention researching bilingualism as a potential factor in protecting
individuals from dementia.
In the past 20 years, there has been an exponential growth of research in bilingualism
(Dewaele et al. 2003), resulting in a plethora of definitions of bilingualism being introduced. In
general, bilingualism can be divided into four major categories, according to (1) origin, i.e. two
languages acquisition within the family, (2) language proficiency, i.e. master in two languages to
an extent, (3) language function, i.e. voluntarily or obligatorily switching based on contexts, and
(4) attitudes, i.e. self- or social identification as bilingual (Liebkind, 1995). In the current
research, the authors have opted for the third type of definition. They use the “Lifetime
Experiences Questionnaire” or LEQ and ask their participants: “How often have you spoken an
additional language?” The participants answer using a 5-point scale with 5 being daily. Only
those who answered 5 to the question were considered bilingual, and this was repeated for each
age group: early (13-30), middle (30-65), and lifelong (over 65).
The theoretical framework applied in this article is the inhibitory control model (ICM).
This model, developed by Green (1998), explains how bilinguals function when code-switching.
According to the authors, the cognitive benefits are not derived from lexical knowledge, but from
the ability to switch between languages in daily conversation. In order to communicate
effectively, high cognitive control is required to temporarily inhibit the activation of the non-
target language.
The cognitive advantages of bilingualism have been explored in previous literature and
the authors explain that using two languages engages both cortical and subcortical brain
structures. Additionally, these networks are better preserved in bilinguals. Many studies
(Bialystok et al., 2009; Estanga et al., 2017; Ong et al., 2017; Ware et al., 2020) found that adult
bilinguals performed better than monolingual adults during executive function and cognitive
control tests. Several authors (Alladi et al., 2013; Bialystok et al., 2007) showed that dementia
was delayed up to five years in bilingual individuals compared to monolinguals. However, the
3
2023 Vrije Universiteit Brussel
authors clarify longitudinal studies on this topic such as Lawton et al.’s (2015) did not find any
differences between bilingual and monolingual individuals when it came to the development of
dementia. The mixed results in previous studies have prompted the authors to perform their own
research on the matter which will be synthesized and discussed in the following sections.
4
2023 Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Discussion
The total number of participants was 746. More than half of them (57.6%) self-reported
experiencing cognitive decline, 30.7% were cognitively healthy, and the rest were close relatives
of Alzheimer patients. While the first cohort was recruited from a local clinic, the two latter ones
voluntarily took part in the experiment via advertisements in newspapers. As for the data
collection method, the Lifetime of Experiences Questionnaire (LEQ) was employed this served
to: (1) to classify the participants into bilinguals and monolinguals and then assigned three
subcategories for each group according to the life stage and (2) to determine the lifelong
bilingual score, which demonstrates the accruing influences of bilingualism during lifetime. In
accordance with the definition of bilingualism stated in the introduction section, in the current
investigation, participants were regarded as bilinguals due to their second language speaking
frequency. After completing the LEQ, participants did a cluster of cognitive tests including five
domains, namely learning & memory (word list recall), working memory (digit span backward
and forward), executive functions (Trail Marking Tests A and b), visuo-spatial abilities (clock
copying and figure drawing), and language (Boston Naming Test). Additionally, MRIs and gray
matter volume tests were performed to investigate whether bilingualism cushions the effect of
brain aging.
Authors found that the benefits of bilingualism are more prevalent in those who used and
learnt an L2 in the early and middle stages of life. They also found evidence of a link between
bilingualism and improved cognitive performance in the early stages of life. Early bilinguals saw
an improved performance on tasks related to memory, language, learning and executive
functions. Those who acquired an L2 during the middle life stages also observed better
performances when it came to memory and learning. The results of the voxel-based
morphometry encountered that during the early and middle stages of life bilingualism contributes
to the gray matter volume (GMV) and the cognitive outcomes. As previously suggested, the
executive functions and memory of bilingual individuals was better in comparison to the
monolinguals. On the other hand, the researchers did not find evidence that could establish a
relationship between lifelong bilingualism and improved cognitive performance or delayed
cognitive decline during the late stages of life. Meaning, that participants who had acquired an
L2 during the early stages of their life and maintained it into late adulthood did not outperform
their monolingual peers. There was also no evidence of late life stage bilingualism having any
effect on cognitive performance.
5
2023 Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Reflection
To achieve study’s objective, the authors delved into the participants’ cognitive
conditions and brain structures to see whether being bilingual had any cognitive impact on them
throughout their life. Consequently, they adopted the well-approved theoretical framework, i.e.,
ICM, as the foundation for their data collection and analysis. The combination between
psycholinguistic and neuroscientific data collection and data analysis methods helped to
strengthen the validity and reliability of the study, thus providing comprehensive findings. In
fact, through the use of both cognitive tests and of other computational tools like MRIs, the
authors were able to successfully support the hypothesis. Other relevant variables were
scrutinized using different tests such as physical activity assessed with the Physical Activity
Scale and the crystallized intelligence investigated by the vocabulary intelligence test; therefore,
all variables that are necessary for answering the research questions have been taken into account
and tested. The authors also provide the readers with a clear and logical procedure of data
collection and analysis. The results in the study can also be generalized due to the large number
of participants. In the discusstion section, the authors pointed out the interrelatedness of
bilingualism and cognitive strength at in late life stages through detailed data and figures.
Therefore, we believe that the main aims of the paper were fulfilled. Moreover, the authors
provided results which allowed them to model their study after previously published research
while also filling in the gaps left by previous studies and contributing to the overall discussion.
The theoretical framework of the article touches upon other concepts explored during the
couse, mainly through the exploration of the advantages but also disadvantages of bilingual
communication by means of simutaneous lexicon activation resulting in competition of selection
(Linck et al., 2012). In the second module, The Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM) was
introduced with four important contributions, namely “the separation of lexical and conceptual
representations,” “separate lexicons and selective access,” “asymmetries between L1 and L2
processing,” and “the developmental aspect of bilingualism” (Brysbaert & Duyck, 2010, p. 360,
361). Nevertheless, many studies have shown that L1 and L2 knowledge, especially the lexicon,
coexist in the bilingual’s language repertoire and may impede the word recognition performance
(Brysbaert, 1998; Brysbaert and Dijkstra, 2006, as cited in Brysbaert & Duyck, 2010, p. 362),
making the process much more complicated than that being described in RHM. Such evidence
6
2023 Vrije Universiteit Brussel
has led research to seek alternative explanations and paved the way for a more feasible approach:
language control.
As a result, the inhibitory control model (ICM), the influential model of language control,
was adopted as the central premise of the data collection and analysis stages. ICM, indicates that
there is a multileveled control in bilingual processing (Green, 1998). Typically, the simultaneous
activation of languages in the bilingual brain can interfere with communication. As a result, ICM
anticipates a distractor’s interference when it shares similarity with the target language. ICM
supports the notion that “lemmas are tagged with a language label” (Green, 1998, p. 76), of
which the activation resulting in the selection of the lemma in question. Finally, ICM assumes
that should the target language processing requires the system’s capacity, conflicting information
will be suppressed within the time interval for reaction. Some models worth-mentioning and
proposals that involve commonalities with ICM are Paradis’s three-store model (1980, 1997),
Poulisse and Bongaerts’ notion (1994), and Dijkstra and van Heuven’s BIA model (1998). In
conclusion, lexico-semantic systems of the non-target language are inhibited according to the
communicative needs of the speaker. Additionally, bilinguals face difficulties when switching
between languages because persisting inhibition has to compete with switch trials (Declerck &
Philipp, 2015). Therefore, bilinguals need to train their brains to adapt to the highly cognitive
control to avoid interference of the language that they are not using. This leads to the cognitive
benefits pertinent to the delay of brain aging. In fact, the verisimilitude of such a statement has
been verified in several empirical studies introduced in class.
Additionally, the main topics discussed in module one are present in this article and
reflected in the measures utilized to approach the objectives of the research. As we learnt in
module one, there are different methods to study human cognition, and the two employed in this
article are psycholinguistic and neuroscientific approaches. Initially, a psycholinguistic approach
was used to obtain data that could examine the potential cognitive advantage of bilinguals. This
approach is characterized by the use of instruments to measure speed and accuracy, such as the
tests performed on the participants that yielded data regarding their working memory, executive
functions, and language. However, there are several limitations to this approach, one of which is
that the evidence on the internal processes is indirect (Eysenck & Keane, 2020). A more direct
way to observe what is happening internally is the neuroscientific approach. Using tools like
MRI scans and other neuroimaging techniques allowed the researchers to establish a stronger
correlation between cognitive performance, bilingualism and cognitive decline by providing
observable evidence in the form of GMV.
7
2023 Vrije Universiteit Brussel
As for the results of the article, they echo the appraisal of bilingualism benefits in the
fourth module. The ability to speak more than one language imposes major positive effects on
cognitive health in general. Since language control during daily communication, i.e. suppressing
the non-target language while activating the target one, is a formidable task, increased cognitive
demands are required, thus leading to the enhancement of cognitive control (Green & Abutalebi,
2013). In the sixth module, the interrelatedness between bilingualism was discussed. In Bialystok
et al. (2004), the authors first remarked that bilingual children surpass their monolingual peers in
terms of cognitive tasks, and questioned whether that advantage sustains into adulthood. The
study being discussed in this paper adds to the body of evidence suggesting that bilingualism can
serve as a protective measure against cognitive decline.
Nevertheless, it is important to mention the limitations of the study. It is not clear if
bilingualism can act as a protective measure against dementia. The previous studies cited by the
authors have supplied conflicting results. Additionally, none of the cognitive tasks were designed
to test the use of both languages at once. As we studied in module 3, reactive, proactive, and
adaptive control were tested by tasks that activated and inhibited both languages in a sequence.
Since the authors only tested general cognition, it is impossible to know how or if age affects
control mechanisms. However, as we have discussed in the last module there is indeed a proven
bilingual advantage that can protect the brain against cognitive decline. Additionally, the result
of their own study shows that bilinguals who acquired an L2 in the early and middle stages of
their life can cognitively outperform their peers in certain tasks, however, even if some of the
participants have an increased risk of developing Alzheimer or dementia, there is not enough
evidence to definitively say that bilingualism is a protective factor against this disease. In the
conclusion, the authors concede that further research is needed. Since the article only was
published in 2023, it has not been widely cited in other studies. In fact, the chosen article has
only been mentioned in one research by Walhovd et al. (2023) as the evidence of the link
between environmental conditions at early ages and the brain structure in adults.
In conclusion, the materials discussed in provided us with comprehensive knowledge to
properly grasp and facilitate our analysis of the present study. Furthermore, the chosen article has
shed light on our current knowledge about the positive effects of bilingualism on cognitive
health, especially the amelioration of dementia. Additionally, we have acquired a better insight
of the ways that studies on multilingualism and cognition are currently being conducted while
also being able to identify the shortcomings and potential improvements or areas of opportunity
in the field.
8
2023 Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Contribution
Lương Nguyễn Hương Nguyên designed the paper and wrote Introduction and Reflection parts.
Maria Jimena Flores Alejo wrote Introduction and Discusstion parts.
Both students read and finalized the paper.
9
2023 Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Bibliography
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual
Minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(3), 89–129.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610387084
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and
cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging,
19(2), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.2.290
Ballarini, T., Kuhn, E., Röske, S., Altenstein, S., Bartels, C., Buchholz, F., Buerger, K.,
Dechent, P., Dobisch, L., Ewers, M., Fliessbach, K., Freiesleben, S. D.,
Frommann, I., Gabelin, T., Glanz, W., Görß, D., Haynes, J. D., Incesoy, E. I.,
Janowitz, D., & Kilimann, I. (2023). Linking early-life bilingualism and
cognitive advantage in older adulthood. Neurobiology of Aging, 124, 18–28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2022.12.005
Brysbaert, M., & Duyck, W. (2010). Is it time to leave behind the Revised Hierarchical
Model of bilingual language processing after fifteen years of service?.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(3), 359–371.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990344
Declerck, M., & Philipp, A. M. (2015). A review of control processes and their locus in
language switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1630–1645.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990344
Dewaele, J. M., Housen, A., & Wei, L. (Eds.). (2003). Bilingualism: Beyond basic
principles (Vol. 123). Multilingual matters.
Estanga, A., Ecay-Torres, M., Ibañez, A., Izagirre, A., Villanua, J., Garcia-Sebastian,
M., Iglesias Gaspar, M. T., Otaegui-Arrazola, A., Iriondo, A., Clerigue, M., &
Martinez-Lage, P. (2017). Beneficial effect of bilingualism on Alzheimer’s
10
2023 Vrije Universiteit Brussel
disease CSF biomarkers and cognition. Neurobiology of Aging, 50(50), 144–
151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.10.013
Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2020). Chapter 1 Approaches to human cognition. In
M. W. Eysenck & M. T. Keane (Eds.), Cognitive psychology: A student’s
handbook. (Eighth Edition ed., pp. 1-39). Psychology Press.
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000133
Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive
control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 515–530.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377
Liebkind, K. (1995). Bilingual identity. European education, 27(3), 80–87.
https://doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934270380
Linck, J. A., Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2012). Inhibitory control predicts
language switching performance in trilingual speech production. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 15(3), 651–662.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891100054X
Muñoz, R. (2013). Cognitive and psycholinguistic approaches. In C. Millán, & F. Bartrina
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation studies (pp. 241–256). Routledge.
Ong, G., Sewell, D. K., Weekes, B., McKague, M., & Abutalebi, J. (2017). A diffusion
model approach to analysing the bilingual advantage for the Flanker task: The
role of attentional control processes. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 43, 28–38.
Walhovd, K. B., Lövden, M., & Fjell, A. M. (2023). Timing of lifespan influences on
brain and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
11
2023 Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Ware, A. T., Kirkovski, M., & Lum, J. A. (2020). Meta-analysis reveals a bilingual
advantage that is dependent on task and age. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01458
12
2023 Vrije Universiteit Brussel
