Language Proficiency and Language Proficiency and Executive Control in Bilingual Executive Control in Bilingual

Children with TLD and with SLIChildren with TLD and with SLI

Peri Iluz-CohenPeri Iluz-CohenBar Ilan UniversityBar Ilan UniversityRamat-Gan, IsraelRamat-Gan, Israel

Definitions Definitions

Language Proficiency (LP)Language Proficiency (LP)The bilingual’s linguistic competence determined byThe bilingual’s linguistic competence determined by standardized standardized measurements, e.g., Goralnik (1995) for LP in Hebrew and the CELF-measurements, e.g., Goralnik (1995) for LP in Hebrew and the CELF-

2 2 preschool (2004) for LP in English.preschool (2004) for LP in English.

Executive Control (EC)Executive Control (EC)A measurement of the ability to perform on cognitive executive A measurement of the ability to perform on cognitive executive functions (EFs) such as inhibition, sorting and shifting functions (EFs) such as inhibition, sorting and shifting (e.g., Baddeley, (e.g., Baddeley, 1996)1996) which are which are believed to consist of related, but distinct abilities believed to consist of related, but distinct abilities

that that direct, organize, and mediate problem solving action direct, organize, and mediate problem solving action ((Miyake et al., Miyake et al., 2000),2000), and which take place in the left dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex and which take place in the left dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC, BA 9/46), the anterior cingulated cortex (ACC), and the (DLPFC, BA 9/46), the anterior cingulated cortex (ACC), and the supplementary motor area (SMA). supplementary motor area (SMA).

Inhibition Inhibition The ability to deliberately ignore and filter distracting responses or The ability to deliberately ignore and filter distracting responses or thoughts, and distracting irrelevant information held in working thoughts, and distracting irrelevant information held in working

Memory Memory (e.g., Baddeley, 1996; Baddeley et al., 1998).(e.g., Baddeley, 1996; Baddeley et al., 1998).

Shifting Shifting (mental flexibility)(mental flexibility) The ability to switch attention back and forth between mental sets The ability to switch attention back and forth between mental sets (e.g., Baddeley, 1996).(e.g., Baddeley, 1996).

SortingSorting (concept generation)(concept generation)The ability to abstract information from non-identical items The ability to abstract information from non-identical items (Smidts et al., 2004).(Smidts et al., 2004).

Research Question Research Question Is the relationship between LP and EC, Is the relationship between LP and EC, observed among monolinguals observed among monolinguals (e.g., Kohnert & (e.g., Kohnert & Windsor 2004; Bishop &Norbury, 2005; Ullman & Pierpont, 2005; Windsor 2004; Bishop &Norbury, 2005; Ullman & Pierpont, 2005; Im-Bolter et al., 2006),Im-Bolter et al., 2006), evident among bilingual evident among bilingual children as well?children as well?

HypothesisHypothesisThe higher the LP of a bilingual child is in one The higher the LP of a bilingual child is in one or both languages, the better the bilingual will or both languages, the better the bilingual will perform on tasks which involve generic perform on tasks which involve generic executive functions executive functions (GEFs; Bialystok, 2001; Kohnert & (GEFs; Bialystok, 2001; Kohnert & Windsor 2004; Bishop &Norbury, 2005; Ullman & Pierpont, 2005)Windsor 2004; Bishop &Norbury, 2005; Ullman & Pierpont, 2005)..

ParticipantsParticipants39 bilingual English-Hebrew speaking children (ages 4;3 - 7;1; 18 boys 39 bilingual English-Hebrew speaking children (ages 4;3 - 7;1; 18 boys

&&21 girls) from regular and language preschools.21 girls) from regular and language preschools.

Baseline Language MeasuresBaseline Language Measures Two standardized measurements Two standardized measurements [Goralnik (1995) for LP in Hebrew and the [Goralnik (1995) for LP in Hebrew and the CELF-2 preschool (2004) for LP in English]CELF-2 preschool (2004) for LP in English] yielded 4 sub-groups in terms of LP: yielded 4 sub-groups in terms of LP:

1.1. BTD: scored within the norm in both English & Hebrew (N=14).BTD: scored within the norm in both English & Hebrew (N=14).2.2. L2TD: scored within the norm only in L2 Hebrew (N=8).L2TD: scored within the norm only in L2 Hebrew (N=8).3.3. L1TD: scored within the norm only in L1 English (N=12).L1TD: scored within the norm only in L1 English (N=12).4.4. BISLI: scored below the norm in both English & Hebrew (N=5).BISLI: scored below the norm in both English & Hebrew (N=5).

Two ways of comparison among the 4 sub-groups (high to low level of Two ways of comparison among the 4 sub-groups (high to low level of LP): LP): 1. BITLD (N=34)> BISLI 1. BITLD (N=34)> BISLI (Hakansson et al., 2003). (Hakansson et al., 2003).

2. BTD > L2TD > L1TD > BISLI 2. BTD > L2TD > L1TD > BISLI (Walters, 1979).(Walters, 1979).

TasksTasksCognitive executive controlCognitive executive control

InhibitionInhibitionThe Embedded Figures TaskThe Embedded Figures Task (based on Piaget & (based on Piaget & Inhelder, 1966; Pascual-Leone, 1989; De-Avila & Ducan, Inhelder, 1966; Pascual-Leone, 1989; De-Avila & Ducan, 1980). 1980).

Ten pictures were presented, each including Ten pictures were presented, each including an embedded mouse, which the child was an embedded mouse, which the child was asked to spot as fast as possible. asked to spot as fast as possible.

Degree of inhibition ability: the number of Degree of inhibition ability: the number of correct answers, ranging from 0 to 10. correct answers, ranging from 0 to 10.

Where is the mouse?

Concept Generation & ShiftingConcept Generation & ShiftingThe Classification TaskThe Classification Task (based on Ben-Zeev, 1977;Smidts et al., 2004; (based on Ben-Zeev, 1977;Smidts et al., 2004; Jacobs et al., 2001)Jacobs et al., 2001)

18 cards were presented:18 cards were presented: 3 different shapes 3 different shapes (circle, triangle, square)(circle, triangle, square)

3 different patterns (no color, 3 different patterns (no color, partial-color, full-color).partial-color, full-color).

1 vs. 3 items of each shape. 1 vs. 3 items of each shape.

Procedure & Analysis of the Classification TaskProcedure & Analysis of the Classification Task Classify the cards (concept generation), and reclassify them Classify the cards (concept generation), and reclassify them

in a different way (first shift), and in a third way (second in a different way (first shift), and in a third way (second shift). shift).

Scoring for each classification:Scoring for each classification: Immediate success: 3Immediate success: 3 First clue: 2First clue: 2 Second clue: 1Second clue: 1 No success: 0No success: 0

Degree of shifting ability: average degree of success in the Degree of shifting ability: average degree of success in the three three

classifications ranging from 0 to 3. classifications ranging from 0 to 3.

Additionally: Additionally: Analysis per classification.Analysis per classification. Analysis of independent classification.Analysis of independent classification.

Performance of BL TD & BISLI Children on Inhibition and Shifting

0.09

-0.73

0.13

-0.86

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

mea

n z-

scor

e

Inhibition Shifting

BITLD

BISLI

P<0.03*P<0.06

Findings:Findings: BITLD > BISLIBITLD > BISLI

Mean Z-score per Classification - BITLD vs. BISLI children

0.060.18

0.11

-0.49

-0.94

-0.61

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

mea

n z-

scor

e

BITLD BISLI

Concept Generation Classification 1

First Shift Classification 2

**P<0.003

Shifting: Analysis per ClassificationShifting: Analysis per Classification

P<0.07

Second Shift Classification 2

The Ability to Perform on the Classification Task Independently

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

BITLD (N=34) BISLI (N=5) BITLD (N=34) BISLI (N=5) BITLD (N=34) BISLI (N=5)

CLASSIFICATION 1 CLASSIFICATION 2 CLASSIFICATION 3

NU

MB

ER O

F PA

RTI

CIP

AN

TS

SUCCESS NO SUCCESS

67.6%67.6%

32.4%32.4%

80%80%20%20%

35.3%35.3%

64.7%64.7%

100%100% 100%100%20.6%20.6%

79.4%79.4%

Inhibition

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

aver

age

z-sc

ore

L2TD

L1TD

BISLI

BTD

BTD > L2 TD > L1 TD > BISLI: Inhibition

Shifting

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

aver

age

z-sc

ore

BTD L2TD

L1TD

BISLI

P<0.008

P<0.005

P<0.02

****

* ** P<0.004

BTD > L2 TD > L1 TD > BISLI: Shifting

Mean Z-score per Classification

-1.2-1

-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2

00.20.40.60.8

mea

n z-

scor

e

BTD L2TD L1TD BISLI

P<0.005

P<0.004

P<0.0003

P<0.01

P<0.003

P<0.04

****

**

***

***P<0.04*

Shifting: Analysis per ClassificationShifting: Analysis per Classification

Concept Generation Classification 1

First Shift Classification 2

Second Shift Classification 2

The Ability to Perform on the Classification Task Independently

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

BTD(N=14)

L2TD(N=8)

L1TD(N=12)

BISLI(N=5)

BTD(N=14)

L2TD(N=8)

L1TD(N=12)

BISLI(N=5)

BTD(N=14)

L2TD(N=8)

L1TD(N=12)

BISLI(N=5)

CLASSIFICATION 1 CLASSIFICATION 2 CLASSIFICATION 3

NU

MB

ER O

F PA

RTI

CIP

AN

TS

SUCCESS NO SUCCESS

87.5

%87

.5%

42.8

%42

.8%71

.4%

71.4

%

50%

50%

20%20% 37.5

%37

.5%

25%

25% 42

.8%

42.8

%

12.5%12.5%

28.6

%28

.6%

12.5%12.5%

50%

50%

80%

80%

57.2

%57

.2%

62.5

%62

.5% 75

%75

%

100%

100%

100%

100%

87.5

%87

.5%

57.2

%57

.2%

100%

100%

Positive relationship between LP and Positive relationship between LP and performance on the classification task – performance on the classification task – the more proficient a bilingual child is the more proficient a bilingual child is in both languages the more advanced in both languages the more advanced stages of the task the bilingual child stages of the task the bilingual child can perform independentlycan perform independently

Performance on Inhibition and shifting

0.12

-0.29

0.33

-0.73

0.50.38

-0.47

-0.86-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

mea

n z-

scor

e

Inhibition Shifting

Inhibition & shiftingInhibition & shifting

BTD

L2TD L1TD

BISLI

P<0.04*

Summary & ConclusionsSummary & Conclusions Positive relationship between LP and sorting & shifting: Positive relationship between LP and sorting & shifting:

Lower performance in sorting and shifting abilities among Lower performance in sorting and shifting abilities among bilingual children with SLI who have lower proficiency in bilingual children with SLI who have lower proficiency in both languages, and among L1 dominant bilingual children.both languages, and among L1 dominant bilingual children.

The advantage observed among TD monolinguals The advantage observed among TD monolinguals compared to monolinguals with SLI in terms of inhibition is compared to monolinguals with SLI in terms of inhibition is not evident among bilingual children. This suggests that not evident among bilingual children. This suggests that bilingualism may contribute to narrowing the gap in terms bilingualism may contribute to narrowing the gap in terms of inhibition, between BL TD children and BL children with of inhibition, between BL TD children and BL children with SLI. SLI.

Bilingual children who are better at shifting are those who Bilingual children who are better at shifting are those who find it easier to master the second language. find it easier to master the second language.

Attrition is not necessarily related to cognitive abilities, but Attrition is not necessarily related to cognitive abilities, but rather to sociolinguistic factors.rather to sociolinguistic factors.

THANK YOUTHANK YOU