Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login

New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

Revitalizing Endangered Languages

Edited by Justyna Olko & Julia Sallabank

Revitalizing Endangered Languages "This guidebook provides ideas and strategies, as well as some background, to help with the effective revitalization of endangered languages. It covers a broad scope of themes including effective planning, benefits, wellbeing, economic aspects, attitudes and ideologies."


We Have a New Site!

With the help of your donations we have been making good progress on designing and launching our new website! Check it out at https://linguistlist.org/!
***We are still in our beta stages for the new site--if you have any feedback, be sure to let us know at webdevlinguistlist.org***

Academic Paper


Title: The bilingual [dis]advantage
Author: Cassandra Bailey
Author: Amanda Venta
Author: Hillary Langley
Linguistic Field: Cognitive Science; Linguistic Theories; Neurolinguistics
Subject Language: English
Spanish
Abstract: Most assessments of cognitive abilities are language bound (e.g., directions presented orally or written), even when not assessing linguistic ability. Understanding the relationship between bilingual language acquisition and outcomes on tests of cognitive abilities is critical, given the reliance on intelligence assessment for learning disability accommodations and intellectual disability diagnoses. Research has been mixed regarding the presence of a bilingual advantage or disadvantage on cognitive performance. Thus, the purpose of this review is to examine differences between several types of language users (i.e., early/late, simultaneous/sequential, English dominant / Spanish dominant/balanced), focusing on the relation between level of language acquisition and use and implications for outcomes on tests of cognitive abilities. To conduct the systematic review, guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were used (Liberati et al., 2009). Fifty-two articles met eligibility criteria and are included in this review. Results from the systematic review suggest that bilinguals perform differently than monolinguals in several domains and may be considered neurologically unlike monolinguals. The paper concludes by advocating for the need for appropriate assessment instruments and norms specific for bilingual speakers, as currently available measures cannot reliably and accurately differentiate monolinguals with a language impairment from typically developing bilinguals.

CUP AT LINGUIST

This article appears IN Language and Cognition Vol. 12, Issue 2, which you can READ on Cambridge's site .

Return to TOC.

View the full article for free in the current issue of
Cambridge Extra Magazine!
Add a new paper
Return to Academic Papers main page
Return to Directory of Linguists main page