Bilingualism is a window in connection between language and cognition.

Bilingualism helps in enhances Executive functions of human mind. Bilingualism

processing of executive function can be analyzed under different types of

bilingualism. To understand the variabilities and inconsistencies of different levels

of bilingualism, this study aims at comparing executive functions in three different

groups of bilinguals: simultaneous bilinguals, sequential bilinguals, and late

bilinguals. The processing difference and use of executive functions has been

accessed through emotional stimuli in second Language, which require higher level

of cognitive control. The results propose sequential bilinguals as the most balanced

group and outperformed other groups at task require higher level of executive

control functions, such as inhibitory control, selective attention, monitoring and

working memory.

Literature Review

Executive Functions

The great advantage of Bilingualism is it’s interaction with cognitive control,

which allows them to regulate two languages. Behavioural and neurocognitive both

support the hypothesis that bilinguals activate both languages in parallel. Hence,

bilinguals mental juggling with two languages enhances domain-general cognitive

control. It requires a mechanism that enables bilinguals to select the language they

intend to use. Resolution of cross language activation requires higher level of

cognitive control.

Executive function is multi-faceted it includes cognitive flexibility, planning,

updating, problem solving, working memory, and inhibiting (Diamond & Lee,

2011 ). Bilinguals advantages can mainly be explained by its ability of inhibiting

irrelevant information in non-target language that is experienced by all balanced

bilinguals (e.g, Green, 1998). It is evident from lexical (Kroll, Bobb, Misra & Guo,

2008) to syntactic level (e.g, Hatzidaki, Branigan, & Pickering, 2011; Hsin,

Legendre, & Omaki, 2013; Kroll, Dussias, Bogulski, & Valdes Kroff, 2012;

Runnqvist, Gollan ,Costa, Ferreira, 2013).

Executive functions can be demonstrated through specific tasks, rather it can be

explained by performance on various tasks. Stroop tasks and stop-signal tasks are

the first examples that tap inhibition. (Miyake & Friedman, 2012). Inhibition is the

common factor to all executive functions such as shifting, updating, and selecting.

Updating:

It helps in tasks that require participants to continuously refreshing their memory

during tasks (e.g., n-back task). It is a form of executive function, “the ability to
control attention to maintain information in an active, quickly retrievable state”

(Engle, 2002).

Attentional control is most effective term in bilingualism executive functions

(Adesope et al. 2010). Bilingual should monitor which language is inappropriate in

specific context. (e.g, Costa et at. 2009).

Emotion:

Vast variety of research has demonstrated the difference among the acquisition of

concrete, abstract, and emotion words, which hypotheses that some words are

acquired more difficulty than others. Emotion words and emotion-laden words led

to higher error rates and longer time for recognition. (Altarriba & Basnight-Brown,

2011). Concrete (e.g., table, sofa) words are acquired more quickly, processes

faster, greater context availability and remembered better, than abstract word (e.g.,

Proud, myth ) due to their dual quality a verbal label and image (Schwanenflugel,

Akin, & Luh, 1992).

Emotion words require higher rates of recalls, but higher imageability than abstract

words (Altarriba & Bauer, 2004). Emotion words were found with higher context-

availability in L1 than L2 (Altarriba, 2003). Emotion words slower to recognize

than concrete words due to their higher list of semantic associations (Altarriba &

Basnight-Brown, 2011). Feeling and emotions are the forms of communication that
reserves the larger part of our day. Languages differ greatly in their size of

emotional lexicon. In English and French emotions are expressed through

adjectives; where as in Russian and Polish they are expressed with verbs.

Emotion and emotion-laden word can be classified due to their distinct functions.

Emotion words directly refer to any particular state (e.g., anger, love); instead of

emotion-laden word elicit emotion (e.g., death, Halloween). Altarrriba and Bauer

(2004) in their study on Spanish-English elicited slower RTs from bilinguals,

because they accessed information in L2, which might be low in arousal for them.

Aycicegi and Harris (2004) found contrastive results and found emotion words

higher recall and stronger recognition effects in L2 as well. Hence, emotion words

are recalled, represented, and processed differently in mental lexicon. Costa et al.

(2014) referred L2 as an emotionally distanced language. AOA along with L2

frequency is an important variable for efficient emotional responses in L2.

Conceptual representation of abstract and concrete words may vary across

languages (De Groot, 1992; Paradis, 1997; Malt and Sloman, 2005; Pavlenko,

1999 ). Similarly, Cross-Linguistic studies of emotion lexicon have described

emotion concepts may vary across languages with regard to encoding, salience,

and encoding. This phenomena further analyze concept comparability, two

concepts between languages may be similar or dissimilar; one word may not

semantic association in other language. Bilingual lexicon is dynamic phenomenon,

it changes with experience. First language or second language learned in early

childhood is more emotional than L2 learned later in life.

M. Eliola (2007) in his study with Finish-English bilinguals found that L1 and L2

with same level of proficiency equally response fastly when stimuli particularly

represent threat. This study further deduced interference from emotional stimuli in

second language especially in late bilinguals. When emotion words are activated

the activation spread to whole network of relevant words. This is the reason of

slower RTs for those words

In the emotional Stroop task participants will be presented with emotional words

(e.g., love, hate, disgust ) and neutral words (train, table, horse). Participants will

be asked to name the color of the word regardless the word itself. The interference

in this task is the presence of emotional not the color. Hence, the task measure

selective attention to the emotional stimuli. Emotion and neutral words are

presented on separate like previous studies (McKenna, 1986; McKenna & Sharma,

1995; Myers & McKenna, 1996). In the emotional Stroop task (Williams,

Mathews, and Macloed, 1997) found longer RTs were elicited on unpleasant words

(e.g,. fear) than neutral words. Reaction times are recorded while participant name

the color of the word thus inhibiting its semantic attribute. An experiment trial will

begin with the fixation row of plus signs, “+ + + + +”, appeared for 300ms at the

center of the screen. This fixation will be replaced by words which will appear on
screen on screen for 1700ms and in end fixation row will appear again on screen

till the next trial (Egloff & Hock, 2002; Mohanty et al., 2005). Participants were

instructed to press “z” key for green, “S” key for blue, and “Y” for red color. If the

wrong key is pressed, the word WRONG will appear on screen for 750ms. We

expect longer RTs for emotion words by simultaneous bilinguals. Faster response

times were found in English (L2) than (L1) in Spanish-English bilinguals because

English was their dominant language (Sutton, 2007). In this interference

suppression is required. Present study suggests contrastive result, which is based

on hypotheses that emotion Stroop task effect greatly in L1 as compared to L2. The

first study on emotional Stroop task was produced by Sutton et al. (2007), he also

suggested faster response in dominant language.

The Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) describes two levels of

representations in bilingual’s lexicon; one lexical and other conceptual. These two

levels are directly connected for L1; but L2 words they are dependent on their L1

equivalent.

The related model for the present study is the Distributional Conceptual Feature

Model (de Groot, 1992, 1993); each word in bilingual’s language activates number

of concepts, only relevant conceptual feature reach to compulsory activation

threshold for lexical decision task. This study also support Revised Hierarchical

Model(Kroll & Stewart, 1994) which proposes separate lexical store for each
language, where L1 activates related meaning more fastly in L1 than L2. Some

authors proposes unitary system in which language-specific lexical selection occur

late in visual word recognition (Dijkstra & Van Heuvan, 2002)

Materials

Eighty English words will be selected: 20 neutral, 40 emotion, 20 pseudo words.

A corpus of 590 English emotion words by Johnson-Laird and Oatley (1989) will

be used for this study. For Task 2: Visual Word Recognition pseudo words will be

created

Procedure

In the recognition task participants will be instructed to press “Y” key if the two

words will be semantically associated or “N” if they will not.

The 51 experimental trials will be equally divided between emotion word semantic

associations (in priming task; e.g,. delight-joy); and emotion neutral words (in

Word recognition task; e.g, rage-page)

In this study, backward and forward masking LDT word priming task () and word

recognition task will be used to determine how these words are represented within

semantic memory.

Task
“Visual masking has been used to manipulate visual awareness explicitly by

presenting brief visual stimuli that are masked by other visual images or symbols”

Experimental Design of the emotional processing with LDT (Wagenbreth, 2014)

Each trial will be started with a fixation of cross that will be presented for 5ms.

Then an emotional prime (Ekman-face) will appear on the screen for 150ms

followed by break of 50ms. Finally, target stimuli will be presented. The

participants supposed to decide as quickly as possible the target is a word on non-

word.

Related emotion word or pseudo-word and to press the corresponding button on

the mouse within 300ms. After this time interval the next trial will start. Congruent

and incongruent are created, and we expect shorter RTs on incongruent than

congruent trials.

In my study, I have chosen masking procedure to minimize the use of predictive

strategies from participants. It makes difficult for participants to recognize prime

consciously. Unmasked prime has also been used within a single experiment to test

participants’ cognitive ability in both situations.

The rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) will be conducted as a practice trial

before the experimental tasks. In this, participants are briefly presented with a

series of words, at the end of trial they are asked to write words in sequential order.
Participants were required to fill Leap Q Language Questionnaire to self-report

their proficiency at reading, comprehending, and speaking skills of English. All

participants were found with almost same level of proficiency.

Sixty participants will be recruited for this study aged between 19 to 24 years: 20

simultaneous bilinguals, 20 Sequential bilinguals (started learning English between

3 and 4), and late bilinguals (started learning English at the age of 11 years).

Participants of this study will be from university respectively. All groups must

show same level of proficiency in English as their L2. They may vary with respect

to background of their first or native language (Korean, Urdu, Hindi, or Spanish),

because this study do not measure bilinguals performance in their first language.

The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q, Marian,

Blumenfeld, & Kaushanskaya, 2007) measured their self-reported proficiency level

on Likert scale from 0 (extremely low) to 10 (perfect, native like).

Bilingualism

Inhibitory control is a key component of Executive function that control thought

and action (Posner & Rothbart, 2000). Other components like working memory,

resistance to interference, shifting, planning all are implicitly interlinked with

inhibitory control (Diamond, 2002; Engle, 2002; Roberts & Pennington, 1996).

This study goes with Bialystock (2002) lines “one must not lose the sight of the
possibility that the impact of bilingualism may not be advantageous but rather

detrimental”.

Carlson and Meltzoff (2008) deduced the advantages of early bilingualism in

children and reported it polishes inhibitory control and working memory necessary

for cognitive processes.

Mohadez (2014) study on children’s nonverbal conflict processing has one of the

best examples of comparison between simultaneous and sequential bilinguals.

They conducted fMRI study to measure the impact of bilingualism in children

performance. Bilinguals mind become more resilient through its greater practice in

their daily life like switching between two languages and inhibiting interference.

Other have not postulated such results of bilinguals advantages (Morton & Harper,

2007; Paap & Greenberg, 2013). Great inhibitory control is required for high level

of interference even for simultaneous balanced bilinguals. Language learn late in

life reports clear functional difference may lead to better conflict resolution due to

clear cut representation of L1 and L2. Simultaneous bilinguals show higher

congruency effect in Stroop task; whereas sequential bilinguals beget same results

in Simon task. These results suggest less overlapping in each of the sequential

bilinguals’ language make them more active in conflict resolution. AoA and

manner of acquiring two languages brought about different result for children’s

cognitive ability.
Vega-Mendoza (2014) compared early balanced and late non-balanced bilinguals

groups on sustained, selective, attentional switching. They found similar effects in

both groups, which refers early-acquisition does not leave any particular

advantage. Bilinguals disadvantage have been found in reaction times and accuracy

in lexical access such as picture naming task (Gollan, Fennema-Notestina,

Montoyo, & Jernigan, 2007; Gollan, Fennema-Notestina, Montoyo, & Morris,

2005; Ivanova &Costa, 2008). In contrast, bilingual excel on tasks which require

attentional control, inhibition, and switching (Bialystock & Martin, 2004;

Bialystock & Senman, 2004; Hernandez, Martin, Barcelo, & Costa, 2013). Studies

regarding early and late acquisition have postulated contrasting results, some

conferred early bilingualism advantages others found both early and late

bilingualism advantages (Bak et al,. 2014, Pelhams & Abrams, 2014; Marzecova,

Taft, Asanowicz, & Wodneicka, 2011).

Hilchey & Klein (2011). In his inhibitory control model D. W. Green (1998)

proposed parallel activation of lexical items related to specific concept between

languages. So, particularly experience and thought activates semantically linked

information in both languages. For desired results, one of the lexical candidates

needs inhibition. The model support supervisory attentional system (SAS) reacts

actively through inhibition. SAS also helps in conflict resolution and leads to

successful retrieval through inhibition. This model also proposes that high grade of
inhibition is required for suppressing L1 as compared to L2. This model also

support conflict-monitoring system, e.g., when two conflicting lemmas are

activated simultaneously, this system will recognize the competing responses and

adjust the level of inhibitory control and help in selecting appropriate response.

Luk et al. (2010) also suggests bilingualism ability to control inhibition at the

attentional level. Bialystock, Craig, and Luk (2008) attested that bilingual showed

smaller effect on Stroop task than monolingual due to inhibitory control. In

contrast, we suggest its not cognitive control, but Stroop task create less amount of

interference in second language.

Bialystock, Craik, and Luk (2011), Two models have been proposed who dwell

inhibition during selection. First is Inhibitory Control model based on Supervisory

Attention System which spread domain-general attention for the management of

competing languages. The second is Bilingual Interaction Model (BIA+) “uses

computer simulations to model lexical selection from both interlingual and

intralingual competitors. Both work differently for inhibition in selection problem.

Global inhibition require suppression of entire language system and Local

inhibition require suppression of specific competitors for example grammatical

equivalent of concepts proposed by De Groot and Christoffels, both are required

for fast selection of language. Global inhibition influences linguistic and cognitive

performance and local inhibition influences linguistic performance only. They

leads to slow speed and fluency of lexical access. This whole process describes

how attention is managed in bilinguals’ task. The cognitive consequences of

inhibition of linguistic inhibition are greater attentional control. Bilinguals’

advantages are not found in all kind of inhibitions.

Monitoring and working memory are interrelated in tasks requiring temporary

storage of procedures in mind earlier successfully monitored.

Marton (2017). Some authors argues bilinguals advantage in executive functions,

e.g., conflict resolution or selective attention (Costa, Hernandez, & Sebastian-

Galles, 2008; Salvatierra & Rosselli, 2011); other reports same executive control

level between monolinguals and bilinguals (Yudes, Macizo, & Bajo, 2011).

Bialystock, Craik, Klein, & Vishwanath (2004) reports bilinguals’ advantage on

“Global RTs” means shorter reactions times than monolinguals in cognitive task.

As it is proposed that more complex a speed task it requires more executive

processing (Cepeda, Blackwell, Munakata, 2013). This study investigates three

important components of executive functions inhibition, performance monitoring,

and switching which play an important role in bilinguals speech processing. One of

the characteristic of inhibitory control is conflict resolution, as Colzato (2008)

reported bilinguals’ young adults’ superior performance than monolinguals on

differentiating between relevant and irrelevant information.

Switching and monitoring are intermixed in bilingual literature, because switching

between tasks requires monitoring. Performance monitoring further needs

maintaining and working memory for task goals. Participants with efficient

working memory postulates more efficient monitoring and updating skills than low

working memory (Miller, Watson, & Strayer, 2012). Bialystock et al., (2004)

reported bilinguals’ advantage on working memory over monolinguals, suggests

greater monitoring performance. Costa et al., (2008) reported bilingual faster

performance in congruent and incongruent trials in Stroop and flanker tasks

presents their ability to monitor efficiently. These outcomes refer to their

continuously monitoring of two languages. In line with this study we estimate

bilingual performance implicitly on inhibition, monitoring, and working memory.

Bilingual individuals were 24% faster than monolinguals; in resistance to

interference task bilinguals’ showed greater accuracy and shorter RTs.

Past data has not retrieved bilinguals’ cognitive advantage or disadvantage in term

of emotion stimuli specifically, which require higher level of executive control

processes.

Kramer and Mota (2015) compared early and late bilinguals executive control task

(Simon) and a working memory (Alpha Span) task. Early bilinguals demonstrated

more efficient inhibitory processes, less Simon effects, and extensive working

memory than late bilinguals. On the other hand, late bilinguals performed better
than monolinguals, suggests that bilingualism has advantage on executive control

system regardless of age of acquisition. Luszcz & Lane (2008) have divided

executive function into three main classes of cognitive control process: working

memory (monitoring and coordination), selective attention (inhibiting irrelevant

information), and divided attention (switching between tasks). This study deals

with working memory and inhibitory control process. Inhibitory control is

suppressing irrelevant information and selecting relevant information through

attentional control (Miyake et al., 2000). Younger participants performed better

than older ones on the task require inhibition. Working memory helps in

comprehending what is read and spoken; it makes mental processes related to

problem solving, reasoning, and planning (Conway et al., 2008). Bialystock et al.

(2005) reports that misleading information is more demanding or crucial than

relevant information and require higher level of inhibitory control.

Herbert and Sutterlin (2011) literature review suggests that emotion stimuli capture

and direct behavior automatically. This study investigates emotion-driven attention

which requires inhibition in the stop-signal task. Responses to emotion stimuli are

harder to inhibit than neutral stimuli. Verbruggen and De Houwer (2007) used

emotional and neutral picture stimuli, reactions times were significantly longer for

emotional than neutral picture. Processing of emotional stimuli interferes or

interacts with response inhibition, because emotional stimuli require more

attentional resources than neutral stimuli.

Pessoa (2005), emotional stimuli subject to greater attention and higher inhibition.

Emotional content effect executive control because enhanced sensory

representation first capture attention. Vuilleumier (2005).

Rebetez (2014) in this study they measured two inhibition-related functions, first

ability to inhibit a prepotent response (a stop-signal task, using faces with different

emotional expressions); second the resistance of proactive interference (negative

task consists of emotion words). Results suggest inference of emotional stimuli

with inhibition capacities. Emotional stimuli attract attention away from the task;

leave fewer options for its correct application (Schimmack, 2005; Verbruggen &

De Houwer, 2007)

Katsos and Alexopoulou (2011) This paper analyzes the profile of the three

different main types of second language learner with respect to their cognitive

functions. These three broad categories of bilingual learners are: Simultaneous

bilinguals, Sequential bilinguals, and Late bilinguals. Simultaneous bilinguals are

those who are exposed to both languages since birth (or early before 3 years of

age). Hence, we propose they are slower at word finding due to more candidate

words activation in both languages. Hence, interaction from both languages is

inevitable. Alteration between words and structure in each language allow them to

polish their cognitive control skills. Sequential bilinguals are exposed to second

language after 3 years of age onwards. This type of bilinguals can acquire native

like competence like simultaneous bilinguals. Late bilinguals refer to the class who

start to learn second language from 8 years of age or later. Native or near-native

like competence is almost impossible.

Perani (1998) in this study factor of AoA is measured with early and late

bilinguals, they concluded that factor of proficiency is more important than AoA.

Different short stories were used for each scan during functional imaging method

(e.g., Italian, English, and Japanese)

After the age of 3 children are considerd sequential bilinguals (Bjelland, 2011).
Barry, E. (2011). Sequential vs. simultaneous bilingualism.
1-7. Retrieved March 2, 2011, from The Kalu Yala Blog.

A. Berken (2016), proposes in every domain of acquisition neuroplasticity

plays an important role which declines with age. Bilingualism provides a

milestone to peep into the study in how the brain rewires when language is

acquired since birth, and later in life, when path for learning are already

developed. Native like proficiency is harder or almost impossible after a

critical period that end at puberty (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfeild & Roberts,

1959). Adaptive control hypotheses (Green & Abutalebi, 2013)

 B. More effortful adaptation of dual language control processes

Macleod et al (2013) Children who are exposed to twolanguage since birth, acquire

less total proficiency than monolinguals in two languages, hence the both linguistic

knowledge is divided unevenly between both languages. (Bislystock, 2010)

Sequential bilinguals with regard their comprehension abilities show great shift

from balanced to stronger abilities in English by the age of 11 to 13 years onwards

and adulthood (Kohnert & Bates, 2002). This can be explained as earlier receptive

to expressive vocabulary. Misleading information is more demanding than relevant

information, because it requires higher amount of inhibitory control (Bialystock,

2005)