'Children who grow up with two languages have consistently better attention

control and perspective changing skills than monolingual children. Discuss.

Bilingual speakers who are fluent in more than one language have a deeply complex
and rich structure of language construction, and they use these languages on a routine
basis; thus, they have two representational systems. However, there is an argument
that the bilingual speaker is faced with a problem that monolingual speakers would
consider logically irrelevant. The bilinguals are faced with the dilemma of being
confined to the production of language for representing systems without interference
from other language structures. This dilemma of picking one language from the other
competing language system requires a different set of abilities. Due to having multiple
language representation abilities, bilinguals and monolinguals are fundamentally
divided because bilinguals will ultimately have more representations of language to
assist their knowledge of more than one language (Bialystok, 2007).

By definition, bilingual children are the children who grow up with two
languages, and monolingual children are the children who grow up with their own
mother language only. Obviously, language was a significant skill in conversation in
which different societies and objectives would communicate with each other through
the skills of conversation. Various psycholinguistic studies have highlighted that
bilinguals have an active system for the representation of both languages and even if
they are using only one system at a time. (Guttentag et al., 1984; Grainger, 1993; van
Heuven et al., 1998). In this case, the skills of brainstorming language have a
cognitively high requirement, that individuals need a high concentration to manage
the information received from other individuals (Chun, Golomb, & Turk-Browne,
2001) and to represent one of the structured systems of language that is either shared
of individual in their brain (Bialystok, 2007). To be accurate, the individual's listeners
must focus on the speech others pronounce in the presence of competing signals in
order to extract linguistic information as the utterance unfolds in the presence of
competing signals to extract linguistic information (Eriksen, & Yeh, 1985). According
to the actual situation of the conversation between individuals, listeners would also
need to adjust their width of attention focus to make it wider or narrower (Wachtel,
1967). As considerable evidence from relevant research demonstrate and scholarly
articles that were about bilingual and monolingual children in the past have shown
that there is a significant level of academic value and accurate resources to discuss
and analyse more about the comparison of perspective changing, attention control and
skills in monolingual and bilingual children.

Many people acquire and apply knowledge of more than one language in their
lives. Regardless of how they become bilingual either by being born into a
multilingual family, through education, employment, or emigration, knowledge of
multilingualism can have a profound effect in their mental functioning (Bialystok, E.,
1999). Focusing on the ability of bilingual children, a recent bilingual study states that
controlling attention and the ability to change the perception of bilingual children was
better than monolingual children. Researchers have shown that language construction
and understanding are not differentiated when they are in the same system that
preserves the ability to speak and understand language (Rodriguez-Fornells et al.,
2005; Marian, Spivey, & Hirsch, 2003). Bilingual people use the thinking styles of
their mother tongue to understand a second language when translating a second
language and its meaning. Therefore, studies would suggest that the language
representation is more complicated and difficult for the bilingual children, and it
could provide more skills for them as compared with the monolingual children who
did not practice it as much as bilingual children had done.
Study demonstrate based on a number of tasks that involves Stroop interference of
cross-language (Chen & Ho, 1986; Brauer, 1998), priming of cross-language (Gollan
et al., 1997), homograph recognition in cross-language (Dijkstra et al., 1999) and in
naming pictures in cross-language (Hermans et al., 1998). In these tasks, the skills of
representing in one language show considerable interference effect from the other
linguistic capabilities even if it is not logically relevant to perform the said task. Thus,
both systems of representation are active when bilingual children engage in various
activities in which they engage their language skills. As Kroll & de Groot (1997)
argues that the representations systems of these two languages are so similar that they
require alternative means of representing an underlined thought that at some point is
the same, and it creates the conflicting situation. Therefore, bilingual speakers need to
constantly shift their attention because the further encounter requires skills from
another language, and the other language representation is suppressed in this sense.
Moreover, efficient switching and rapid monitoring of both languages are required for
efficient language performance.

The continued use of bilingual control has been shown to be related to other executive
management functions. Indeed, researchers have found that bilingualism is better at
using high-level control functions. According to Bialystok (1999), bilingual children
performed significantly better than monolingual children in a dynamic card screening
operation, which required children to change color-coded conditions and this applies
to other age groups (Khare et al., 2013). These studies have shown that controlling the
attention of two languages was better than that of one language.
Therefore, as Daniels et al. (2006) note, the cognitive systems play a crucial role in
managing the problem of linguistic representation. The processes of managing the
monitoring, inhibition, attention and switching are involved in executive functioning.
Thus, the constant use of these functions by bilinguals is bound to modify the
operation and development of executive functioning. As various studies have shown
bilingual children outperform monolingual children on the basis of measuring
executive functions (see, for example, Barac and Bialystok, 2011; Adesope et al.,
2010; Hilchey and Klein, 2011). Best and Miller (2010) note that the executive
function involved in the domain-general cognitive system is necessary for regulation
and flexibility of goal direct behaviour and cognition, and Miyake et al. (2000) notes
it requires interrelated yet distinguishable components. As discussed above, bilinguals
perform various functions; therefore, they are able to develop executive functioning
capabilities because, as Costa et al. (2009) note, they constantly record the appropriate
linguistics for their interactions.

Moreover, language was not only limited to transferring messages but also contained
the inner social-cultural, such as the variation of words and the tones. Children who
grew up in different languages show different understanding of the world. For
example, different countries have different histories, and they have different methods
to educate and spread the information about the individual history, so the children
with different cultures have different logical thinking, which is the same as the
perspective changing skills of bilingual children compared to monolingual children.
In that case, bilingual children may criticise things in totally opposite ways (Baxter et
al., 2021).
Duabeitia et al. (2015) conducted a single study notable for its complete design. The
study tested the ability to prevent 252 children speaking a single Spanish language
and 252 bilingual Basque-Spanish languages using Stroop tests of numbers and words
where children were required to ignore non-essential items. Young people who speak
only one language were selected from regions where Spanish was the only language
used. Young bilingual youths were selected from the Basque countries, where Spanish
and Basque are the main languages. Children in these two categories were compared
with age, educational skills, curiosity, and intelligence. Bilingualism did not
contribute to any of the two Stroop tests in this study. Furthermore, a large
multilingual study of Welsh-English did not show support for bilingual benefits in
assessing gestive executive performance (Simon's activities, card editing), and
morphosyntactic skills (Gathercole et al., 2014). Both pieces of the study were related
to certain ages; However, downgrading data by age or distance did not change the
results. These outcomes, as Gathercole et al. (2014) argues, might not be coincidental
because these two languages, Welsh and Basque and the official languages of state
that are English and Spanish, are part of children's everyday experience, and they are
highly trained in their linguistic processing that in the performance of tasks they
required little to no cognitive processing as Lam and Dijkstra (2010), and Dijkstra
(2005) argues the fluent bilinguals such as discussed above forms strong ties between
their first and second languages that create automaticity in their knowledge of
linguistics. Therefore, continuous switching between two languages may not require
cognitive control or effort and leads to opposite results that are assumed by the
researcher. However, several other research studies that examine the effect of
bilingualism are also involved in both state's official language and minority language
demonstrates the cognitive effects of language switching such as dominant Dutch
children were outperformed by children who were fluent in Frisian-Dutch (Bosma et
al., 2017) and similarly in other research studies of Spanish-Catalan, Sardinian-Italian
and Cypriot Greek/Modern Greek outperformed the monolingual children who are
fluent in one language (Bialystok and Barac, 2012; Carlson and Meltzoff,
2008; Videsott et al., 2012;  Poarch and van Hell, 2012; Weber et al., 2016). The
results demonstrate the effects of bilingual proficiency in both languages can lead to
cognitive advantages.
According to the research done before, the pronouncing of monolingual children, such
as English-speaking children, had been well noticed in voice contrasting. For
example, English has six stops, b, t, g, p, t, and k. Specifically, English-speaking
children will experience a difference of short-lag vs long-lag by three years of age.
Clearly, some languages have three-dimensional comparisons, and one example is
Thai. The VOT is pronounced uninvited, meaningless, and the desired voiceless VOT
is characterized in three different ways. The researcher summarizes that the three-
dimensional articulation element is followed by the order of the insignificant, the
voiceless desires, and the reckless sounds (Yang, 2021).
Monolingual children who speak English as their second language showed adequate
decoding ability while they still performed difficulty in reading comprehension.
However, the understanding of the relationship between early language and reading
comprehension in this group was not enough. Through the experiment, researchers
compared 80 bilingual children who learned English came from a different language
background with 80 monolingual children who had a disability in language and
literacy at the age around 4 years old and 6 years old. As a result, monolingual
children shown the stronger ability in language, weaker word reading ability and no
significant difference in reading comprehension (Bowyer-Crane, Fricke, Schaefer, et
al., 2017).

Compare attention control between Two language children vs monolingual

children
What is attention control?
Higher cognitive performance requires attention and effective memory. Numerous
studies have shown that performance-based memory is closely related to attention and
especially to further control (Engle, 2002; Cowan et al., 2005). A number of textbooks
show that better use of a second language has a positive effect on attention control.
Research revealed that bilingual children had faster respondence than peer
monolingual children when it came to the circumstance requiring participants to
conquer irrelevant stimuli when they respond. It has been assumed that the advantage
of bilingual origins from a history of governing two simultaneously active languages.
The better control of restraining conflict and irrelevant information was believed to be
connected with the fact that bilingual children hold two languages in their minds all
the time and inhibit the information of irrelevant language. According to recent
research, both languages are active when producing language tasks, even if there is
only one language needed (Duncan, Segalowitz, & Phillips, 2016). According to
Bialystok's (2009) research, the result also shows that bilingual children have an
advantage in attention control of directing select specific aspects of representations
and inhabitant control, making inhibition an essential component of control than
monolingual children.  When it came to inhibiting the irrelevant language, we could
suspect that some lexical similarities between two languages could conduct confusion
for people. And that meant they needed more attention to distinguish the difference
between these two languages. (Persici, Vihman, Burro, et al., 2019).
There was another aspect that if exercise attention control by inhibiting massive
interference from the irrelevant language would have an impact on other ways of
attention control? On the contrary, this research claimed that bilingual children have
no advantage in no aspect of attention control over monolingual children. Although
this research found a convincing bilingual advantage in flanker interference in young
adults but there shown little credible advantage in children. (Arora & Klein, 2020).
According to a study by Blom et al. (2017), the monolingual children who were fluent
in Dutch and Polish were compared with bilingual children who were exposed to
regional languages such as Limburgish and Frisian outperformed the monolingual
children in attention control. The study used the inclusion of contextual factors that
demonstrated their importance in modifying the effects of bilingual capabilities on the
development of cognitive processes. Moreover, the study confirmed that bilingualism
impacted the development of attention and demonstrated the effects of bilingualism
on cognitive processes across various sociolinguistic settings, such as acquiring a
regional language. Thus, the attention of children is better in bilingual children as
compared to monolingual; however, the sociolinguistic context significantly impacts
these conclusions.

Compare perspective changing skills between Two language children vs

monolingual children
What is perspective changing skill?

As various research studies have demonstrated that bilingual children experience an

advantage over monolingual children in various respects based on their task
performance, attention control and acquiring alternatives that can be considered a
form of creativity (Adi-Japha et al., 2010). As Greenberg, Bellana, & Bialystok
(2013) note, the benefits of bilingualism are expanded beyond the executive
functioning, and it also has a significant impact on the performance of other tasks
such as solving problems in an academic context with the help of conceptual
knowledge. As Best, Miller & Naglieri (2011) argues that executive control impacts
the academic success of bilingual children that can be a result of the difference in
perspective of bilingual children as compared to monolingual.
As Premack & Woodruff (1978) notes, the theory of mind is able to combine the
executive control with the ability to link mental state to others that helps children in
reasoning, processes and conceptual skills (Hala & Russell, 2001; Wellman, Cross &
Watson, 2001, Carlson, Moses & Hix, 1998). The bilingual abilities assist children in
problem-solving in the context where the understanding perspective of others is
necessary for finding a solution. In this regard, bilingual children outperform
monolingual children in several tasks that involve unexpected transfer problems and
reality appearance problems (Bialystok & Senman, 2014; Goetz, 2013). Piaget and
Inhelder (1967) believed that children were anthropomorphic in their first study with
the geographical point of view exercise because they did not grasp that the viewer had
seen something distinct from what they did. A substantial amount of studies,
nevertheless, has revealed that young children have some comprehension that other
observers' perspectives differ from their own (Yaniv & Shatz, 1990; Cox, 1978). The
assignment assigned to Piaget and Inhelder necessitates the capacity to perceive
things in many ways and incorporate different perspectives (Vasilyeva, 2002;
Huttenlocher & Presson, 1979; Huttenlocher & Presson, 1973). Crucially according to
Gullo & Bersani (1983), the approach necessitates the capacity to resolve
contradiction across viewpoints and overcome the prominent visual elements,
particularly those connected with the anthropocentric viewpoint. All of these skills are
elements of the executive operation.
Bilingual children can complete the perspective-taking task more effectively than
equivalent monolingual children due to the dependence of the task on executive
control processes. Unlike most tasks, the perspective-taking issue requires high-level
solving problems and modification of complex language representations, enhancing
the diversity, and hence more accurately mirrors the cognitive talents necessary for
educational excellence.
The spatial perspective-taking challenge is similar to academic performance and
evaluation challenges in certain ways. To calculate how the viewer perceives the
demonstration, organised executive functions (great source of inspiration for the
egocentric possibility, focus on the relationship between the monitor and the viewer)
and complicated representations (depict the underlying structure of the monitor,
compute the distance travelled by the viewer) are required. In a computerised
variation of the exercise, bilingual children with flexible cognition and linguistic skills
comparable to monolingual children surpassed monolingual children. Furthermore,
after controlling for all other variables, bilingualism significantly predicted accuracy
in linear regression. In previous pilot research (Bialystok, 2009), employing
hardwood products and a mobile figure as the viewer produced better findings. In the
pilot study, the manual display made it difficult to manage the field of view for
various children, and ranges among observer and display, for example, were not
completely managed. More crucially, the pilot research incorporated a mental
processing component by concealing the display with a cloth before showing the
answer possibilities, which added an extra effort to the challenge. As a result, the
current task gave a more direct measure of performance on the prospective work, free
of any confounding factors from other task needs.
Greenberg, Bellana, & Bialystok's (2013) findings support the notion of the benefits
of bilinguals in a task requiring advanced reasoning skills. The perspective-taking task
was used to assess children's capacity to perform intellectual manipulations
(Huttenlocher & Presson, 1979; Huttenlocher & Presson, 1973; Vasilyeva, 2002),
reason about the states of mind of everyone else (identical to the reasoning of ToM;
Carlson & Moses, 2001; Carlson, Moses, & Hix, 1998;), and identify developmental
stages during which all of these skills are engaged (Cox, 1978). The results of the
study indicate that bilingual children perform better on this task as well, prolonging
the indications of executive control benefits for bilinguals to a task that partially
depends on executive control but also encompasses requirements for spatial
representation and manipulation in the frame of reference of selective perception to
relevant information.
The study's findings give support for further research into the cognitive impacts of
bilingualism, taking it on an important new path. Bilingual children surpassed
monolingual children on executive control tests meant to separate simple components
of executive control such as inhibition, according to earlier studies. Even though these
executive control capabilities are clearly crucial for solving problems, there is limited
current evidence that bilingual children's early development of executive abilities also
supports higher performance in complicated reasoning tasks. The evidence for
bilingual benefits in ToM provides a foundation for the expectations, but
demonstrating these reasoning abilities in a demanding nonverbal task is a significant
step forward in understanding how multilingual influences the developing mind
(Greenberg, Bellana, & Bialystok, 2013). Therefore, the spatial perspective-taking
problem entails intricate relationships between a pattern of continuous arbitrary and
physical objects, constantly shifting views. Accurately computing these intricate
interactions from a certain viewpoint point necessitates a higher-level problem-
solving aptitude, which is also essential for academic success.

Bilingual children are better in attention control and perspective changing skills than
monolingual children. The study uses academic research and empirical research to
provide evidence for the study. According to the question statement, the main
assumption was that bilingual children are able to perform better as their attention
control and perspective skills are enhanced due to their constant monitoring of the
representation of linguistics. Bilingual students who are fluent in more than one
language outperform monolingual children in various regards. Various factors can
contribute to their performance development, such as the bilinguals are faced with a
dilemma of being confined to the production of language for representing systems
without interference from other language structures. This dilemma of picking one
language from the other competing language system requires a different set of
abilities. Bilingual speakers need to constantly shift their attention because the further
encounter requires skills from another language, and the other language representation
is suppressed in this sense.
Moreover, efficient switching and rapid monitoring of both languages are required for
efficient language performance. Executive functioning requires attention and efficient
memory. Several research studies have demonstrated that performance based on
working memory is closely related to attention and particularly to additional control,
as noted by Engle (2002) and Cowan et al. (2005). A substantial body of literature
indicates that better usage of a second language has a positive impact on attention
control. Research revealed that bilingual children had faster respondence than peer
monolingual children when it came to the circumstance requiring participants to
conquer irrelevant stimuli when they respond. With reference to various research
studies, this paper concludes that bilingualism impacted the development of attention
and demonstrated the effects of bilingualism on cognitive processes across various
sociolinguistic settings, such as acquiring a regional language. Thus, the attention of
children is better in bilingual children as compared to monolingual; however, the
sociolinguistic context significantly impacts these conclusions. However, the attention
of children is not affected in all cases due to bilingualism, and sociolinguistic context
has a significant impact on these outcomes.
Furthermore, as the essay above demonstrates, bilingual children have perspective
skills due to their abilities acquired by using two languages. Thus, they are able to
perform better in academic contexts as compared to monolingual children.
References :

Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic
review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of
Educational Research, 80(2), 207-245.
Adi‐Japha, E., Berberich‐Artzi, J., & Libnawi, A. (2010). Cognitive flexibility in
drawings of bilingual children. Child Development, 81(5), 1356-1366.
Arora, S., & Klein, R. M. (2020). Comparing bilingual and monolingual performance
on the attention network test: a meta-analysis of literature inspired by Albert Costa.
Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 4(2), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-
020-00068-z
Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Cognitive development of bilingual
children. Language Teaching, 44(1), 36-54.
Baxter, C. M., More, C., Spies, T. G., & Scott, C. E. (2021). Social competence of
bilingual and monolingual native English speaking preschoolers: a comparison of
parent and teacher perspectives. Early Child Development and Care, 191(4), 569–582.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1630830
Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Jones, L. L. (2009). Executive functions after age 5:
Changes and correlates. Developmental Review, 29(3), 180-200.
Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). Relations between executive
function and academic achievement from ages 5 to 17 in a large, representative
national sample. Learning and individual differences, 21(4), 327-336.
Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual
mind. Child Development, 70(3), 636-644.
Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience
leads to cognitive change. International journal of Bilingual education and
bilingualism, 10(3), 210-223.
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the
indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 12(1), 3-11.
Bialystok, E., & Barac, R. (2012). Emerging bilingualism: Dissociating advantages
for metalinguistic awareness and executive control. Cognition, 122(1), 67-73.
Bialystok, E., & Feng, X. (2009). Language proficiency and executive control in
proactive interference: Evidence from monolingual and bilingual children and
adults. Brain and language, 109(2-3), 93-100.
Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children:
evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science, 7(3),
325–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00351.x
Bialystok, E., & Senman, L. (2004). Executive processes in appearance–reality tasks:
The role of inhibition of attention and symbolic representation. Child
development, 75(2), 562-579.
Blom, E., Boerma, T., Bosma, E., Cornips, L., & Everaert, E. (2017). Cognitive
advantages of bilingual children in different sociolinguistic contexts. Frontiers in
Psychology, 552.
Bosma, E., Hoekstra, E., Versloot, A., & Blom, E. (2017). The minimal and short-
lived effects of minority language exposure on the executive functions of Frisian-
Dutch bilingual children. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1453.
Bowyer-Crane, C. A., Fricke, S., Schaefer, B., Lervag, A., & Hulme, C. (2017). Early
literacy and comprehension skills in children learning English as an additional
language and monolingual children with language weaknesses.
Brauer, M. (1998). Stroop interference in bilinguals: The role of similarity between
the two languages.
Carlson, S. M., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Bilingual experience and executive
functioning in young children. Developmental science, 11(2), 282-298.
Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Hix, H. R. (1998). The role of inhibitory processes in
young children's difficulties with deception and false belief. Child
development, 69(3), 672-691.
Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Hix, H. R. (1998). The role of inhibitory processes in
young children's difficulties with deception and false belief. Child
development, 69(3), 672-691.
Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Hix, H. R. (1998). The role of inhibitory processes in
young children's difficulties with deception and false belief. Child
development, 69(3), 672-691.
Chen, H. C., & Ho, C. (1986). Development of Stroop interference in Chinese-
English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 12(3), 397.
CHUN, M. M., GOLOMB, J. D., & TURK-BROWNE, N. B. (2011). A Taxonomy of
External and Internal Attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 73–101.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100427
Costa, A., Hernández, M., Costa-Faidella, J., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2009). On the
bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you
don’t. Cognition, 113(2), 135-149.
Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Saults, J. S., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S., Hismjatullina, A., &
Conway, A. R. (2005). On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in
working memory and cognitive aptitudes. Cognitive psychology, 51(1), 42-100.
Cox, M. V. (1978). The development of perspective-taking ability in
children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1(3), 247-254.
Daniels, K., Toth, J. and Jacoby, L. (2006). The aging of executive functions. In E.
Bialystok and F.I.M. Craik (eds) Lifespan Cognition: Mechanisms of Change New
York: Oxford University Press, 96-111.
Dijkstra, T., & Kroll, J. F. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical
access. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 178, 201.
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Van Heuven, W. J. (1999). Recognition of cognates and
interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and
language, 41(4), 496-518.
Duñabeitia, J. A., Hernández, E., Antón, P., Macizo, A., & Estévez, L. J. Fuentes,
Carreiras M.(2014). The inhibitory advantage in bilingual children revisited: Myth or
reality, 234-251.
Duncan, H. D., Segalowitz, N., & Phillips, N. A. (2016). Differences in L1 linguistic
attention control between monolinguals and bilinguals. Bilingualism (Cambridge,
England), 19(1), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891400025X
Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity,
and a two-factor theory of cognitive control.
Eriksen, C. W., & Yeh, Y.-Y. (1985). Allocation of Attention in the Visual
Field. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and
Performance, 11(5), 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.11.5.583
Forsyth, D.R. (2010). "Components of cohesion". Group Dynamics, 5th Edition.
Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. pp. 118–122.
Gathercole, V. C. M., Thomas, E. M., Kennedy, I., Prys, C., Young, N., Viñas-Guasch,
N., ... & Jones, L. (2014). Does language dominance affect cognitive performance in
bilinguals? Lifespan evidence from preschoolers through older adults on card sorting,
Simon, and metalinguistic tasks. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 11.
Goetz, P. J. (2003). The effects of bilingualism on theory of mind
development. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 6(1), 1-15.
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different
scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew–English
bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 23(5), 1122.
Grainger, J. (1993). Visual word recognition in bilinguals. The bilingual lexicon, 6,
11-26.
Greenberg, A., Bellana, B., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Perspective-taking ability in
bilingual children: Extending advantages in executive control to spatial
reasoning. Cognitive development, 28(1), 41-50.
Guttentag, R. E., Haith, M. M., Goodman, G. S., & Hauch, J. (1984). Semantic
processing of unattended words by bilinguals: A test of the input switch
mechanism. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 178-188.
Hala, S., & Russell, J. (2001). Executive control within strategic deception: A window
on early cognitive development?. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80(2),
112-141.
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., De Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in
a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first
language?. Bilingualism: language and cognition, 1(3), 213-229.
Hilchey, M. D., & Klein, R. M. (2011). Are there bilingual advantages on
nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control
processes. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 18(4), 625-658.
Huttenlocher, J., & Presson, C. C. (1973). Mental rotation and the perspective
problem. Cognitive Psychology, 4(2), 277-299.
Huttenlocher, J., & Presson, C. C. (1979). The coding and transformation of spatial
information. Cognitive psychology, 11(3), 375-394.
Khare, V., Verma, A., Kar, B. et al. Bilingualism and the increased attentional blink
effect: evidence that the difference between bilinguals and monolinguals generalises
to different levels of second language proficiency. Psychological Research 77, 728–
737 (2013). https://doi-org.libproxy.york.ac.uk/10.1007/s00426-012-0466-4
Kroll, J. F., & De Groot, A. M. (2020). Lexical and conceptual memory in the
bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. The Bilingualism Reader, 405-
427.
Lam, K. J., & Dijkstra, T. (2010). Word repetition, masked orthographic priming, and
language switching: bilingual studies and BIA+ simulations. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(5), 487-503.
Luo, S.-H., & Wiseman, R. L. (2000). Ethnic language maintenance among Chinese
immigrant children in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 24(3), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(00)00003-1
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organisation of individual
differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current directions in
psychological science, 21(1), 8-14.
Persici, V., Vihman, M., Burro, R., & Majorano, M. (2019). Lexical access and
competition in bilingual children: The role of proficiency and the lexical similarity of
the two languages. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 179, 103–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.10.002
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child's conception ofspace. FJ Langdon & JL
Lunzer, trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Poarch, G. J., & Van Hell, J. G. (2012). Executive functions and inhibitory control in
multilingual children: Evidence from second-language learners, bilinguals, and
trilinguals. Journal of experimental child psychology, 113(4), 535-551.
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of
mind?. Behavioral and brain sciences, 1(4), 515-526.
References
Rodriguez-Fornells, A., Lugt, A. V. D., Rotte, M., Britti, B., Heinze, H. J., & Münte,
T. F. (2005). Second language interferes with word production in fluent bilinguals:
brain potential and functional imaging evidence. Journal of cognitive
neuroscience, 17(3), 422-433.
Van Heuven, W. J., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood
effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of memory and language, 39(3), 458-
483.
Vasilyeva, M. (2002). Solving spatial tasks with unaligned layouts: The difficulty of
dealing with conflicting information. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 83(4), 291-303.
Videsott, G., Della Rosa, P. A., Wiater, W., Franceschini, R., & Abutalebi, J. (2012).
How does linguistic competence enhance cognitive functions in children? A study in
multilingual children with different linguistic competences. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 15(4), 884-895.
Wachtel, P. L. (1967). Conceptions of broad and narrow attention. Psychological
Bulletin, 68(6), 417.
Weber, R. C., Johnson, A., Riccio, C. A., & Liew, J. (2016). Balanced bilingualism
and executive functioning in children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(2),
425-431.
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta‐analysis of theory‐of‐mind
development: The truth about false belief. Child development, 72(3), 655-684.
Yang, J. (2021). Comparison of VOTs in Mandarin–English bilingual children and
corresponding monolingual children and adults. Second Language Research, 37(1),
3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319851820
Yaniv, I., & Shatz, M. (1990). Heuristics of reasoning and analogy in children's visual
perspective taking. Child development, 61(5), 1491-1501.