Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:31:39.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On invisibility and experimental evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2014

ALBERT COSTA
Affiliation:
Universitat Pompeu Fabra Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avanç[email protected]
MIREIA HERNÁNDEZ
Affiliation:
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
MARCO CALABRIA
Affiliation:
Universitat Pompeu Fabra

Extract

At the outset of her article Valian (2014) advocates for the existence of an effect of bilingualism on executive control (EC). She is commended for being very clear about her position. She argues that: “There is a benefit of bilingualism for executive function, but that benefit competes with other benefits that both mono- and bilinguals have to varying degrees. Depending on the composition of each group in any given experiment, the other benefits may be more plentiful in the monolingual than bilingual group (or sufficiently plentiful in both groups), so that the benefits of bilingualism are invisible. This is the possibility that I favor.”

Type
Peer Commentaries
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135168.Google Scholar
Shallice, T. (2002). Fractionation of the supervisory system. In Stuss, D. T. & Knight, R. T. (eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stuss, D. T., Alexander, M. P., Shallice, T., Picton, T. W., Binns, M. A., Macdonald, R., Borowiec, A., & Katz, D. I. (2005). Multiple frontal systems controlling response speed. Neuropsychologia, 43 (3), 396417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valian, V. (2014). Bilingualism and cognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728914000522.Google Scholar