J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
DOI 10.1007/s10936-014-9309-3
Executive Function Differences Between Bilingual
Arabic–English and Monolingual Arabic Children
Ghada Mohammed Abdelgafar · Ruba AbdelMatloub Moawad
Published online: 24 July 2014
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This study aimed to explore the differences between Arabic–English bilingual
and monolingual Arabic children on a battery of executive functions. Prior research on the
influence of bilingualism on cognitive abilities and executive functions has shown mixed
results. Some results suggested that bilinguals perform significantly better than monolinguals, while others showed that monolinguals perform significantly better. Other studies
showed no significant differences between both groups, findings which were argued to be
due to methodological issues. A total of 50 Arabic monolingual and Arabic–English bilingual
children ranging 7–10 years of age participated in the current study. Six executive function
tasks, divided into two categories (inhibition of improper response tasks, and behavioral
operational control tasks), were administered. Results did not show significant differences
for most executive functions.
Keywords Bilingualism · Arabic–English bilinguals · Executive functions · Bilinguals ·
Monolinguals
Introduction
Over the past few decades, researchers have been interested how learning more than one
language affects children’s cognitive development (e.g., Bloomfield 1933; Hakuta and Diaz
This research project was supported by a Grant from the Research Center of University for Girls at Olaisha,
Deanship of scientific Research, King Saud University.
G. M. Abdelgafar · R. A. Moawad
Department of Psychology, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
G. M. Abdelgafar
Beni-Suef University, Beni Suef, Egypt
e-mail: ghadapsychology@hotmail.com
R. A. Moawad (B)
University Centre for Women Student, P.O. Box 7695, Riyadh 11472, Saudi Arabia
e-mail: ramoawad@ksu.edu.sa
123
652
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
1985; Bialystok 2001). On the one hand, the results of these studies have shown some
differences between monolinguals and bilinguals, such as those between highly proficient
and less proficient bilinguals (Millett 2010), where highly proficient bilinguals score higher
than less proficient bilinguals and monolinguals (Luo et al. 2010). On the other hand, other
studies have found no differences between bilinguals and monolinguals, especially when
certain factors were controlled for between groups, such as in a Pintner and Arsenian 1937
study that reported no significant differences between bilinguals and monolinguals on IQ
tests (in Baker 2011).
In the early years of studying bilingualism, research findings showed that monolinguals
outperformed bilinguals in concept formation, mental reorganization, abstract and divergent
thinking, mental flexibility (Lemmon and Goggin 1989), and also in vocabulary, where bilinguals usually have a smaller vocabulary than monolinguals in one language. However, when
bilinguals were tested on both languages, their vocabulary size was shown to be larger (Allman 2005). Moreover, later studies showed that bilinguals demonstrated superior cognitive
ability in thinking, problem solving, communicative sensitivity, classification, visual-spatial
skills, metalinguistic awareness, selective attention, and cognitive flexibility (Diaz and Klingler 2000; Bialystok 2001; Baker 2011). Investigators trying to answer the question of how
language is represented in the mind and brain (e.g., Deuchar and Quay 1998; Green 1998;
Kuhl 2007) through examining specific areas of cognitive functioning suggest that bilingual
children might be at an advantage. Some such advantages may be in terms of flexibility
in performing symbol reorganization tasks (Peal and Lambert 1962), understanding object
constancy (Feldman and Shen 1971), understanding the arbitrary nature of numeric symbols
(Saxe 1988), the ability to ignore the misleading features of a number concept task (Bialystok
and Codd 1997), and performance on spatial problems (Bialystok and Majumder 1998). The
control of such cognitive abilities demonstrated by bilinguals is related to the focus of attention necessary when concentrating on the target language, because both languages are active
even when just one of them is being used. Therefore, bilinguals must reduce activation of
the non-target language (Poulin-Dubois et al. 2011) or use a domain-general suppression
mechanism to inhibit the activation of the non-target language (Green 1998).
Most of these abilities are considered executive functions (EFs), an overall term that
refers to the cognitive processes involved in the conscious control of thoughts and actions
(Anderson 2002), and some of whose components include inhibitory control. Inhibitory
control means that one must inhibit or suppress attention to irrelevant or misleading aspects
of a stimulus while focusing on the appropriate aspects of the stimulus and generating a
successful response; thus, EF can be said to refer to the conscious control of thought and action
(Posner and Rothbart 2000). Additional components of EF traditionally include planning
abilities, all of which also may implicate inhibitory processes, and set-shifting, information
processing skills, and working memory (e.g., Diamond 2011; Engle 2002; Wilbourn et al.
2011). Based on these previous findings, the current study will investigate inhibitory control
using the Stroop task, and operational control through verbal fluency, visual attention, task
switching, and memory tasks.
The overall mixed results of early studies concerning bilingualism show that there are
both negative and positive effects of bilingualism on cognition, some of which are argued
to be due to methodological issues such as the lack of controlling for socio-economic level,
parent education level, and degree of exposure to the second language (Hakuta 1986; Oller
and Pearson 2002). More recent studies have shown significant correlations between socioeconomic and parent education levels through the Stroop effect (Gathercole et al. 2010) while
the socio-educational status of parents has also been shown to affect their children’s language
abilities and executive functions (Catale et al. 2012).
123
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
653
Bilinguals have been reported to show an advantage over their monolingual peers in certain
cognitive abilities, particularly those related to EF (Blair et al. 2005), including selective
attention, the inhibition of attention to misleading information, and the switching of attention
in tasks with competing and misleading cues (Bialystok et al. 2004; Hernandez et al. 2010).
Bialystok (1999, 2001) argues that bilinguals have an advantage because from the beginning
of their dual language use they must constantly control which language is being used at the
moment, while at the same time suppressing the use of the other language, leading to more
fully developed neurological mechanisms for controlling such attention; this is referred to as
EF. Such ability can be detected at ages as young as 24 months; 2-year-old bilinguals have
been found to demonstrate some advantages in executive control over monolinguals while
performing the Stroop task, yet no significant differences have been found between both
language groups on vocabulary or delay tasks (Poulin-Dubois et al. 2011).
Research over the past three decades reveals a number of differences that emerge from
growing up knowing at least two languages (Grosjean 1989; Bialystok and Viswanathan
2009). In the most general terms, bilingualism leads to the development of strategies that are
adaptive to the unique problem space with which bilingual infants are faced.
Rosselli et al. (2002) compared the performance on the Stroop task between Spanish
and English monolinguals and Spanish–English bilinguals, taking into account their age of
acquisition and proficiency. Results showed that the bilinguals were slower in acquisition and
lower in proficiency than monolinguals; however, no significant differences were detected
between highly proficient and less proficient bilinguals on most of the Stroop tasks. Festman
et al. (2010) found a significant difference between proficient and non-proficient bilinguals,
in which Russian and German bilinguals were tested on a battery of executive function tasks
(including the Tower of Hanoi, Ruff Figural Fluency Task, Divided Attention, and Go/No
Go). These results showed that the proficient bilingual group had cognitive advantages over
the bilingual group with less proficiency of the second language; their performance was faster
and they made fewer errors.
Carlson and Meltzoff (2008) compared English–Spanish bilinguals and an immersion
language group (in which half of the participants were given instructions in English while
the other half were given instructions in their first language, Spanish or Japanese) with 6year-old English monolinguals, testing the generality of a bilingual advantage on a wide
range of nine EF measures by administering a battery of tasks that included the Dimensional
Change Card Sort, Simon Says, Visually Cued Recall, Kansas Reflection/Impulsivity Scale,
Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Attention Network Task, Delay of Gratification, Statue (a task that measures the ability to suppress motor action during a delay), and
the Gift Delay with Cover task. The main findings revealed a significant bilingual advantage on tasks that call for managing conflicting attentional demands (conflict tasks), and on
tasks that require memory, but no such advantage was found on tasks that require impulse
control (delay tasks); the results also showed that the immersion group generally performed
similarly to monolinguals. It is remarkable that the observed effect was robust even after
controlling for socioeconomic factors such as parent education level. This pattern of findings
suggests that conflict inhibition plays a role in the link between bilingualism and EF, and that
the effects of bilingualism in executive functioning might be found in conflict tasks but not
necessarily in delay tasks. This result further suggests that bilinguals have extensive practice
in exercising selective attention and cognitive flexibility, because the two languages are used
simultaneously (Green 1998; Costa 2005; Rodriguez-Fornells et al. 2006). Therefore, in the
current study we focus on examining these same abilities that have been studied previously.
In another study conducted by Bialystok and Viswanathan (2009), three groups of 8year-olds, monolinguals and bilinguals in Canada and bilinguals in India, were tested. The
123
654
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
results indicated that both bilingual groups performed differently from the monolingual group
but equivalently to each other; they showed higher ability in executive control, where they
demonstrated higher skills in conditions requiring inhibitory control and switching. However, differences were not detected between the language groups in response to suppression
conditions.
Across a range of studies investigating a variety of abilities, it is clear that bilingualism
is an ability that has significant consequences for cognitive performance. However, until
recently, research on the cognitive performance of bilingual children had been tested mainly
only in English, Spanish, and Chinese speaking countries, with no research conducted on EF
among Arabic monolingual and English–Arabic bilingual children.
Defining bilingualism is difficult because there are many different aspects involved, some
involving language behavior and others involving social and cultural aspects. Several definitions provide a strict description of bilingualism, whereby a bilingual person is considered
someone with a native-like control of two languages; this definition thus limits the number of
individuals who can be considered bilinguals. In contrast, other definitions consider individuals as bilinguals if they are fluent in one language and can produce complete and meaningful
utterances in another. This type of definition is more inclusive, and allows early-stage second language learners to be included (Hakuta 1986). Hence, we will use this more inclusive
classification as our definition of bilingualism.
Our study therefore aims to answer the following questions. (1) Is there a difference
between Arabic–English bilingual and Arabic monolingual primary school students on a
battery of EFs? (2) Are there differences between age groups with regard to EFs? While
previous studies have indicated that EFs continue to develop throughout childhood, children
do not usually reach an adult level of performance until around age 15 (Huizinga et al. 2006).
The relationships between age and performance on most cognitive tests such as memory,
executive, and attentional abilities have been shown to be significant (Catale et al. 2012).
Overall, EFs improve consecutively through childhood through three growth periods: birth
until the age of two, age seven to nine, and during adolescence between the ages of 16 and
19 (Jurado and Rosselli 2007).
One of the major flaws of previous research is that most studies did not control for socioeconomic differences between the groups studied, because bilinguals were typically at a lower
socio-economic level than monolinguals (Millett 2010). In most Arab countries, however, the
case is reversed: Arabic–English bilinguals are usually at a higher socio-economic level than
monolinguals because English as a second language is mainly taught at private schools,which
typically have high tuition fees. Therefore, in this study we follow Peal and Lambert’s 1962
model to control for socioeconomic levels between groups. Furthermore, Arabic has a unique
feature known as “diglossia,” in which two levels of a language exist: the vernacular language,
which is used in everyday life, and the standard language, which is used in education, writing,
and religious ceremonies (Ferguson 1959). Children acquiring Arabic as a first language are
exposed to both levels at a very early age; thus we assume that such exposure may have
an effect on cognitive abilities similar to the effect of being exposed to two languages, or
bilingualism. In Saudi Arabia, where the current study was conducted, many children are
exposed to different languages and multiple Arabic dialects both in school and outside of
school in their daily lives, and they study classical (standard) Arabic grammar between the
ages of eight and nine (starting in the fourth grade).
Two other key issues that could also have an effect on a person’s EFs are religion and
culture, because they have significant effects on self-control ability, which influences EFs. For
example, Sabbagh et al. (2006) argued that the advanced performance of Chinese preschoolers
over their American counterparts on different EF tasks may stem from sociocultural factors,
123
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
655
such as the tendency of Chinese parents to expect their 2-year-old children to master impulse
control. Moreover, giving children opportunities to exercise and practice EF skills is more
encouraged in Chinese preschool children than in their American counterparts. Therefore,
we hypothesize that Arabic–English bilingual EFs will differ from those of monolinguals.
Furthermore, we hypothesize that older age groups will perform better than younger age
groups in both language groups; to examine this hypothesis, we examine the correlation
between language proficiency and EF test results among the bilingual children.
Methods
Participants
Fifty Saudi normally developing children ranging from 7–10 years of age participated in this
study: 25 Arabic speaking monolinguals (12 males and 13 females), divided into two age
groups (Group 1: mean age 7.9; Group 2: mean age 9.3), and 25 Arabic–English bilinguals
(11 males and 14 females), also divided into two age groups similar to the monolinguals. We
administered a background language questionnaire in Arabic to the parents or the caregivers
to examine the children’s exposure to their native and second languages, and also to obtain
information regarding the parents’ education and family income, which helped us to match
children between the groups. Both groups were equivalent with regard to native language
level, parents’ education (all were university graduates or above), and family income (all
above 15,000 Saudi Riyals per month, which is equivalent to approximately 4,500 USD.
Exposure to a second language among the monolingual participants was minimal and was
usually the result of watching cartoons or hearing it outside of the home on the streets or while
shopping with their families, but was never used as a means of communication at school, at
home, or anywhere else. The bilingual participants, on the other hand, were exposed to English
(their second language) either at home while communicating with their immediate family
members or siblings at least 50 % of the time (but not with other family members), and when
studying at international schools where English was the primary language of teaching except
for Arabic language and religious studies classes taught in Arabic. Table 1 summarizes the
demographic characteristics and language backgrounds of the participants. An Arabic reading
test was used to ensure that both groups could adequately read Arabic; the test comprised a
paragraph from the third-grade reader used by both public and international schools in Saudi
Arabia, and the ability to read was assessed by measuring the time needed to finish reading
the paragraph along with the number of mistakes made by the participant. Results showed
that both groups were similar in their Arabic reading performance. An English reading test
was also used to ensure that the participants had sufficient English reading ability; the test
included a paragraph appearing in a storybook also used in third-grade classrooms. Similar
to the method used with the Arabic text, the participants’ ability to read English was also
scored by measuring the time needed to finish reading the paragraph while also noting the
number of mistakes made (see Table 1).
Apparatus
• Arabic reading test
A paragraph was chosen by the researchers as the text to be used to determine the reading
ability of all the children participating in the study. It consisted of a 10-line paragraph
123
656
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
Table 1 Demographic characteristics and parental language and socio-economic background questionnaire
Variable
Language group
Bilingual
Monolingual
Age
Mean (SD)
8.6 (0.7)
8.9 (0.9)
7–10
7–10
Sex
1.52
1.53
Mother education (median)
High education
High education
Father education (median)
High education
High education
Income (average)
More than 15,000 SR
More than 15,000 SR
More than 4,000 $
More than 4,000 $
Percentage of English use at home (average) (%)
50
0
English Proficiency (average) (%)
70
0
Arabic test time (SD)
64.7 (52.7)
63.9 (81.3)
Arabic error rate (SD)
2.6 (2.6)
3.5 (5.3)
English test time (SD)
23.16 (13.5)
0 (0)
English error rate (SD)
0.12 (0.1)
0 (0)
Percentage of English use at school (%)
100
0
Range
from the third-grade reading book used by both international and Arabic schools in
Riyadh. The total number of errors and the time needed to complete the paragraph were
calculated.
• English reading test
The researchers chose another paragraph to be used as the text to determine the English
reading ability for all the children participating in the study, and also to confirm that the
bilingual children were competent in English and that the monolinguals did not know
English as a second language. The text consisted of a 10-line paragraph from the third
grade reading book used by international schools in Riyadh. The total number of errors
and the time needed to complete the paragraph were calculated.
In addition, the following battery of EF tasks was used, including both an inhibition of
improper response task and a number of behavioral operational control tasks, described
below.
Inhibition of Improper Response Task
• Stroop Task (Color Naming)
While the Stroop test is used in many different forms, all forms rely on color naming and/or
reading words written in incongruent colors (Bondi et al. 2002). This test aims to examine the
participant’s ability to change perception modes to match the different instructions provided,
which may be different from what is typically expected. This test was developed by J. Ridley
Stroop in 1935 in an original experiment in which 70 participants were presented with a
list of color words printed in incongruent colors (i.e., the word red printed in yellow), and
were then instructed to read the words. Afterwards the participants were given another list
123
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
657
of words written in all black, and were asked to read the words again. Stroop found small
differences in the time needed to read both lists (Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2002).
This test is considered by cognitive psychologists to be an independent language task that
helps researchers to learn about executive attention systems through the naming of a set of
colored dots, as well as to learn about the ability to correctly name the color of ink used
to write the name of a color that is different than the color itself. Most participants find it
difficult to correctly read or say the actual color of ink when the two variables do not match.
This difficulty is called the Interference Effect, or the Stroop Effect (Anderson 1995).
Task description: In our version of this task, three white cards were used, each with six
rows of colored dots, and each dot being red, yellow, green, or blue. The test was divided into
parts. (1) The training part included a set of color words (all in Arabic), i.e., blue, green, red,
and yellow, printed in black and randomly distributed on the cards. The participants were
instructed to read the words. (2) In the second part, participants were presented with a card
on which the words were printed in incongruent colors (i.e., the color word and the actual
color used were different), and were instructed to read the name of the color while ignoring
the color of the ink in which it was written. (3) In the third part, the cards with printed colored
dots (blue, green, red, and yellow) were presented for color naming. (4) In the fourth part
participants were presented with the same cards used in part two, and were instructed to
name the color of the ink that the words were printed in (Hinkin et al. 1999; Perlstein et al.
1998). The time required to finish the task and the number of errors were measured for each
participant. The test took approximately 5 min to complete.
Behavioral Operational Control Tasks
• Verbal Fluency Task
This test was chosen to examine participants’ ability to control behaviors under strict conditions to illustrate inhibition ability. The test consisted of two parts. In the first part participants
were instructed to produce or write as many words as possible beginning with the letter S
in the Arabic language ( ) within 5 min. In the second part they were instructed to produce
or write as many four-letter words beginning with a letter different from the letter S; for
example, participants could choose to write words that started with the letter F ( another
Arabic letter). After the instructions were given to the participants at the beginning of the
session, the researcher recorded all of the words produced. Two types of measurements were
considered: the degree of fluency, derived from the number of words produced, and the degree
of efficiency, derived from the number of different word categories used (Abdeltawab 2007;
Fama et al. 2000).
• Trail Making Test (TMT) Parts A and B
The Trail Making Test is a neuropsychological test of visual attention and task switching
that assess visual screening, visuospatial scanning, motor sequencing skills, and shifts in
organization. It is divided into two parts (Part A and Part B); both parts consist of 25 circles
distributed over a sheet of paper. Part A: the circles are numbered 1–25, and participants were
instructed to connect the numbers by drawing lines between them in ascending order. Part
B: the circles consist of both numbers (1–13) and letters (A–L); as in Part A, the participants
were again told to connect the circles in an ascending pattern, yet with the added task of
alternating between the numbers and letters (i.e., 1–A–2–B–3–C, etc.). Participants were
told to connect the circles as quickly as possible, without lifting their pencil from the paper,
and when an error was detected it was pointed out immediately; the participant was then
123
658
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
allowed to correct the error, but it was still recorded, thereby affecting the participant’s score.
The test was scored by assessing the number of seconds required to complete the task and
the accuracy of performance. The test took about 5 min to complete (Abdelkawi 2011).
• The Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS)
This test is a neuropsychological test to evaluate verbal and nonverbal memory abilities. In
addition, it evaluates attention functions using both auditory and visual stimuli. The test is
divided into several sections, each testing a different aspect of memory. (1) Visual Memory:
In this section, three geometric forms were presented to participants for 10 s each, and then
participants were instructed to draw the form before the next one is presented. For this section,
drawing times and error rates were recorded. (2) Immediate Memory: In this section, two
small stories were recited to the participants, who were then instructed to recall them. Errors
were measured by noting the number of sentences that could be correctly recalled. (3) Mental
Control: This section was divided into two parts. In the first part, participants were instructed
to count down from 20 to 1 in descending order. All errors were recorded. In the second
part, participants were instructed to count by adding four numbers at a time in an ascending
manner (i.e., 1–5–9–13, etc.). Scores were calculated according to the highest number the
participants reached after 2 min, along with the errors made along the way (Abdelkawi 2011).
• Matrices from Wechsler for Children
This test is based on a subscale of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised
(WISC-R), designed by Wechsler in 1974 and translated by Melika into Arabic in 1976; this
task consists of nine matrices, which measure planning ability and perceptual organization.
Each participant was asked to find his/her way out of each matrix using a pencil and paper.
The time required to complete each matrix and the error rates were calculated for all matrices
(Mileka 1998).
• Comparing Names Test
The Comparing Names Test comprises one of the tasks of the general aptitude battery that
was translated into Arabic by Zaki Saleh in 1971. It consists of two lists of 30 names, many
of which are the same in both lists while some are slightly different. For example, one of
the names on one of the lists is Hasan Mustafa, while on the other list the corresponding
name is Husin Mustafa. Participants were asked to find all such differences and circle them.
Completion times and error rates were calculated for each participant (Saleh 1971).
Procedures
Participants were tested individually either at King Saud University’s psychology lab or at
their school. The Arabic and English reading tests were administered first to ensure that all
bilingual children knew how to read both English and Arabic, and that the monolingual group
did not know how to read English. Then the six other main tests were conducted. The test
order was random; for example, one group of children started with the Stroop Test, while
another group started with the Verbal Fluency Task. All tasks were conducted in Arabic.
Results
A two-way analysis of variance was carried out to compare the two language groups (monolinguals and bilinguals) and the age groups on all EF tasks. Because gender had no significant influence on performance, this variable was not included in the following analyses.
123
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
659
Table 2 Results of two-way ANOVA
Effect
Value
F
Hypothesis df
Error df
Sig.
Intercept
.995
157.515a
26.000
21.000
.000
Language group
.504
.822a
26.000
21.000
.685
Age group
.551
.992a
26.000
21.000
.513
Language group * age group
.608
1.255a
26.000
21.000
.300
The results overall did not reveal significant differences between the groups on the majority
of tasks administered. Pearson Correlation was used to test language proficiency with the
variables of completion time and error rate for the bilingual participants.
The results revealed no significant differences between the language groups for the EFs
tested in this study ( f = 0.822). Results also showed no significant differences between the
two age groups ( f = 0.992). Finally, no significant differences were detected with respect
to the interaction between the language and age groups ( f = 1.25). (See Table 2).
Further testing also showed no significant differences between the groups on the Stroop
Task, Verbal Fluency Task, or various memory tasks. However, significant differences
between the monolingual and bilingual students were found for four of the EF tasks. The
first significant difference was detected in the time needed to complete the trail-making task
(Part A) ( f = 8.17, p = 0.006), which shows that the monolingual children took more
time to complete the task than the bilingual children did, yet both groups performed similarly on Part B of the task. However, on the Comparing Names Test the results showed
significant differences between both language groups; specifically, the bilingual children
took more time to complete the task ( f = 6.06, p = 0.02), and they also made more errors
( f = 5.63, p = 0.02) compared with the monolingual children. This may have been because
the bilinguals read and write in English more than they do in Arabic because of their bilingual
education situation at school, in which Arabic is not used in reading and writing as frequently
as it is used as a means of verbal communication. As for the Mental Control task, results
showed that the number of errors produced by the monolinguals while counting in ascending
order was significantly higher than that of the bilinguals ( f = 5.13, p = 0.03). (See Table 3).
Regarding age group differences, the results showed no significant differences in the Trail
Making, Memory, Comparing Names, and Mental Control tasks. However, the results of the
Stroop Task indicate that the younger age group took more time to complete Part 1 compared
with the older age group ( f = 6.71, p = 0.01). The results also indicated that the verbal
fluency of the older age group was significantly higher than that of the younger age group,
especially with regard to recalling words beginning with the letter S ( f = 4.58, p = 0.04).
(See Table 4).
Language proficiency was measured by assessing the time required to complete each task
and the errors produced by the bilingual participants. We conducted a statistical analysis
to find any correlation between error rates and completion times when performing the EF
tasks. Results showed no significant correlation between both types of measurements, with
the exception of the Fluency Test 1 (r = 0.48, p = 0.05), Fluency Test 2 (r = 0.46, p = 0.05),
and the Counting Test (r = 0.43, p = 0.05), for which significant differences were detected
in the error rates. (See Table 5).
These results show that children with greater error rates performed better on the fluency
task, indicating that their command of Arabic was higher than that of English.
123
660
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
Table 3 Language group results
Source
Dependent variable
Language group
Stroop1_time
Stroop1_errors
Stroop2_time
Type III sum of squares
1.041
Df
1
Mean square
1.041
F
.004
Sig.
.951
.038
1
.038
.039
.844
14.213
1
14.213
.049
.827
Stroop2_errors
.049
1
.049
.025
.876
Stroop3_time
8.620
1
8.620
.106
.746
Stroop3_errors
Stroop4_time
Stroop4_errrors
Trail making1_time
Trail making1_errors
Trail making2_time
Trail making2_errors
.483
1
.483
.803
.375
379.432
1
379.432
2.025
.162
.102
9.078
1
9.078
2.790
23,119.941
1
23,119.941
8.176
.006
3.977
1
3.977
1.493
.228
27,098.625
1
27,098.625
.869
.356
24.120
1
24.120
1.093
.301
Verbal fluency1
2.610
1
2.610
.058
.811
Verbal fluency2
3.152
1
3.152
.267
.608
203,828.754
1
203,828.754
6.067
.018
72.530
1
72.530
5.636
.022
Comparing name time
Comparing name errors
29,132.874
1
29,132.874
.696
.408
Matrices errors
1.336
1
1.336
.073
.789
Memory, story1
764.455
1
764.455
1.123
.295
Memory story2
.000
1
.000
.000
1.000
Count forward time
4.577
1
4.577
.040
.842
Count forward errors
23.296
1
23.296
5.137
.028
Count time
64.951
1
64.951
.184
.670
Count errors
16.412
1
16.412
2.552
.117
1,175.145
1
1,175.145
.311
.580
11.296
1
11.296
3.756
.059
Matrices time
Visual memory time
Visual memory errors
On the other hand, the task completion time results also showed a correlation in the Stroop
Task 1 and Stroop Task 2 (r = 0.56, r = 0.45; p = 0.05), and this result generally indicates
that proficient bilinguals take less time to complete the Stroop tasks.
Discussion
In this research we aimed to investigate the effect of bilingualism on some aspects of EFs, and
we hypothesized that the EFs of bilinguals would be different from that of monolinguals, and
that older age groups would perform better than younger age groups. Therefore, participants
were divided into two age groups and were matched according to their parents’ education and
family income levels; we did this because previous research had found that parent educational
status influenced their children’s EFs (Catale et al. 2012). Overall, our results did not show
any significant differences between monolinguals and bilinguals or between the younger and
older age groups on most EF tasks.
123
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
661
Table 4 Age group results
Source
Dependent variable
Age-group
Stroop1_time
Stroop1_errors
Stroop2_time
Stroop2_errore
Stroop3_time
Stroop3_errore
Stroop4_time
Stroop4_errrors
Trail making 1 time
Trail making 1 errors
Trail making 2 time
Trail making 2 errors
Type III sum of squares
1,804.538
Df
Mean square
1
1,804.538
F
Sig.
6.711
.013
.170
1
.170
.177
.676
121.910
1
121.910
.417
.522
.867
1
.867
.434
.513
202.855
1
202.855
2.493
.121
.410
1
.410
.682
.413
80.824
1
80.824
.431
.515
1.725
1
1.725
.530
.470
3,641.370
1
3,641.370
1.288
.262
.464
1.452
1
1.452
.545
951.336
1
951.336
.030
.862
3.795
1
3.795
.172
.680
Verbal fluency1
206.296
1
206.296
4.588
.038
Verbal fluency2
28.048
1
28.048
2.372
.130
100,308.776
1
100,308.776
2.986
.091
2.827
1
2.827
.220
.641
Comparing names time
Comparing names score
30,992.229
1
30,992.229
.741
.394
Matrices errors
16.520
1
16.520
.898
.348
Memory, story1
774.558
1
774.558
1.138
.292
Memory, story2
20.169
1
20.169
1.573
.216
145.558
1
145.558
1.285
.263
5.458
1
5.458
1.204
.278
Matrices time
Count forward time
Count forward errors
Count time
257.264
1
257.264
.729
.398
Count errors
12.713
1
12.713
1.977
.166
Visual memory time
59.181
1
59.181
.016
.901
Visual memory errors
4.609
1
4.609
1.533
.222
The results generally showed no differences in performance of the Verbal Fluency Task
between both language groups, which might be one of the reasons why we found so few statistically significant results between the language groups on the EF tasks. Previous research has
found a relationship between vocabulary size, fluency, and EFs (Bialystok and Feng (2009),
and vocabulary size has also been found to play an important role in recall; when vocabulary level is controlled for, the differences between monolinguals and bilinguals usually
disappear (Bialystok and Feng 2009). This effect was evident in our results as well, because
no significant differences were detected for either the visual or immediate memory tasks.
Thus, we are in agreement with Xue et al. (2004), who found that Chinese monolinguals and
Chinese–English non-proficient bilinguals showed similar performance on memory tasks
when they were presented in their native language. Similarly, in our current study the children were tested in their native language, and therefore no differences were detected in their
task completion times.
Our findings may also have been influenced by language frequency and language input.
This is because Arabic was the main language used for communication by the majority of the
people around the bilingual participants in their daily lives, except in school where English
123
662
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
Table 5 Language proficiency through error results
Test
English
errors
Stroop1_time
Pearson correlation
.008
Sig. (2-tailed)
.969
Stroop1_errors
Pearson correlation
.142
Sig. (2-tailed)
.498
Stroop2_time
Pearson correlation −.241
Sig. (2-tailed)
.246
Stroop2_errore
Pearson correlation
.301
Sig. (2-tailed)
.144
Stroop3_time
Pearson correlation −.072
Sig. (2-tailed)
.733
Stroop3_errore
Pearson correlation
.033
Sig. (2-tailed)
.876
Stroop4_time
Pearson correlation
.133
Sig. (2-tailed)
.527
Stroop4_errrors Pearson correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.297
Pearson correlation −.303
Trail1_errors
Pearson correlation −.109
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
.498
Trail2_errors
Pearson correlation
.007
Sig. (2-tailed)
.974
Pearson correlation 0.4889∗−
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson correlation 0.4613−
Sig. (2-tailed)
Stroop1_errors
Stroop2_time
Sig. (2-tailed)
.003
Pearson correlation
.207
Sig. (2-tailed)
.321
Pearson correlation 0.4519∗
Sig. (2-tailed)
.023
Stroop2_errore
Pearson correlation
.071
Sig. (2-tailed)
.734
Stroop3_time
Pearson correlation
.022
Sig. (2-tailed)
.916
Stroop3_errore
Pearson correlation
.225
Sig. (2-tailed)
.281
Stroop4_time
Pearson correlation
.108
Sig. (2-tailed)
.607
123
.789
Matrices_time
Pearson correlation −.073
Matrices_errors
Pearson correlation −.012
Story1
Pearson correlation −.085
Story2
Pearson correlation −.284
Count forward_time
Pearson correlation −.124
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
.730
.956
.688
.169
.553
Count forward_errors Pearson correlation −.103
Sig. (2-tailed)
.625
Count_time
Pearson correlation −.039
Count_errors
Pearson correlation 0.4317∗
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
Visual_time
Visual_errors
.013
Pearson correlation 0.5697∗∗
.299
Pearson correlation −.056
.854
.031
Pearson correlation
.111
Sig. (2-tailed)
.598
Pearson correlation −.005
Sig. (2-tailed)
English
_time
Stroop1_time
.020
Pearson correlation −.216
Sig. (2-tailed)
Name_score
.604
Pearson correlation −.142
English
errors
Sig. (2-tailed)
Name_time
.141
Trail2_time
Fluency1
Fluency2
.150
Trail1_time
Sig. (2-tailed)
Test
.982
English
_time
Fluency2
Pearson correlation −.026
Sig. (2-tailed)
Name_time
Name_score
.902
Pearson correlation
.260
Sig. (2-tailed)
.209
Pearson correlation −.227
Sig. (2-tailed)
.275
Matrices_time
Pearson correlation −.072
Matrices_errors
Pearson correlation −.272
Story1
Pearson correlation −.036
Story2
Pearson correlation −.282
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
.733
.189
.865
.172
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
663
Table 5 continued
English
_time
Stroop4_errrors Pearson correlation
.252
Sig. (2-tailed)
.224
Trail1_time
Pearson correlation
.047
Sig. (2-tailed)
.825
Trail1_errors
Pearson correlation −.093
Trail2_time
Pearson correlation −.211
Trail2_errors
Pearson correlation −.274
Fluency1
Pearson correlation −.081
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
English
_time
Count forward_time
Sig. (2-tailed)
.132
Count forward_errors Pearson correlation −.102
Sig. (2-tailed)
.629
Count_time
Pearson correlation
.032
Sig. (2-tailed)
.881
Count_errors
Pearson correlation
.117
Sig. (2-tailed)
.577
Visual_time
Pearson correlation
.027
Sig. (2-tailed)
.899
.659
.311
.184
.700
Pearson correlation −.309
Visual errors
Pearson correlation −.195
Sig. (2-tailed)
.349
was the main language of education, or when one of the parents communicated with them
in English to practice it at home. In addition, their second language fluency could also be a
major factor. In previous studies, highly proficient bilinguals usually performed better than
less proficient bilinguals on cognitive functions (Millett 2010), and less proficient bilinguals
performed similarly to monolinguals on some EF aspects, such as when generating words
starting with specific letters within a time period of 60 s (Luo et al. 2010; Mishra et al. 2012).
In our current study, the results showed that the less proficient bilinguals performed better on
the fluency task than the highly proficient bilinguals; these results agree with these previous
studies (i.e., Millett 2010; Luo et al. 2010; Mishra et al. 2012).
When comparing monolinguals and bilinguals, we detected an advantage to bilinguals
with respect to completion time in the Trail Making Task, indicating a greater ability of
selective attention in bilinguals. This effect has been mentioned by other researchers who
have suggested that bilinguals have extensive practice in exercising selective attention, which
gives them cognitive flexibility because they are used to using two languages simultaneously
(Green 1998; Costa 2005; Rodriguez-Fornells et al. 2006). While in our current study such a
difference was only detected in Part A of the task and not in Part B, where performance was
not significantly different, this discrepancy could have been related to the difficulty of the
Part B task, which is typically usually used with older age groups. Yet, to a certain degree,
our results still show that bilinguals have greater selective attention, which is in agreement
with the results of Carlson and Meltzoff (2008), who found that English–Spanish bilinguals
showed better attention performance than English monolinguals and an immersion language
group, and that both of these groups did not differ significantly. We can look at our bilingual
group as being similar to the immersion group described in the Carlson and Meltzoff study
because the Arabic–English group in our study had more similarities to their immersion
group than to the bilingual group in their study. Some subjects in school are taught in English
while others are taught in Arabic, and the children’s first language is the main language
of communication. These aspects might therefore be part of the reason that we found no
significant differences between the error rates produced by both language groups.
Our findings also indicate that monolinguals produced more errors than bilinguals when
counting in ascending order; this result agrees with Bialystok (2005), who found that bilinguals produced fewer errors than monolinguals when counting, and particularly when count-
123
664
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
ing down in descending order. This finding was because bilinguals usually focus and control
their thoughts more while counting; it is thought therefore that these counting abilities demonstrated by bilinguals are related to their attention abilities, which are usually higher than those
of monolinguals (Bialystok 2005).
A contrary, but not surprising, finding was observed in the Comparing Names Task,
whereby the monolinguals required less time to complete the task and recognize the differences between the names compared with the bilingual children. These results, however,
are in agreement with Ivanova and Costa (2008), who found that Spanish monolinguals
named pictures faster and more accurately than Spanish–Catalan bilinguals. Despite the fact
that the tasks used in each study were different, they still fall under the same category of
‘lexicon access’; specifically, in our task, participants were instructed to access the words
and find the differences between them, while in Ivanova and Costa (2008) participants were
required to access the lexicon to name pictures. Ivanova and Costa (2008) argue that their
finding is related to the frequency effect. We agree with this argument because our results are
also associated with reading and writing skills that are affected by frequency. As mentioned
earlier, bilinguals do not read and write Arabic as frequently as monolinguals, and thus their
performance might not be as high as it would usually be if the task were conducted in English,
despite their reading skills being tested and not found to be significantly different. Within
the Comparing Names Task, reading skills are not the only skills required; lexicon access
is actually a skill that is more important to successfully completing the task. In addition,
reading skills in this case may fall within the domain of language impairment, whereby children with impaired reading skills usually have problems with their EFs (Reiter et al. 2004;
Abdelgafar 2004, 2008). Another aspect that should be taken into consideration with respect
to this specific task is the fact that the two writing systems are different: the alphabets are
entirely different, and words in Arabic are written from right to left, while words in English are written from left to right. Therefore, bilinguals require more time to complete such
tasks because these differences make the transfer of literacy skills more difficult. Moreover,
because reading skills for bilinguals depend on the writing systems of the two languages, our
bilingual participants will take more time to complete such tasks (Bialystok et al. 2005).
The Vocabulary Fluency Task did not show a significant difference between the two
groups. This result is not in agreement with those of Carlson and Meltzoff (2008), who found
that Spanish–English bilingual children showed fewer verbal abilities compared with English
monolingual children. In addition, Poulin-Dubois et al. (2011) showed similar results in which
English–French bilingual infants were found to have a smaller number of words compared
with English and French monolinguals. The differences detected between the results of our
study and these previous studies may be related to the fact that our participants were exposed
to Arabic more frequently than the other bilinguals were exposed to the language they were
being tested on, or their dominant language. Additionally, the bilinguals in our study are
considered bilinguals because of their education rather than their need to communicate with
others in their community, in which Arabic is their first and dominant language, and also the
language in which all tests were conducted.
The general findings of our study reveal some significant bilingual advantages with regard
to a few EF tasks. First, this study is one of the first to examine the role of Arabic–English
bilingualism on certain aspects of EFs, and the findings suggests that there are a number of
significant differences between Arabic monolinguals and Arabic–English bilinguals, despite
the overall results not being as expected because most differences were not found to be
statistically significant. As explained earlier, our findings could be partly because language
proficiency was not controlled for. Another possible reason for the similarities found between
both groups is the frequency of exposure to both languages, whereby bilinguals were exposed
123
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
665
to Arabic more than they were to English because they live in an Arab community. As
mentioned above, they are considered bilinguals because of their education, and at least 50 %
of their time at home is spent communicating in English as the chief means of communication
with their families; however, when communicating with others outside of the immediate
family, Arabic is usually the main language used.
An additional reason for our lack of significant findings could be the Arabic diglossia
situation, in which children learn classical Arabic grammar in school that is to some extent
different from their vernacular grammar (Moawad 2006); thus, their minds might be dealing
with these differences just as bilinguals deal with another language. To avoid this possible
factor, other groups should be added to the groups to be compared. For example, monolinguals
that have a strong command of classical Arabic (which would usually be through receiving
specific education in some schools) could be compared with a group that has not yet studied
the classical form but that still uses the vernacular in their everyday lives as their first language.
In other words, adding two such groups would allow for the control of language input because
of its role in some aspects of EFs (Carlson and Meltzoff 2008). More studies are needed in
this area to better measure the differences between Arab monolinguals and bilinguals, while
keeping in mind the unique Arabic situation known as diglossia.
Our findings have both theoretical and practical implications. At the theoretical level, the
findings contribute to the understanding of EFs and bilingualism within a different language,
as well as highlight some of the factors that contribute to the development of EFs among
bilinguals, such as language frequency, input, and proficiency. At the practical level, the
findings indicate a minor advantage of bilinguals over monolinguals in some EFs, which
might help parents to decide how to better bring up their children as bilinguals, as well as to
help the education sector when developing policies regarding bilingual education, particularly
in the face of the growing numbers of bilinguals.
References
(*) are the transliteration of Arabic reference; (**) are the translation of the Arabic
references.
*Abdelgafar, G. (2004). Alwazaef Altanfeziyah Lada Aienah min Alatfal thawe Edetirab Aldeslexia. Majalat
Kuliyat Aladab Jameat Bani Suaif, 7, 142–175.
**Abdelgafar, G. (2004). Executive functions among a sample of dyslexic children. Journal of Arts, Bani-Suaif
University, 7, 142–175.
*Abdelgafar, G. (2008). Edetirab Alqiraeh Alertiqaei min Manzur Nafsi Maerifi Eiyadi. Alqaherah: Dar Etrac
Lilnasher.
**Abdelgafar, G. (2008). Developmental Dyslexia in Perspective of Clinical Cognitive Psychology. Cairo:
Etrac Publisher Institute.
*Abdelkawi, S. (2011). Elim Alnafs Alasabi. Alqaherah: Maktabat Alanglo Almasreya.
**Abdelkawi, S. (2011). Neuropsychology. Cairo: Anglo EgyptianBookshop.
*Abdeltawab, N. (2007). Alosus Alasabeya wa Alnafsiya lilwazaeif Altanfiziyah: Tatbiqat ala Kibar Alsin.
Alqaherah: Dar Etrac Lilnasher.
**Abdeltawab, N. (2007). Neuropsychological Fundamentals of Executive Functions: Implications of Elders.
Cairo: Etrac Publisher Institute.
Allman, B. (2005). Vocabulary size and accuracy of monolingual and bilingual preschool children. In J.
Cohen, K. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international symposium
on bilingualism (pp. 58–77). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Anderson, J. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8, 71–82.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
123
666
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child Development,
70, 636–644.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. In E. Bialystok (Ed.),
Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition (pp. 1–300). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (2005). Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In J. Kroll & A. Groot (Eds.),
Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 417–432). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Bialystok, E., & Codd, J. (1997). Cardinal limits: Evidence from language awareness and bilingualism for
developing concepts of number. Cognitive Development, 12, 85–106.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control:
Evidence from the Simon task. Psychol Aging, 19, 290–303.
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, 93–100.
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: interactions among
languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(1), 43–61.
Bialystok, E., & Majumder, S. (1998). The relationship between bilingualism and the development of cognitive
processes in problem-solving. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 69–85.
Bialystok, E., & Viswanathan, M. (2009). Components of executive control with advantages for bilingual
children in two cultures. Cognition, 112, 494–500.
Blair, C., Zelazo, P., & Greenberg, M. (2005). The measurement of executive function in young children.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 561–571.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.
Bondi, M., Serody, B., Chan, A., Eberson-Shumate, S., Delis, D., Lawrence, H., et al. (2002). Cognitive and
neuropathologic correlates of stroop color-word test performance in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology,
16(3), 335–343.
Carlson, S., & Meltzoff, A. (2008). Bilingual experience and executive functioning in young children. Developmental Science, 11, 282–298.
Catale, C., Willems, S., Lejeune, C., & Meulemans, T. (2012). Parental educational level influence on memory
and executive performance in children. Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 62, 161–171.
Costa, A. (2005). Lexical access in bilingual production. In J. Kroll & A. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of
bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 308–328). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deuchar, M., & Quay, S. (1998). One vs. two systems in early bilingual syntax: Two versions of the question.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 231–243.
Diamond, A. (2011). Biological and social influences on cognitive control processes dependent on prefrontal
cortex. Progress in Brain Research, 189, 319–339.
Diaz, R., & Klingler, C. (2000). Towards an explanatory model of the interaction between bilingualism and
cognitive development. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 11, 19–23.
Fama, R., Sullivan, E., Shear, P., Cahn-Weiner, D., Marsh, L., Lim, K., et al. (2000). Structural brain correlates
of verbal and non verbal fluency measures in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 14, 29–40.
Feldman, C., & Shen, M. (1971). Some language-related cognitive advantages of bilingual 5-year-olds. The
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 118, 235–244.
Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325–340.
Festman, J., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Münte, T. (2010). Individual differences in control of language interference in late bilinguals are mainly related to general executive abilities. Behavioral and Brain Function
6(5) doi:10.1186/1744-9081-6-5.
Gathercole, V. C., Thomas, E., Jones, L., Guasch, N., Young, N., & Hughes, E. (2010). Cognitive effects of
bilingualism: Digging deeper for the contributions of language dominance, linguistic knowledge, socioeconomic status and cognitive abilities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
13(5), 617–664.
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 1, 67–81.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain
Language, 36, 3–15.
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
123
J Psycholinguist Res (2015) 44:651–667
667
Hakuta, K., & Diaz, R. (1985). The relationship between degree of bilingualism and cognitive ability: A critical
discussion and some new longitudinal data. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s language (Vol. 5). Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hernandez, M., Costa, A., Fuentes, L., Vivas, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2010). The impact of bilingualism
on the executive control and orienting networks of attention. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 13(3),
315–325.
Hinkin, C., Castellon, S., Hardy, D., Granholm, E., & Siegle, G. (1999). Computerized and traditional stroop
task dysfunction in HIV-1 infection. Neuropsychology, 13(2), 306–316. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.13.2.306.
Hoover-Dempsey, K., Walker, J., Jones, K., & Reed, R. (2002). Teachers involving parents (TIP): An in-service
teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7),
843–867.
Huizinga, M., Dolan, C., & Molen, M. (2006). Age-related change in executive function: Developmental
trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2017–2036.
Ivanova, I., & Costa, A. (2008). Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech production? Acta Psychologica, 127, 277–288.
Jurado, M., & Rosselli, M. (2007). The elusive nature of executive functions: A review of our current understanding. Neuropsychological Revue, 17, 213–233.
Kuhl, P. (2007). Is speech learning ‘gated’ by the social brain? Developmental Science, 10, 110–120.
Lemmon, C., & Goggin, J. (1989). The measurement of bilingualism and its relationship to cognitive ability.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 133–155.
Luo, L., Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2010). Effect of language proficiency and executive control on verbal
fluency performance in bilinguals. Cognition, 114, 29–41.
*Mileka, L. (1998). Miqyas Wikslar Lilatfal. Alqaherah: Alnuskah Alarabiyah. Maktabat Alanglo almasriyah.
**Mileka, L. (1998). Wechsler Scale for Children, Arabic Version. Cairo: Anglo EgyptianBookshop.
Millett, R. (2010). The cognitive effects of bilingualism: Does knowing two languages impact children’s ability
to reason about mental states? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Mishra, R., Hilchey, M., Singh, N., & Klein, R. (2012). On the time course of exogenous cueing effects in bilinguals: Higher proficiency in a second language is associated with more rapid endogenous disengagement.
The Quartely Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(8), 1502–1510.
Moawad, R. (2006). The acquisition of the arabic gender and number systems. Unpublished thesis, University
of Wales, Bangor.
Oller, D., & Pearson, B. (2002). Assessing the effects of bilingualism: A background. In D. K. Oller & R. E.
Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 3–21). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Peal, E., & Lambert, W. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs:
General and Applied, 76(546), 1–23.
Perlstein, M., Carter, S., Barch, M., & Baird, W. (1998). The stroop task and attention deficits in schizophrenia:
A critical evaluation of card and single-trial stroop methodologies. Neuropsychology, 12, 414–425.
Posner, M., & Rothbart, M. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation. Developement and Psychopathology, 12, 427–441.
Poulin-Dubois, D., Blaye, A., Coutya, J., & Bialystok, E. (2011). The effects of bilingualism on toddlers’
executive functioning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 567–579.
Reiter, A., Tucha, O., & Lang, K. (2004). Executive functions in children with dyslexia. Dyslexia, 11(2),
116–131.
Rodriguez-Fornells, A., Balaguer, R., & Münte, T. (2006). Executive control in bilingual language processing.
Language Learning, 56, 133–190.
Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Santisi, M., Arecco, M., Salvatierra, J., Conde, A., et al. (2002). Stroop effect in
Spanish–English bilinguals. Journal of th International Neuropsychological Socety, 8, 819–827.
Sabbagh, M., Xu, F., Carlson, S., Moses, L., & Lee, K. (2006). The development of executive functioning and
theory of mind: A comparison of Chinese and U.S. preschoolers. Psychol Sci, 17(1), 74–81.
Saxe, G. (1988). Linking language with mathematics achievement: problems and prospects. In R. R. Cocking
& J. P. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics (pp. 47–62). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
*Saleh, A. (1971). Extibar Thurston Lilqudurat Alawaliyah. Alqaherah: Dar Alnahdah Almasriyah.
**Saleh, Z. (1971). Thurstone’s primary mental abilities test. Dar Alnahda Almasriya: Cairo.
Wilbourn, M., Kurtz, L., & Kalia, V. (2011). The Lexical Stroop Sort (LSS) picture-word task: A computerized
task for assessing the relationship between language and executive functioning in school-aged children.
Behavioral Research Methods?, 44(1), 270–286.
Xue, G., Dong, O., Jin, Z., & Chen, C. (2004). Mapping of verbal working memory in nonfluent Chinese–
English bilinguals with functional MRI. NeuroImage, 22, 1–10.
123
English Language Teaching; Vol. 6, No. 1; 2013
ISSN 1916-4742
E-ISSN 1916-4750
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
Contribution of Bilingualism in Language Teaching
Muhammad Aslam Sipra1
1
JCC, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia
Correspondence: Dr. Muhammad Aslam Sipra, JCC, Department of GRC, King Abdulaziz University, PO Box
80283, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia. Tel: 966-2-2870026 Ext: 580. E-mail: Aslamsipra@yahoo.com
Received: September 26, 2012
doi:10.5539/elt.v6n1p56
Accepted: October 28, 2012
Online Published: December 12, 2012
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n1p56
Abstract
This study is an investigation into the contribution of the use of bilingualism as an aid in learning/teaching
English as a foreign language and bilingualism in EFL classroom does not reduce students’ communicative
abilities but in effect can assist in teaching and learning process. The study employed a qualitative, interpretive
research design involving questionnaires, classroom observations and semi-structured interviews. The data part
analyzed the students and the teachers’ expressed responses and beliefs about the role of bilingualism in EFL
classes. The findings of the study in general are that bilingualism as a resource in teaching facilitates in learning
L2 and helps make more people acknowledge the contribution of bilingualism in EFL classes.
Keywords: bilingualism, second language learning, mother tongue, L1, L2, language teaching
1. Introduction
In the fall of 2004, almost seven years hence, as I started teaching English language at intermediate level in
Saudi Arabia, I was confronted by a problem of not being able to make my students understand quite a number
of expressions in the target language sometimes; thus, finding the class difficult to manage. This problem owed
to my almost zero ability in Arabic that is/was the L1 of my students. However, as the time went by I picked up a
bit of Arabic vocabulary and quite a few of expressions and this newly acquired ability in Arabic enabled me to
use bilingualism effectively in classes. I started using students’ L1, as and when required, and I felt a tremendous
change in students’ results and their linguistic behaviour. This inspired me to conduct a research on the use of
bilingualism in EFL classes. In the light of my experience in the classroom I wanted to fathom the usefulness of
bilingualism as a teaching aid at intermediate level. And whether it really helps the students learning the target
language with an ease?
There has been much debate and controversy over the use of bilingualism as a teaching aid and a resource in
teaching EFL. In this study the researcher has attempted to investigate into the scope of the contribution of use of
bilingualism in foreign language learning/teaching class. The study of bilingualism covers a field which is both
wide and interdisciplinary. The article is mainly concerned with 'bilinguality' rather than 'bilingualism' because it
is a study of EFL teachers' second language use in the classroom how they may impact on learning a second
language. However, in as much as bilinguality develops and is manifested in situated social ways, there will be
mention of societal aspects of bilingualism at points when it is necessary in interpreting the findings.
Bilingualism in the classroom is not considered as the medium of teaching as happens in grammar-translation
method, but as a teaching technique or if I am allowed to say, as a teaching aid. Once let loose the bilingualism
pervades the whole of classroom teaching; instead, it is used only of well-defined steps of teaching and in clearly
defined manner. In using the mother tongue, the teacher in the grammar translation method has all the freedom
of expressing himself in it and bilingualism in EFL classes strikes the middle and permits judicious freedom in
the use of the first language.
2. Literature Review
This part of study seeks to give an overview of the existing literature available on the various aspects of
bilingualism. Although not an extensive research has been conducted on this issue, yet the subject invites many
different areas of TEFL, which have been sought by the scholars. Bilingualism can be discussed as an individual
phenomenon or a societal phenomenon (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981). Hamers and Blanc (2000) use the term
“bilinguality” to denote an individual’s use of two languages, and reserve “bilingualism” for the study of how
two or more languages function in a given society. However, they do not suggest that it is possible to see each in
56
www.ccsenet.org/elt
English Language Teaching
Vol. 6, No. 1; 2013
isolation from the other, pointing out their interdependency. Bilingualism in education looks at the pedagogical
issues when children speaking one language at home enter a school system which operates in another language
(Lotherington 2000). There are numerous academic institutions all over the world which attempt to find the best
way for children to become proficient in the dominant language (Cummins and Swain 1986). There are other
studies available which look at how children growing up in bilingual families acquire both languages, and how
parents can help them to retain both (Beligan, Clyne and Lotherington 1999). In another research, conducted by
Jinlan Tang (2002) emphasized the idea that L1 in the English class helps the students to improve their L2
linguistic capabilities. He conducted his research on Chinese students and his results proved the idea of
Schweer’s study results. Schweers (1999) conducted a study with EFL students and their teachers in a Spanish
context to investigate their attitudes toward using L1 in the L2 classroom. His results indicate that Spanish
should be used in the EFL classroom.
Unfortunately, many people think that there is only room enough in a child’s or adult’s brain for one language.
Contrary to the idea that two languages confuse people, there is evidence that well-developed bilingualism
actually enhances one’s “cognitive flexibility” -- that is, bilingual people including children are better able to see
things from two or more perspectives and to understand how other people think (Hakuta 1986). Bilinguals also
have better auditory language skills i.e., they can discriminate sounds of a language more finely than
monolinguals, and they mature earlier than mono-linguals in terms of linguistic abstraction i.e., ability to think
and talk about language (Albert & Obler 1978). Simply being exposed to a language is no guarantee that we will
learn it. If we are exposed to language input that we cannot understand, much of what is said (or written) will be
“over our heads.” In order for language learning to take place, we must receive “comprehensible input” -- that is,
language input must be modified so that we can understand it (Krashen 1981). Furthermore, studies have shown
that when minority students are provided with native language instruction for at least 50% of the day through
grades 5 or 6, they do better academically than those in all-English programs. In other words, they suffer no loss
as a result of less exposure to English, and in fact by 6th or 7th grade they appear to be gaining on their
counterparts in all-English programs (Collier 1995).
Children’s mother tongues are fragile and easily lost in the early years of school. Many people marvel at how
quickly bilingual children seem to pick up conversational skills in the majority language in the early years at
school although it takes much longer for them to catch up to native speakers in academic language skills (Baker
1988). Similarly, we may often see children on the playground who appear to speak English with no problem.
Yet when they are in a classroom situation, they just don’t seem to grasp the concepts. Many people fail to
realize that there are different levels of language proficiency. Actually, they still needed time and assistance to
develop their academic English skills (Cummins 1984).
Research has already been done in the area of code switching or native language interference on the target
language. There is considerable controversy over the definition of interference. Dulay (1982) defines
interference as the automatic transfer, due to habit, of the surface structure of the first language onto the surface
of the target language. Lott (1983) defines interference as “errors in the learner’s use of the foreign language that
can be traced back to the mother tongue”. For example, interferences may be seen in the usage of the past tense,
articles or the repeated pronoun. Ellis (1997) refers to interference as “transfer”, which he says is “the influence
that the learner’s L1 exerts over the acquisition of an L2”. In learning a target language, learners construct their
own interim rules with the use of their L1 knowledge (Selinker 1972), but only when they believe it will help
them in the learning task or when they have become sufficiently proficient in the L2 for transfer to be possible.
The reason for the switching behavior presented by Crystal (1987) is the alteration that occurs when the speaker
wishes to convey his/her attitude to the listener. Where monolingual speakers can communicate these attitudes
by means of variation in the level of formality in their speech, bilingual speakers can convey the same by code
switching.
Professionals in second language acquisition have become increasingly aware of the role the mother tongue
plays in the EFL classroom. Nunan and Lamb (1996), for example, contend that EFL teachers working with
monolingual students at lower levels of English proficiency find prohibition of the mother tongue to be
practically impossible. Dornnyei and Kormos (1998) find that the L1 is used by L2 learners as a communication
strategy to compensate for deficiencies in the target language. Auerbuch (1993) also acknowledges the positive
role of the mother tongue in the classroom.
3. Research Methodology
Present research study has focused on teaching and learning process with the aid of L1 in communicating
effectively L2 in EFL classrooms. However, no broad generalizations have been made rather the researcher has
57
www.ccsenet.org/elt
English Language Teaching
Vol. 6, No. 1; 2013
focused mainly upon:
1.
The spoken aspect of L2 along with L1 in integrated skills classes
2.
Proper use of vocabulary while communicating at intermediate level
3.
The age group (between 15-26 years)
The researcher has selected to analyze the research topic from the aspects of integrated skills as taught at King
Abdul Aziz University (KAAU), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to the learners of English language for the development
of the topic. As analysis helps in thoroughly examining the topic from all dimensions, the researcher looks upon
all the aspects of the research topic to discover how use of bilingualism expedites teaching and learning process
in EFL classes.
The population comprises a total number of 150 students from KAAU (King Abdul Aziz University) at
Certificate level and 25 teachers who were teaching these students. Although no studies have been located which
aim to discover the contribution of the use of bilingualism in foreign language learning, there have been several
studies which are pertinent in either content or method, and they will be outlined and commented on here. The
most common methods used to investigate the relationship of L1 with L2, are the observation of teachers’
regular lessons combined with semi-structured interviews. All of the studies outlined in the previous paragraphs
used a combination of interviews and classroom observation since their primary aim was to discover links
between L1 and L2.
The intention of this study was to find out whether the use of bilingualism is a teaching aid in teaching and
learning L2 and L1 does facilitate the learners. The tools that were used comprised semi-structured interviews,
questionnaires and classroom observations. There were some general concerns over the level of comprehension
and proficiency among the respondents. So the questionnaire was designed and arranged in such a manner which
would require the respondents to do as little reading as possible. The questions were always read out to the
respondents by the researcher himself or by the other trained research fellows. They had been briefed to be aware
of situations where the respondents needed extra assistance.
3.1 Participants
A total of 150 students who were selected randomly participated in this activity and 25 teachers gave their opinions
while responding to the questionnaire. The teachers selected for the present study were from the immediate milieu
and had been teaching the language skills for 0-30 years. Thus both newly inducted and experienced language
teachers were included in this research.
3.2 Classroom Observation
Five teachers, who were teaching different language skills i.e. listening, speaking, reading and writing, were
selected for classroom observation purpose. This proved quite helpful in finding out that teachers using different
language skills had to employ L1 while teaching EFL. It was recorded then, how frequently and on what
occasions L1 was used by the teachers and when by the students (see table-1). In order to obtain a more authentic
and solid classroom data, the teachers and the students both were not made aware of the observation, or else it
would have been nearly impossible to record their natural reactions. These classroom observations were about 50
minutes’ duration.
3.3 Semi-structured Interviews
Second technique employed was to conduct semi-structured interviews of the five teachers whose classes were
observed. The purpose of this was to find the reasons why they had to switch to mother-tongue (L1) and
preferred using it over English. These teachers, more or less, came up with almost the same kinds of reasons for
justifying their use of L1 in an EFL class. The interviews of these various teachers were recorded and interpreted
as well.
3.4 Questionnaires
The third method employed to collect the relevant data for the authenticity of the research was to distribute
questionnaires. There were two different kinds of questionnaires. One was given to the teachers and the other
was given to the students. These questionnaires were designed to check and evaluate the attitudes and responses
of both the learners and the teachers. The questionnaire given to teachers was aimed at discovering their practice,
of using bilingualism in the classroom, the need which presses them to use mother-tongue (L1) and lastly, their
response as to what extent the use of mother-tongue (L1) was helpful in their teaching methods. Its purpose was
also to get an idea how far teachers are conscious of or dependent on the use of bilingualism in their teaching
learning methods. This technique helped a lot, especially to substantiate data with observation. In addition, it
58
www.ccsenet.org/elt
English Language Teaching
Vol. 6, No. 1; 2013
helped the researcher to get a firsthand knowledge of teachers’ awareness of this most serious subject. The
second questionnaire which was given to the students proved quite helpful and effective in many different ways.
Firstly, it helped to know students’ reaction to the use of bilingualism in the class. Then it aimed to testify
teachers’ data. And finally its purpose determined the use of bilingualism in the improvement of their language
skills in L2 especially those areas in which they felt the use of bilingualism was effective. Thus, questionnaires
to students and teachers proved quite effective in gathering the data to analyze and evaluate the results and lastly,
to the correctness of the hypothesis.
4. Discussion on Classroom Observation
The table shows that the number of occasions on which L1 was used in five 50 minutes classes for different
purposes. The table displays clearly that all five teachers used L1 in a variety of situations on different occasions
(see table 1).
Table 1. (Classroom Observation Result)
Sr.
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Occasions on which L1 was used
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Total
Giving Instructions
Defining New Vocabulary Items
Explaining Idioms and Proverbs
Explaining Colloquial Expressions
Explaining Prepositional Phrases
Explaining Slang and Taboo Words
Explaining Grammatical Rules
Explaining Complex Ideas
Creating Fun in Language Class
Giving Suggestions to Learn Effectively
Total
3
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
3
2
20
2
1
1
2
3
3
2
1
3
1
19
2
3
0
1
1
4
3
0
4
1
19
3
2
2
3
2
1
2
1
1
2
19
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
12
12
10
5
10
8
11
11
4
11
7
89
All this appeared to be natural as claimed by the advocates of use of bilingualism in EFL context that it aids only
when it is used judiciously. Thus the use of L1 by the teachers was according to the claims made by the
researcher himself and testified to the propositions. To him, only English may lead to disturbance for the
language activity. Same is the case with all of the abovementioned teachers, they first attempted to explain the
words, grammatical points and meanings of complex ideas in English but resorted to Arabic when the teachers
felt English instructions failed to work. Sometimes, it was the demand of the learners themselves that difficult
and complex points be explained in L1 e.g. “tit for tat”, examples for use of conditionals, etc. This situation is
unavoidable for the teacher.
There is a general trend in Saudi Arabia that most of the local and foreign teachers, who had either Arabic or
other language, would extensively use Arabic. Both students and teachers were at ease using students’ L1 and no
one wonders or feels disturbed in L1 use. First teacher, for example, used L1 most frequently. He used L1 20
times. He has been teaching English for more than sixteen years. He holds a PhD degree and the vast experience
of teaching Saudi students. He had been in Saudi Arabia for more than ten years and was quite proficient in
Arabic language. Although he used L1 (Arabic) more frequently than other teachers but he was well aware of the
danger of unnecessary and inappropriate use of L1. So the fair and judicious use of L1 is advisable. Likewise,
rest of four teachers also used Arabic whenever and wherever they felt its need.
Non Arab EFL teachers mostly fall back to the use of bilingual dictionary or the teacher usually depends on that
learner who is good at comprehension. This learner facilitates the teacher by explaining new vocabulary items in
L1 to the other learners. This technique proved to be fruitful and less time consuming. For example, excited,
pollution, passion, monster etc. were explained in Arabic or the learners used bilingual dictionary to find the
exact meaning. If proverbs and idioms are not explained in L1, these would create entirely a different idea in the
minds of EFL learners. Consequently, the teachers have to resort to the use of L1. For example, during classroom
observation, it was raining outside and the teacher used the idiom while teaching present continuous, “it is
raining cats and dogs” but the learners failed to understand this idiom. When the teacher explained it using L1,
they got it at once. At this occasion, the teacher explained some more proverbs using L1 e.g. “a stitch in time
saves nine”, "there are many a slip between a cup and a lip" etc. As far as colloquial expressions are concerned, it
is very difficult for the EFL learners at intermediate level here to comprehend these expressions e.g. “shall I
59
www.ccsenet.org/elt
English Language Teaching
Vol. 6, No. 1; 2013
make you a cup of tea?” or “he is married with three children” (he marries not woman but three children as
perceived by the learners) or “the cow is milking” or “the house is building” the teacher used these expressions
and asked the learners to tell the meanings. They came up with interesting meanings. They explained the first
expression as “shall I cook you and make you a cup of tea” with a funny translation. Later on, the teacher had to
explain all these expressions in L1. This way, they found them easy and retained them for a long time.
Prepositional phrases are also very confusing for the EFL learners. The teacher used L1 to explain the meanings
of “break down”, “bring up”, “put up with” etc. Slangs and taboo words are strange to the learners. The teacher
gave the examples of “fat”, “handicapped”, “black” etc. He told the learners in Arabic giving them some
equivalents. Then they got the sense and meanings of these words. Certain grammatical structures are also
difficult to understand for Arab EFL learners. For example, “I go” and “I am going” are taken as the same by the
learners as these structures have no equivalents in Arabic. It is difficult for them to distinguish between present
indefinite and continuous. They identify them from the situation or the continuous does exit at the back of the
minds of the learners. They use the Arabic terminology “(moustamir ”)ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮfor the continuous. Similarly, while
teaching use of “let” the teacher used the Arabic word “(da’ana ”)دﻋﻨﺎ, and for teaching conditionals he used “(lao
kun to ”)ﻟﻮآﻨﺖin L1 (Arabic) and for the use of “can” he used Arabic equivalent “(youstateeh ”)ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ. The
absence of helping verb in Arabic also poses problem for the learners. For example, "My name is Muhammad"
( )اﺳﻤﻰ ﻣﺤﻤﺪis usually produced by the Arab learners of English as "My name Muhammad". Actually, it happens
because of interference of L1 and the teachers overcome this problem by using L1 as well. The teacher also
resorted to Arabic while explaining some difficult vocabulary e.g. “monster city”, blended family, extended
family, nuclear family, single parent, one check family, double check family, stay at home husband etc. There is
general trend of using double subject in Arabic which usually lurks into English by Arabs e.g. Ahmad ho wa talib
jayyad "( "اﺣﻤﺪ هﻮ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﺟﻴﺪAhmad he is a student good). Actually he wanted to say “Ahmad is a good student” but
not “Ahmad he is a student good” as “Ahmad” and “he” can’t be used in a sentence together and "adjective"
after "noun" but this arrangement is a correct structure in Arabic language. Moreover, another teacher told during
an informal discussion that almost every day, he starts his class with little fun in L1. It brings back the learners to
the class and removes boredom and motivates them to learn a new language. Before or after the class, he gives
suggestions in L1 how to improve L2, he told. One more teacher shared the same kind of experience. He told
that he also imparts instructions in L1 about how to attempt question paper and how to behave in the
examination room; or sometimes if role play or when speaking activities are introduced in EFL, learners are
instructed sometimes in L1 as it is less time consuming and more effective.
Classroom Observation Result
4.5
Giving Instructions
4 4
4
Defining New Vocabulary
Items
Explaining Idioms and
Proverbs
Explaining Colloquial
Expressions
Explaining Prepositional
Phrases
Explaining Slang and Taboo
Words
Explaining Grammatical Rules
3.5
Frequency
3
3
33
33 3
3
3
3 3
2.5
2
222
2 2 2 2
2
22 2 2 2 22 2
1.5
1
11 1
11
11
11
1
1 11
1 1111 1
0.5
0
0
T1
T2
0
T3
0
T4
Explaining Complex Ideas
Creating Fun in Language
Class
Giving Suggestions to Learn
Effectively
T5
Teachers
Figure 1. (shows frequency of L1 Use)
60
www.ccsenet.org/elt
English Language Teaching
Vol. 6, No. 1; 2013
5. Discussion on Teachers' Responses
An overwhelming majority (86%) of teachers confirmed the proposition that bilingualism is helpful as a teaching
aid in the EFL classroom. Only a small number of teachers refuted the proposition who could most probably be
the inexperienced or less qualified teachers. Need of bilingualism appears to be more emphatic. That is why
percentage of disagreement is so low. The reason is that the foundation of English in KSA in general is very poor.
English is taught from 6th grade onwards and not with much sincerity especially at school level as it was revealed
by the teachers during informal discussion with them. Therefore, the teachers at the universities have to start
from the scratch hence bilingualism becomes indispensable in EFL classes.
In response to the statement, “the best way to learn L2 is through communicative approach”, the responses
gathered from the respondents were 40% in favour and 60% against this statement. The communicative approach
in learning L2 emphasizes on exclusion of L1 completely. This approach is not fully endorsed by EFL teachers
and moreover is not accepted by the EFL learners. Thus students as well as teachers find it hard to learn L2 more
competently and less painfully considering communicative approach as the best at intermediate level in EFL
context. Therefore, the teachers at KAAU (60%) disregarded the statement that the best way to learn L2 is
through communicative approach. So it confirms the reliance on the use of bilingualism in class.
In response to the statement “students retain L2 vocabulary for a long time with the help of bilingualism”, the
data (50% in favour) corresponds again to the basic assumptions of the present study. This means that without
the use and assistance of L1, it is difficult to teach L2 more accurately. These results show that the respondents
(50%) may have misconceptions about bilingualism when and how it should be used in EFL classrooms; that is
why they are unaware of use of bilingualism.
In response to the statement “bilingualism as a teaching aid means the fair and judicious use of L1 in teaching
and learning a foreign language”, 90% of the teachers strongly agreed to this proposition. This data shows that
bilingualism does not mean the exclusive use of L1 in EFL classrooms rather it means the balanced, fair and
judicious use of L1 in EFL classroom. This would make it more facilitating and helpful to learn L2 in a friendly
environment.
The proposition presented is that “bilingualism makes instruction easier”. 80% of the teachers agreed to this
proposition. This overwhelming majority of teachers endorsed that only through bilingualism or use of L1, L2
can be taught effectively and efficiently. The data appeared in this table is quite natural.
In response to the statement “cultural associations favour bilingualism”, 84% of the teachers gave positive
response i.e. in its support as it is very important for the learners simultaneously to learn L2 and maintain L1.
The data findings strongly support bilingualism without which it will not be very easy for the learners to learn L2
and to maintain L1. Language is a product of particular culture. Without having assimilated cultural associations
that are attached with the linguistic competence and fluency is far more difficult to be achieved.
Language is culture and vice-versa. It does not exist in a vacuum. It is the vehicle of culture. At times, languages
fail to communicate because of cultural gap. These are the moments when parallels of cultural associations are
drawn to establish a rapport. These cultural associations help a great deal to bilingualism in learning L2. The
results of the question are quite in agreement with this view.
The next question asked from the teachers was “Do you think a learner will grasp L2 better if the teacher uses
only the target language?” 85% of the teachers disagreed to the monolingual approach responding to this
question and opted “No” which means that they denied the viability of this question. Results show that the
students’ learning capabilities and performance shall comparatively be less and it would increase and accelerate
the process of learning L2 if L1 is used in EFL classes. Thus the communicative approach in spite of its
advantages is faulty and less productive than the use of bilingualism.
90% of the teachers hold this opinion that use of bilingualism brings practical advantages for the learners. This
refers to famous thesis in ELT that language is a living phenomenon. Therefore, the true expertise uses the
practical vocabulary in a living language, not the use of archaic or obsolete words which the literature of the
language carries. Thus the learners with the help of L1 are able to comprehend and use the language which is
needed most in practical life. Therefore, the result tallies with major theories in English language teaching.
The respondents seem to have at the back of their mind the modern trend that bilinguals have an edge over the
monolinguals even if they are the native English teachers. This is true of every country, be it Arabia, England,
Russia, china or late Chinese and Japanese have also realized the importance of bi/multilingualism and they have
started intensive teaching programmes of other languages.
61
www.ccsenet.org/elt
English Language Teaching
Vol. 6, No. 1; 2013
6. Discussion on Students' Responses
The question about the usefulness of bilingualism asked from the teachers was also asked from the students.
97.9% of the students responded to “yes” option whereas 2.1% of the students selected “no” option.
Overwhelming majority confirmed that bilingualism is helpful as a teaching aid in EFL classroom.
The data shows that bilingualism is not only liked but is needed most in EFL classrooms even for those students
who had already studied the target language for some years. At times it is argued by the linguists that the use of
L1 may be advisable at elementary level but not at advanced or intermediate level.
The argument appears to be logical but the reality is that the students who are the major stake holders are indeed
more interested in the use of L1 by their teachers. Therefore the teachers have to cater for their needs. A cursory
glance at the data shows that a vast majority (97.9%) desired use of bilingualism in EFL classroom.
79% of the respondents agreed and responded in a positive manner towards the question “Is bilingualism less
time consuming in EFL classroom?” It seems quite logical because it is a proven fact when the teacher used L1
during class to explain idioms and phrases, difficult words to explain according to the situation. So the use of
bilingualism while explaining idioms and phrases proved to be economical in terms of time for the learners and
the teachers. On the contrary, the teacher might not succeed using only English approach. The data again refers
to the established opinion of most of the language teachers that bilingualism is unavoidable in a language
classroom. Without use of bilingualism, it will not only be more time consuming for both the teachers and the
students to teach and learn but also leads to communication gap which may rather lead to wrong , misappropriate
and incorrect language learning. However, it takes a long time to slough off wrong learning and sometimes
students carry it with them throughout their lives. Thus the whole process and exercise of learning a language
becomes futile.
79.7% students marked “yes” option in response to the question “With whom are you comfortable in the
classroom? with a monolingual teacher or with a bilingual teacher?” The data shows that almost all the students
showed their liking for “bilingual teacher” because bilingual teacher facilitates the learners with the help of L1.
The learners feel that they can ask “why” or “how” questions from a bilingual teacher and share a concern
whether it be illness or social need or a comment in L1. If the teacher is bilingual, the students will be more
prone to learning owing to feeling confident, safe and heard in the English language environment. The
relationship between the learner and the teacher is crucial and by validating the student via recognizing his/her
language and communicating with the student in L1, a relationship of mutual respect is created and student may
feel the power of being able to use both languages as a tool of communication. High percentage of respondents
towards bilingual teacher proves that bilingualism is useful for more comfortable learning environment where
everyone’s goal will be accomplished; the teacher can teach to a student that is open to learning and English
proficiency is attained.
The question “How important is for you to know English?” was categorized with four different options i.e. “very
important”, “important”, “not important”, “not at all important”. The results display that 24% selected “very
important option, 69.1% opted “important”. Only 4.8% selected “not important”. Moreover, 2.1% of the
respondents responded to the last option “not at all important”. The data shows the level of interest that the
students have about the use of English in their lives. Students in Saudi Arabia wish to learn English even if it is
not used in their daily lives. This is also because English has acquired the status of lingua franca of the world.
With the advent of globalization, everybody envies the use of English, be it one’s home, or workplace, or
entertainment area or conferences etc where English is used extensively. Thus it is true about Saudi students “to
know and learn English has become a world craze”.
The question “How often L1 should be used in the classroom?” has also been categorized with four different
options “a lot”, “sometimes”, “a little”, “never”. The results display that 31.5% selected the option “a lot”, 37%
selected “sometimes”, 22.6% opted “a little”. However, a small number of students with 8.9% selected “never”.
This data points out to another aspect of the bilingualism problem that the use of L1 is necessary, but it should
not be used constantly because this would also hamper the process of language learning to a great extent. The
learners may become too relaxed, may not be very actively involved in it or lose interest because of too much
reliance on the use of L1. Thus as has previously been pointed out, the fair and judicious use of L1 helps but
frequent and persistent use leads to the end of learning a foreign language.
7. Discussion on Teachers’ Interviews
After classroom observation, the teachers whose classes had been observed were interviewed about their
occasional use of L1 in the classroom and how they viewed the common criticism that using L1 reduces the
62
www.ccsenet.org/elt
English Language Teaching
Vol. 6, No. 1; 2013
students’ exposure to L2. The important point is that the teachers were not informed in advance about the
classroom observation. It helped the researcher to collect data for his research in an objective manner. Moreover,
the authenticity and validity of research was ensured through this method. Students and teachers were not
conscious of their use of L1 in the classroom. Almost all the teachers emphatically say that bilingualism is
helpful as a teaching aid in EFL classes. The teachers agreed that overall comprehension of the language at the
initial stages is necessary and this is one area which cannot be facilitated without the aid of L1. They would not
suggest the constant use of L1 because it would hamper linguistic competence and fluency. This would lead to
practical advantages in learning L2 and results in L2 competence. Concepts of learners formed in L1and
explained by the teacher are not to be completely washed out or not completely locked. If teachers are teaching
in such circumstances, bilingualism facilitates their conceptual learning. They believe that the abstract words
compel teacher and learners to employ bilingualism. Majority of teachers who were interviewed assert that
bilingualism is a bridge between the teacher and the learners. Moreover, they say that it is, for sure, motivates
and facilitates learners. Overall the teachers were in favour of bilingualism but some of them emphasized at
different places along with some of the reservations as far as the competence of language learners is concerned.
This is exactly what researchers and scholars in the field of bilingualism claim and assert.
The general idea drawn from these interviews is that bilingualism is essential and helpful when there is no other
option left for the teacher to define or explain the meanings and connotations of a word or a phrase. They are
convinced that use of bilingualism in EFL classes proves fruitful for a productive teaching learning process for
the language learners. They claim it to be their personal experience.
8. Conclusion and Recommendations
Present study shows that the use of bilingualism has an important role in teaching and learning L2 at
intermediate level. The use of bilingualism has been employed as a teaching technique in EFL classes. The
teachers who participated in the present research study indicated that the translation of abstract words, complex
ideas and phrases in L1 is a facility to learn a foreign language. Without the aid of L1, learners would be left
unguided at an early stage of their learning experience. This study also reveals that in EFL classes, use of
bilingualism has played only a supportive role hence the medium of instruction remains, no doubt, English only.
Moreover, the use of bilingualism does not decrease the motivation level of students’ learning English. Use of
bilingualism in EFL classes does not reduce students’ exposure and capacity to communicate well in L2 rather it
substantiates English language learning and it is an immense source of motivation for the EFL learners. It has no
adverse effect on learning as long as it is used with considerable restraint.
In order to aid and facilitate the language learning process with the help of first language, there are certain
recommendations for the teachers, which have been /can be dra...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment