Does bilinguals different language usage cause measurable changes in the shifting aspects of executive function?

the different interactional contexts of bilinguals' conversational exchanges place varying demands on language control which in turn adaptatively alter their cognitive control capacities.

there are 3 different interactional contexts

the duallanguage context

bilinguals use 2 languages L1 and L2, within the same context

Eg: at home and at work (both English and Spanish)

engages a more complex and taxing level of control processes of goal maintenance, conflict monitoring and interference suppression. Therefore facilitates more adaptivecognitive control than either the single language or dense code switching context.

given that bilinguals in a dual-language context should experiencenot only more frequentbut also more qualitative challenging language switching it is conceivable that the dual-language context will promote shifting EF and therefore enhance task switching performance.

bilingualswho mainly engage in a duallanguage context show smaller switch costs than those who mainly engage in a single language context

single language context

bilinguals speak only 1 language in one environment and therefore rarely switch languages

English at home and Spanish at work

codeswitching context

Bilinguals routinely mix the linguistic elements of two languages within a single utterance

States that bilinguals interactional context is a key factor that modulates cognitive advantages in EF.

Specifically bilinguals dual language context engages a more complex and taxing level of control pprocesses of goal maintenance, conflict monitoring and interference suppression.

proposes that language switching in response to an interchange with another speaker incurs greater costs than voluntary language switching.

Participants are prompted to alternate between two different tasks.

Eg: color shape or number letter tasks

Switch costs refer to slower responses on task switch trials that on non switch trials.

So, they reflect the actual cost of switching between different task sets.

SC are driven by local control mechanisms that involve

task-set reconfiguration

It is the ability to change from one task to another

inhibition of proactive interference

ability to regulate interference from the previously formed task-set

Mixing costs

they entail the activation of global control mechanisms that are necessary to monitor task cues, maintain two competing tasks/response sets, and make task-appropriate decisions.

reflect the cost of monitoring and coordinating multiple streams of incoming information.

refer to slower responses on task-repeat trials in mixed-task blocks than in pure blocks.

Pure blocks: consist of a single task

This has led some to argue that bilingual advantages likely reside in switch costs.

typology of code switching

Meaning the alternation between two or more languages

frequent language switching requires greater control of each language. Therefore bilinguals who frequently switch languages will have enhanced task-switching skills.

language switching frequency also modulates inhibitory control which is closely related to task switching.

Some studies have found no correspondance between the percent usage of L1 relative to L2 and self reported language-switching frequency.

adaptative control hypothesis proposes that the challenging quality of bilinguals linguistic practices plays a key role in triggering more adaptive cognitive control.

bilinguals language switching is classified as

intrasentential code switching

eg: mixing linguistics units from two languages within a sentence

characterized by loan words that are integrated into the other languages syntactic context (eg: grammar)

facilitates language production by permitting the speaker to use whatever comes most readily.

does not necessarily entails a substantial shit from one linguistic set to another.

intersentential code switching

eg: interchanging two or more languages between sentences

it is believed that this type of code switching is further influenced by who initiates the discourse.

self initiated intersentential code switching seems to be less costly and relatively less taxing than other initiated intersentential code switchings because it allows sufficient preparation time to reconfigure language sets.

other-initiated is triggered unexpectedly and therefore imposes greater demands on language-set reconfiguration and proactive inhibition-

morefrequent exercise of other-initiated intersentential code switching is likeli to be more beneficial for switch costs than self initiated intersentential code switching

it is more demanding than intrasential as it requires language set reconfiguration and proactive inhibition.

it is possible that an interplay between the participant's age and task demand moderates bilingual advantages in task switching.

this might be due to the differentce between children and adults in terms of cognitive maturation and deteriorations and extent of involvement in challenging cognitive activities other than language switching.

therefore it is not surprinsing that the majority of studies that tested young adults (who have likely reached the peak of their cognitive functioning) have reported either null or inconsistent findings-

in contrast studies that tested either young children or adults have reported relatively consistent bilingual advantages.