Executive Function

〔論説〕 ― ―
The Executive Function and Foreign Language Acquisition/Use

Time to Look at Polyglots - Beyond Bilingualism
Timothy Dean Keeley
Abstract
This paper seeks to examine the cognitive skills of the executive function in relation to
acquisition and use of multiple languages, which continues to gain greater importance in
an increasingly mobile and interactive global society. There is a particular focus on
polyglots and seeking strategies for enhanced executive functions for additional
language acquisition as well as for preventing unintended or negative interference from
other languages when functioning in a given target language. A general description of
the executive function is presented followed by a literature review of how
multilingualism affects the life-long development of the executive function. Most of the
studies related to these effects involve bilingual subjects and focus on the early years of
linguistic development. There is a dearth of studies that involve even trilingual subjects,
let alone the almost complete absence of literature on how successfully acquiring and
functioning in a much greater number of languages affects the dynamics of the
executive function. Thus, in addition to reviewing quantitative studies, this paper seeks
to offer qualitative insights from the perspective of polyglots, given that the author has
the ability to communicate in over 30 diverse languages and has had many opportunities
to explore this subject in consultation with other polyglots.
Introduction
The intent of the research presented in this paper is to examine the cognitive skills of
the executive function in relation to acquisition and use of multiple languages, which
continues to gain greater importance in an increasingly mobile and interactive global
society. There is a particular focus on polyglots and on seeking strategies for enhanced
executive functions for additional language acquisition as well as for preventing unintended
or negative interference from other languages when functioning in a given target language.
This paper uses the terms bilingual, trilingual, multilingual and polyglot. The meaning
― ― 商経論叢第巻第号
of the first two terms is obvious. The term multilingual here is intended to refer to ability
in three or more languages, the same is true for polyglot. However, among the polyglot
community there is a general tendency to view multilinguals as individuals who acquired
and use their languages due to life circumstances while polyglots are thought of as
individuals who have a strong passion for acquiring and using multiple languages and often
intentionally create the life circumstances that facilitate doing so. Thus, the motivation for
acquisition/use is the main distinguishing factor between the two categories.
As discussed in more detail later, the executive function is involved in instances of
both positive (intended) and negative (unintended) transfer between/among languages.
Positive transfer or facilitation occurs when knowledge from one or more languages is
used to understand (passive) or actively produce an educated guess in the target language.
For example, one might use knowledge of one or more Romance languages to guess or
remember a desired word in another by considering the common morphological
differences among the languages (e.g., situación, situação, situation, situazione). The same is
true among Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese where, for example, knowledge of
the first two can assist in guessing or remembering what the Chinese based vocabulary is
in the latter two languages. Another case is where there is lexical similarity of verb roots
with differences in inflections as in Sanskrit-based languages. For example, one can take a
verb root from Nepali and, with knowledge of verbal inflections in Hindi or Bengali, make
an educated guess or remember how to use the verb in the latter two languages. As for
negative transfer or unintended cross-linguistic influence, the situation is usually a case
where the speaker has knowledge and developed competence in the target language, but
interference occurs on lexical, syntactical, or morphological levels. It may even be as a case
in which a speaker temporarily uses the wrong language in a given interaction and/or
experiences temporary blocking of access to the known target language.
There is a dearth of studies related to the possible advantages of multilinguals and
polyglots in regard to executive functions. In addition, there is a multitude of issues
plaguing the present academic studies and literature. A variety of age groups have been
studied; however, the majority of studies focus on children at various stages of cognitive
The polyglot community is defined here as polyglots who interact in social media and/or attend the growing
number of polyglot conferences and gatherings.
The Executive Function and Foreign Language Acquisition/Use Time to Look at Polyglots - Beyond Bilingualism ― ―
and linguistic development, even though it is now beyond dispute that neuroplasticity
(brain plasticity) is a lifelong phenomenon. Often there is a failure to control for IQ and
social economic status (SES), even though both have been shown to effect executive
functions such as working memory (WM). It has been suggested that the benefits of
bilingualism on the executive control system may stem from correlated SES effects, with
participants belonging to a high SES benefitting most (Morton & Harper, 2007).
Furthermore, many studies do not control for the level of attainment in the foreign
language(s) and/or how the languages are used in daily life, even though some studies show
level and language use are important factors when comparing bilinguals and multilinguals
in relation to executive functions (de Bruin, 2019). In a recent study by Kang and Lust
(2019), the researchers concluded that bilingual language proficiency, i.e., degree of
bilingualism (as measured by direct proficiency tests and parents estimates of daily
language use and exposure of both languages) influenced executive function performance.
Additionally, it is important to control for the degree to which multilinguals demonstrate
control of their languages. The results from a study by Festman et al. (2010) suggest that
bilinguals with stronger language control have indeed a cognitive advantage in
administered tests involving executive functions, in particular inhibition, self-monitoring,
problem solving, and generative fluency, and in two of intelligence tests. Though they state
that the direction of the relationship between executive functions and language control
abilities remains unclear, experience from polyglots indicates that controlling languages is
something that can be intentionally developed with experience over time.
Joint activation of known languages requires a mechanism to select appropriately
between these competing systems so that language processing can proceed fluently in the
target language without interference from other languages. That mechanism is part of the
executive control system that is largely based on a network of processes in the frontal
cortex, and the anterior cingulate cortex, a crucial part of the general executive control
network. It has been identified as the center responsible for monitoring and controlling
attention to multiple languages (Abutalebi et al., 2012). A meta-analysis of imaging studies
using fMRI demonstrates that the frontal executive control systems involved in switching
between languages are the same as those generally used for selective attention to non-
verbal executive function tasks (Luk et al., 2012) and that these executive control networks
are used more efficiently in bilinguals than monolinguals, particularly in older bilinguals (e.
g., Gold et al., 2013).
It is reasonable to expect that bilinguals who frequently switch languages will have
enhanced task-switching skills. This is supported by studies such as the one by Hartanto
and Yang (2016), which found that bilinguals who mainly engage in a dual-language context
showed smaller switch costs than those who mainly engage in a single-language context, in
other words the former group more frequently switch between languages. In light of this
observation, Green and Abutalebi (2013) proposed the adaptive control hypothesis, which
holds that the different interactional contexts of bilinguals conversational exchanges place
varying demands on language control, which in turn adaptively alter their cognitive-control
capacities. They distinguish three different interactional contexts: (a) the dual-language
context, in which bilinguals use two languages (L1 and L2) within the same context (e.g., at
home and work); (b) the single-language context, in which bilinguals speak only one
language in one environment, and therefore rarely switch languages (e.g., L1 at home and L
2 at work); and (c) the dense code-switching context, in which bilinguals routinely mix the
linguistic elements (e.g., words) of two languages within a single utterance. It logically
follows that polyglots who demonstrate success in switching between a much larger
number of languages with higher frequency would have even more highly developed task-
switching skills. At least it is indisputable that the greater success in switching between
languages, the greater the inhibitory and cognitive control in relation to language
switching it is self-evident.
Some researchers argue that acquiring and functioning in additional languages even
increases the brain s capacity for plasticity and the degree of structural reorganization is
correlated with performance level in additional languages (Mechelli et al., 2004). Higher
proficiency in additional languages correlates with high gray matter volume in the left
inferior parietal cortex, which has been shown to play an important role in in managing the
balance among know languages. Kroll and Bialystok (2013) argue, bilingual minds are
different not because bilingualism itself creates advantages or disadvantages, but because
bilinguals recruit mental resources differently from monolinguals. These effects of
Switch costs refer to slower responses on task-switch trials than on non-switch trials, and thereby reflect the ac-
tual cost of switching between different task sets.
bilingualism that have been documented for language processing and for cognition more
generally suggest a significant degree of adult plasticity that we would not otherwise see if
research were restricted to speakers of a single language.
Learning involves changes in strength of synapses, the connections between neurons
in gray matter. However, human brain imaging using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
has also revealed structural changes in white matter after learning complex tasks. White
matter is essential for impulse conduction, and so the concept of white matter plasticity
widens the scope of investigation beyond the synapse in considering transmission of
information through neural networks that are critical for learning complex skills and
higher-level cognitive function (Fields, 2010).
White matter volume changes in bilingual children and adults (e.g., Luk et al., 2011).
This observation comes from research looking at early and older bilingual individuals who
have been using both their first and second languages on an everyday basis for many years.
Pliatsikas et al. (2015) performed Tract-Based Spatial Statistics analysis that revealed
higher fractional anisotropy values for bilinguals vs. monolinguals in several white matter
tracts that have been linked to language processing and in a pattern closely resembling the
results reported for older and early bilinguals. Their article fills an important gap in the
literature on structural changes in the brain that are induced by speaking additional
languages. They note that though it has been suggested that early additional language
acquisition and lifelong use affects the structure of white matter of the brain and preserves
its integrity in older age, they demonstrated that similar white matter effects are also
found in bilingual individuals who learn their additional language later in life and are active
users of both languages. Their findings present a strong argument for the general benefits
of additional language learning and the importance of language learning and use in a
naturalistic environment. Since these neurological changes can occur over one s lifetime,
clearly polyglots who are successful at continuously acquiring and using additional
languages experience increasingly greater restructuring and the proposed benefits.
Concerning executive functions, neuroimaging studies have shown overlapping neural
substrates between language control and nonverbal executive control (e.g., De Baene et al.,
2015; Rodríguez-Pujadas et al., 2014), and functional overlap in the left inferior gyrus in
bilinguals, whereas no overlap occurred in monolinguals (Coderre et al., 2015). Furthermore,
the results of various fMRI studies demonstrate that language control, language choice and
switching rely on interrelated processes predominantly engaging frontal subcortical
regions. Some of these regions have been associated with executive functions and cognitive
control in a variety of tasks, what in turn suggests that language control might be
implemented by recruiting such domain general higher control functions (Festman et al.,
2010). Yow et al., (2017) provide evidence of the bilingual advantage in showing that
bilinguals who are more balanced in dual language use have larger working memory and
task mixing resources that buffered against performance decline following language
control. Theoretically, the results of their study add to the current understanding of the
mechanism of a potential bilingual advantage in executive control: language and executive
control share similar resources, and this shared resource can be enhanced by using more
than one language equally frequently.
Nevertheless, there is a bitter fight over whether or not bilingualism (multilingualism)
improves the executive function in general. This paper contains some discussion of the
studies indicating general enhancement of the executive function; however, it is not the
intent to delve deeply into the debate. At the same time, it is logical that executive
functions that are specifically involved in acquisition and use of language should
demonstrate enhancement coinciding with successful acquisition and use of additional
languages. In other words, research on how the development of multilingualism affects the
executive function can be both general and domain-specific. For example, Wen (2012)
proposed that a domain-specific view (rather than a domain general view) be adopted for
constructing complex memory span tasks to measure the executive working memory in
foreign language acquisition studies targeting specific activities or sub-skills (such as
foreign language listening, speaking, reading and writing).
In order to produce a more definitive study, researchers interested in carrying out
quantitative studies in this area might consider coming to an annual Polyglot Conference
and or Polyglot Gathering; in recent years both meetings have reached around 500
participants from around the globe. Most of them would most likely gladly participate in a
study of the executive function. With proper testing it would be possible to get enough
participants to control for age, SES, IQ, number of foreign languages spoken at what levels,
variations in language use, the degree of inhibition the subjects have on negative language
transfer or interference, among other important factors. Such studies could explore
whether increases in the number of languages as well as higher levels of attainment and
inhibition of unintended cross-linguistic interference correlate with higher levels of WM
capacity and general executive functions.
Describing the Executive Functions
There are multiple and competing understandings of what constitutes the executive
functions, thus, for the purposes of this discussion a generally accepted description is
offered here. The Air Traffic Control metaphor is quite useful in describing what has come
to be known as executive functions (Kendall-Taylor, 2010). Executive function skills are
highly interrelated. Just as an air traffic control system requires the interaction of multiple
people - pilots, navigators, controllers, weather forecasters - our human executive
functioning system requires that each type of skill utilize elements of the others. For
example, it takes WM to hold two rules in mind and inhibitory control to ignore one of the
rules in order to flexibly (cognitive flexibility) switch between rules as they change.
Figure 1: Air Traffic Control Metaphor

The Executive Functions are like Air Traffic Control for your Brain
Executive function (EF) skills are built over time (as seen in Table 1), starting as early
as the first year of life, with more complex skills building on the simpler skills that came
before. Generally, there are considered to exist three groups of skills that comprise the
executive functions: (1) Working Memory, (2) Inhibitory Control (including self-control) and
Cognitive Flexibility (including creative thinking and switching between tasks).
A Brief Description of Working Memory
Though sometimes short-term memory (STM) and working memory (WM) are used
interchangeably, WM is actually a theoretical framework of the structure of how memory
manipulation works, in which STM and long-term memory (LTM) both serve extremely
important functions. Both STM and LTM hold information available for WM usage. The
central executive region seems to play a fundamental role in both STM and WM. The
region serves as a temporary storage facility for STM while at the same time making the
memory available for recall and manipulation. The ability to manipulate information is
essentially the theoretical difference between STM and WM. STM is used to describe the
ability to store temporary information for immediate retrieval and discard, while WM is
used to describe the use of information for manipulation.
WM is not part of LTM but is important for LTM to function. WM holds and
manipulates information for a short period of time, before it is either forgotten or encoded
into LTM. If WM is overloaded it can affect the encoding of LTM. WM maintenance
contributes to LTM formation (Ranganath, Michael & Craig, 2005). In order to recall
something from LTM, it must be brought back into WM. The function of retrieving from
LTM in relation to preventing interference from competing languages as well as taking
advantage of positive linguistic transfer is also discussed in this paper.

Thus, WM refers to a limited capacity system that temporarily maintains and
elaborates information in order to support human thought processes, in other words, it
functions to keep things in mind while performing complex tasks such as reasoning,
comprehension and learning (Baddeley, 2003). According to Baddeley s model, WM has
three basic components: a central executive system and two subsidiary storage systems,
the phonological sketch pad (also called the phonological loop - PL) and the visuospatial
sketch pad (VSP). These subsidiary systems are responsible for temporary storing verbal
and nonverbal information as the central executive system processes information in
working memory. Baddeley (2000) supplemented this initial three-component model with
an episodic buffer to account for the way in which the various subsystems could work
together and, in particular, how they could interface with LTM. The episodic buffer is
responsible for integrating and manipulating material; it has limited capacity and depends
heavily on executive processing. It binds together information from different sources into
chunks or episodes, hence the term episodic . Note that research suggests that episodic
memory plays an important role in the acquisition of semantic information, including
vocabulary acquisition (Verfaellie, Croce & Milberg, 1995).
WM is crucial in the initial stage of problem solving and goal-directed behaviour, such
as communication and, of course, functioning in a selected target language in the case of
Figure 2: Conceptualization of the Relationships among Attention, Memory,

Executive Functions and Working Memory
Source: Purdy (2011)

multilinguals and polyglots. WM provides temporary storage and workspace for

information, whereas this information is processed by the executive functions. Purdy (2011)
summarized the interplay between WM and executive functions as seen below in Figure 2.
The PL subsystem is based on experimental evidence for a temporary verbal or
phonological memory system. The PL supports the acquisition of language by providing a
temporary means of storing new words while they are consolidated in phonological LTM
(Baddeley, Papagno & Vallar, 1988). Evidence for this observation is derived from a study
of a patient with a very pure phonological STM deficit, who found it extremely hard to
learn to link new foreign words to their meaning, while performing normally when learning
to link pairs of words in her native language (Baddeley et al., 1988). It is also assumed to
have two basic components; one is temporary speech-related acoustic store and a subvocal
articulatory rehearsal process (Baddeley & Hitch, 2010). The PL uses Broca s area (which
controls motor functions involved with speech production) as a kind of inner voice that
repeats word sounds to hold them in WM.
The PL is not only important in learning new vocabulary in one s mother tongue and
additional languages, it also appears to serve as a part of the process of learning syntax.
One of the ways in which this syntactic development is achieved is by the child learning a
storehouse of multiword language patterns that are used both as models for his or her own
utterances and for the abstraction of the rules governing connected language (e.g. Nelson,
1987; Plunkett & Marchman, 1993). Furthermore, Speidel (1989) has proposed that the
multiword utterances to be learned must first be held in phonological WM.
Cheetham (2014) proposes that the capacity of the PL for both L 1 and L 2 learners
appears to be a reliable indication of both present language levels and later language
growth. This growth, measured in terms of vocabulary acquisition, reading ability, listening
comprehension, and even grammatical ability, seems to be interrelated, but there is
statistical evidence that initially, PL capacity has a causal effect upon vocabulary scores,
but that later on there is a reciprocal relationship. He points to evidence that the role of the
PL in vocabulary acquisition is not something that simply degrades with physical or
cognitive development in children, rather it is something that is most valuable when long-
term memory representations of the target language are still immature or undeveloped.
Experiments with non-word repetition (Service, 1992; Van Bon and Van Der Pilj, 1997)
indicate that it is easier for subjects to remember words that have similar phonetic
qualities to words in their native language than words that do not sound like they come
from their native language. Thus, word likeness appears to be a factor in the capacity of
the PL. The capacity of the PL has been argued to influence vocabulary learning, and the
familiarity of the target materials has been shown to influence capacity (Miller 1956, Simon
1974). Cheetham (2014) points out that since the PL can effectively hold more known words
than unknown words. We can see a very fast, automatic, utilization, or interaction, of
chunks with the short-term and long-term memories. The same is true of capacity for
phrases, clauses and sentences (Miller 1956, Simon 1974). Psychological linguistic
patterning interacts with auditory input, and this interaction results in an effectively
enlarged capacity for the working memory in general.
The VSP s principal function is to create and maintain a visuospatial representation
that persists across the irregular pattern of eye movements that characterize our scanning
of the visual world. It also functions to create and maintain visual images like how to get
somewhere in town or to imagine the layout of furniture in redecorating. Spatial tasks can
interfere with spatial skills such as driving a car, while a more purely visual activity such
as seeing a sequence of pictures or color patches may interfere with the capacity to
remember objects or shapes. These observations along with clinical observations of brain-
damaged patients lead to the assumption that information about space and about objects
with their visual characteristics may be stored separately. It also appears that the
sketchpad may be involved in the storage of movement sequences, suggesting a capacity
to store kinesthetic information as well as visuospatial information (Baddeley & Hitch,
2010).
The central executive regulates the flow of information, coming from the perceptual
organs and from LTM, in and out of the PL and the VSP. The central executive is basically
in charge of orchestrating all the processes occurring in WM (Figure 3).
When we read a target language word or phrase, the image is held in the VSP while
PL may seek to pronounce it and the central executive will match it to any existing
information in LTM. If a match is found the process will stop there; otherwise, if the word/
phrase is new, the central executive will call upon a range of interpretive processes as well
as resources from LTM in order to attempt to decode it.
Figure 3: Conceptualization of the Relationships of Working Memory

Components based on Baddeley s Model
WM will hold any external or internal (retrieved from LTM) information only for a few
seconds. Conscious effort to keep it there by focusing a considerable amount of attentional
resources and processing is necessary. The levels of processing model (Craik and Lockhart,
1972) focuses on the depth of processing involved in memory, and predicts the deeper
information is processed, the longer a memory trace will last. The depth is defined as the
meaningfulness extracted from the stimulus rather than in terms of the number of
analyses performed upon it. Distinctiveness (how much it stands out) and high relevance
(how much it matters to us) of input can also result in the stimulus to stay in WM longer.
Shallow processing only involves maintenance rehearsal (repetition to help us hold
something in the STM) and leads to fairly short-term retention of information. Thus, you
may repeat a new foreign word or phrase numerous times but without creating
distinctiveness or relevance the chances of retention are greatly reduced.
Semantic processing is a form of deep processing, which happens when we encode the
meaning of a word and relate it to similar words with similar meaning. Deep processing
involves elaboration rehearsal which involves a more meaningful analysis (e.g. images,
thinking, associations etc.) of information and leads to better recall - giving words a
meaning or linking them with previous knowledge. McLeod (2007) offers 3 categories of
practical ways to invoke deep processing that can be applied to target words or phrases.
Reworking putting information in your own words or talking about it with someone
else.
Method of loci when trying to remember a list of items, linking each with a familiar
place or route.
Imagery by creating an image of something you want to remember; you elaborate
on it and encode it visually (i.e. a mind map).
Thus, WM can be enhanced by the use of mnemonics such as the Key Word technique
or other associative memory techniques. The Key Word technique seeks to combine both
phonological and visual memory. The sound of the target word is converted into one or
more concepts that can be visualized and then those concepts are associated with an image
representing the actual meaning of the word. Below (Figure 4) is an example of how to
remember Bela Bartok provided by memory-impovement-tips.com.
Figure 4: Example of the Key Word Technique
Source: memory-improvement.com
One implication of the above observations is the benefit of learning foreign languages
in chunks or collocations. Essentially, chunking is learning whole expressions of the target
language in context. The first step of this is practicing the chunk with repetition, which can
lead to consolidation of the phrase and eventually the syntactical patterns in LTM.
Additionally, since pattern familiarity is a factor in enlarging the capacity the PL and WM
in general, polyglots who know a large number and variety of languages not only find it
easier to learn cognate languages with a great deal of lexical similarity, but also non-
cognate languages with similar syntax and phonetic properties. From my own experience,
I can cite examples where high levels in a particular language have helped in acquiring
basically unrelated non-cognate languages in the early stages of acquisition. Examples
include the retroflex sounds in Thai helping with Nepali, the SOV and postpositions in
Japanese helping with some Tibetan-Burmese languages among others.
Multilingual Advantages in Executive Functions

Related to Working Memory Tasks
A study conducted by Morales et al. (2013) demonstrated that bilingual children

performed better than monolingual children in WM tasks. This advantage was more
profound in dealing with more complex tasks, the more complex the tasks the better the
performance of the bilingual children. Likewise, Bialystok, Craik, and Luk (2012) suggest
that bilingual advantages in young adults tend to emerge on tasks or conditions that are
cognitively demanding. For example, in a comparison of bilingual and monolingual adults
(3080 years) using the Simon task , bilinguals outperformed monolinguals only when the
WM demands were high, with the difference increasing with age (Bialystok, Craik, Klein &
Viswanathan, 2004).
The results of these studies suggest that bilingualism does not only improve WM in an
isolated way; rather it affects the global development of executive functions, especially
when they have to interact with each other. Although the WM is developed in the first
years of life, it can be trained and improved with experience. It can be argued that
continuous foreign language acquisition is an excellent way to maintain and even promote
the strength of WM throughout one s lifetime.
Findings from a study focusing on trilinguals by Cockcroft et al. (2019) add to the body
of evidence in support of a bilingual advantage in nonverbal executive control (e.g.,
Bialystok, 2017; Bonifacci et al., 2011; Morales et al., 2013). Their results suggest that such
an advantage exists in the WM functions of multilinguals even when group differences in
verbal IQ and social economic status are not statistically controlled. They note that this
multilingual advantage may not be specific to WM and may reflect the general executive
control strength suggested by Green (1998), which is closely linked to the attentional
The Simon effect is the finding that reaction times are usually faster, and reactions are usually more accurate,
when the stimulus occurs in the same relative location as the response, even if the stimulus location is irrelevant to
the task, for example with the stimulus left and right that randomly appear on either side of a center point.
http://www.cogmed.com/training-of-working-memory Accessed Oct. 24, 2014.
control processes of the central executive (Hernández et al., 2010). Highly proficient
multilinguals may have increased opportunities to strengthen these control mechanisms,
and, when measured by means of a visuospatial modality, these strengths become evident.
Some argue that the association may work in the opposite direction to the commonly
held assumption. That is, individuals with strong executive control functions may be more
likely to become highly proficient in multiple languages (Klein, 2015). However, such an
argument goes against what most polyglots believe in relation to innate talent or special
intellectual gifts . They will usually cite passion for language/culture and hard work for
their success. Many polyglots report being average or even deficient in their early years of
language study, especially at school. Furthermore, research on 23 of the world s most
successful memory athletes indicated that mnemonic training drives distributed rather
than regional changes, reorganizing the brain s functional network organization to enable
superior memory performance (Dresler et al., 2017). Such talent in memory champions and
polyglots is not innate, it is developed. Furthermore, just as the vast majority of memory
champions acquired their skills in adulthood, high levels of ability in multiple languages can
be developed at any age, as the critical period hypothesis for additional language
acquisition has been thoroughly proven be false.
Concerning metacognitive awareness, monolingual, bilingual and multilingual
university students within three cultural contexts, America, Estonia and France, read for
comprehension and remembered sentence final words of comprehended sentences in a
reading span task in their native languages. The results show that bilingual and
multilingual students have better metalinguistic awareness of their language skills in
reading and WM than do students who are monolingual, but who have comparable native
language skills (Ransdell et al., 2006).
I have made these observations during countless interactions with other polyglots at polyglot conferences and
functions. However, it can also be observed by researching the writings (books, articles, blogs) and videos made by
highly successful polyglots.
Inhibitory Control: Multilingualism Strengthens Executive Functions

Related to Inhibiting Unrelated Stimuli
One cognitive advantage of multilingualism relates to the efficiency and flexibility in

processing sound, especially in novel listening conditions. Krizman et al. (2012)
experimentally demonstrated that subcortical encoding of sound is enhanced in bilinguals
and related to executive function advantages. The researchers examined the subcortical
auditory regions of twenty-three bilingual English- and Spanish-speaking teenagers and
twenty-five English-speaking teens. To inspect how bilingualism affects the subjects brain,
they recorded brainstem responses as they heard speech sounds in a silent and noisy
setting. The monolingual and bilingual subjects responded similarly in the quiet condition.
However, against a backdrop of background noise, the bilingual brains were better at
encoding the fundamental frequency of speech sounds known to underlie pitch perception
and grouping of auditory objects, indicating improvements in auditory attention and WM.
The implication is that bilingualism yields functional and structural changes in cortical
regions of the brain dedicated to language processing and the executive function.
Acquiring the ability to function in additional languages can increase efficiency in
processing auditory information and the executive function of paying greater attention to
relevant versus irrelevant sounds.
The right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex plays an important role in inhibiting unrelated
stimuli. This is the part of the brain that plays a large role in executive function, problem
solving, switching between tasks, and focusing while filtering out irrelevant information.
The effort and attention needed to switch between languages triggers more activity in,
and potentially strengthens, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
Evidence for the participation of the dorsolateral cortex in switching languages is provided by Holtzheimer, et al.
(2005).
Li, et al. (2018) applied transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) during language
switching to determine whether modulation of the right dorsolateral cortex would affect
language control mechanisms. All the participants have undergone three types of
stimulations: cathodal stimulation, anodal stimulation and sham stimulation. The sequence
of three stimulations was counterbalanced across participants. After each stimulation,
participants performed picture naming tasks for language switching. Results were largely
consistent with the assumption that cathodal stimulation improves inhibitory control
abilities of unbalanced bilinguals to help them better inhibit interference. This finding
implies that in addition to increased language proficiency, enhanced inhibition also
contributes to improved language control.
Inhibitory Control and Switching between Languages
Bilinguals are faced with a cognitive challenge during speech production: words in
both languages become active to some degree and may compete for selection (e.g., Kroll et
al., 2008), suggesting that cognitive control mechanisms must be in place to handle this
cross-language activation. The strength of these control mechanisms is dependent on
language use. For example, there are studies indicating that bilinguals who frequently
switch between languages show an advantage in cognitive control over bilinguals who do
not switch between languages (Prior & Gollan, 2011; Soveri et al., 2011). Such studies
generally focus on monolinguals or perhaps in rare cases, trilingual individuals. It appears
that the situation faced by polyglots who may have a repertoire of a dozen or so languages
has not been investigated. My own personal experience based on observations of cross-
linguistic interference is that just a small fraction of the more than 30 languages that I have
studied and used are involved in such competition during speech production; and usually
these languages are ones that have been in recent use or are triggered by outside/inside
stimulus representing the language and/or culture. Nevertheless, it is challenge that is
faced by all multilinguals.
Research with older adults found that the number of languages mastered throughout
the lifespan predicted general cognitive task performance, where trilinguals outperformed
bilinguals, and multilinguals outperformed both bilinguals and trilinguals. This effect was
found even after controlling for level of education and was observed within a group of
individuals from low social economic status circumstances, who received very little
schooling (Kavé, et al., 2008).
Other research demonstrates that bilinguals have an inhibitory advantage over
monolinguals in several extra-linguistic domains. Using the Simon Task, which putatively
measures inhibitory control, Bialystok, et al. (2004) illustrate that early bilinguals are faster
and show less of a Simon effect than monolinguals, a disparity that becomes more
pronounced in late adulthood. The posited mechanisms responsible for this advantage is
enhanced inhibitory control and selective attention, due to life-long daily use of two
languages. It would be logical to assume that inhibitory control in individuals who function
in multiple languages on a daily basis may have even stronger inhibitory control and this
assumption may be an interesting area for quantitative study.
There is a direct connection between inhibitory control, especially in the case of
inhibiting one s dominant language(s), and the ability to switch to other languages in one s
language repertoire. Linck et al. investigated the role of domain-general inhibitory control
in trilingual speech production. Taking an individual differences approach, they examined
the relationship between performance on a non-linguistic measure of inhibitory control (the
Simon task) and a multilingual language switching task for a group of fifty-six native
English (L1) speakers learning French (L2) and Spanish (L3). Better inhibitory control was
related to reduced switch costs, but only when switching into or out of the more dominant
L1, where inhibitory control has been theorized to be most important (Green, 1998). The
results provide evidence of a direct link between inhibitory control abilities and language
switching capabilities and suggest constraints on the conditions under which a domain-
general inhibitory control mechanism supports language switching.

A study by Barbu et al. (2018) with two groups of proficient bilingual adults, matched
for age, gender, second-language proficiency and socio-cultural status, revealed that high-
frequency language switchers responded more quickly in the task assessing cognitive
flexibility. The results suggest that language-switching frequency is likely an underlying
factor in the enhanced cognitive flexibility of proficient bilinguals.
Cognitive Flexibility and Multilingualism/Multiculturalism
There are various definitions of cognitive flexibility, however, researchers tend to

agree that cognitive flexibility is a component of executive functioning, higher-order
cognition involving the ability to control one s thinking (Zelazo, 2010). Other aspects of
executive functioning include inhibition (part of the ability to stay focused and/or create
coherent patterns of thought), planning (imaging and evaluating possible future scenarios),
and organization. Cognitive flexibility is highly connected to a number of these abilities,
including inhibition, planning and WM (Miyake et al., 2000).
Cognitive flexibility is the third core executive function and it builds on Inhibitory
Control and WM; thus, it comes in much later in development (Davidson et al. 2006). One
aspect of cognitive flexibility is being able to change perspectives spatially (e.g., What
would this look like if I viewed it from a different direction? ) or interpersonally (e.g., Let
me see if I can see this from your point of view ). To change perspectives, we need to
inhibit (or deactivate) our previous perspective and load into WM (or activate) a different
perspective. It is in this sense that cognitive flexibility requires and builds on inhibitory
control and WM (Diamond, 2012). This aspect will be discussed further in this paper since
the ability to strongly identify with other languages and cultures (the creation of new
linguistic/cultural identities) is a key factor in achieving higher levels of native-like speech
and communication capabilities in additional languages, as well as in inhibiting cross-
linguistic interference in multilinguals.
Deák (2003) asserts that language reflects and facilitates our most pervasive, open-
ended manifestations of cognitive flexibility. Language functions to enable fast, flexible
production and reconstruction of a virtually unlimited range of selectively sculptured
mental representations. Cognitive flexibility is required for everyday language processing,

because most of us do not inhabit fully predictable and familiar linguistic environments or
use only learned scripts and sequences to produce and understand words, utterances, and
discourse.
Functioning in cross-cultural environments and in foreign languages requires an
extremely high level of adaptability to new environmental stimuli, different norms of
processing such stimuli, and the ability to function in a novel system of symbolic meaning
(language embedded in culture). Thus, it should be expected that cognitive flexibility in
terms of dealing with other languages and cultures is enhanced in people who successfully
do so.
Understanding how to learn, how to deal with the habits of your cognitive system, how
to gain cognitive and psychological flexibility through fostering brain plasticity, and how to
deal with the linguistic/cultural identity-related emotions associated with mimicking
native speakers of different dialects and languages, are important factors in determining
success or failure. Heavily accented speech in a foreign language is often the result of not
being flexible when it comes to prosody forcing your mother-tongue prosody on the
language you are learning. Many people hold on to the prosody of their mother tongue
when they learn foreign languages and they sometimes become multilingual with an
orientation toward a mono-linguistic/cultural identity.
In the context of foreign language acquisition, the term ego refers to a person s
awareness of his/herself in relation to others in terms of self-expression through language
and associated communicative behavior. Language ego permeability deals with both social
and affective factors. The tendency to develop a rigid identity as we mature can make
adult learners more self-conscious than younger language learners who may be more
flexible in modifying or expanding their identity. Identities are formed in sociocultural
contexts that are particular to each individual. A lack of language ego permeability and
rigid cultural identification can be stumbling blocks for adults learning another language,
particularly in areas of phonology, accent, and fluency. Language ego permeability also
refers to the ability to move back and forth between languages and the different language
personalities that develop in the process of acquiring the languages.
Ehrman (1999) reasons that thickness or thinness of ego boundaries determine the
amount of fluidity in mental categories in relation to one s identity, one s relation with other
people, and other ways of perceiving the world. Too much fluidity in identity can lead to a
pathological disorder in which there is an inability to maintain a stable sense of self.
However, a high degree of fluidity offers certain advantages for communicative SLA as
long as the learner has the means to impose cognitive structure on his/her experience.
Contrarily, too much stability in identity typified by thick ego boundaries imposes too
much stability of identity and compartmentalization that restricts adaptability to foreign
languages and cultures. Thin-boundary learners tend to mimic the pronunciation and
accents of native speakers with greater ease in the sense it seems to come more naturally
without excessive explicit cognition.
Effective communication necessarily requires being able to transmit your intended
meaning and understand the intended meaning of others. This requires socio-cultural
knowledge of the context and the flexibility to adapt to the underlying socio-cultural
differences in a given situation.
Multilingualism Can Promote Divergent Thinking and

Conscious Attention-Demanding Processing
A study by Kharkhurin (2008), argues that, in addition to advantages in conscious

attention-demanding processing, bilinguals may also exhibit enhanced unconscious
divergent thinking. The study reveals bilinguals superiority on divergent thinking tasks
that require the ability to simultaneously activate and process multiple unrelated concepts
from distant categories. Divergent thinking was facilitated by bilinguals proficiency in two
languages, the age of acquisition of these languages and the length of exposure to the new
cultural settings that accompanies the acquisition of a new language. A specific
architecture of bilingual memory in which two lexicons are mutually linked to the shared
conceptual system is theorized to facilitate the functioning of the language mediated
concept activation, thereby encouraging bilinguals divergent thinking performance. These
observations seem to naturally fit with the concept that acquiring a new language/culture
offers a different perspective or worldview.
Negative Effects of Anxiety on the Executive Function and Language Switching
According to Derakshan and Eysenck (2009) there are two major limitations with
using cognitive interference to explain the adverse effects of anxiety on performance. First,
the main prediction is that task-irrelevant processing in the form of worry causes anxious
individuals to perform tasks worse than non-anxious individuals who are believed to
experience fewer task-irrelevant thoughts. However, studies do not always show distinct
differences between low-anxious and high-anxious groups. The problem is that the effects
of anxiety on performance are not always directly related to worrying. It is an
oversimplification to assume that the effects of anxiety on performance are a direct result
of being worried. Second, interference theory does not provide a clear picture of the
components of the cognitive system that are directly affected by worrying.
Processing efficiency theory addresses this first problem by distinguishing between
performance effectiveness and processing efficiency. We can easily measure performance
effectiveness in terms of the quality of the performance. Processing efficiency refers to the
relationship between the amount of effort and performance effectiveness. Thus, while task-
irrelevant thoughts such as worry and self-preoccupation may lower performance
efficiency, they do not necessarily always lead to lower performance. Worrisome thoughts
may enhance motivation in anxious individuals to minimize the adverse effects of anxiety.
They may apply greater effort at the task use additional processing resources. In other
words, this observation suggests that anxiety impairs processing efficiency more than
performance effectiveness (Derakshan & Eysenck (2009). Nevertheless, task-irrelevant
processing (irrelevant thoughts that come to mind) affects the WM system.
In examining the results of experiments involving high-anxiety groups versus low
anxiety groups, Derakshan and Eysenck (2009) suggest that anxiety reduces the available
capacity of the central executive but has minimal effects on the PL and VSP. On the one
hand, worry-related thoughts reduce the cognitive efficiency of carrying out tasks that
require central executive involvement. On the other hand, concentrating on these tasks
reduces worry-related thoughts. They propose the attentional control theory to specify
which functions are more or less affected by anxiety. Among the functions of the central
executive is switching attention between tasks, selective attention and inhibition, updating
working memory contents, and coding representations of time and place in working
memory. Note that selective attention and inhibition along with updating WM contents are
very important components of learning and functioning in additional languages.
Attentional control theory predicts that anxiety affects performance via its adverse
effects on attention control, a key function of the central executive. It adopts the definition
of attentional control in which there is a distinction between top-down goal driven or
controlled processes and bottom-up driven processes. It is assumed that there are two
attentional systems: one influenced by the individual s current goals, expectations, and
knowledge (top-down goal driven system), and the other is the stimulus-driven system,
influenced by salient stimuli. Attentional control theory postulates that anxiety disrupts
the balance between these two systems by enhancing the influence of stimulus driven
bottom-up processes over the efficient top-down goal driven processes. Anxiety is
associated with enhanced amygdala activation and reduced recruitment of prefrontal
cortical areas of the brain that are heavily involved in top-down regulation of attention
especially when attentional focus is required for efficient task performance. In other words,
anxiety affects attentional control: a key function of the central executive control
component of WM (Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009). This discussion is closely related to
Krashen s (1982) affective filter hypothesis and Schumann s (1997) view of the neurobiology
of affect in language.
Though there is no consensus concerning the number and nature of functions of the
central executive, extensive empirical evidence supports three functions: inhibition,
shifting, and updating (Miyake et al., 2000; Friedman & Miyake, 2004). We can examine
these in how they may relate to oral performance in a foreign language. Inhibition involves
using attentional control to resist disruption or interference from task-irrelevant stimuli or
responses, which represents negative attentional control for example, speaking in the
target language and inhibiting non-target language interference. Shifting involves using
attentional control to shift attention flexibly to ensure that it remains on task-relevant
stimuli of current importance, which is using attentional control in a positive way to
enhance task performance for example, staying within the target language and
promoting effective input in the target language. Updating involves updating and
monitoring of working memory representations, which is concerned with transient storage
of information involving mainly short-term memory rather than attentional control for
example holding words and structures of the target language in mind for use. Derakshan
and Eysenck (2009) conclude that anxiety not only impairs processing efficiency more than
performance effectiveness, it also impairs the inhibition function and the shifting function.
The adverse effects of anxiety under distraction conditions are greater when the task-
irrelevant stimuli are threat-related rather than neutral (Bar-Haim et al., 2007). So, when
you are speaking a foreign language and you are worried about how someone perceives
your performance, in other words anxious about being perceived as a poor performer, then
this anxiety has great potential to disrupt your executive functions than if you do not have
these ego-threatening distractions. Being anxious about performance is different than
simply wanting to perform well. Threat-related stimuli can be external in terms of the
situation in which you are speaking the foreign language, such as the people you are talking
to, or internally generated such as negative thoughts about your ability. Anxious
individuals have an attentional bias for threat-related stimuli and find it harder than non-
anxious individuals to disengage from such stimuli (Bar-Haim et al. (2007). In terms of
managing anxiety, it is helpful to be aware that we can be in control of our reaction to
external stimuli. In reality, we are responsible for our anxiety. To say that someone makes
you nervous seems acceptable, but actually realizing that we allow someone to make us
nervous gives us power to deal with it. Anxiety-reducing breathing techniques can also be
learned and practiced as an effective way to help deal with performance anxiety in foreign
languages. Furthermore, don t allow the desire for perfection in the target language reach
a point where it produces negative effects.
Gudykunst and Hammer (1998) proposed the Anxiety and Uncertainty Model (AUM),
which has 24 axioms and 50 theorems that may serve as a guide for reducing uncertainty
and anxiety. For example, self-concept (Axiom 3) states that an increase in our self-esteem
(pride) when we interact with strangers will produce a decrease in anxiety and an increase
in our ability to predict behavior accurately. Mindfulness also plays an important role in the
AUM theory and model. Effective communication is made possible by our ability to
mindfully manage our anxiety and reduce our uncertainty about ourselves and about the
people with whom we are communicating. Martin and Nakayama (2000) say the theory
predicts that the most effective communicators are people who have a solid self-concept
and self-esteem, have flexible attitudes (a tolerance for ambiguity, empathy) and behaviors,
and create complex and flexible categorizations of others.
Self-Esteem, Positive Trait Associations and Positive States that Boost the
Executive Functions
Bengtsson et al. (2011) carried out experiments with college students to examine how
priming for self-esteem influences the monitoring of one s own performance. Social cues
have subtle effects on us, often without our being aware of them. One explanation for this
influence involves implicit priming of trait associations. In order to study this effect,
Bengtsson and her research associates activated implicit associations in the participants of
being clever or being stupid that were task relevant, and studied its behavioral impact on
an independent cognitive task (the n-back task, which is a continuous performance task
that is commonly used as an assessment in cognitive neuroscience). Activating a
representation of clever caused participants to slow their reaction times after errors on
the working memory task, while the reverse pattern was seen for associations to stupid .
Critically, these behavioral effects were absent in control conditions. Using functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), they show that the neural basis of this effect involves
the anterior paracingulate cortex (area 32) where activity tracked the observed behavioral
pattern, increasing its activity during error monitoring in the clever condition and
decreasing in the stupid condition. The data provide a quantitative demonstration of how
implicit cues, which specifically target a person s self-concept, influences the way we react
to our own behavior and point to the anterior paracingulate cortex as a critical cortical
locus for mediating these self-concept related behavioral regulations.
Bengtsson and her colleagues showed that participants brains were acting differently
when they made a mistake, according to whether they had been primed with the word
clever or with the word stupid . When they were primed with the word clever and then
made an error, there was enhanced activity in the medial prefrontal cortex. This increased
activity was not seen after people gave a correct answer. However, importantly, it was also
not seen when the subjects had been primed with the word stupid. The frontal lobes of the
brain are involved in multiple high-level processes, one of which is executive functions.
Identifying future goals and recognizing the actions that will lead to achieving those goals
are important executive functions. Priming with the word clever can increase self-
confidence or self-esteem. The activity observed in this experiment when primed with
clever appears to correspond with the motivation to and actual action of learning from
mistakes . If you are clever then you learn from your mistakes, while if you are stupid
then mistakes are natural and any effort to learn from them seems to be a useless
endeavor. The motivation to do well leads to treating errors as being in conflict with one s
ideals for oneself.
We can extrapolate from these findings in order to comment on how positive priming
may augment the executive functions related to performance speaking foreign languages.
Positive priming may come in such overt ways as compliments on how well you speak the
language or even from self-priming. They can also be subtle cues given off by the
interlocutors, however, in such cases the possibility of negative priming may be greater
than in the case of overt comments. Nevertheless, if positive priming can be achieved then
there is a greater ability to learn from your mistakes and inhibit them from affecting your
performance in the target language(s).
The brain in positive states (and optimistic states) performs considerably better than it
does in negative, neutral, or stressed states. Intelligence, creativity, and energy levels rise.
Dopamine floods into your system when you are positive and the research of Sharot et al.
(2012) shows that as dopamine levels increase, prediction bias increases in an optimistic
direction people are more likely to have an optimistic outlook. Positive and optimistic
states can enhance learning and general mental functions. Dopamine is the chemical
neurotransmitter most closely associated with attention, memory storage, comprehension,
and executive function. The brain is believed to make associations between specific cues
and these desirable states or goals. Dopamine activity can be evaluated through
neuroimaging and it has been found that dopamine release is increased in brain centers
associated with learning and memory in response to rewards and positive experiences.
Research has found that the brain released more dopamine into these learning circuits
when the individual was playing, laughing, exercising, and receiving acknowledgement for
achievement (Salamone & Correa, 2002).
Cross-linguistic Interference Qualitative Data from Polyglots
Cross-language interactions and competition occur not only with lexicon (vocabulary)
but also at the level of the grammar as well. Studies using a variety of methods have shown
interactions across languages at the level of the syntax (e.g., Bernolet, Hartsuiker, &
Pickering, 2007; Dussias & Cramer Scaltz, 2008; Kroll & Dussias, 2013). Accent and prosody
may also be affected since many polyglots, especially those who achieve high levels of
native-like accents, tend to strongly demonstrate the chameleon effect. Thus, the
phenomena of interference may occur on different levels of language usage such as
phonetic (pronunciation, accent and prosody), morphological, grammatical, lexical and
syntactical.
Researchers generally agree that cross-linguistic in fluence is most likely to occur
between languages which are closely related rather than those which are not (e.g. Cenoz
2001; De Angelis, 2007). These researchers also acknowledge that in multilinguals there are
various interactions between non-native languages and a simultaneous influence of more
than one language on the target language being acquired/used. Thus, De Angelis (2007)
speaks of combined cross-linguistic influence in which there is a many-to-one type
interference. Among the factors most frequently discussed in the literature are typological
proximity, psychotypology, target/source language proficiency, order of acquisition of
particular languages, recency of use, type of exposure and length of residence (De Angelis
2007; Cenoz 2001).
Some researchers have come to the conclusion that polyglots or multilingual learners
are different from L2 learners and that there is something special about having more than
two languages (Cook, 2008; De Bot & Jaensch, 2015). Thus, in order to offer additional
qualitative data, comments from polyglots related to cross-linguistic interference are
presented below.
Chartrand and Bargh (1999) describe the chameleon effect as the perception-behavior link in social interaction.
Their experimental evidence indicated that (1) the motor behavior of participants unintentionally matched that of
strangers with whom they worked on a task, (2) mimicking the posture and movements facilitates the smoothness
of interactions and increases liking between interaction partners, and (3) dispositionally emphatic individuals exhibit
the chameleon effect to a greater extent than do other people.
Concerning Types of Cross-linguistic Interference and Frequency
⇐
Words that sound the same or similar but with different meanings in the languages of
their origins are more likely to be a source of mistakes than words that sound different.
⇐
In languages with lexical and grammatical similarities, such as Slavic languages, the
interference may often be grammatical, for example, case inflections or verbal
inflections; and not just false cognates.
⇐
Cross-linguistic interference usually occurs from languages that have been recently
activated, and in the case of many polyglots, it tends to come from languages other than
one s mother tongue.
⇐
Continuous switching between multiple languages, something that often occurs at a
polyglot event, may be highly successful at first but there comes a point where
performance can be drastically reduced when there is no time to rest.
⇐
Cross-linguistic interference in a language in which one has developed considerable
competence may occur more often after an extended period of non-use but tends to
quickly decrease with increased use of the language, particularly when interacting
extensively with native speakers of the target language.
⇐
Interjections, when quickly and emotionally reacting to something, tend to be a common
source of unintended mixing of languages.
⇐
Exhaustion or frustration may lead to increased interference.
⇐
Loss of confidence in the target language can lead to greater interference.
⇐
Something that stimulates a memory that occurred in a different language environment
may lead to interference from that language.
Concerning Prevention of Cross-linguistic Interference
⇐
In general, the higher level of proficiency in a given language, the less likely cross-
linguistic interference will occur.
⇐
At a polyglot event, it is helpful to listen to others speak the target language for a while
before actively participating. Or get a person to stay in the target language even if you
code-switch for a while. This is something I find quite necessary when speaking in
numerous Slavic languages.

⇐
When feeling confident in the target language fluency is enhanced and interference
from other languages is reduced. Confidence often increases with both explicit and
implicit positive feedback from the interlocutor(s). On the other hand, it takes mental
and emotional energy to prevent a loss of confidence when the feedback is negative.
⇐
Cross-linguistic interference is minimized when one can feel the language . Feeling the
language allows for the creation of a space in the psyche for the language, a sort of
room that it occupies. The walls of the room become stronger as the contents of the
room become richer through meaningful interaction with the language, its people, and
culture. This feeling the language is associated with feeling a part of the culture in
which the language has been used, bringing back memories and feelings associated with
experiences that took place in the cultural context of the target language. It is harder to
be in tune with this feeling (flow) when involved in a monologue to demonstrate
proficiency in the target language than when interacting with a representative from the
target culture.
⇐
One polyglot stated he does not mix the additional languages Afrikaans and Dutch
because they feel different.
⇐
Another polyglot speaks of entering a different mind space for each language.
Sometimes it needs priming, like watching a movie in the language or listening to the
radio in the target language.
⇐
Intentionally becoming multilingual and multicultural increases the potential and
likelihood of expressing the chameleon effect that automatic adaptation of our
physical and linguistic behavior to smooth and promote social interaction in diverse
socio-cultural contexts. When doing so successfully, cross-linguistic interference tends to
be greatly reduced.
⇐
The willingness to, and thus ultimately, the ability to mimic the speech and non-speech
patterns of communication and interaction embedded in the target language and culture
helps prevent cross-linguistic interference.
⇐
Even a language in which there is a very high level of competence may be temporarily
blocked. This can usually be overcome by some stimulus that primes or activates the
blocked language again, for example, listening to someone speak in the blocked
language.
⇐
One polyglot recommends memorizing the same sentences in both languages (laddering
from one language to the next) in order to teach your mind to distinguish them. (The
contrastive approach to language teaching started long ago in mid-20 th century with
the work of Lado, Dulay, Krashen, Burt, Kachru, among others).
⇐
Similarly, it has been suggested that if there are two particular languages that tend to
cause interference, it can be useful to study and compare the same sentences or longer
texts written in the languages. Additionally, systematically practicimg translation back
and forth between the languages can increase control.
⇐
Likewise, one method of avoiding interreference between related languages is to study
the related language in one of the similar languages you already know. For example, if
Spanish is one your strong foreign languages then use it to study Portuguese.
⇐
A strong sensitivity to how each language has its own unique musical qualities may help
avoid lexical interference. This observation may receive some support from the fact
that neurologists have found that musical and language processing occur in the same
area of the brain, and there appear to be parallels in how musical and linguistic syntax
are processed (Maess & Koelsch, 2001).
⇐
Refining your pronunciation in each language and in the process becoming very aware
of differences in the phonology among the languages you know can help avoid lexical
interference from similar sounding words in different languages. This is also related to
mimicking prosody and accents of native speakers.
⇐
The stronger the linguistic/cultural identity formed in a target language, the greater
resistance the language has to interference from other languages.
⇐
Imaging that a particular native speaker is speaking through you can be an effective
mind game. It is most effective if there is a certain native speaker who has served as a
model for pronunciation and prosody (intonation, tone, stress and rhythm).
⇐
Try to bring back memories of situations in which you spoke the target language well.
This involves reexperiencing the feelings you had at that time. Note that memories are
tagged with language, such that part of the conceptual representations that are
retained within a memory are typically encoded in the language in which it was
experienced (Kazanas et al., 2019).
⇐
A high-level self-awareness and control such as those induced by fasting, meditation and
yoga can facilitate greater control of accents and switching between languages. The
factors include decreased anxiety, expansion of emphatic potential, expansion of the
ability to monitor and adjust somatic states.
Conclusion
Executive functions play a critical in the successful acquisition and use of additional
languages. There is a lively debate about how multilingualism might enhance general
executive functions. One of the main reasons for the debate is a lack of investigating and
controlling for various factors such as age, IQ, social economic status, level of attainment in
the foreign language(s) and/or how the languages are used in daily life, the ability to
prevent cross-linguistic interference, the amount and frequency of switching between
languages, among other potentially critical factors that must be taken into consideration in
order to have more definitive results.
Furthermore, there is a dearth of studies that involve even trilingual subjects, let alone
the almost complete absence of literature on how successfully acquiring and functioning in
a much greater number of languages affects the dynamics of the executive functions.
There is a dire need to go beyond bilingualism, the simplest and least sophisticated form of
multilingualism. Such studies could also explore whether increases in the number of
languages as well as higher levels of attainment and inhibition of unintended cross-
linguistic interference correlate with higher levels of WM capacity and general executive
functions. An ever-increasing number of polyglots from around the globe now gather at
least 3 times a year for major polyglot events, so carrying out such research has become
more obtainable. Finally, this paper provides quantitative input from polyglots concerning
the main types of cross-linguistic interference as well as possible strategies for preventing
them. This type of input should be taken into consideration when investigating the
executive functions in relation to multilingualism.
References
Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P. A., Green, D. W., Hernandez, M., Scifo, P., Keim, R., Cappa, S.F. & Costa, A. (2012).
Bilingualism tunes the anterior cingulate cortex for conflict monitoring. , (22): 2076-2086.
Antoniou, M., Gunasekera, G. & Wong P. C. M. (2013). Foreign language training as a cognitive therapy for age-
related cognitive decline: A hypothesis for future research. , 37 (10) Part 2:
2689-2698.
Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. , 143, 233-
262.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence
from the Simon task. , 19, 290-303.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals.
, 34, 859-873.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain.
, 16, 240-250.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? ,4
(11): 417-423.
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. , 4: 829-
839
Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S. E. & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device.
, 105 (1): 158-173.
Baddeley, A. D. & Hitch, G. J. (2010). Working memory. , 5 (2): 3015.
Baddeley, A. D., Papagno, C. & Vallar, G. (1988). When long-term learning depends on short-term storage.
, 27: 586-595.
Barbu, C., Orban, S., Gillet, S., & Poncelet, M. (2018). The Impact of Language Switching Frequency on Attentional
and Executive Functioning in Proficient Bilingual Adults. , 58 (1): 115-127. doi:10.5334/pb.392.
Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related
attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: A meta-analytic study. , 133: 1-24.
Bengtsson, S. L., Dolan, R. J. & Passingham, R. E. (2011). Priming for self-esteem influences the monitoring of one s
own performance. , 6 (4): 417-425.
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Shared syntactic representations in bilinguals: Evidence for
the role of word-order repetition. , 33 (5),
931-949.
Bonifacci, P., Giombini, L., Bellocchi, S.,&Contento, S. (2011). Speed of processing, anticipation, inhibition and working
memory in bilinguals. , 14, 256-269.
Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language
acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen and U. Jessner (eds.),
, 8-20. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University (2011). Building the Brain s Air Traffic Control System:
How Early Experiences Shape the Development of Executive Function: Working Paper No.11. http://www.
developingchild.harvard.edu.
Chartrand, T. L. & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction.
, 76 (6): 893-910.
Cheetham, D. (2014). The phonological loop and language acquisition. , 50: 47-64.
Cockcroft, K., Wigdorowitz, M., & Liversage, L. (2019). A multilingual advantage in the components of working
memory. , 22(1), 15-29. doi:10.1017/S1366728917000475
Coderre, E. L., Smith, J. F., van Heuven, W. J., & Horwitz, B. (2015). The Functional Overlap of Executive Control and
Language Processing in Bilinguals. (3): 471-488. doi:10.1017/S
1366728915000188
Cook, V. (2008). Multi-Competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language acquisition research? In Z. Han (ed.),
, pp. 16-26. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.
, 11, 671-684.
Diamond A. (2012). Executive functions. , 64:135-168.
Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C. & Diamond A. (2006). Development of cognitive control and executive
functions from 4-13 years: evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching.
, 44:2037-78.
Deák, G.(2003). The development of cognitive flexibility and language abilities.
, 31: 271-328.
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
De Baene, W., Duyck, W., Brass, M., & Carreiras, M. (2015). Brain circuit for cognitive control is shared by task and
language switching. , 27(9): 1752-1765.
De Bot, K. & Jaensch, C. (2015). What is special about L 3 processing? , 18 (2):
130-144.
De Bruin A. (2019). Not All Bilinguals Are the same: A call for more detailed assessments and descriptions of
bilingual experiences. (Basel, Switzerland), 9 (3): 33. doi:10.3390/bs9030033.
Derakshan, N. & Eysenck, M. W. (2009). Anxiety, processing efficiency and cognitive performance: New
developments from attentional control theory. , 14 (2): 168-176.
Dresler, M., Shirer, W. R., Konrad, B. N., Müller, N. C. J., Wagner, I. C., Fernández G., Czisch, M. & Greicius, D. (2017).
Mnemonic training reshapes brain networks to support superior memory. , 93 (5): 1227-1235.
Dussias, P. E., Cramer Scaltz, T. R. (2008). Spanish-English L2 speakers use of subcategorization bias information in
the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. , 128 (3): 501-513.
Ehrman, M. E. (1999). Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning. In J. Arnold (Ed.),
: 68-86. New York: Cambridge.
Green D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. , 1: 67-81.
Green D. W., Abutalebi J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: the adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 25: 515-530.
Gold, B. T., Kim, C., Johnson, N. F., Kriscio, R. J. & Smith, C. D. (2013). Lifelong bilingualism maintains neural
efficiency for cognitive control in aging. , 33: 387-396.
Gudykunst, W. B. & Hammer, S. (1988). Strangers and hosts: an uncertainty reduction based theory of intercultural
adaptation. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), : 106-139.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
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. , 6 (5): 1-12.
Fields R. D. (2010). Neuroscience. Change in the brain s white matter. (New York, N.Y.), 330 (6005): 768-769.
Friedman, N. P. & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-
variable analysis. , 133: 101-135.
Hartanto A., Yang H. (2016). Disparate bilingual experiences modulate task-switching advantages: A diffusion-model
analysis of the effects of interactional context on switch costs. , 150: 10-19.
Kang, C. & Lust, B. (2019). Code-switching does not predict Executive Function performance in proficient bilingual
children: Bilingualism does. , 22(2): 366-382.
Kavé, G., Eyal, N., Shorek, A., & Cohen-Mansfield, J. (2008). Multilingualism and cognitive state in the oldest old.
, 23, 70-78.
Kazanas, S. A., Mclean, J. S. & Altarriba, J. (2019). Emotion and emotion concepts: Processing and use in monolingual
and bilingual speakers. In J. W. Schwieter (ed.)
, 313-333. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Kendall-Taylor, N. (2010). Air traffic control for your brain: Translating the science of executive function using a
simplifying model. .
Kharkhurin, A. (2008). The effect of linguistic proficiency, age of second language acquisition, and length of exposure
to a new cultural environment on bilinguals divergent thinking. , 11(2), 225-
243.
Klein, R.M. (2015). On the belief that the cognitive exercise associated with the acquisition of a second language
enhances extra-linguistic cognitive functions: is type 1 incompetence at work here? , 73, 340-341.
Kong A. P-H., Abutalebi, J., Lam, K. S-Y. & Weekes, B. (2014) Executive and Language Control in the Multilingual
Brain. , 2014: 1-7.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). . Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krizman, J., Marian, V., Shook, A., Skoe, E. & Kraus, N. (2012). Subcortical encoding of sound in enhanced in bilinguals
and relates to executive function advantages. , 109 (20): 7877-7881.
Kroll, J. F. & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for language processing and
cognition, , 25 (5): 497-514,
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S., Misra, M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory
processes. , 128, 416-430.
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E. (2013). The comprehension of words and sentences in two languages. In: Bhatia T, Ritchie
W, editors. . 2nd. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; pp. 216-243.
Hernández, M., Costa, A., Fuentes, L.J., Vivas, A.B., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2010). The impact of bilingualism on the
executive control and orienting networks of attention. , 13, 315-325.
Holtzheimer, P., Fawaz, W., Wilson, C. & Avery, D. (2005). Repetitive Transcranial magnetic stimulation may induce
language switching in bilingual patients. , 94 (3): 247-7.
Li, B., Liu, H., Pérez-Fernández, A. & Xie, N. (2018). Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over right
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves language control during language switching. ,
351. 10.1016/j.bbr.2018.05.026.
Linck, J., Schwieter, J. & Sunderman, G. (2012). Inhibitory control predicts language switching performance in
trilingual speech production. , 15(3), 651-662. doi:10.1017/S136672891100054
X
Luk, G., Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Grady, C. L. (2011). Lifelong bilingualism maintains white matter integrity in older
adults. , 31(46): 16808-16813.
Luk, G., Green, D.W., Abutalebi, J. & Grady, C. (2012). Cognitive control for language switching in bilinguals: A
quantitative meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies. , 27: 1479-1488.
Maess, B, & Koelsch, S. (2001). Musical syntax is processed in Broca s area: An MEG study. , 4:
540-545.
Martin, J. N. & Nakayama, T. K. (2000). . Boston: McGraw-Hill.
McLeod, S. A. (2007). Levels of processing. Retrieved from
https://www.simplypsychology.org/levelsofprocessing.html.
Mechelli, A., Crinion, J. T., Noppeney, U., O Doherty, J., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S. & Price, C. J. (2004).
Neurolinguistics: Structural plasticity in the bilingual brain. , 431(7010): 757.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing
information. , 63 (2): 81.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A. & Wagner, T. (2000). The unity of executive
functions and their contributions to complex frontal lobe tasks: A latent variable analysis. ,
41: 49-100.
Morales, J., Calvo, A. & Bialystok, E. (2013). Working memory development in monolingual and bilingual children.
, 114 (2): 187-202.
Morton, J.B., & Harper, S.N. (2007). What did Simon say? Revisiting the bilingual advantage. ,
10, 719-726.
Nelson, K. E. (1987). Some observations from the perspective of the rare event cognitive comparison theory of
language acquisition. In K. E. Nelson & A. van Kleeck (Eds.), (Vol. 6, pp. 229-331). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Norman, D. A. & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G.
E. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), , (4): 1-18. New
York: Plenum Press.
Pliatsikas, C., Moschopoulou, E., & Saddy, J. D. (2015). The effects of bilingualism on the white matter structure of the
brain. , 112 (5): 1334-1337.
Plunkett, K. & Marchman, V. (1993). From rote learning to system building - Acquiring verbal morphology in
children and connectionist models. , 48, 21-69.
Prior, A. & Gollan T. H. (2011). Good language-switchers are good task-switchers: Evidence from Spanish-English and
Mandarin-English bilinguals. , 17: 682-691.
Purdy, M. (2011) Executive functions: Theory, assessment and treatment. In M. Kimbarow (Ed.),
. New York: Plural publishing.
Ransdell, S., Barbier, M.-L. & Niit, T. (2006) Metacognitions about Language Skill and Working Memory among
Monolingual and Bilingual College Students: When Does Multilingualism Matter?,
, 9: 6, 728-741, DOI: 10.2167/beb390.0
Ranganath, C. C.; Michael, B.X.; Craig, J.B. (2005). Working Memory Maintenance Contributes to Long-term Memory
Formation: Neural and Behavioral Evidence. , 17 (7): 994-1010.
Rodríguez-Pujadas, A., Sanjuán, A., Fuentes, P., VenturaCampos, N., Barrós-Loscertales, A. & Ávila, C. (2014).
Differential neural control in early bilinguals and monolinguals during response inhibition. ,
132: 43-51.
Salamone, J. D. & Correa, M. (2002). Motivational views of reinforcement: implications for understanding the
behavioral functions of nucleus accumbens dopamine. , 137 (1-2): 3-25.
Schumann, J. H. (1997). . Oxford: Blackwell.
Service, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory, and foreign-language learning.
, 45 (1): 21-50.
Sharot, T. (2012). . New York: Vintage.

Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk? , 183 (4124): 482-488.
Soveri, A., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., Laine, M. (2011) Is there a relationship between language switching and executive
functions in bilingualism? Introducing a within group Analysis Approach. , 2: 183.
Speidel, G. E. (1989). A biological basis for individual differences in learning to speak. In G. E. Speidel & K. E. Nelson
(Eds.), (pp. 199-229). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Van Bon, W. H., & Van Der Pijl, J. M. (1997). Effects of word length and word likeness on pseudo word repetition by
poor and normal readers. , 18: 101-114.
Verfaellie, M., Croce, P & Milberg, W. P. (1995) The role of episodic memory in semantic learning: An examination of
vocabulary acquisition in a patient with amnesia due to encephalitis. , 1 (4): 291-304. DOI: 10.1080/
13554799508402374.
Wen, Z. (2012). Working memory and second language learning. , 22 (1): 1-
22.
Yang, H., Hartanto, A. & Yang, S. (2016). The complex nature of bilinguals language usage modulates task-Switching
outcomes. , 7: 560.
Yerys B. E., Wallace, G. L., Harrison B., Celano, M. J., Giedd, J. N. & Kenworthy, L. E. (2009). Set-shifting in children
with autism spectrum disorders: Reversal shifting deficits on the Intradimensional/Extradimensional Shift Test
correlate with repetitive behaviors. , 13 (5): 523-538.
Yow, W. Q., Oei, A. C., & Li, X. (2017). Novel Evidence for the Bilingual Advantage: Effects of Language Control on
Executive Function in Balanced and Unbalanced Dual-Language Users.
.
Zelazo, P.P. (2010) Executive Function and Emotion Regulation: A Developmental Perspective Ph.D. Paper
Presented at the , Boston, MA.

Executive Function

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Executive Function

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Executive Function

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

〔論説〕 ― ―

The Executive Function and Foreign Language Acquisition/Use

Timothy Dean Keeley

an increasingly mobile and interactive global society. There is a particular focus on

language acquisition as well as for preventing unintended or negative interference from

other languages when functioning in a given target language. A general description of

the executive function is presented followed by a literature review of how

functioning in a much greater number of languages affects the dynamics of the

to explore this subject in consultation with other polyglots.

Describing the Executive Functions

Figure 1: Air Traffic Control Metaphor

A Brief Description of Working Memory

advantage of positive linguistic transfer is also discussed in this paper.

Figure 2: Conceptualization of the Relationships among Attention, Memory,

Source: Purdy (2011)

multilinguals and polyglots. WM provides temporary storage and workspace for

Figure 3: Conceptualization of the Relationships of Working Memory

Figure 4: Example of the Key Word Technique

Multilingual Advantages in Executive Functions

A study conducted by Morales et al. (2013) demonstrated that bilingual children

Inhibitory Control: Multilingualism Strengthens Executive Functions

One cognitive advantage of multilingualism relates to the efficiency and flexibility in

Inhibitory Control and Switching between Languages

general inhibitory control mechanism supports language switching.

Cognitive Flexibility and Multilingualism/Multiculturalism

There are various definitions of cognitive flexibility, however, researchers tend to

mental representations. Cognitive flexibility is required for everyday language processing,

Multilingualism Can Promote Divergent Thinking and

A study by Kharkhurin (2008), argues that, in addition to advantages in conscious

Negative Effects of Anxiety on the Executive Function and Language Switching

Cross-linguistic Interference ­ Qualitative Data from Polyglots

Concerning Types of Cross-linguistic Interference and Frequency

Concerning Prevention of Cross-linguistic Interference

numerous Slavic languages.

Sharot, T. (2012). . New York: Vintage.

You might also like

Cross-linguistic Interference Qualitative Data from Polyglots