2

Is There a Bilingual Mind?

Since the very beginning of the study of human cognitive development, language
has been closely associated with almost all aspects of human condition. Many
linguistic formulations have repeatedly pointed out the importance of naming
or the power of logos (word) as the process by which reality and other
impressions become organized into units of systems, concepts, or categories.
Indeed, the process of naming, which is one of the important aspects of language,
transforms the world of sense impression, which the animals also possess, into
a mental world, a world of ideas and meanings (Cassirer, 1953, p. 28). Once
accomplished, the individual is able to transcend the limitation of time and space
(Ginsburg & Opper, 1969; Piaget, 1980) and venture into the world of thoughts
and mental creations.
We see this transforming process in operation from the very beginning in the
lives of children while learning to code their experiences, beginning with an
unintelligible, nonsense babbling to a defined utterance. We are reminded of the
tremendous joy experienced by parents when hearing the first utterance from
their childdada, mom, baby, chair, spoon, the doggy, milk. It
is quite an awesome experience to observe very young children attempting to
communicate even nonverbally and, judging from Figure 2.1, quite effectively.
It demonstrates the powerful and ingenious ways the intention to communicate
finds expressions even when verbal skills are still at an embryonic stage.
At a later point, more complex sentences are uttered and the childs increasing
awareness of complex sentence construction becomes evident. According to
Clark (1978), children provide evidence of linguistic awareness at a very early
age. First, they are able to repair their own speech, then they are able to correct
the utterances of others, and finally they are able to provide an explanation as to
why certain sentences are possible and how they should be interpreted (Galambos
& Goldin-Meadow, 1990). According to these authors, this ability to verbalize
metalinguistic judgments is not accomplished until the age of 6. By age 4,
however, children already show sensitivity to linguistic markers in spontaneous
repairs of their own speech (Galambos & Goldin-Meadow, 1990; Karmiloff-
Smith, 1986). The progressive development of metalinguistic awareness observed
in children reflects the increasing sophistication and maturation of brain
functioning and the childs enormous capacity for the organization of perception
and experiences of various kinds. The development of categories and complex
memories are then possible, leading to abstract concept formation. It is then
possible for experience to be organized and internalized, to become, later on, a
point of reference for the understanding and the processing of future experiences

21
22 2. Is There a Bilingual Mind?

Figure 2.1. Two children communicating.

(Mahler, Pine, & Bergman, 1975; Sullivan, 1953). The resulting enduring
patterns of organization of these experiences along linguistic dimensions become
part of the individuals cognitive structure that then guide the individuals overall
function throughout its life.
The importance of this cognitive progression is highlighted, among others,
by Piaget (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969; Piaget, 1980, 1995) and Vygotsky
(1962) in their theories of cognitive development. According to Vygotsky, for
instance, the abstract and symbolic aspects of language (the world of ideas and
meanings) make possible the systematization and organization of experiences
into categories. It is a verbal mediation position that views language as deter-
mining, mediating and thought-producing (Bucci, 1997). Following this line of
thinking, Luria and Yudovich (1968) suggested that the most refined expression
of the organizing and regulatory effects of language is observed in the way
language tends to regulate and categorize the persons behavior. But language
also tends to express and reflect the quality of internal organization. It was in this
context that assessing the individuals internal cognitive, emotional, and belief
patterns became essential in Albert Elliss work on the individuals belief system
(2001) and in Freuds analysis of linguistic contents (1940).
Underlying Luria and Yudovichs formulations is the idea that different catego-
rizations and organizations of the experience may take place with different
languages. That is, different cognitive and affective activities may be activated
by or may be associated with different languages, depending upon the inherent
qualities of these languages. Such formulation found some validation in the works
of Whorf (1956), Ervin, (1964), Marcos, Alpert, Urcuyo, and Kesselman (1973)
 The Bilingual Process in the Context of the Cognitive Development 23

and others. Whorf, for instance, concluded from his comparative study between the
Hopi and European languages, including French and English, that the qualities of
a language have a determining effect on the way people organize their perception
and interpret the world around them. Thus, he discovered that the language of the
Hopi processes the idea of time and space very differently than does the English
language. He, then, concluded that these linguistic differences must have a direct
bearing on the way the speakers of these languages perceive and interpret the world
(Weltanschauung). This is what is known as the SapirWhorfs hypothesis. It is
a linguistic determinism but with a dialectical paradigm that suggests that as one
thinks so one feels and as one feels so one thinks. Once words have been created
to refer to an experience (e.g., time, space, different kinds of snow) these concepts
then acquire an organizing power that guides the individuals cognitive process.
Thus, the individual is forced to sacrifice whatever variation to the perception that
the agreed-upon word is supposed to elicit in order to ensure some level of commu-
nication with members of its group. An example of this could be the word apple
that could mean a green or a red apple, an apple that is small and bitter or juicy and
sweet, depending on the individuals experience with apples in the context of his or
her cultural and linguistic group membership. Thus, saying that I just ate a apple,
may elicit in the listener only the apple of his or her experience, not necessarily
the intended message of the speaker, unless additional information is provided.
Studies frequently cited in support of SapirWhorfs hypothesis are studies
by Ervin (1964), Kolers (1968), and others. Ervin, for instance, observed in
her study of thematic apperception test (TAT) cards that her FrenchEnglish
subjects responded differently in the two languages. Responses to the TAT cards
in English expressed more achievement themes; responses in French, on the
other hand, contained stories with themes involving verbal aggression against
peers, autonomy, and withdrawal from others. Similarly, Kolers (1968) and
Krapf (1955) observed that different sets of associations, mental representations,
memories, and affective responses were elicited in their subjects depending upon
the language utilized.

The Bilingual Process in the Context of the Cognitive

Development
Because of the crucial role language is assumed to have in cognition and emotion,
it is not surprising to see that many psycholinguists are focusing their attention on
the effect of bilingualism (the acquisition of two linguistic codes) on processes
such as perception, memory, intelligence, learning, and personality formation
more and more. Bilingualism is, indeed, a unique phenomenon whose complexity
cannot be fully understood by just looking at the way language is developed in
general. For bilinguals, two linguistic codes are available at all times to organize
and process their perceptions of various kinds (visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile,
cutaneouskinesthetic, see Figure 2.2). So a child who is interacting with its
monolingual mother and with whom it learns to communicate and organize
24 2. Is There a Bilingual Mind?

its needs (e.g., hunger, physical pain, need for warmth, protection, to have its
surrounding explained) and different feelings (e.g., wonderment, feeling of well-
being, love, happiness, sadness, discomfort) develops specific linguistic modes of
organizing and categorizing these experiences. These organizations and catego-
rizations remain closely connected to the language of the interaction; by that I
mean that the unique linguistic (monolingual) characteristics of the family unit
where the child grows become encoded in the childs language. What happens,
then, when this child now goes to another situation (such as school) where a
different language is now utilized for learning and organizing experiences that
occur in that context? What happens to these linguistic-specific organizations and
categorizations with regard to the whole communication process? Eventually,
the child develops ways to organize the different learnings coming from the
different sources into its cognitive structure.
What is clear is that the categorization of the experience in the
bilingual context and the resulting cognitive structure brings about additional
challenges/opportunities to the bilingual individual, not only at the initial stage
of language learning but throughout his or her dealing with the world. The
understanding of this phenomenon is even further complicated by the fact that
not all experiences can be coded linguistically since some of the experiences
can remain organized at a prelinguistic or presymbolic level. This is particularly
the case for experiences occurring before the symbolic nature of language is
developed and acquires the organizing capacity that is possible under a more
mature neurological/physiological development. We have seen this phenomenon
in operation when a bilingual person is unable to communicate an experience
in either language and is left with a general feeling that there is something that
cannot be totally and fully expressed in any of the languages. We will come
back to this issue when we discuss the role of language in the psychological and
emotional development in Chapter 8.
In her recent manuscript Constructive processes in bilingualism and their
cognitive growth effects Johnson (2000) offers a sophisticated paradigm that
seeks to explain the process referred to above in what pertains to the complexity
of bilingualism in the context of the whole cognitive process. Following
a dialecticalconstructive theory, she suggests that the child organizes its
experiences in knowledge structures that follow very specific organization.
She distinguishes three basic sorts of knowledge structures that organize the
individuals basic cognitive structure: infralogical, logological, and linguistic
structures. Infralogical structures are particular-experiential structures or
structures of the life-world with strong reference to what, I later refer to as,
the first level of experience organization or experience related to the sensory
motor dimension (Figure 2.2). They are the substance of experience and represent
actual objects or things in the environment. According to Johnson, they also
include internal representations for distal objects whether they are organized as
prototypes, scripts, or schemas. These structures organize the world senses or
the concrete physical experiences the child has with its immediate environment.
When the particular-experiential structures (infralogical structures) are
 The Bilingual Process in the Context of the Cognitive Development 25

Linguistic Organization:
From Pre-symbolic to Symbolic Levels to Speech

Decoding Process First Level of Experience

Organization

Processing/Organization
of Visual, Auditory,
Tactile, Olfactory,
Gustatory, Cutaneous-
Kinesthetic Information Development of
Non-linguistic
Memories
Categorization of
Experiences along
Sensory-motor Dimension
(Development of Sensory-
Motor Schemes)

First Level of Linguistic Organization

Codification of
Affective
Organization of Experiences
Responses
into Symbols, Images or
Ideas

Labeling of these Development of

Experiences: Selection of Language-based
Words/Concepts Memories
Development of
Mentation
Categorization of
Experience along Linguistic
Dimension

Increasingly More Sophisticated

Encoding Process Language Organization in Preparation
for communication

Syntactical/Semantic/
Grammatical Ordering of
the Linguistic Content

Selection of Proper Codification of the

Phonemes and Inflection Speakers
of Voice Characteristic of Intentionality/
the Specific Language Beliefs and
Attitudes

Narrative Speech

Linguistic Communication of Experience is Accomplished

Figure 2.2. Process of linguistic organization.

26 2. Is There a Bilingual Mind?

encoded and organized into kinds (or classes, relations, or proposi-

tions), logological structures are said to be in place. According to
Johnson, logological structures are of a higher order than their infralogical
referents; they are genetic kinds that often represent common characteristics of
the infralogical token structures from which they are constructively abstracted
(p. 194). They embody invariances across types of objects or situations and
hence they are more abstract structures, higher level or meta-organization, and
as such are distinct from the infralogical structures that they can represent.
Finally, linguistic structures encode invariances in the linguistic environments
(e.g., lexical terms, grammatical relations) and are expected to mediate commu-
nication among humans.
According to Johnson, linguistic structures take their meanings from other
structures. That is, they denote or symbolize logological structures that, in turn,
describe infralogical structures. An important component of this development
is that logological structures are not language-specific since, once acquired,
logological knowledge can be language-free    not reducible to linguistic struc-
tures (p. 194) and can be constructed from the bottom-up (by internalized
invariances across infralogical structures) or top-down (through instruction)
through the mediation of language. Linguistic structures do not derive only from
logological structures but can derive directly from infralogical structures (such as
in the case of signals and many conventional symbols), which the child derives
directly from the concrete direct experience with the environment (infralogical
structures). An example of this could be the word mom that the child could use
for organizing experiences related to its interactions with its mother or mothering
environment.
The fact that we have a repertoire of experiences that are organized through the
logological structures (or genetic-conceptual and hence not language-specific)
and others organized through the infralogical structures (or particular-experiential
and hence more directly related to the immediate experience) may explain how
linguistic situations that are contextualized (e.g., contextualized language skills),
or performance produced by structures that are easily cued by concrete features
of the situation, are mediated by infralogical structures, while decontextualized
information (e.g., decontextualized language skills or of cognitive academic
proficiency) are mediated by logological structures. According to Johnson,
bilingual information that is organized through and mediated by logological
structures can be accessed through either language because it is organized in
a metalinguistic manner, while information that is organized and mediated by
infralogical structures tends to be language-specific.
According to Johnson (2000), experience with two linguistic systems leads
the bilingual child to an early awareness of the arbitrary connection between
linguistic forms and meaning. It also facilitates construction of certain kinds of
executive structures that guide performance across certain kinds of tasks. These
executive structures can be task or control executives and can be logological
and infralogical structures. Executives are involved in mental planning and the
temporal structuring of mental processing and action across all sorts of tasks.
 The Bilingual Process in the Context of the Cognitive Development 27

Task executives monitor the individuals interaction with the environment, while
control executives monitor the organismic internal resources or the allocation
of cognitive capacities, such as mental attention. Infralogical executives tend to
be situation-bound while logological executives are more genetic in nature and
hence applicable across contexts.
The importance of Johnsons analysis is that it places linguistic development as
part of the development of more comprehensive cognitive structures that provide
the individuals with the necessary tools to respond to different challenges. As
summarized by Johnson (2000),

What make sense of experience by means of our infralogical (particular-experiential)

structures (i.e., we are always in context). Thus, language as communication has its
reference (is validated) at the infralogical level; it is difficult to understand commu-
nication that does not make contact with our experience    Developmentally, language
starts out having a signalic function    Language also gradually takes on a symbolic
function, that is, it allows us to entertain the idea of the referent, without making the
referent present    Logological structures (the logic of thought) are also symbolic in this
sense. (p. 198)

In Figure 2.2 we attempt to provide another view or a schematic representation

of this cognitivelinguistic process referred to above but with more emphasis on
the linguistic development. Figure 2.2 describes a model of cognitivelinguistic
organization from presymbolic to symbolic levels, which finally result in speech
production. It is meant to be a dynamic, highly coordinated, efficient, and inter-
dependent model with no reference to the speed with which these functions are
normally accomplished. There are multiple loops of interactions assumed to be
operative at all times in the communication process and that affect the nature and
quality of the final product. It is a synchronic process where the early sensory
motor (prelinguistic) stages provide the necessary basis for ultimate develop-
mental accomplishment; that is, the development of mentation and linguistic
organization. Many of these functions become automatic over time.
The importance of synchronization of the different aspects of the acquisition of
learning (from sensorymotor stages to the development of progressively more
complex schemes, to the formation of language proper) was amply discussed by
Piaget (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969; Piaget, 1980, 1995) and Locke (1994) who
provided specific evidence in this regard. Our effort at this point is only to
provide the reader with a visual example, albeit simplistic, of the complexity
of the information processing that takes place in each individual in relationship
to his or her languages. It implies the linguistic learning that occurs prenatally,
described by Locke (1994), and that explains the childs early ability to recognize
the mothers voice. According to Locke the child is already involved in the
linguistic process in the final trimester of pregnancy when the fetus is capable of
hearing the mothers voice. What then follows is a progressive interplay among
the different areas that have a direct or indirect impact on the childs final
development. This includes the neurological development that makes it possible
for the child to process and remember different kinds of stimuli, the maturity
28 2. Is There a Bilingual Mind?

of the language sites in the brain, the maturity of the vocal cords and mouth
apparatus, the development of the ability to categorize perceptions of various
kinds, etc. (Fagen & Prigot, 1993; Luria, 1973, 1981). Thus, at the beginning
a child tends to look around its surroundings and eventually begins to babble
and repeat sounds made by those around it. At the end, the child learns to say
specific words and simple sentences related to its immediate survival (milk,
mom, dad, mom, milk, my tomy hurts, etc.) with more and more clarity.
With the locomotor development (kicking response and the capacity to crawl
and then walk), the child develops an array of physical reactions to stimuli in the
environment [the kicking response studied by Fagen (1980) and Fagen and his
team (1984, 1985, 1990, 2001) in response to different presentation schedules
of specific stimuli]. It later starts to venture into other areas that had, up to that
point, only been accessible in the context of its interaction with the mother and
others who would have carried the child from places to places as they went about
their business; and thus begins the process of cognitive/emotional independence
(Mahler et al. 1975). It is at this point that the child, although relying, for the
most part, on infralogical structures to organize its experience, it also begins to
organize its experience in ways that can be stored in memory (object constancy)
and categorized at a more abstract mode. This is what Johnson refers to as
the beginning of experience organization along the dimension of logological
structures. Affects are thus developed in this context and become intimately
interconnected with the cognitive development, becoming part of the progressive
organization of behavior. This process was amply described by Piaget in his
description of the cognitive/affective development of the child (Ginsburg &
Opper, 1969; Piaget, 1954, 1995) and Mahler, Pine, and Bergman (1975) in
what pertains to the emotional development in the book The Psychological Birth
of the Child.
The role of language in the organization of experience was also eloquently
described by Sullivan (1953) in his description of the nature of the human
experience. His description has some similarities to the one provided by Johnson
discussed above, although he was more interested in a description of experience
in terms of the emotional development and the development of the personality
than a cognitive development. According to Sullivan, experiences are organized
along three basic dimensions: the prototaxic, parataxic and syntaxic modes
(Figure 2.3). Prototaxic refers to an experience that occurs before symbols are

MODES OF EXPERIENCE

PROTOTAXIC PARATAXIC SYNTAXIC

Figure 2.3. Sullivans mode of experience organization.

 No Single Theory can Explain Cognitive Development in a Bilingual Context 29

used; it is the discrete series of momentary states of the sensitive organism, it

is the rough basis of memory    the crudest, the simplest, the earliest, and the
most abundant mode of experience (p. 29). When the child develops symbols as
a private and autistic way to communicate these experiences, a parataxic mode
is thought to be in place. When these symbols and levels of communication
take on a more mature organization that makes possible the easy communication
between and among individuals, a syntaxic mode is said to be in place. Thus, a
syntaxic mode allows the experience to be communicated to another person. It
would be a great mistake to assume that no cognitive organization is in place at
the prototaxic or parataxic linguistic organization (Figure 2.3), because it would
overlook the complexity of cognitive development prior to the solidification and
maturity of the linguistic dimension. In fact, there is evidence of complex thought
and learning processes in prelinguistic or prototaxic/parataxic infants (Fagen,
1980; Fagen & Prigot, 1993) and even in adults (Bucci, 1997), as discussed
earlier.
In trying to provide further clarification of the complexity of language
operation, Friederici (2001) also suggests similar paradigm as proposed by
Sullivan but following a more linguistic conceptualization. She suggests that
language processing is based on three knowledge sources (semantics, syntax,
and phonology, including prosody) that must be activated and well-coordinated
in time to guarantee normal language production and comprehension. It is
an enormous task. These sources are the essence of the individuals language
system and are organized along the procedural (implicit) memory structure, while
verbal communication, or pragmatic aspects of the language and metalinguistic
knowledge, are organized along declarative (explicit) memory structure (Paradis,
2003). One can then appreciate that the tremendous amount and complexity
of timely coordination referred to in the case of a monolingual individuals
language processing becomes even more so when more than one language is
involved.

No Single Theory can Explain Cognitive Development

in a Bilingual Context
The point to be made here is that language processing and the linguistic
codification of experience in bilingualism are rather complex and cannot be
explained solely following a theory that stresses only one aspect of the linguistic
phenomenon. Thus, if we were to follow Chomskys formulation (1957, 1965),
often utilized to explain language development, how are we to apply his
conceptualizations to language development in bilingual individuals? Chomskys
emphasis on the innate and universal quality of language with regard to its
syntax, which suggests that the individual already comes wired with a capacity
for syntactical linguistic organization, leaves us with a number of questions
regarding how this capacity influence language development in bilingualism and
how other more complex cognitive processes can be explained. Are each of
30 2. Is There a Bilingual Mind?

the languages pre-wired in the bilingual individual and what parts of the brain
are pre-selected for the operation of the bilinguals two languages? How can
Chomskys formulation explain the findings discussed later in this chapter, that
different parts of the brain are involved in language function in bilinguals as a
function of when in their development the languages were learned and the level
of linguistic proficient acquired? In fact, Chomskys formulation has been criti-
cized as not comprehensive enough to explain all important aspects of language
(Bucci, 1977), and this is particularly the case when referring to bilingualism.
Vygotskys linguistic mediation paradigm (1962) emphasizes, on the other hand,
the more dynamic aspects of language. He suggests that language mediates and
determines human behavior and all cognitive processes. Mental development is
seen as the result of word meanings that come to dominate all human mental
processes (Rieber & Wollock, 1997).
In the final analysis, language can only be the product of an interactive and
dynamic process combining inherent linguistic and cognitive qualities with the
individuals desire to communicate, in the context of the personal and interper-
sonal realm. Or, as further delineated by Bucci (1997), communicative language
arises from application of general cognitive capacities to the function of commu-
nication over vocal and auditory channels (p. 79). And the fact that we have
evidence, in the works of Ervin (1964) and Ervin and Osgood (1954) referred
to earlier, that language also tends to mediate perception, confirms the need to
maintain a view of language that incorporates these different perspectives.
What make language so powerful are the symbolic complexities that are
possible and that eventually result in the transmission of a thought. A thought is a
solidification of an intricate process, resulting in the development of an organized
schema that encapsulates an experience or set of experiences, an idea or set of
ideas, a feeling or set of feelings, etc. According to Bucci (1997), symbols
are entities that refers to other entities and have the capacity to be combined in
rule-governed way, so that infinite array of meaningful units can be generated
from a finite set of elements (p. 77). Once the symbols are generated, they
function as organizing principles of experience. Thus, images, visual stimuli,
and words can then serve as a guiding force for specific experiences (Fagen &
Prigot, 1993; Ginsburg & Opper, 1969; Javier & Marcos, 1989).
In the case of bilingual individuals, the symbolic complexities of language
become even more powerful. We may be able to visualize the complexity of the
bilingual process by imagining a linguistic organization side by side to the one
depicted in Figure 2.2. The one depicted in this figure describes a monolingual
process. In the bilingual process, we assume that two languages are expected to
become involved in the cognitive process, even in the prelinguistic organization
level, but more clearly so from the first level of linguistic organization on. We
suspect that the extent to which the bilinguals languages will operate more or
less independently from one another with regard to these different aspects of
language depicted in Figure 2.2 is a function of when and how the two languages
are acquired and organized, the level of proficiency in the two languages, and
the language function under consideration (Johnson, 2000).
 Evidence of the Bilingual Mind? 31

Evidence of the Bilingual Mind?

The confusing and controversial nature of the evidence usually presented in
support of the existence of a different and distinct brain organization in bilingual
individuals does not allow us to make a definite pronouncement in this regard,
leaving us instead with a number of questions in need of more rigorous research
paradigms. Paradis (2003), one of the most ardent critics of the existent literature
on the subject, finds problems in much of the research literature in this regard
at the level of conceptualization, definition of the constructs being studied, and
methodology. While recognizing the importance of the need of more rigorous
research paradigms, there are data coming from different sources that should
be considered in determining the extent to which bilingualism does or does not
result in a different linguistic, cognitive, and emotional organization and hence
these will be presented at this point.
For instance, the evidence supporting the distinctive characteristics of the
bilingual mind continues to mount (Albert & Obler, 1978; Hahne, 2001; Perani,
Paulesu, Galles, & associates, 1998). The assumed separateness of the bilingual
languages with regard to linguistic organization and processing has found some
support in various fronts (Albert & Obler, 1978; Centeno & Obler, 2001; Ervin,
1964; Hahne, 2001; Lambert, 1972; Lambert, Havelka, & Crosby, 1958). In
fact, several findings support the view of the distinctive function of the bilingual
brain under certain conditions. For instance, Hahne (2001) concluded from a
comparison of studies that attempted to decipher the neural substrate in the
bilingual languages that the proficiency level in the second language is the most
important variable. For low-proficiency participants, different brain areas are
recruited for processing the two languages. For the high-proficiency participants,
on the other hand, identical neural substrate is recruited.
When looking at semantic processing during reading, Ardal, Donald, Meuter,
Muldrew, and Luce (1990), using the event-related brain potentials technique
or ERPs, which according to Friederici (2001) provides a temporal resolution
in the millisecond domain with a coarse spatial resolution (p. 238), found
that all participants displayed an N400 component. Its latency, however, was
shortest in monolinguals and delayed by 40 ms in bilinguals second language,
as compared with their performance in their first language (Hahne, 2001). Hahne
(2001) also cited other similar studies with comparable findings, such as the
one by Weber-Fox and Neville (1996) that found that all the bilingual groups
studied by these authors displayed an N400 effect, but the peak latency was
delayed for the participants who acquired the second language after the age of
11. In a study by Hahne and Friedirici (2001 and also summarized in Hahne
2001 manuscript) that assesses semantic and syntactic processing during auditory
sentence comprehension in a group of Japanese native speakers who learned
German after the age of 18, it was found that the ERPs of the second language
learner differed from those of native listeners with regard to the processing of
correct sentences. The most remarkable differences were observed for sentences
containing phrase structure violations. Specifically, in contrast to native listeners,
32 2. Is There a Bilingual Mind?

the bilingual learners showed neither a modulation of the early anterior

negativity nor of the late positivity (Hahne, 2001, p. 253), suggesting diffi-
culty in sentence processing and integration. Following a different methodology,
Hoover (1992) also found different processing strategies in his Spanish/English
bilinguals.
Other findings have also emphasized right hemisphere involvement in the case
of bilingual in comparison to monolingual (Albert & Obler, 1975, 1978) and
differential brain involvement in the bilingual two languages, in keeping with
previous findings reported earlier. (Figure 2.4 provides a visual presentation of

1. Cerebellum
2. Cerebrum
3. Frontal lobes
4. Motor area
5. Brocas area
6. Parietal lobes
7. Sensory areas
8. Occipital lobes
9. Temporal lobes

Published by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Retrieved from
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain_basics/know_your_brain.htm on 11/24/2006
Figure 2.4. The architecture of the Brain.
 Evidence of the Bilingual Mind? 33

the different parts of the brain that we will be referring to in the context of our
discussion. It is a cross-section showing the left part of the brain.) For instance,
Ojemann and Whitaker (1978) found that the sites in the center of the speech
areas were involved in both languages, while sites in the frontal and parietal
cortex were involved in only one of the languages. These authors employed a
cortical electrical stimulation technique, placing electrodes in the various parts
of the brain for the purpose of assessing the extent of naming disruption in two
bilingual subjects.
They found that the right hemisphere was involved in naming in one of
the subjects. A differential brain localization was also observed in Chinese
English bilinguals by Rapport, Tan, and Whitaker (1983) in a study discussed by
Centeno and Obler (2001). Using cortical electrical stimulation, they observed
that language functions were differentially localized along the left perisylvian
area. Paradis (1993, 2004) later suggested that these findings are suspicious
because the language-specific areas reported only covered the periphery of the
language zone and it might be that the stimulation utilized interfered with
language only some of the times, with the electrode field falling just outside
the language zone at other times. Similarly, it can be said that the findings
reported by Albert and Obler (1978), that different aphasic conditions were
found in their subjects, were a function of a differential recovery pattern. He
explains the different recovery patterns that are observed in aphasic patients as
being a function of two kinds of memories that tend to guide language function:
declarative and procedural memories. Declarative (explicit) memory structure
is more prevalent in second language function and is bilaterally represented.
According to Paradis (1993), the fact that declarative memory is more impacted
by age and some brain deterioration (such as in Alzheimers disease) may explain
the differential language behavior observed in bilingual individuals in these
contexts.
Studies on bilingual memory provide us with important information regarding
the question of the bilingual mind. For instance, some studies on memory
storage in bilinguals indicate that bilingual memory may be represented by two
functionally independent storage and retrieval systems, one for each language
(Kolers, 1963; Tulving & Calotta, 1970). Others support an interdependence
storage and suggest that all information exists in a single memory storage (Lopez
& Young, 1974; Thorson, 1980). A more comprehensive explanation on the
way information is stored was offered by Hines (1978). He concluded from
his study that the situation is far more complex that the interdependent or
independent models would suggest. Within a given persons memory, infor-
mation may be stored in both an independent and an interdependent manner,
depending on the type of memory representation (e.g., orthographic, phonemic,
or semantic) that is being examined    .all bilinguals, regardless of the nature
of their second language learning experiences, would share a common memory
structure with semantic representations being interdependent and orthographic
and phonemic representations being independent (pp. 2324). Hines even postu-
lated a unitary common memory structure shared by both languages, with
34 2. Is There a Bilingual Mind?

semantic representation being interdependent and orthographic and phonemic

representations being independent. Again, the conclusion about common versus
independent memory systems refers more to the nature of memory structure
(declarative vs. procedural) subserving a specific language system/function being
studied. As discussed earlier, phonology, morphology, syntax are subserved by
procedural memory and isolated words (semantic) are subserved by declarative
memory and hence are less focalized in their representation (Paradis, 1994,
2003).
What is clear with regard to studies on the bilingual memory is that the organi-
zation of information along a linguistic dimension in a bilingual process appears
to be different as compared with a monolingual process. It is experienced as
different by the bilingual individual under certain conditions. Thus, the argument
put forward by Paradis (1993, 2004) about the two types of memory structures
guiding language function in general and the way these structures are reflected
in the bilingual individuals as an argument against findings of the apparent brain
lateralization and more or less right hemisphere involvement does not completely
explain the report of many bilinguals that something is experienced as different
when they interact in one or another of their languages (Javier, 1996). Thus,
in answering the question as to whether or not there is a bilingual mind, some
of the evidence clearly points to the fact that a bilingual person does seem to
organize his or her experiences cognitively and emotionally differently in the
two languages and that these differences tend to show in obvious and more
subtle ways. Because of the centrality of this basic quality of the bilingual
experience, we will continue to address this issue more fully in ensuing chapters
and, most immediately, in relationship to a discussion on linguistic organization
and bilingual memory.
The most powerful evidence in support of the bilingual mind, however, comes
from clinical reports of patients who feel that major components of their experi-
ences seem to be language-specific in terms of their ability to retrieve them.
Like the patient discussed by Quiones (2007) who refused to speak her primary
language (Spanish) and tried to incorporate an identity that was closer to her
ideal image of a successful woman in an English-speaking community. Her style
of dress and mannerism, taste of music, and food all changed to be consistent
with this acquired identity. She was afraid to speak in Spanish because she
did not want to associate with her past and to have to feel the same way she
felt when she was emotionally neglected and abandoned by her mother. Thus,
her language use was influenced by her need to protect herself from painful
memories that she felt were closely associated with Spanish. It is clear that for
this patient the two languages provided her with two different alternatives to
organize her experience and her personal identity. This is in keeping with the
report of adopted children who report not to remember their native language
and not to remember anything of their experience associated with that language.
Their memory seems to begin with the beginning of the new experience with
their adopted families where a new language (second language) was acquired,
which is now used to organize and communicate their experiences.
 Evidence of the Bilingual Mind? 35

We can tentatively conclude from all these findings that there is some evidence
supporting the view that a bilingual individual does tend to process information
differently than does the monolingual with regard to different aspects of language
processing (semantic and syntactic). The evidence supporting the view that differ-
ences in processing in language-specific information found among bilinguals are
related to differences in the way a bilingual and a monolingual brain processes
information is less clear.