Sentence examples for both bilingual groups from inspiring English sources

The study is especially compelling because the results held up in both bilingual groups and with two imaging techniques, says Daniela Perani of Vita-Salute San Raffaele University in Milan, Italy.

In sum, considering all the previous results, both bilingual groups mostly differed in their inability to prevent errors of cross-language interference in monolingual settings, i.e., the use of the non-target language when target language use is required by the experimental setting.

L1, or heritage language attribution has been found in other bilingual groups in the North America context.

As the monolingual and bilingual groups had a similar family SES background (Experiment 1) and similar family cultural identity (Experiment 2), these results point to a specific role for early bilingualism in accentuating children's developing ability to appreciate effective communicative responses.

This resulted in 3 bilingual groups that we refer to as Groups 2a, 2b, and 2c (see Table 1).

To investigate the bilingual L2 disadvantage hypothesis within bilingual groups, the SOA generating the maximum interference effect was identified for each subject in both L1 and L2, and compared using paired-sample t-tests.

Activation in these regions was higher for all bilingual groups, even when the Greeks were responding in their native language (see Fig. 3).

It may also be the case that proficiency affects executive control abilities within bilingual groups, such that high-proficiency bilinguals show better cognitive control, and therefore less interference, than low-proficiency bilinguals.

Tukey post hoc tests showed that monolinguals were faster on word matching than each of the bilingual groups (P = 0.020 for group 1 vs. 2a; P = 0.011 for group 1 vs. 2b; P = 0.008 for group 1 vs. 2c).

We therefore identified activation that differed for all 3 bilingual groups (relative to the monolinguals) irrespective of whether they were responding in their nonnative language (Groups 2a, 2b, 2c) or their native language (Group 2c).

When the outlier participant was excluded, there were no significant differences in the 3 bilingual groups on the speed or accuracy of their lexical decisions (analysis of variance, ANOVA with 3 groups).