Effect of language proficiency and executive control on verbal fluency performance in bilinguals
Abstract
We use a time-course analysis to examine the roles of vocabulary size and executive control in bilinguals' verbal fluency performance. Two groups of bilinguals and a group of monolingual adults were tested in English with verbal fluency subtests from the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System. The two bilingual groups were equivalent in their self-rated English proficiency but differed in levels of receptive and expressive vocabulary. We hypothesized that the difference between the two bilingual groups in vocabulary and between the monolingual and bilingual groups in executive control would lead to differences in performance on the category and letter fluency tests and dissociate the roles of vocabulary knowledge and executive control in verbal production. Bilinguals and monolinguals performed equivalently in category fluency, but the high-vocabulary bilingual group outperformed both monolinguals and low-vocabulary bilinguals in letter fluency. An analysis of the retrieval time-course functions in letter fluency showed dissociable effects of resources available at the initiation of the trial, considered to reflect vocabulary size, and ability to monitor and retrieve new items using a novel phonemic-based word searching strategy, considered to reflect executive control. The difference in slope of the best-fitting curves reflected enhanced executive control for both bilingual groups compared to monolinguals, whereas the difference in the starting point of the logarithmic functions reflected higher levels of vocabulary for high-vocabulary bilinguals and monolinguals compared to low-vocabulary bilinguals. The results are discussed in terms of the contributions of linguistic resources and executive control to verbal performance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Bilinguals display consistent deficits on verbal fluency measures, especially semantic fluency, even if they may answer in either language.
“Performance on these tasks reveals systematic deficits for bilingual participants, particularly in semantic fluency conditions [33–37], even if responses can be provided in either language [38].”
From Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain (2012) · cites this paper as [35]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 380
- Authors
- Luo, L., Luk, G., & Bialystok, E.
- Affiliations
- York University (CA)
- Rotman Research Institute (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Luo, Lin
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-41
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128088074
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 6.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP57842)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- bilingualism, executive function, verbal fluency, vocabulary size, language proficiency, phonemic fluency, semantic fluency, word retrieval, Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System, time-course analysis
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Humans, Language Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Mental Recall, Speech Perception, Time Factors, Verbal Behavior, Vocabulary, Multilingualism, Executive Function
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review