Does bilingualism come with linguistic costs? A meta-analytic review of the bilingual lexical deficit

Emanuel Bylund, Jan Antfolk, Niclas Abrahamsson, Anne Marte Haug Olstad, Gunnar Norrman, Minna Lehtonen

Research output: Contribution to journalReview Article or Literature Reviewpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)
10 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

A series of recent studies have shown that the once-assumed cognitive advantage of bilingualism finds little support in the evidence available to date. Surprisingly, however, the view that bilingualism incurs linguistic costs (the so-called lexical deficit) has not yet been subjected to the same degree of scrutiny, despite its centrality for our understanding of the human capacity for language. The current study implemented a comprehensive meta-analysis to address this gap. By analyzing 478 effect sizes from 130 studies on expressive vocabulary, we found that observed lexical deficits could not be attributed to bilingualism: Simultaneous bilinguals (who acquired both languages from birth) did not exhibit any lexical deficit, nor did sequential bilinguals (who acquired one language from birth and a second language after that) when tested in their mother tongue. Instead, systematic evidence for a lexical deficit was found among sequential bilinguals when tested in their second language, and more so for late than for early second language learners. This result suggests that a lexical deficit may be a phenomenon of second language acquisition rather than bilingualism per se.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)897-913
Number of pages17
JournalPsychonomic Bulletin and Review
Volume30
Issue number3
Early online date3 Nov 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2023
MoE publication typeA2 Review article in a scientific journal

Keywords

  • Humans
  • Multilingualism
  • Language
  • Language Development
  • Vocabulary

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Does bilingualism come with linguistic costs? A meta-analytic review of the bilingual lexical deficit'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this