Pedrina 1

Kristel Pedrina
English 115
Hymes
7 December 2014
Balanced And Imbalanced
In the article The Advantages of Bilingualism, Andrew S. Latham proves that being
fluent in two languages can lead to the development of good cognition and that such skill can
provide a more diversified and flexible basis (Latham 1) for such brain process. Latham
presents evidence to verify that the said theory is true. This paper will analyze the statements that
approve and disapprove bilingualism. In addition, the weakness of the article is also included.
Latham says bilingualism can lead to broad-mindedness, intelligence and maturity simply
due to the exposure to two cultures. According to Cataldi, bilingualism gives rise to mental
flexibility (Latham 1). This effect can then lead to mental awareness and acceptance of
diversity. Also, Diaz exclaims that fluency in two languages improves a persons metalinguistic
awareness (Latham 1), essentially making a person intelligent and more mature for having
knowledge of dissimilar cultures. For further proof, the result of Peal and Lamberts 1962 study
on bilingual children was also included in the article. The two researchers particularly picked
true bilinguals, who outdid monolinguals on verbal and nonverbal assessments. Based on their
experiment, Peal and Lambert divided the bilingual category into two: balanced bilinguals, who
equally utilize two languages, and pseudo- bilinguals, who utilize one language more than the
other language. Dpke, McNamara, and Quinn also distinguished bilinguals into additive, or

Pedrina 2
those that learned two languages fully, and subtractive, who proficiently learned a language first
before learning the other (Latham 1). Diaz supports the categories by simply stating his
observation that additive bilinguals have better academic performances than subtractive
bilinguals. D Acierno also observes that families who support learning two languages positively
influenced bilinguals (Latham 1). With bilingualism and the promotion of it, people are more
likely to think and mature fast.
On the other hand, Latham includes that in the early 1900s, most research revealed that
bilingual pupils performed poorly than monolinguals on IQ tests and other assessments. In D
Aciernos study, one bilingual boy was negatively impacted psychologically because of his
familys lack of support for knowing two languages and hence showed bad cognition and motor
development. In Saito-Horgans 1995 study, a variety of bilinguals failed to accomplish
Piagetian tasks. Hakuta, another researcher, even mentions that learning two languages should
not be used to enhance childrens cognition (Latham1). Some professionals also argue that full
fluency in two languages may lead to hindrance. Based on other scientific studies, bilingualism
and the support for bilingualism correlated with the development of intelligence. However, from
other research that counter-argue that claim, bilingualism cannot be the only factor for an
excellent cognitive development, making such belief a hypothesis.
Andrew Latham excellently presents his claim with the use of many results of critical
scientific research on bilingualism. However, for my opinion, he could have utilized other
researches that were more diverse in terms of the socioeconomic background, gender, and age. If
he utilized studies that involved children that are part of the rich population, middle-class,
working class, and poor population, then the outcome would identify whether the income and
status of the family has influence on the child and the childs knowledge and fluency of two

Pedrina 3
languages. Just like D Aciernos research in 1990, if the family of that bilingual boy influenced
his cognitive performance plainly because of their lack of support to his skill, then the
socioeconomic status of the family must have a huge effect as well. If gender was considered as
one of the variables of the applied research, then the article would portray how bilingualism is
presented by a male and a female. Females and males each have their own gender roles, therefore
must use their bilingualism a little differently. And given that each generate different hormones,
the emotional and mental health of each gender must also count for showing such skill. Age must
have been included as well, especially that very young children would not develop and be able to
perform cognitive assessments rapidly. If the research used involved young teens and adults,
who are more developed and mature, then maybe some of the outcome would be dissimilar than
the others that used children.
In his article, Latham proved, with the use of certain studies, that fluency in two
languages can lead to a persons fast and good cognitive development. He presented a balance
of research that agreed to bilingualism and disapprove bilingualism. Yet, if Latham considered
the possible impacts of other variables, like socioeconomic status, gender and age, then the
conclusion of the article would be more concrete and credible.

Pedrina 4
Work Cited
Latham, Andrew S. The Advantages of Bilingualism. Educational Leadership, Issue 3,
November 1998: Page 79. Print.