ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Multilingualism and linguistic diversity are the norm in India. Although studies have shown a relation between bilingualism and cognitive gains, linguistic diversity has as of yet been ignored as a potential factor affecting cognitive skills. This study aims to fill this gap by examining how cognitive skills - as measured by the n-back and Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices tasks - are affected by multilingualism and/or sociolinguistic diversity in a large cohort of socioeconomically disadvantaged primary school children in two urban sites of India, Delhi and Hyderabad. We present a questionnaire estimating sociolinguistic diversity, and show that this measure assesses a distinct construct as compared to a child’s multilingualism. Children were classified as growing up monolingually or bilingually depending on whether they were growing up with one or more languages in the home. Regarding cognitive performance, bilinguals were found to outperform monolinguals on the n-back task as well as on the Raven's task. In addition, a socially and linguistically diverse environment seems to enhance cognitive performance for children who are not multilingual themselves. Finally, several contextual factors, such as city were found to influence cognitive performance. Overall, this shows that cognitive tasks are prone to contextual effects and that bilingualism and linguistic diversity can enhance cognitive performance of children in disadvantaged contexts.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Languages2020,5,10;doi:10.3390/languages5010010www.mdpi.com/journal/languages
Article
LinguisticDiversity,Multilingualism,andCognitive
Skills:AStudyofDisadvantagedChildreninIndia
IanthiMariaTsimpli
1,
*,MargreetVogelzang
1
,AnushaBalasubramanian
1
,
TheodorosMarinis
2,3
,SuvarnaAlladi
4
,AbhignaReddy
4
andMinatiPanda
5
1
TheoreticalandAppliedLinguisticsSection,FacultyofModernandMedievalLanguages&Linguistics;
UniversityofCambridge,CambridgeCB39DA,UK;mv498@cam.ac.uk(M.V.);ab2668@cam.ac.uk(A.B.)
2
DepartmentofLinguistics;UniversityofKonstanz,78457Konstanz,Germany;t.marinis@unikonstanz.de
3
SchoolofPsychology&ClinicalLanguageSciences;UniversityofReading,Reading,RG66AL,UK;
t.marinis@reading.ac.uk
4
DepartmentofNeurology,NationalInstituteofMentalhealthandNeuroSciences(NIMHANS),
Bengaluru,Karnataka560029,India;alladisuvarna@hotmail.com(S.A.);meenu.6692@gmail.com(A.R)
5
SchoolofSocialSciences,JawaharlalNehruUniversity,NewDelhi,Delhi110067,India;
minatipanda@mail.jnu.ac.in
*Correspondence:imt20@cam.ac.uk
Received:16February2020;Accepted:11March2020;Published:16March2020
Abstract:MultilingualismandlinguisticdiversityarethenorminIndia.Althoughstudieshave
shownarelationbetweenbilingualismandcognitivegains,linguisticdiversityhassofarbeen
ignoredasapotentialfactoraffectingcognitiveskills.Thisstudyaimstofillthisgapbyexamining
howcognitiveskills—asmeasuredbythenbackandRaven’sColoredProgressiveMatricestasks—
areaffectedbymultilingualismand/orsociolinguisticdiversityinalargecohortof
socioeconomicallydisadvantagedprimaryschoolchildrenintwourbansitesofIndia:Delhiand
Hyderabad.Wepresentaquestionnaireestimatingsociolinguisticdiversityandshowthatthis
measureassessesadistinctconstruct,ascomparedtoachild’smultilingualism.Childrenwere
classifiedasgrowingupmonolinguallyorbilingually,dependingonwhethertheygrewupwith
oneormorelanguagesinthehome.Regardingcognitiveperformance,bilingualswerefoundto
outperformmonolingualsonthenbacktask,aswellasontheRaven’stask.Inaddition,asocially
andlinguisticallydiverseenvironmentseemstoenhancecognitiveperformanceforchildrenwho
arenotmultilingualthemselves.Finally,severalcontextualfactorssuchascitywerefoundto
influencecognitiveperformance.Overall,thisshowsthatcognitivetasksaresubjecttocontextual
effectsandthatbilingualismandlinguisticdiversitycanenhancecognitiveperformanceofchildren
indisadvantagedcontexts.
Keywords:bilingualism;linguisticdiversity;cognition;workingmemory;fluidintelligence;
disadvantagedcontexts;socioeconomicstatus
1.Introduction
Languageandcognitivedevelopmentinteractinnumerouswaysfrombirthonwards.In
monolinguallearners,earlycognitiveskillsarenecessaryforvocabularydevelopment(e.g.,Clark
2004),whilelanguageabilitiesaresimilarlyimportantforthedevelopmentofcognitiveskillssuchas
theoryofmind(DeVilliers2007)andverbalreasoning(GentnerandLoewenstein2002).In
bilingualism,muchrecentresearchhasfocusedontheimpactofduallanguagedevelopmentanduse
oncognition,revealingconflictingornullresultsacrossstudies(EngeldeAbreuetal.2012;Sanchez
Azanzaetal.2017;Paapetal.2017).However,researchonmultilingualismandcognitiveeffectsis
sparse,possiblyduetotheassumptionthatmultilingualismiscumulativebilingualism,inthesense
Languages2020,5,102of21
thatmorelanguagesentailmoreswitchingcostsand,byextension,havesimilareffectsoncognition
inthemultilingualspeaker.Sincebilingualismandmultilingualismareformsoflanguage
experiences,itisessentialtoevaluatehowtheseexperiencesaffectanindividual’slinguisticand
cognitiveprofile.Inresearchonchildbilingualism,therehasbeenconsiderableprogressinhowto
measurelanguageexperience,understoodasquantityandqualityofinputandoutputineachofthe
child’slanguages(ByersHeinleinetal.2019;Bedoreetal.2012;Unsworth2013).Inthesemeasures,
quantifyingandqualifyinglanguagepracticesathomeandtheschool,dependingonthechild’sage,
areofprimaryimportance.Assumingmultilingualismtobeanextensionofbilingualism,wewould
expectthatthesamemeasures(addingoneortwolanguagestothequestionsincluded),should
sufficetoprofilethemultilingualspeakerandunderstandpossibleeffectsontheirlinguisticand
cognitiveskills.Despitethesoundnessofthisassumption,someconsiderationshavebeenleft
unexplored.First,linguisticdiversityatthesocietallevelmayormaynottranslateasmultilingualism
attheindividuallevel.Forinstance,achildmaybesurroundedbyspeakersofdifferentlanguages,
butmaynotbeproficientenoughtousemostoranyoftheselanguagesthemself.‘Knowledge’inthis
case,ismostlyawarenessofdiversity,whiletheactuallinguistic,receptive,orproductiveskillsofthe
individualmayvaryalongacontinuumfromzerotofullability.Nonwesternmultilingualsocieties
suchasIndiapresentacaseinpoint:ThelanguageexperienceofanIndianchildcannotignore
contextuallinguisticdiversityasinstantiatedinthecommunity,theschool,andthehome
environmenttowhichthechildisexposed.Linguisticdiversitycanplayasanimportantroleas
languageinputforthechildgrowingupinamultilingualsociety—andcrucially,shapesthechild’s
understandingoftheroleoflanguage(s)inthesocioculturalcontext,theirsensitivityto
sociolinguisticvariation,andtheprecociousdevelopmentofmetalinguisticskills(Ochsand
Schieffelin2008;Mohanty2019).Althoughstudieshaveshownthatproficiencyineachofthe
bilingual’slanguagesiscrucialforcognitivegains,especiallyinthedomainofmetalanguage
(Pattanaik2004;PattanaikandMohanty1984;Bialystok2013),contextuallinguisticdiversityhasso
farbeenignoredasapotentialfactoraffectingcognitiveskillsintheindividual.Thisstudyaimsto
fillthisgapbyexamininghowcognitiveskillsareaffectedbymultilingualismand/orsociolinguistic
diversityinalargecohortofsocioeconomicallydisadvantagedprimaryschoolchildrenintwourban
sitesofIndia,Delhi,andHyderabad.
1.1.TheIndianContext
MultilingualisminIndiaisthenorm,asislinguisticdiversity,withclosetoonethousand
indigenouslanguagesbelongingtofourmajorlanguagefamilies.Ofthese,theIndoAryanand
Dravidianfamiliesincludethelanguagesspokenby95%ofthepopulation(1971,Censusdata
reportedinVasantaetal.2010).AccordingtothePeople’sLinguisticSurveyofIndia
(http://www.peopleslinguisticsurvey.org/)launchedbyDevyin2010,thereare780different
languagesinIndia,manyofwhichareendangered1.Mostrecently,Ethnologuesuggeststhenumber
ofdifferentlanguagesislower,andstandsat462(SimonsandFennig2018).Thislinguisticdiversity
hasbeenamajorconsiderationbystateandcentralgovernmentsinrelationtoeducationandnational
policies,aswellasinrelationtotheroleofEnglishasalanguageofpower.Englishisstrongly
supportedbystatepolicies,especiallyincaseswhereconflictsbetweendifferentlanguagegroupsare
resolvedthroughacommonlyacceptedchoiceofEnglishasthemediumofinstruction(Mohantyet
al.2009;Mohanty2019).ParentsandteachersacknowledgeandsupporttheroleofEnglish,with
parentalpreferencesbeingparticularlystrongforEnglishmediuminstructioncurricula.This
1 InIndiathereisnoonenationallanguage.TheIndianconstitutioninits8thschedulerecognizes22languages
asscheduledlanguages.TheyaremostlyalsousedasmediaofinstructionasrelevanttodifferentIndian
states.ThelanguagesareAssamese,Bangla,Bodo,Dogri,Gujarati,Hindi,Kashmiri,Kannada,Konkani,
Maithili,Malayalam,Manipuri,Marathi,Nepali,Oriya,Punjabi,Tamil,Telugu,Sanskrit,Santali,Sindhi,and
Urdu.Twooftheseareclassicallanguages,SanskritandTamil,asrecognizedbytheIndianconstitution.
HindiandEnglishfunctionaslinklanguages,withthecentralgovernmentrecognizingHindiastheofficial
languageandEnglishastheprovisionalsublanguage(Devy2018).
Languages2020,5,103of21
multilingualdiversitypresentsbothopportunitiesandchallengestotheeducationsystem,giventhe
hugepopulationandfrequentlylimitedresources.
InurbanareassuchasinNewDelhiandHyderabadwherethisstudywasconducted,the
percentageofminorityspeakersisoverallsmallerthaninruralareassuchasBihar,wherethenumber
ofminorityspeakersisover50%,speaking48differentmothertongues(1971censusdata,Bihar).
However,urbanslums—where17%ofurbancitizensinIndialive—includealargenumberof
internalmigrantswhomayspeakothermothertongues,orvarietiesoftheregionallanguage.Urban
slumsaresettlementswithinadequateaccesstosafewater,sanitationandinfrastructure,poor
structuralqualityofhousing,overcrowding,andinsecureresidentialstatus.Schoolattendancerates
forchildrenlivinginDelhislumsisaround54%,comparedtoattendanceratiosinDelhischools
overall,whichwas90%in2004(Tsujita2009).Asreportedinthesamestudy,around73%ofslum
childrenattendingStdIinDelhischoolsareoveraged,forreasonsrelatedtoschoolcapacityand
administrativeissuesincreasingstructuralinequalitiesandaffectingeducationquality.Overaged
childrenbringchallengesandbenefitstotheclassroomthough(AlcottandRose2017).
Akeyfactoraffectinglearningoutcomesissocialclass.Morespecifically,socioeconomicstatus
(SES)isoneofthecrucialfactorsinfluencingchildren’scognitiveperformance(BritoandNoble2014;
Ghoshetal.2015;BurneoGarcésetal.2019),andchildrenoflowSESaremorelikelytounderperform
thanchildrenfrommoreaffluentmiddleclassfamilies.AlthoughmiddleclasschildreninIndiaare
morelikelytoattendprivateschools,aspointedoutbytheASER2016report(Pratham,2017),the
differencesbetweenchildren’sperformanceingovernmentschoolsandprivateschoolscannot
necessarilybeattributedtodifferencesintheeffectivenessofthesetwoschooltypes,becausethey
mayalsobeduetotheinterplayofawiderangeofothervariables,includingSES(AlcottandRose
2017).ThereareseveralindicatorsofSES,suchasparentaleducation,income,occupation,facilities
athomeandintheneighborhood,sanitation,aswellasnutritionalandpsychologicalwellbeing
(Hackmanetal.2010;BritoandNoble2014;Royetal.2018).ChildrenfromlowSESbackgrounds
oftensufferfromlackofnutrition,poorhousingfacilities,andlackofparentalcareandcognitive
stimulationathome(PetrouandKupek2010;Walkeretal.2011).This,inturn,isassociatedwith
poorlearningoutcomesinchildrenintermsofschoolskills,language(seePaceetal.2017fora
review),andcognitivedevelopment(AlcottandRose2017;CunhaandHeckman2008;Fernaldetal.
2012;HackmanandFarah2009;Kellyetal.2011;Nobleetal.2005;PaxsonandSchady2007).For
example,ithasbeenfoundthatchildren(aged8–11)fromhigh/middleSESperformedbetterthan
lowSESchildrenonlanguage,memory,andexecutivefunctiontasks—namely,workingmemory,
cognitiveflexibility,andinhibition(AranFilippettiandRichauddeMinzi2012;AránFilippetti2013).
SimilarresultswereobtainedbyastudyinEcuador,where7to11yearoldmiddleSESchildren
outperformedlowSESchildrenonmemory,language,andexecutivefunctiontasks(BurneoGarcés
etal.2019).SincepoorperformanceofchildrenfromlowSESbackgroundshasbeenattributedto
lowparentaleducationandlackofparentalstimulation(Hamadanietal.2014;PetrouandKupek
2010;Walkeretal.2011),therelationshipbetweenSESandcognitivedevelopmentmaybeespecially
relevantforchildrenfromdevelopingcountries(UrsacheandNoble2016).
Inthewesterncontext,itiswellestablishedthatthereisadisparityinchildren’slearning
outcomesduetodifferencesinSES(CarneiroandHeckman2002,2003;Nobleetal.2005;Jerrimand
Vignoles2013).ThisisalsoevidentinmiddleincomedevelopingcountriessuchasIndiaand
Pakistan.Aslametal.(2019)examinedtheinfluenceofSESonlearningoutcomesin1683children
aged8–12yearsstudyingingovernmentschoolsinPakistan.Theyusedanindexofhouseholdassets
asameasureofSES,whichwascomprisedofquestionsrelatingtowhethertheirhousehadatable,
chair,radio,stove,mobilephone,colortelevision,bicycle,motorbike,car,fridge,orwaterfacilityin
thehouse,aswellastheconstructionmaterialusedtobuildtheirhouse.TheresultsindicatethatSES
wasasignificantpredictorforimprovedperformanceinliteracy,butnotnumeracyinanacademic
year.IntheIndiancontext,morethan50%ofchildreninGrade5areunabletoreadaGrade2text
(Pratham2014),andthelearningoutcomesinschoolsarelaggingby2grades(Bhattacharjeaetal.
2011).ThereisadisparityinaccesstoprimaryschooleducationinIndia,withchildrenfrommiddle‐
andhighincomehomesoptingforprivateschools,andchildrenfromlowincomefamiliesoptingfor
Languages2020,5,104of21
governmentschools(Agrawal2014;AlcottandRose2015;Pratham2017).Therearedifferences
betweengovernmentandprivateschoolswhichcontributetothedisparityinlearning,butitis
importanttoconsiderotherfactors,suchasSES,whichmayalsonegativelyinfluencelearning
outcomes.ChildrenoflowSESusuallytendtoenrollingovernmentschoolswhichhaveverylittle
funding;thesechildrenalsodonotreceiveenoughparentalsupportathome.Theirexposuretoprint
isalmostabsent—orrestrictedonlytomarketplaces(Tsimplietal.2019).Therefore,thereisanurgent
needtounderstandthefactorsaffectinglearningoutcomesinchildrencomingfromdisadvantaged
backgrounds.
OneoftheaspectsthatmaypositivelyinfluencethelearningoutcomesoflowSESchildrenin
Indiaismultilingualism,asIndiaprovidesastrongmultilingualsocietalcontext.Numerousstudies
haveexaminedthepotentialadvantageofbi‐ormultilingualsovermonolingualswhenitcomesto
cognitiveperformance(seeBialystok2009,foranoverview).Executivefunctioning,inparticular,
seemstobeenhancedinbilinguals(e.g.,Bialystoketal.2004;Bialystok2009;Costaetal.2008;Soveri
etal.2011a),althougheffectsarenotalwaysreplicated(Colzatoetal.2008;Costaetal.2009;Paap
andGreenberg2013).Ithasbeensuggestedthattheseinconsistenciesinresearchoutcomemay
dependonexternalfactors,suchasthepopulationunderinvestigation(Hansenetal.2016).
Therefore,itisunknownifmultilingualchildreninIndiafromlowSESbackgroundsalsoexperience
thecognitiveadvantagesassociatedwithmultilingualisminothercontexts.Inaddition,itis
unknownwhetherthelinguisticallydiverseenvironmentinwhichchildreninIndiagrowup
providesanycognitiveadvantagesindependentofthemultilingualismofachild.
1.2.MultilingualismandCognition
ToinvestigatethepotentialcognitiveadvantagesofmultilingualchildreninIndia,thechildren’s
cognitiveskillsinourstudywereassessedwithboththeRaven’sColouredProgressiveMatricestask
andthenbacktask.Raven’sColouredProgressiveMatrices(Ravenetal.2008)isafrequentlyused
measureofgeneral,orfluidintelligence.Wewerespecificallyinterestedinwhetherlinguistic
diversityandmultilingualismwererelatedtoachild’sfluidintelligence.Thetaskisfrequentlyused
withchildren(e.g.,Belacchietal.2010;Cottonetal.2005;Torregrossaetal.2019;Weichboldand
Herka2003;WeyandtandWillis1994)fromasearlyasage4(Raven2012).Althoughsimilartests
havetraditionallybeenconsideredascultureindependent(Cattell1940;CattellandCattell1963),a
crossculturalmetaanalysisofRaven’sProgressiveMatrices(threetypes,Advanced,Colored,and
StandardProgressiveMatrices,Raven1938,1956)showedthatperformanceofthetaskcanbe
influencedby“countrylevelindicatorsofeducationalpermeation”,aswellasnumberofyearsof
education(Brouwersetal.2009,p.330).Thus,itseemsthatfluidintelligence—oratleastperformance
ontheRaven’stask—issubjecttocontextualeffects.Nevertheless,therelationbetween
multilingualismandperformanceontheRaven’staskremainsunclear.Jarvisetal.(1995)foundno
relationshipbetweendegreeofbilingualismandRaven’sscoresinadults.ResearchfromBialystok’s
labreportsnodifferencebetweenmonolinguals’andbilinguals’Raven’sscoresinchildren(Bialystok
andShapero2005)oryoungerorolderadults(Bialystoketal.2004).Incontrast,Diaz(1985)founda
positivecorrelationbetweendegreeofbilingualismandRaven’sscoresinlowproficiency
kindergartenagebilingualchildren(butnotinhighproficiencychildren).Otherstudieshavealso
foundevidenceofbilingualchildrenoutperformingmonolingualsontheRaven’stask(Mohantyand
Das1987;PealandLambert1962).
InadditiontotheRaven’stask,thenbacktaskwasalsoadministered.Thenbacktask(Kirchner
1958;Mackworth1959;MooreandRoss1963)isacommonmeasureofworkingmemorythathas
frequentlybeenusedwithschoolagedchildren(e.g.,Ciesielskietal.2006;LópezVicenteetal.2016;
Scudderetal.2014;Vuontelaetal.2003),childrenwithdevelopmentaldisorders(Epsteinetal.2011;
LópezVicenteetal.2016),andchildrenwithtraumaticbraininjury(Levinetal.2002).Asthetask
involvesupdatingoftaskrelevantinformationthroughexecutivefunctioning(Cohenetal.1997;
Miyakeetal.2000),itmaybeexpectedtobeinfluencedbybilingualism.Littlehasbeenreported
aboutpotentialculturalorcontextualeffectsonthenback,butneitherfrequencyoflanguage
switchesineverydaylife,norageofacquisitioninthesecondlanguage(L2)(Soverietal.2011b),
Languages2020,5,105of21
norbilingualismingeneral(Moradzadehetal.2015;YowandLi2015)seemtoinfluencenback
performanceinadults,althougheffectsofbilingualismhavebeenfoundinhighconflictversionsof
thetasks(TeubnerRhodesetal.2016).Incontrast,positiveeffectsofbilingualismonnback
performancehavebeenfoundinchildren,butonlyforyoungerchildrenaroundage7and8inL2
immersionschools(Hansenetal.2016).
Generally,itisquitewelldocumentedthatSEShasanegativeinfluenceonlearningoutcomes
acrosstheglobe.Itisalsogenerallyassumedthatbilingualismhasapositiveinfluenceoncertain
aspectsofcognition,specificallyinthenonverbaldomain.However,thereisadearthofstudiesin
theIndiancontextthatcapturetheeffectsofsociolinguisticdiversityandmultilingualismon
cognitiveperformanceinchildrenfromlowSESbackgrounds.Therefore,thecurrentstudyfocuses
onexaminingtheinfluenceoflinguisticdiversity,multilingualism,andSESonalargesampleof
primaryschoolchildrenfromgovernmentschoolsinIndia.Theparticipatingchildreninourstudy
arefromlowSEShomes,livinginslumornonslumareas,andarealldisadvantagedanddeprived
withrespecttohousingfacilities,lackofparentaleducation/stimulationathome,waterfacilities,lack
ofadditionalliteracysupport,etc.,andarestudyingingovernmentschools.Althoughallthechildren
arefromunderprivilegedcontexts,thereisstillsomeamountofvariabilityintheirSES,aswellas
variabilityintheirmultilingualismandlinguisticdiversityintheirdailycontext.Tocapturethis,we
developedquestionnaires,eachcontainingaseriesofquestionsaddressingdifferentaspectsof
multilingualism,linguisticdiversity,andSES.Usingtheoutcomesofthesequestionnairesasproxies,
weinvestigatetherelationshipbetweenlinguisticdiversity,multilingualism,andcognitiveskillsin
disadvantagedchildreninIndia.Specifically,weformulatedthefollowingresearchquestions:
1. Howcanwequantifythedistinctionbetweenmultilingualismintheindividualandthe
linguisticallyandculturallydiverseenvironmentofchildreninIndianprimarygovernment
schools?
2. Istherearelationshipbetweenbilingualismand/orsociolinguisticdiversityandcognitiveskills?
3. Towhatextentdosocioeconomicstatus,mediumofinstruction,andotherdemographic
variablescorrelatewithcognitiveskills?
Ourhypothesiswithregardtoquestion2wasthatbilingualismandlinguisticdiversitywill
influencecognitiveperformance.Althoughacertaindegreeofcorrelationbetweenthetwoconstructs
isexpected,weassumethatinamultilingual,highlylinguisticallydiversecountrysuchasIndia,the
constructsmaybedistinguishedandhence,contributeindependentlytochildren’scognitiveprofiles.
RegardingSES,followingseveralstudiesshowingalinkbetweenSESandcognitivedevelopment,
weexpectdifferencesamongparticipantsthatarerelatedtovariationinSES,despitetheoverall
disadvantagedbackgroundofourcohort.Finally,againfollowingstudiesindicatingthatfluid
intelligencecanbeaffectedbycontextualfactors,wehypothesizethatdifferencesinmediumof
instructionacrossschoolsinthetwourbansitesmaybefound.
2.MaterialsandMethods
2.1.Participants
694childrenfromtheIndiancitiesofDelhiandHyderabadparticipatedinthestudyduring
schoolhours.AllchildrenattendedYear4(Standard4)inGovernmentprimaryschools.Theschools
hadeithertheregionallanguage(HindiorTelugu)orEnglishasanofficialmediumofinstruction,
andwereineitherslumornonslumareasofthecity.Formalwrittenconsentwasobtainedfromthe
principalorheadteacherofall28participatingschools,aswellasthechildrenparticipatinginthe
study.ThestudywasconductedinaccordancewiththeDeclarationofHelsinki,theESRC’s
FrameworkforResearchEthics(ESRC2010),andtheguidelinesoftheIndianCouncilforMedical
Research(ICMR2006).TheprotocolwasapprovedbytheEthicsCommitteeoftheUniversityof
Cambridge(RG83665),theEthicsCommitteesofJawaharlalNehruUniversity,andtheNational
InstituteofMentalHealthandNeurosciences.
Languages2020,5,106of21
Childrenwereclassifiedasgrowingupmonolinguallyorbilingually,dependingonwhether
theyweregrowingupwithoneormorelanguagesinthehome.Childrenwithanyreadingdifficulty
basedonreportsfromtheteacherswereexcludedfromthestudy.Sevenchildrenwhoperformed
belowchancelevel(scoredbelowzero;seeScoringsection)onthenbacktaskwereexcludedbecause
theydidnotdisplayanunderstandingofthetask.Ademographicoverviewoftheremaining
childrenispresentedinTable1.
Table1.Overviewofthedemographicinformation.
LocationNumber GenderAge(SD)AgeRangeMediumof
InstructionSchoolSite
Delhi371178f,
193m8.75(0.65)8–1275Hindi,
296English
173slum,
198nonslum
Hyderabad316176f,
140m9.56(1.20)8–15199Telugu,
117English
170slum,
146nonslum
Total687354f,
333m9.12(1.03)8–15
274regional
language,
413English
343slum,
344nonslum
2.2.Methods
Thechildrencompletedanumberofexperimentalcognitivetasksandquestionnaires.Thetasks
wereadministeredbyresearchassistantsfromIndiawhowereproficientinboththeregional
language(Hindi/Telugu)andEnglish.ThecognitivetasksconsistedoftheRaven’sColoured
ProgressiveMatrices(henceforthRaven’stask;Ravenetal.2008)asameasureofgeneralintelligence,
anda2backtask(avariantofthenbacktask;Kirchner1958)asameasureofworkingmemory.The
questionnairesconsistedofquestionsaboutlinguisticdiversity,bilingualism,andSES.
TheRaven’stask(Ravenetal.2008)isanonverbaltaskthatconsistsof36multiplechoice
exercisesinwhichtheparticipantisaskedtoidentifyoneofsixpossiblepiecesthatmatcheswitha
givenpattern.Thetaskisofincreasingdifficulty.Itwaspresentedtochildrenaspicturesonalaptop,
andchildrenwereaskedtoidentifythecorrectpiecebyeitherpointingtoitorreportingitsnumber.
TheRaven’staskiswidelyusedasameasureofgeneral/fluidintelligence.Thefactthatitisnon
verbalmakesitanappropriatetaskforoursamplepopulationof(oftenmultilingual)children;a
standardizedversionhasbeendevelopedfortheIndianpopulation(Raven’sEducationalCPM/CVS
(India);Raven2012).
The2backtask(Kirchner1958)isataskthatrequiresparticipantstomonitorasequenceof
characters(weuseddigitsratherthanletters),anddeterminewhetherthepresenteddigitmatches
thedigitthatwaspresented2digitsback.Thetaskwaspresentedtochildrenonalaptopusing
PsychoPy(Peirce2007).Ifthecurrentlypresenteddigitwasindeedidenticaltothedigitthatwas
presented2digitsback,thechildshouldhaverespondedwithakeypress(key‘J’).Ifthepresented
digitdidnotmatchthedigitthatwaspresented2digitsback,thechildshouldnothavepresseda
key.Digitswerepresentedonthescreenfor500mseachandwereseparatedbyablankslidethat
wasdisplayedfor2500ms.Thetaskconsistedof60digitsintotal,ofwhich20matchedthedigitthat
waspresented2digitsback(hits),whichshouldhavebeenrespondedtowithakeypress,and40did
notmatchthedigitthatwaspresented2digitsback(falsealarms).The2backtaskiswidelyaccepted
asameasureofworkingmemoryrequiredtostoreeachdigittemporarily,theupdatingofworking
memorywhenremovingdigitsthatarenolongerrelevant,andtheinhibitionofirrelevantdigits(e.g.,
MorrisandJones1990;Miyakeetal.2000).
ThechildquestionnaireswereadaptedfrompreviousstudieswithbilingualsbyKaltsaetal.
(2019)andRothouandTsimpli(2017).Regardingbi/multilingualism,childrenwereaskedwhich
languageswerespokenathomebytheirparents,siblings,orotherrelativesandbestfriends—andin
whichlanguagestheyusetorespond.Importantly,thesequestionsrelatetothenumberofdifferent
languagesusedbythechild,andtothechild,inthehome/privateenvironment,andnotintheschool
environment.Inaddition,socialandsociolinguisticdiversitywasinvestigated.Thispartofthe
Languages2020,5,107of21
questionnaireaskedthechildforthenumberofdifferentindividualswithwhomtheyhadregular
interactionswithinthecontextofschool,family,orthecommunity(e.g.,themarketplace).Foreach
oftheseinteractions,thechildrenwereaskedtoreportthegenderandageofthepersonwithwhom
theyinteractedandthelanguage(s)thechildknewthispersonspoke.Althoughsomeoverlapwith
themeasureofmonolingualismorbilingualismathomewasexpected,thesociolinguisticdiversity
questionsprovidedinformationadditionaltothelanguage(s)thechildusedathome.Notethatthe
differentlanguagesthechildreportedinthesociolinguisticdiversityquestionnaireneedednotbe
languagesthatthechildspoke,butlanguagesthattheindividualsinteractingwiththechildhad,of
whichthechildwasaware.
Thesocioeconomicstatusofthechildrenwasinvestigatedthroughachildquestionnaire
speciallydevelopedforthispopulationofIndianchildrenthathadanexclusivesectiononhome
activitiesandparents’work.Itincludedquestionsabouttheirparents’income,numberofroomsin
thechild’shome,numberofgadgetsathome(gadgetsbeingaTVandphone,butalsoafridge,cooler,
fanetc.),whethertheyhaveadrinkingwatertapintheirhomeorwaterhadtobecollectedfrom
outsidethehouse,whethertheydidchoresathome,andwhethertheyspentanytimedoing
homework.Weobtainedinformationaboutparent’soccupationinthesamequestionnaire,butthere
waslowvariability(around4outof5workingmotherswereworkingasmaidsandfatherswere
workingaslaborers).
2.3.Scoring
TheRaven’staskwasscoredbasedontherawscores,i.e.,thenumberofcorrectanswersthata
childgaveforthe36questionsintotal.AlthoughthestandardscoresweredevelopedfromtheIndian
population(Raven2012),theyarebasedonchildrenfromuppermiddleclassfamiliesthatattend
Englishmedium(oftenprivate)schools,thusmaynotberepresentativeofoursampleoflowSES
children.Therefore,weperformedallanalysesrelatingtotheRaven’staskwiththerawscores,with
lowerscoresreflectingpoorerperformance.
Forthe2backtask,acompositescore(A’orAprime,firstintroducedbyPollackandNorman
1964)wascalculatedbasedonparticipants’hitratesandfalsealarmrates(accordingtotheAscores
inZhangandMueller2005).Thisisacommonwaytomeasurenonparametricsensitivityin
detectiontaskssuchasthe2backtask.AhigherA’scoreindicatesthataparticipantwasbetterable
toperformthetaskingeneral,withfewermissesandwrongkeypresses;anA’scoreabovezero
meansthattheparticipantwasabletodiscriminatehitsfromfalsealarmsandthusabletoperform
thetaskproperly(abovechance).
Regardingbilingualism,childrenwerecategorizedasbi/multilingualiftheyhadmorethanone
languageintheirhomeenvironment.Noadditionaldistinctionsweremadebasedonthenumberof
additionallanguages.Importantly,thismeasuredoesnotprovideinformationaboutthefluencyofa
childinthesecondlanguageortheamountofexposuretoit.Itdoespresuppose,however,thatthe
childcouldspeakandunderstandthesehomelanguages.
Sociolinguisticdiversitywascalculatedasacompositescorebasedonthechildquestionnaire
section.Specifically,thethreesectionsthatthequestionnaireincludedwithregardtotheage,gender
andlanguageprofileoftheindividualswithwhomthechildinteractedregularlyinschool,within
thefamily,andinthecommunity(e.g.,themarketplace)wereeachwasgradedasfollows:
1pointiftheconversationalpartnerwasofthesamegendervs.2pointsifthepartnerwasofa
differentgender;
1pointiftheconversationalpartnerwasofthesameage,2pointsiftheconversationalpartner
wasofadifferentage,and3pointsiftherewereconversationalpartnersofboththesameanda
differentage;
1pointiftheinteractionswereinthesamelanguageasthechild’shomelanguagevs.2pointsif
theinteractionswereinadifferentlanguage.
Iftherewasnoconversationalpartnermentionedinacertainsection,childrenwouldnotreceive
anypoints.Thechildrencouldthusreceiveaminimumof0pointsandamaximumof7pointsfor
Languages2020,5,108of21
eachsection,makingatotalmaximumscoreof21points,withahigherscorereflectingmore
sociolinguisticdiversity.
Thechildren’ssocioeconomicstatusscorewascalculatedasacompositescorefromthedifferent
questionsonthequestionnaire.Specifically,thechildrenreceived:
1pointforincomewhenonlyoneparentworkedvs.2pointswhenbothparentsworked;
1pointwhentheirhousehad1roomvs.2pointswhentheirhousehadtwoormorerooms;
1pointwhentheyhad1gadgetathome,2pointswhentheyhad2gadgetsathome,and3points
whentheyhad3ormoregadgetsathome;
1pointwhentheyhadtapwaterinthehousevs.0pointswhentheydidnot;
1pointwhentheydidnochoresathomevs.0pointswhentheydid;
1pointwhentheydidhomeworkaftergoingbackhomevs.0pointwhentheydidnot;
Thisaddeduptoatotalscorebetween3and10points,reflectingarangeofsocioeconomic
statuses,withahigherscorereflectingahigherstatus.Recallhowever,thatallchildreninourstudy
areoflowSES.
2.4.Analysis
TheinternalconsistencyofourquestionnairesforsociolinguisticdiversityandSESwas
calculatedasCronbach’sαusingthe‘psych’packageinR(Revelle2019).Theinfluenceofthese
measuresonperformanceonthecognitivetaskswasexaminedwithlinearmodelsinR.Sinceweare
interestedininfluenceofsociolinguisticdiversity,bilingualism,andSESoncognitiveskills,thetwo
cognitivetasks(Raven’sand2back)weretakenasdependentvariablesintheanalyses,andall
additionalvariables(bilingualisminthehome,sociolinguisticdiversityscore,SESscore,age,gender,
city,mediumofinstruction,andschoolsite)weretakenasindependentvariables.Allvariableswith
multiplelevels(asopposedtonumericalvariables)werecodedusingeffectcoding.Modelswere
constructedtestingtheinfluenceofspecificindependentvariablesonthecognitiveskills,basedon
theresearchquestions.Themodelscontainingdemographicvariablesweresimplifiedintermsof
removingindependentvariableswhenmodelcomparisonsrevealedthatthesevariablesdidnot
significantlyimprovethemodelfit.Forposthocanalyses,thedatasetwassplitintomonolingualsat
homeandbilingualsathome,aswellasintochildrenfromDelhiandchildrenfromHyderabad.The
relativeeffectsizesofsignificantmaineffectswerecalculatedusingCohen’s(‘effsize’packageinR;
Torchiano2019).Inaddition,therelationshipbetweenthedifferentdependentvariables(i.e.,the
possiblecorrelationbetweenRaven’sand2back)andbetweenthedifferentindependentvariables
(e.g.,thepossiblecorrelationbetweenSESscoreandsociolinguisticdiversityscore)intheformof
correlationmatriceswerecomputedwiththesamesoftware.
3.Results
Theresultsarediscussedbyresearchquestionbelow.
3.1.HowCanWeQuantifytheDistinctionbetweenMultilingualismintheIndividualandtheLinguistically
andCulturallyDiverseEnvironmentofChildreninGovernmentPrimarySchoolsinIndia?
ThescoresofthechildrenonthedifferenttasksandquestionnairesarelistedinTable2.The
children’sscoresonbilingualism,onsociolinguisticdiversity,andonSESarediscussedinmoredetail
inthissection.Approximately41%ofthechildreninthestudywerebilingualormultilingual,based
onthepresenceofmorethanonelanguageintheirhomeenvironment.Thedistributionofthe
children’sscoresonsociolinguisticdiversityandSESarepresentedinFigure1.Thesegraphsshow
thatforbothmeasures,thechildrenshowadistributionoverthehigherrangesofthescores,with
mostchildrenhavingasociolinguisticdiversityscorebetween9and19,andmostchildrenhavingan
SESscorebetween6and10.Thereliabilityofthesociolinguisticdiversityquestionnaire,reflectedin
Cronbach’sα,is0.68,whichisconsideredanacceptablelevelofreliabilityandinternalconsistency
betweenthedifferentquestionsthatmakeupthetotalscore(Streiner2003;Ursachietal.2015).The
samecalculationofreliabilityfortheSESquestionsrenderedaCronbach’sαof0.32,indicatinglow
Languages2020,5,109of21
internalconsistency.Theresultsalsoshowthatthiscannotberesolvedbyremovingonespecific
question,andthusindicatethatthequestionsmaybetappingintodifferentaspectsofSES.The
childrenfromthetwodifferentcities(Delhivs.Hyderabad)showsimilarmeanscoresandasimilar
distributionofscoresofsociolinguisticdiversity,butshowdifferentdistributionsofSES,with
HyderabadscoringhigherthanDelhi(seeTable2andAppendixA).
Table2.Overviewoftheaveragescoresonthecognitivetasksandthequestionnaires(SES=socio
economicstatus;SD=standarddeviation).
Location Raven’sRaw
Score(SD)
nBack
APrime
(SD)
Sociolinguistic
Diversity
max.21(SD)
SES
max.10(Sd)
Delhimonolinguals
(n=228,61%)20.1(5.9)0.69(0.14)14.9(1.1)6.8(1.0)
bilinguals
(n=143,39%)21.1(5.6)0.70(0.15)15.4(1.4)7.1(1.2)
totalDelhi20.5(5.8)0.69(0.14)15.1(1.3)6.9(1.0)
Hyderabadmonolinguals
(n=175,55%)15.7(5.1)0.65(0.17)13.7(3.0)8.2(1.0)
bilinguals
(n=141,45%)17.3(6.2)0.69(0.15)15.8(2.6)8.4(0.9)
totalHyderabad16.4(5.7)0.67(0.17)14.7(3.0)8.3(1.0)
Total
average
monolinguals
(n=403,59%)18.2(6.0)0.67(0.15)14.4(2.2)7.4(1.2)
bilinguals
(n=284,41%)19.2(6.2)0.70(0.15)15.6(2.1)7.8(1.2)
Total18.6(6.1)0.68(0.15)14.9(2.3)7.5(1.2)
Figure1.Distributionofthescoresonsociolinguisticdiversity(leftgraph)andsocioeconomicstatus
(SES,rightgraph),basedonthequestionnaires.
Whenexaminingtheoverlapbetweenthemeasuresobtainedfromourquestionnairescompared
tothemoretraditional,binarymeasuresofbilingualisminthehome(yes/no)andschoolsite
(slum/nonslum)inFigure2,itcanbeseenthatthesebinarymeasureshavedifficultiescapturingthe
diversitydisplayedbythesampleofchildren.Morespecifically,althoughonemightexpectchildren
frombilingualhomestohavehighersociolinguisticdiversityscoresthanthosefrommonolingual
homes,therewasconsiderableoverlapinsociolinguisticdiversityscoresbetweenthetwogroups,as
shownbytheareashadedinpurple.Likewise,onemightexpectchildrenfromschoolsinslumareas
tohavelowerSESscoresthanchildrenfromschoolsinnonslumareas,butagaintherewasavery
largeoverlapbetweenthetwogroups.Thus,themeasuresofsociolinguisticdiversityandSES
seemedtoassessdifferentsocial,cultural,and/orlinguisticaspectsthanthesebinary
categorizations—reflectingthelinguisticallyandculturallydiverseenvironmentofthesechildren.
Languages2020,5,1010of21
Figure2.Distributionofthescoresofsociolinguisticdiversityforbilingualsandmonolinguals(left
graph)andsocioeconomicstatus(SES)forchildrenfromschoolsinslumandnonslumareas(right
graph).Purpleareasreflecttheoverlapbetweenthetwogroupsonthesociolinguisticdiversityor
SESscores.
Inaddition,weexaminedwhetherthescoresonthedifferentcognitivetaskscorrelatewitheach
other,andwhetherthescoresonthequestionnairescorrelatewitheachother.Theresultsare
presentedinFigure3.WefoundasignificantnegativecorrelationbetweenRaven’scoreandSES
score(r=−0.17,p<0.001),indicatingthatchildrenwithhigherSEShadlowerRaven’scores,reflecting
moreinteractionsindifferentlanguages.Anadditionalpositivecorrelationwasfoundbetween
children’sscoresonthe2backtaskandtheirscoresontheRaven’stask(r=0.27,p<0.001),indicating
thatperformanceonthetwocognitivetaskswasrelated.
Figure3.Correlationmatrixpresentingthecorrelationsbetweenthecognitivescoresandthesocio
economicandsociolinguisticdiversityscoresinvestigatedinthispaper(SES=socioeconomicstatus).
Correlationswithablueorpinkbackgroundarestatisticallysignificantata0.01level.
3.2.IsThereaRelationshipbetweenBilingualismand/orSociolinguisticDiversityandCognitiveSkills?
Thesecondresearchquestionfocusesonthepotentialrelationshipsbetweenbilingualism,
linguisticdiversity,andcognitiveskills.Tothisend,separateanalyseswereperformedinvestigating
theinfluenceofbilingualismandsociolinguisticdiversityonthe2backtaskandonRaven’stask..
Theresultsshowthatchildrenfrombilingualhomesperformbetteronthe2backtask,withamean
scoreof0.67forchildrenfrommonolingualhomes,comparedtoameanscoreof0.70forchildren
frombilingualhomes=0.03;t=2.2;p<0.05,seeFigure4,leftgraph).Thesizeofthiseffectislarge
sociolinguistic diversity score
number of children
0 5 10 15 20
0 50 100 150 200
bilinguals
monolinguals
Languages2020,5,1011of21
accordingtoaCohen’sdof1.97.Nosignificantinfluenceofsociolinguisticdiversitywasfoundfor
the2backtask=‐0.00;t=‐1.5;p=0.13).
TheresultsfortheRaven’staskshowapositiveeffectofbilingualismaswell,withanaverage
scoreof18.2forchildrenfrommonolingualhomes,comparedto19.2forchildrenfrombilingual
homes=15.5;t=4.7;p<0.001,seeFigure4,rightgraph).Thesizeofthiseffectwaslarge,basedon
aCohen’sdof3.8.Nomaineffectofsociolinguisticdiversitywasfound=0.05;t=0.5;p=0.61),but
aninteractionwasobservedbetweenbilingualismandsociolinguisticdiversity=−0.96;t=−4.4;p
<0.001).ThisinteractionindicatesthattheeffectsofsociolinguisticdiversityscoresontheRaven’s
taskweredifferentforchildrenfrombilingualcomparedtothosefrommonolingualhomes(see
Figure5).Investigatingthisinteractionfurther,wesplitupthedatasetintoagroupofchildrenfrom
bilingualhomesandagroupofchildrenfrommonolingualhomesandinvestigatedtheeffectsof
sociolinguisticdiversityinthesegroupsofchildrenseparatelywithlinearmodels.Theresultsshow
thatforchildrenfrommonolingualhomes,therewasasignificantpositivecorrelationbetween
sociolinguisticdiversityscoreandRaven’sscore=0.42;t=3.2;p<0.01),whereasforchildrenfrom
bilingualhomesanegativecorrelationwasfound=‐0.53;t=−3.1;p<0.01).
 
Figure4.Overviewofthepositivecorrelationsbetweenbilingualismandcognitivescores;2back
scoreintheleftgraphandRaven’sscoreintherightgraph.
Figure5.Visualrepresentationoftheinteractionbetweensociolinguisticdiversityandbilingualism
ontheRaven’sscore.
Languages2020,5,1012of21
3.3.ToWhatExtentdoSocioEconomicStatus,MediumofInstruction,andotherDemographicVariables
CorrelatewithCognitiveSkills?
ThefinalresearchquestioninvestigatesthepossibleinfluenceofSES,gender,age,city,medium
ofinstruction,andschoolsiteonthescoresonthecognitivetasks.Whenexaminingthe2backscores,
theonlyfactorthatimprovedthemodelfit—andwasthusretainedasanindependentvariable—was
mediumofinstruction.Theresultsshowthattheaverageperformanceonthe2backtaskdiffered
betweenthethreemediumsofinstruction,withchildreninHindimediumschools(meanscore0.71)
outperformingchildreninTelugumediumschools(meanscore0.65;ß=0.05;t=2.6;p<0.01;large
effectsize;Cohen’sd=2.0).Neitherofthesegroupsperformedsignificantlydifferentlyfromchildren
inEnglishmediumschools(meanscore0.69).Notethattheseweremediumofinstructioneffects
ratherthancityeffects,ascitydidnotprovetobeasignificantpredictor(withmeanscoresof0.69in
Delhiand0.67inHyderabad).Thisisinlinewiththedistributionofscoresfromthe2backtaskfor
childrenfromDelhiandHyderabad,whichareverysimilar(seeFigure6,leftgraph).NeitherSES
scorenorschoolsite(slumornonslum)weresignificantpredictorsofperformanceonthe2back
task.
FortheRaven’sscore,onlycitycontributedtothebestmodel.Thislargeeffectofcityindicates
thatchildrenfromDelhiperformedbetterontheRaven’staskthanchildrenfromHyderabad=
4.22;t=9.6;p<0.001;Cohen’sd=4.5)
2
.ThiscanbeseeninthemeanscorespresentedinTable2as
wellasinFigure6(rightgraph),whichshowsmorelowscoresforchildrenformHyderabadthanfor
childrenfromDelhi.NotethatthecorrelationbetweenSESandRaven’sscore,aspresentedinFigure
3,didnotreachsignificanceinthecurrentanalysesduetotheoverlapinexplanatorypowerbetween
cityandSES;childrenfromDelhihadlowerSESscoresandperformedbetterontheRaven’stask
thanchildrenfromHyderabad.ToinvestigatethepossibleeffectofSESfurther,wethereforesplitup
thedatasetintochildrenfromDelhiandchildrenfromHyderabadandinvestigatedtheeffectsofSES
inthesegroupsofchildrenseparatelywithlinearmodels.Theresultsshowthatwithinthesecities,
nosignificanteffectsofSESonRaven’sscorewerefound(Delhi:ß=0.44;t=1.5;p=0.12,Hyderabad
ß=−0.29;t=−0.9;p=0.39).
Figure6.Distributionofscoresonthe2backtask(leftgraph)andontheRaven’stask(rightgraph)forchildren
fromDelhiandHyderabad.Purpleareasreflecttheoverlapbetweenthechildrenfromthetwocitiesonthe2
backandRaven’sscores.
2
 Basedonthisfinding,wereexaminedwhetherthefindingsonbilingualismandsociolinguistic
diversityinfluencingRaven’sscoresstillheldwhencitywastakenintoaccountasanindependent
variableinthemodel.Theresultsshowthattheeffectsofbilingualismandtheinteractionbetween
bilingualismandsociolinguisticdiversitywereunaffectedbytheadditionofcityasafactor.
Languages2020,5,1013of21
4.Discussion
Thestudy’sgoalwastoevaluatetheroleofmultilingualismandlinguisticdiversityinthe
cognitiveskillsofprimaryschoolchildrenfrompoorsocioeconomicbackgroundinurbanIndia.To
thisend,weexploredvariabilityindemographicssuchasage,genderandSES,aswellas
sociolinguisticdiversityinthedailycontextsofthechild’slife,i.e.,school,homeandcommunity,as
possiblefactorsaffectingthechild’sperformanceontasksassessingfluidintelligenceandupdating.
Bi‐ormultilingualismathomewasconsideredaseparatefactorthataddresseswhetherachilduses
onlyonelanguageathome,ormorethanone.Incontrast,sociolinguisticdiversityaimedtoassess
thechild’sfamily,school,andsocialencounterswithindividualswhomayhavethesameordifferent
ageorgenderasthechild,andwhomayspeakoneormorelanguagesofwhichthechildisaware,
butdoesnotnecessarilyknoworuse.Thus,althoughanoverlapbetweenthechild’smultilingualism
andsociolinguisticdiversityisexpected,asmultiplehomelanguageswillalsoincreasethediversity
index,thetwoconstructsarenotidentical.
Ourfirstresearchquestionfocusedonthedistinctionbetweenmultilingualismintheindividual
childandsociolinguisticdiversityinthechild’sdailyenvironment.Bothfactorswereevaluatedusing
aquestionnaire.Ourdataconfirmedourhypothesis,namely,thatthemeasureofsociolinguistic
diversityassessesadistinctconstructfromthechild’smultilingualism.Inparticular,sociolinguistic
diversityshowedalargeoverlapbetweenmonolingualsandbilinguals,confirmingthatthesetwo
measuresreflectdifferentaspectsofachild’slinguisticprofile.Furthermore,theoverlapconfirms
ourexpectationthatchildreninIndia,whethermonolingualorbilingual,experienceconsiderable
socialandlinguisticdiversityintheirdailylives.Similarly,thefindingsshowthatourproxymeasure
ofSESreflectssomethingdifferentfromtheslum/nonslumdistinctionthatisbasedonthelocation
oftheirschools.Specifically,theoverlapinthedistributionofSESscoresacrosschildrenfromslum
andnonslumareasindicatesthatwhateverthedistinctionencodes,itisnotcomprehensively
capturedbythemeasureofSESalone.Furthermore,slumsdonotnecessarilysharethesame
characteristicsacrossthetwocities,withconditionsinurbanslumsinHyderabadbeingconsiderably
morechallengingthanthoseinDelhi(GlaeserandSims2015;GovtofNationalCapitalTerritoryof
Delhi2015).Specifically,thenumberofurbanpoorinHyderabadhasincreasedby264%since2001,
suggestingthatonethirdofthepopulationlivesinslumsinconditionsconsiderablyworsethanin
otherurbansites,asprovisionsarenotadequate.ThismakesthecomparisonbetweenDelhiand
Hyderabadslums—andtherespectivepovertylevels—hardtodraw.Althoughwewillattemptthis
infutureresearch,theoverlapinSESscoresinslum/nonslumschoolsremainsvalid.Theimportance
ofthesefactorsisillustratedbytheirdifferentialeffectsoncognitiveperformance,asdiscussedbelow.
Thesecondresearchquestionwasconcernedwiththerelationshipbetweenbilingualism,
sociolinguisticdiversity,andcognitiveskills.Itwasfoundthatbilingualsoutperformmonolinguals
onboththenbacktaskandtheRaven’stask(inlinewithDiaz1985;Hansenetal.2016;Mohantyand
Das1987;PealandLambert1962,butcontraBialystokandShapero2005;Jarvisetal.1995;
Moradzadehetal.2015;YowandLi2015),reflectingenhanced(updatingof)workingmemoryand
fluidintelligence,respectively.Inaddition,itwasfoundthatthemonolinguals’scoresontheRaven’s
taskwerepositivelyinfluencedbylinguisticdiversityintheirenvironment.Thus,alinguistically
diverseenvironmentseemstoenhancecognitiveperformanceforchildrenwhoarenotmultilingual
themselves.Nevertheless,nomaineffectofsociolinguisticdiversitywasfound,indicatingthat
bilingualismandsociolinguisticdiversityarenotadditiveeffects;theybothleadtobetter
performanceoncognitivetasks,butabilinguallivinginahighlylinguisticallydiverseenvironment
doesnotoutperformotherbilinguals.Anunexpectedfindingregardingtheeffectsofsociolinguistic
diversityconcernsthenegativeimpacttheyseemtohaveontheRaven’sscoresofbilingualchildren.
Althoughweareunabletoexplainthisfindingatthispoint,somepossiblereasonsmaybe
considered.First,thenumberofbilingualchildrenfromeachcityissimilar,althoughbilingualsare
proportionatelymoreinHyderabad.LookingmorecarefullyatthebilingualprofiledataoftheDelhi
andHyderabadchildren,weobservethatallofthe143bilingualchildreninDelhihaveHindiasone
oftheirhomelanguages.Incontrast,ofthe141bilingualchildreninHyderabad,81,i.e.,57%,donot
haveTeluguasoneoftheirhomelanguages.Thishasimplicationsforthedifficultiesfacedbythe
Languages2020,5,1014of21
HyderabadbilingualswhoattendeitherTelugumediumorEnglishmediumschools,asinbothcases
thechildrenarepresentedwithschoollanguagesthatareunfamiliartothemfromhome.Incontrast,
inDelhi,theoverwhelmingdominanceofHindithere—andinmanyNorthIndianstatesfromwhere
manyofthebilingualchildrenhavemigrated—impliesthatlinguisticfamiliaritywiththeschool
languageisinplace.ItisworthnotingatthispointthattheEnglishmediumschoolsinDelhiprovide
veryloworalinputinEnglish,andmostoftheclassisdeliveredinHindi(Lightfootetal.,submitted).
Asaresult,HindidominanceisalsoattestedinofficiallyEnglishmediumschools,enablingtheDelhi
bilingualgrouptobenefitfromamatchbetweentheschoolandthehomelanguage.Thisdifference
betweentheDelhiandtheHyderabadbilingualgroupsmaycontributetothenegativeimpactof
increasedsociolinguisticdiversityonchildren’sRaven’sscores,asthesociolinguisticdiversityfaced
bythebilingualsinHyderabadmaybeunderstoodasachallengeimposedbythelackoffamiliarity
withlanguagesoutsidehome.Anotherrelatedreasonmaypossiblystemfromthedifferencesamong
thepopulationsoftheurbanpoorinthetwocities.Asmentionedabove,Hyderabadischallenged
byarecentincreaseinthenumberofslumdwellersandanoverallhigherpercentageofurbanpoor
comparedtoDelhi.Itissuggestedthatthisincreaseisduetoaninfluxofruralmigrantswhoare
culturallyandlinguisticallydiverse(GlaeserandSims2015).Itisthuspossiblethatthecombination
ofmigrationandpovertyfurthercontributetothenegativeimpactofsociolinguisticdiversityonthe
bilingualgroup’sperformance.
Regardingthepositiveeffectsofbilingualismonfluidintelligence,ourresultsarecompatible
withliteraturesuggestingcontextualeffectsonRaven’sperformance(e.g.,Brouwersetal.2009).In
ourstudy,thecontextualeffectsonRaven’sstemnotonlyfrombilingualism,butalsofrom
sociolinguisticdiversityinthemonolingualgroup.Recallthatourparticipantsareallfrom
disadvantagedbackgrounds,albeitwithsomevariationintheirSESscores.Furthermore,
sociolinguisticdiversityandbilingualismarecorrelated.Thiscorrelationisintuitivelyplausibleon
thegroundsthatmultilingualparticipantsinevitablyexperiencehigherlinguisticdiversity.Variation
isthenexpectedtobefoundinthemonolingualparticipantsonly,andheretheeffectisinthe
directionofimprovedperformanceonRaven’s,withhighersociolinguisticdiversityinthe
monolingualchildren’senvironment.NeithersociolinguisticdiversitynorSESaffectedperformance
onworkingmemory,however.Bilingualismwastheonlysignificantpredictorfor2backscores.
Turningtothethirdresearchquestionofourstudy,thefindingsshowseveraleffectsof
demographicvariablesoncognitiveskills.NoeffectofSESonfluidintelligencewasfound,whichis
inconsistentwithpreviousliteratureontherelationshipbetweenSESandcognitiveperformance
(BurneoGarcésetal.2019;Paceetal.2017).However,ourdatawereobtainedfromasampleof
disadvantaged,lowSESchildren,sodifferencesinsocioeconomicstatuswithinthiscohortmaybe
small.ThelowerSESofourparticipantsmaybeexemplifiedindifferentways.Specifically,someof
thechildrenwerefirstgenerationlearners,i.e.,theycomefromhouseholdswithverylowlevelsof
literacy,afactwhichmayalsobededucedfromparents’occupation(maid/laborer).Severalofour
researchassistantsfurtherconfirmedthedisadvantagedstatusofmanychildreninthiscohort.In
someoftheirreports,researchassistantsconfirmedthat“middaymeals[arethe]reasonbehind
students’highattendanceinforenoonclasses;gradually[leadingto]poor[er]attendanceinthe
afternoonclasses.”Inaddition,“[thechildren’s]housesdonothaveproperspaceforsleepingand
evenforanyactivity”,and“workingonacomputerforcognitivetaskswassomethingverynewto
manystudents.”Thisissupportedbyfindingsfromtheliteraturethatprovisionofamiddaymeal
improvesschoolparticipation,especiallyingirls,inruralIndia(DrèzeandKingdon2001).We
additionallyknowthatschoolattendanceinIndiaispositivelyrelatedtotheeducationlevelof
parentsandnegativelyrelatedtopovertyandhouseholdsize(Jayachandran2002).
Incontrast,aneffectofmediumofinstructiononthe2backtaskwasfound,withchildrenfrom
HindimediumschoolsoutperformingchildrenfromTelugumediumschools,andaneffectofcityon
theRaven’stask,withchildrenfromDelhioutperformingchildrenfromHyderabad.AsallHindi
mediumschoolswerelocatedinDelhi,andallTelugumediumschoolsinHyderabad,theseeffects
arelikelytoberelated.Weconsiderithighlyunlikelythatlanguageitselfwasthecauseofthese
effects,hencethefindingswarrantfurtherinspectionofthedifferencesbetweenchildrenfromDelhi
Languages2020,5,1015of21
andHyderabad.Asbilingualismwasestablishedasapredictorofbetterscoresoncognitivetasks,
wefurtherexaminedwhichtypesofschoolsbilingualandmonolingualchildrenattend(seeTable3).
Adifferencewasfoundbetweentheschoolsthatbilingualsattendinthetwocities,with
monolingualsinHyderabadattendingprimarilyTelugumediumschools,andmonolingualsinDelhi
attendingbothHindimediumandEnglishmediumschools.Wethereforepostulatethatthe
differencesinmediumofinstructionmayhavebeenduetoTelugumediumschoolsbeingattended
mainlybymonolinguals,whoweregenerallyoutperformedbybilinguals.
Table3.OverviewofthepercentageofmonolingualandbilingualchildrenineitherEnglishor
regionallanguagemediumofinstructionschools(childreninEMI(EnglishMediumofInstruction),
HMI(HindiMediumofInstruction),andTMI(TeluguMediumofInstruction)schools).
LocationMonolingualsBilingualsSociolinguisticDiversity
Delhi46.1%EMI–53.9%HMI65.0%EMI–35.0%HMI15.0EMI–15.2HMI
Hyderabad