Mar 22, 2012

The Huge Benefits of Being Bilingual

That's why it's critical children in an English-speaking country speak a non-English language, preferably their parents' mother tongue. Being able to listen/understand is NOT enough; speaking must also come equally important. (EJ)


GRAY MATTER

Why Bilinguals Are Smarter

Harriet Russell
By 
Published: March 17, 2012




SPEAKING two languages rather than just one has obvious practical benefits in an increasingly globalized world. But in recent years, scientists have begun to show that the advantages of bilingualism are even more fundamental than being able to converse with a wider range of people. Being bilingual, it turns out, makes you smarter. It can have a profound effect on your brain, improving cognitive skills not related to language and even shielding against dementia in old age.

This view of bilingualism is remarkably different from the understanding of bilingualism through much of the 20th century. Researchers, educators and policy makers long considered a second language to be an interference, cognitively speaking, that hindered a child's academic and intellectual development.

They were not wrong about the interference: there is ample evidence that in a bilingual's brain both language systems are active even when he is using only one language, thus creating situations in which one system obstructs the other. But this interference, researchers are finding out, isn't so much a handicap as a blessing in disguise. It forces the brain to resolve internal conflict, giving the mind a workout that strengthens its cognitive muscles.

Bilinguals, for instance, seem to be more adept than monolinguals at solving certain kinds of mental puzzles. In a 2004 study by the psychologists Ellen Bialystok and Michelle Martin-Rhee, bilingual and monolingual preschoolers were asked to sort blue circles and red squares presented on a computer screen into two digital bins — one marked with a blue square and the other marked with a red circle.

In the first task, the children had to sort the shapes by color, placing blue circles in the bin marked with the blue square and red squares in the bin marked with the red circle. Both groups did this with comparable ease. Next, the children were asked to sort by shape, which was more challenging because it required placing the images in a bin marked with a conflicting color. The bilinguals were quicker at performing this task.

The collective evidence from a number of such studies suggests that the bilingual experience improves the brain's so-called executive function — a command system that directs the attention processes that we use for planning, solving problems and performing various other mentally demanding tasks. These processes include ignoring distractions to stay focused, switching attention willfully from one thing to another and holding information in mind — like remembering a sequence of directions while driving.

Why does the tussle between two simultaneously active language systems improve these aspects of cognition? Until recently, researchers thought the bilingual advantage stemmed primarily from an ability for inhibition that was honed by the exercise of suppressing one language system: this suppression, it was thought, would help train the bilingual mind to ignore distractions in other contexts. But that explanation increasingly appears to be inadequate, since studies have shown that bilinguals perform better than monolinguals even at tasks that do not require inhibition, like threading a line through an ascending series of numbers scattered randomly on a page.

The key difference between bilinguals and monolinguals may be more basic: a heightened ability to monitor the environment. "Bilinguals have to switch languages quite often — you may talk to your father in one language and to your mother in another language," says Albert Costa, a researcher at the University of Pompea Fabra in Spain. "It requires keeping track of changes around you in the same way that we monitor our surroundings when driving." In a study comparing German-Italian bilinguals with Italian monolinguals on monitoring tasks, Mr. Costa and his colleagues found that the bilingual subjects not only performed better, but they also did so with less activity in parts of the brain involved in monitoring, indicating that they were more efficient at it.

The bilingual experience appears to influence the brain from infancy to old age (and there is reason to believe that it may also apply to those who learn a second language later in life).

In a 2009 study led by Agnes Kovacs of the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy, 7-month-old babies exposed to two languages from birth were compared with peers raised with one language. In an initial set of trials, the infants were presented with an audio cue and then shown a puppet on one side of a screen. Both infant groups learned to look at that side of the screen in anticipation of the puppet. But in a later set of trials, when the puppet began appearing on the opposite side of the screen, the babies exposed to a bilingual environment quickly learned to switch their anticipatory gaze in the new direction while the other babies did not.

Bilingualism's effects also extend into the twilight years. In a recent study of 44 elderly Spanish-English bilinguals, scientists led by the neuropsychologist Tamar Gollan of the University of California, San Diego, found that individuals with a higher degree of bilingualism — measured through a comparative evaluation of proficiency in each language — were more resistant than others to the onset of dementia and other symptoms of Alzheimer's disease: the higher the degree of bilingualism, the later the age of onset.

Nobody ever doubted the power of language. But who would have imagined that the words we hear and the sentences we speak might be leaving such a deep imprint?

Yudhijit Bhattacharjee is a staff writer at Science.


Sumber: New York Times, 18 March 2012 


Mar 20, 2012

Puisi 'Sebuah Dunia'

Lebih Baik Diasingkan Daripada Menyerah Kepada Kemunafikan (Soe Hok Gie)

Sebuah Dunia

Saya mimpi tentang sebuah dunia,
Di mana ulama - buruh dan pemuda,
Bangkit dan berkata: "Stop semua kemunafikan,
Stop semua pembunuhan atas nama apapun!"

Dan para politisi di PBB,
Sibuk mengatur pengangkutan gandum,
susu, dan beras,
Buat anak-anak yang lapar di tiga benua,
dan lupa akan diplomasi.

Tak ada lagi rasa benci pada siapa pun,
Agama apa pun, rasa apa pun,
dan bangsa apa pun,
dan melupakan perang dan kebencian,
dan hanya sibuk dengan membangun dunia
yang lebih baik.

Tuhan, saya mimpi tentang dunia tadi,
yang tak pernah akan datang.

- Soe Hok Gie (ditulis 29/10/1968)

Jul 10, 2011

OECD Better Life Index

This is to complement the news telling of Aussie cities becoming the world's priciest (Sydney jumped to 6th from 32nd in 2 years!).

To live well, getting rich is only half an answer

Sydney Morning Herald, July 6, 2011
Ross Gittins (SMH Economics Editor)

What matters is not how much income you have, what matters is how you spend that income. Ross Gittins explains.

How important is money to enjoying a high quality of life? It's an eternal question - mainly because there's no simple answer. But we can use the new ''better life index'' compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to shed more light on the topic.

The short answer is that once a country reaches a reasonable level of affluence, it's not how much money it has so much as how well it uses what it's got. For the individual, the key is understanding money's limitations.

In an effort to get away from using gross domestic product as a de facto measure of wellbeing, the organisation has developed a better life index for each of its 34 member countries (which include, along with its 23 original rich countries, six former communist countries plus Mexico, Chile, Turkey, Israel and South Korea).

<em>Illustration: John Shakespeare</em>

Illustration: John Shakespeare.

Each country's index is compiled from 21 indicators covering 11 dimensions of wellbeing: income, jobs, housing, health, work/life balance, education, social connections, civic engagement, environmental quality, personal security and life satisfaction.

I guess the key question is the extent to which money - income - determines how well you do on the other 10 dimensions. The Economist has taken each country's score on the better life index and plotted it against that country's GDP per person, finding a reasonably strong correlation between the two.

But the correlation's a lot stronger for the new, poorer members of the organisation than it is for the old, richer members. And this is consistent with the research evidence on subjective wellbeing: rich countries are happier than poor countries, and poor countries get happier as their incomes rise, but once a country joins the other rich nations, having a bit more income than the next country doesn't necessarily mean your people will be happier than theirs.

Consider this: according to The Economist's figuring, Norway's income per person is getting on for double New Zealand's, yet the Kiwis' score on the better life index is a bit higher than Norway's. Clearly, though having enough money helps, there's a lot more to it.

The explanation goes partly to the question of how a country (or an individual) uses the money it has, though it may also involve factors that have little to do with money. But it also suggests income suffers heavily from what economists call ''diminishing marginal utility''. The first, say, $15,000 of annual income buys you a lot more wellbeing than the last $15,000 does.

But let's focus on the better life index. Partly because the organisation chose not to draw attention to the fact (and most journalists are weak at doing their own sums), surprisingly little attention has been paid to the news that Australia had the highest rating among the 34 countries, beating Canada by the narrowest of margins.

Sweden runs a close third. And, indeed, all the Nordic countries do well, yet again defying the Anglo-Saxon notion that countries do best when their governments do (and tax) least. Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland remain an excellent advertisement for what the libertarians contemptuously refer to as the nanny state.

The index's big hint that maybe money isn't everything comes when we compare our performance with that of the US. On the index's measure of income - household disposable income per person - the Americans come top, with incomes almost 40 per cent higher than ours.

And yet we score more highly than them on seven of the 10 other dimensions, coming equal with them on one. We equal them on quality of housing, measured mainly by number of rooms per person.

We have 72 per cent of our working-age population in employment to their 67 per cent. Americans work 5 per cent more hours a year than we do. This puts them a bit above the average and us a bit below.

In the US 73 per cent of mothers are employed after their children begin school, compared with 70 per cent in Australia. The organisation says this ''suggests that women are able to successfully balance family and career'', though some would dispute that interpretation.

One dimension in which the Americans beat us is educational attainment. They have 89 per cent of adults with the equivalent of a high school diploma, whereas we have only 70 per cent, putting us below the average.

Whether you want a highly educated workforce so as to earn more income or you value education for its ability to broaden people's horizons, this is a dimension in which we aren't doing nearly as well as we should.

On work/life balance we don't score well - worse than the Americans - because we have such a high proportion of people working more than 50 hours a week.

A classic example of the importance of spending money wisely is health. The Americans spend far more of their income on healthcare than we do, but we get better results. For instance, our life expectancy at birth is more than 81 years, compared with their 78 years.

In terms of social connections, 92 per cent of Americans believe they know someone they could rely on in time of need, whereas 95 per cent of Australians say they do.

Turning to what I regard as the bottom line, satisfaction with life, they have 70 per cent of people expressing satisfaction, whereas we have 75 per cent.

Poverty has nothing to recommend it. Having money is nice. But there's a difference between a high material standard of living and a high quality of life.

We need to remember that, and we need our politicians to remember it.

Ross Gittins is Sydney Morning Herald economics editor.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/to-live-well-getting-rich-is-only-half-an-answer-20110705-1h0om.html#ixzz1RIMKj3To