Bilingual Brain Research Articles

What bilinguals do with language that changes their minds and their brains

In the last two decades, there has been an upsurge of research on bilingualism recognizing that bilinguals may be more representative language users than their monolingual peers (e.g., Kroll, Dussias, Bogulski, & Valdes Kroff, 2012). The excitement about bilinguals is related not only to their neglected status in the past literature but also to a set of twin discoveries that have catapulted research on bilingualism into central view in psycholinguistics, cognitive and developmental neuroscience, and gerontology. One of these discoveries is that both languages are active when bilinguals read, listen to speech, and plan speech in either of their two languages (for a review, see Kroll et al., 2012). The other discovery is that bilingualism appears to confer a set of consequences to domain general cognition and to the neural structures that support it (e.g., Bialystok, Craik, Green, & Gollan, 2009). Those consequences are observed across the lifespan and are particularly evident when cognitive resources are challenged because of the normal or pathological trajectory of aging (e.g., Gold, Kim, Johnson, Kriscio, & Smith, 2013). The focus of the new research is on how these two discoveries might be related. The parallel activity of the two languages and the interactions across them require that the bilingual develops skill in language selection to enable fluent performance. The hypothesis that has guided the recent flurry of research is that bilingual minds and brains change as a consequence of having to regulate the two languages. In their Keynote Article, Baum and Titone provide a comprehensive and current summary of the existing evidence on this hypothesis.

Neuroplasticity of the bilingual brain: Cognitive control and reserve

The impacts of bilingualism upon the human brain, specifically in terms of the neuroplastic and neurofunctional changes upon general cognitive functions and on cognitive decline, are currently attracting much attention not only from the neuroscience and psycholinguistic communities but also from the general public. Researchers are especially focused on the putative protective effects of bilingualism upon cognitive decline.

Development of Neural Systems for Reading in the Monolingual and Bilingual Brain: New Insights From Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy Neuroimaging

What neural changes underlie reading development in monolingual and bilingual children? We examined neural activation patterns of younger (ages 6–8) and older (ages 8–10) children and adults to see whether early-life language experience influences the development of neural systems for reading. Using functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy, we observed an age-related shift in neural recruitment of language areas (left inferior frontal gyrus [LIFG], superior temporal gyrus [STG]). Bilinguals showed a greater extent and variability of neural activation in bilateral IFG and STG, and higher cognitive areas (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, rostrolateral prefrontal cortex). This bilingual “neural signature” reveals the extent that neural systems underlying reading development can be modified through differences in early-life language experience.

FMRI Research on the Bilingual Brain

In this article, I review the use of the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technique to investigate the bilingual brain. Specifically, this review will discuss the types of research questions that can be (and have been) answered using this specific methodology, as well as questions this technique cannot answer. The review will then focus on providing a recent overview of fMRI studies of the bilingual mental lexicon, bilingual sentence processing, and the bilingual advantage in cognitive control. The pros and cons of this technique will be discussed in detail. This review will end with a discussion of the state of the art in the field of bilingual brain research and will provide avenues for future research directions to continue investigating the bilingual brain.

The fox and the cabra: An ERP analysis of reading code switched nouns and verbs in bilingual short stories

Comprehending a language (or code) switch within a sentence context triggers 2 electrophysiological signatures: an early left anterior negativity post code switch onset – a LAN – followed by a Late Positive Component (LPC). Word class and word position modulate lexico-semantic processes in the monolingual brain, e.g., larger N400 amplitude for nouns than verbs and for earlier than later words in the sentence. Here we test whether the bilingual brain is affected by word class and word position when code switching, or if the cost of switching overrides these lexico-semantic and sentence context factors. Adult bilinguals read short stories in English containing 8 target words. Targets were nouns or verbs, occurred early or late in a story and were presented alternately in English (non-switch) or Spanish (switch) across different story versions. Overall, switched words elicited larger LAN and LPC amplitude than non-switched words. The N400 amplitude was larger for nouns than verbs, more focal for switches than non-switches, and for early than late nouns but not for early than late verbs. Moreover, an early LPC effect was observed only for switched nouns, but not verbs. Together, this indicates that referential elements (nouns) may be harder to process and integrate than relational elements (verbs) in discourse, and when switched, nouns incur higher integration cost. Word position did not modulate the code switching effects, implying that switching between languages may invoke discourse independent processes.

Natural acquisition of the second language (l2) through routine movements in children

Research is increasingly showing that the brains of people who know two or more languages are different from those who know just one – and those differences are all for better. (Kluger, J. ,Times Magazine 2013). Multilingual people, studies show, are better at reasoning, at multitasking, at grasping and reconciling conflicting ideas. A bilingual brain is proving to be more flexible and more resourceful. Gregg Roberts, language–immersion specialist with the Utah State Office of Education, says, “Monolingualism is the illiteracy of the 21 st century”, (Kluger, J. ,Times Magazine 2013).This preliminary project would demonstrate that acquiring second language for children is possible through an alternative teaching proposal that integrates body into the natural language acquisition process thanks to new didactic method fun and exciting which stimulates children to consider the second language more friendly and less hostile.The groups we are going to consider attend the last year of the infant school, they come from different schools, the first group, (the random group) attends regularly at school, traditional frontal lessons of the second language (L2), two hours week; the second group, (experimental group) doesn’t learn the second language at school but will start our experimental programme which allows them to acquire the second language through routine movements during the gymnastic hours for one hour week. In this way children start to decode the language and slowly become confident with it. This method consider that teaching the second language will become more difficult as children grow, and grow their ability to the movements: as movements become more complicated so will the vocabulary become more complex (Doron, H. ready-steady-move 2007-2013).Starting from this preliminary study we would demonstrate that the experimental group, compared to the random group, even if exposed to the second language one hour week less than the random group, will be able to remember and perform routine movements if exposed to the second language and imitating the teacher: smiling, laughing, turning around, walking, reaching, sitting, running, and so forth. This methodology will be more efficient than traditional teaching lesson because children will learn naturally and in their natural environment. Dr. Asher calls this a language-body conversation because the parent/teacher speaks and the infant answers with physical response; in this case the teacher gets immediate feedback that the children understand when they give an appropriate physical response (Kovacs, J. 2010).To conclude, we must consider that children are happy when they can play, move and sing, all better if these activities are combined. There is saying that child does not do what he has learnt, but rather the contrary: he learns what he has already done (Kovacs, J. 2010). That’s why in early language acquisition, activities linked with movements, competitions, dance and group games are very important. All these need time to develop receptive skills (understanding based on listening) before the productive use of the language appears (Kovacs J. 2010).For the future we would refine the method, consider wider group of children and of different ages, and experiment the natural language acquisition also in specific motor disciplines.

Functional modulations in brain activity for the first and second music: A comparison of high- and low-proficiency bimusicals

Bilingual studies have shown that brain activities for first (L1) and second (L2) languages are influenced by L2 proficiency. Does proficiency with a second musical system (M2) influence bimusical brains in a manner similar to that of bilingual brains? Our magnetoencephalography study assessed the influence of M2 proficiency on the spatial, strength, and temporal properties of brain activity in a musical syntactic-processing task (i.e., tonal processing) involving first (M1) and second (M2) music systems. Two bimusical groups, differing in M2 proficiency (high, low), listened to melodies from both their M1 and M2 musical cultures. All melodies ended with a tonally consistent or inconsistent tone. In both groups, tonal deviations in both M1 and M2 elicited magnetic early right anterior negativities (mERANs) that were generated from brain areas around the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). We also analyzed the dipole locations, dipole strengths, and peak latencies of mERAN. Results revealed: (a) the distances between dipole locations for M1 and M2 were shorter in the M2 high-proficiency group than in the M2 low-proficiency group; (b) the dipole strengths were greater in the high than the low group; (c) the peak latencies of M2 were shorter in the high than low group. The dipole location results were consistent with those from bilingual studies in that the distances between the (left) IFG peak activations for L1 and L2 syntactic processing shortened as L2 proficiency increased. The parallel results for bimusicals and bilinguals suggest that the functional changes induced by proficiency in a second (linguistic or musical) system are defined by domain-general neural constraints.

Pushing the boundaries of language in the bilingual brain: A reply to commentary on “The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex”

Pushing the boundaries of language in the bilingual brain: A reply to commentary on “The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex”

Two faces, two languages: An fMRI study of bilingual picture naming

This fMRI study explores how nonlinguistic cues modulate lexical activation in the bilingual brain. We examined the influence of face race on bilingual language production in a picture-naming paradigm. Chinese–English bilinguals were presented with pictures of objects and images of faces (Asian or Caucasian). Participants named the picture in their first or second language (Chinese or English) in separate blocks. Face race and naming language were either congruent (e.g., naming in Chinese when seeing an Asian face) or incongruent (e.g., naming in English when seeing an Asian face). Our results revealed that face cues facilitate naming when the socio-cultural identity of the face is congruent with the naming language. The congruence effects are reflected as effective integration of lexical and facial cues in key brain regions including IFG, MFG, ACC, and caudate. Implications of the findings in light of theories of language processing and cultural priming are discussed.

The bilingual brain allows new insights and predictions on human capabilities: Comment on “The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex” by Buchweitz and Prat

The bilingual brain allows new insights and predictions on human capabilities: Comment on “The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex” by Buchweitz and Prat

Dementia of Alzheimer Type can Alter both Languages in Late Bilinguals

Introduction Behavioral, clinical and neuroimaging evidence indicate that the first (L1) and the second language (L2) of bilingual individuals are supported by partly overlapping anatomo-functional pathways. While in the specific cases of patients suffering from cortical neurodegenerative diseases neuropsychological models predict that, in late bilinguals, L2 could be more impaired than L2, clinical data so far failed to demonstrate such dissociation. Method To address this question, we compared language performance in different tasks of oral and comprehension (semantic and syntactic) and production (naming, repetition, and fluency) in L1 and L2 in a group of 13 late proficient bilinguals with dementia of Alzheimer type (DAT) with 12 healthy late bilinguals matched in several demographic and linguistic factors including education level, age of L2 acquisition and immersion. Results Two-way mixed repeated-measure ANOVAs with factors Language and Group reveal main effects of Group (P<0.05) in all language tasks except for the counting and the sentence repetition tasks, indicating that DAT impact all aspects of language. Our analyses did not reveal any Group X Language interaction, suggesting that DAT impacted similarly on both languages. Conclusion Our results suggest that, like in stroke patients, neurodegenerative disease affects in a parallel manner oral language in L1 and L2, particularly at level of semantic, lexical and syntactic level of processing. These results do not support divergent models of bilingual brain representations, but rather argue for a substantially shared L1 and L2 network in late bilinguals.

What factors influence how two languages are coded in one brain: Comment on “The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex” by Buchweitz and Prat

For many years, researchers have wondered how two languages are represented in one brain. Of particular interestis the finding of selective impairment of a single language in bilinguals [1,2].Naturally,thisleadstothequestionofwhat factors might be determining which language is preserved and which is lost. It also leads to the possibility thateach language may have different neural representations.Neuropsychologistsaroundtheturnofthetwentiethcenturyidentifiedthreefactorsthathelptodeterminethebrainbases of bilingualism: age of acquisition, language proficiency and cognitive control. Ribot, considered by many tobe the father of French psychology, found that patients often forgot their most recent memories first and the oldestmemories last [3–5].Basedonthisheproposedtheideathat“ageofacquisition”wascrucialfortheformationofmemories, a finding that is still relevant today [6,7].Shortlythereafter,Pitressuggestedthatfamiliaritywouldplayacrucialroleintheresistanceoflanguagetobreakdown[8].Languageproficiency,asithasbeentermedtoday,hasbeen found to play a central role in the neural representation of bilingualism [9–11].Finally,OttoPotzl,anAustrianneurologist, based on work with patients was the first to suggest a switch mechanism that was responsible for control-ling the language that was used at that moment [12].Theimportanceofcontrolhascometotheforefrontofbilinguallanguage research when switching between languages [13],overcominginterferencefromamoredominantlanguage[14],andthepossiblebenefitsofverbalcontrolonnon-verbalcontroltasks[15].Whatemergesfromthisliteratureisboth a richness of history in neuropsychology coupled with newfound interest in this field with the emergence of newtechnologies with which brain activity can be measured and manipulated.Buchweitz and Prat [16] piece on the bilingual brain adds significantly to this growing body of work while at thesame time allowing further examination of the factors identified by neuropsychologists many years ago. The authorsdiscuss issues of neural representation with regard to semantic processing, orthographic representation, and finallyexecutive control. It is on this final topic that the current piece provides its strongest contribution. One aspect thatdeserves considerable consideration is the distinction between learning via experience relative to learning throughinstruction. The distinction between experience which involves the basal ganglia relative to explicit instruction whichinvolves the cortex is particularly fascinating. This distinction also carries implications for the other two main issuesthat frame the literature. Do these two systems help to differentiate high and low proficiency bilinguals? What aboutchild learners and adults? Does learning a language early in life or later in life involve the basal ganglia and cortex

The co-emergence of language and rules: Indirection, not recursion, is the key: Comment on “The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex” by Buchweitz and Prat

The co-emergence of language and rules: Indirection, not recursion, is the key: Comment on “The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex” by Buchweitz and Prat

The cross-cultural bilingual brain: Comment on “The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex” by Buchweitz and Prat

The cross-cultural bilingual brain: Comment on “The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex” by Buchweitz and Prat

Bilingualism beyond languages: The impact of bilingualism upon the brain: Comment on “The bilingual brain: Flexibility and control in the human cortex” by Buchweitz and Prat

The human brain has not only evolved to accommodate a single language but is, in fact, fully equipped to acquiremore than one language as in bilingual individuals. Humans can learn two languages from early after birth withoutgreat difficulty or later in life due to educational requirements, immigration, or alternative circumstances. These dif-ferent learning contexts, along with intrinsic individual differences in learning ability, may require the concourse ofdifferent neural substrates. In their review article Buchweitz and Prat [7] elegantly summarize how individuals acquireand eventually process a second language. This is, as they correctly remark, most likely achieved through a cortico-subcortical network including a fronto-basal ganglia network. The authors thoroughly discuss the role of the basalganglia in rule learning such as grammar processing (see also [5] for review). However, the discussion of the basalganglia should not be restricted to rule-processing. Consider that the use of language is not only restricted to grammat-ical rules, but also involves concepts, words, phonemes and motoric functions that allow articulation. Interestingly, thebasal ganglia (in particular, the left striatum) are crucially involved in semantic processing [8], lexical processing andacquisition [4], phonological processing [13] and articulation [1]. It is unlikely that subcortical grey matter nuclei pos-sess any language ‘representation’ faculty, which

Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Scott Jarvis and Aneta Pavlenko (2008) New York and London: Routledge. Pp 287. ISBN 0805838856

Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Scott Jarvis and Aneta Pavlenko (2008) New York and London: Routledge. Pp 287. ISBN 0805838856Reviewed by Anastassia ZabrodskajaToday monolingualism is often perceived as an unmarked phenomenon that does not require any explanations (see the famous example by Romaine [1995] 2000:1 that a book entitled Monolingualism would appear extremely strange). Continuing the analogy, one can say that approaches to language that ignore language contacts are also viewed as natural and do not require any theoreti- cal or methodological explanations (hence 'contactlessness' of a language is unmarked and contacts are not). Indeed, most linguistic theory presents languages as homogenous and clear-cut entities. However, there is no language that is not affected by contacts, be it to a smaller or greater extent.The expression 'language contact' is somewhat imprecise because it is speakers of different varieties who communicate and not merely language systems. In this respect, Weinreich ([1953] 1966:71) was right in his claim that the bilingual brain is the locus of language contact. By saying this he stressed the cognitive dimension of bilingualism and language contact. Still, despite this early remark, the monolingual native speaker is a default yardstick in many theories and contact-induced language change is considered to be less relevant. From the contact linguistics point of view, however, the sameness of linguistic systems in all speakers in a given speech community is an illusion. As soon as we deal with a multilingual speaker, it is not clear what is the mother tongue (see Skutnabb Kangas, 1988:18, 91; 2000:106, 573). Bilingual speakers' cognition and linguistic intuition (i.e., judgement on what is acceptable/unacceptable) are different from those of a monolingual speaker.The question of the relevance of contact-induced language change is not new. In the second half of the nineteenth century in the so-called Schuchardt-Muller controversy Hugo Schuchardt was ahead of his time, claiming 'Es gibt keine vollig ungemischte Sprache', 'There is no completely unmixed language' (1884, quoted from Thomason and Kaufman, [1988] 1991:1). Some scholars discarded this idea altogether, while some believed that no language has been influenced by another language to such an extent that this would make genetic classification difficult (or even impossible). Yet some went further and claimed that all languages are creoles. While this claim is not true in its absolute form, certain languages exist that cannot be traced back to a single proto-language because their grammatical systems and their lexicons originate from genetically different sources.To a great extent, Schuchardt was right. Contact-induced language change is as important as internal change. What is more, in some situations it is difficult to distinguish between the two (multiple causation). According to Croft (2000:8), there is no fundamental difference between internally and externally caused changes. We have no reasons to believe that this was different in the past.Another debate concerns the relevance of structural and typological factors on the one hand and of sociolinguistic factors on the other. Based on empirical data, various predictions about borrowability have been made and constraints on contact-induced language change formulated. However, in the light of abundant counterevidence the universality of constraints should be doubted (Clyne, 1987).A look at the history of studies on contact-induced language change so far makes clear that to date researchers use notions such as 'interference' (Weinreich, [1953] 1966), 'code-copying' (Johanson, 2002), 'cross-linguistic influence' (Jarvis, 2002), 'transfer' (Heine and Kuteva, 2005) and 'convergence' (Auer, Hinskens and Kerswill, 2005), but still talk about more or less the same topic - how morphosyntactic similarities between the two language systems increase. …

How age of bilingual exposure can change the neural systems for language in the developing brain: A functional near infrared spectroscopy investigation of syntactic processing in monolingual and bilingual children

Is the developing bilingual brain fundamentally similar to the monolingual brain (e.g., neural resources supporting language and cognition)? Or, does early-life bilingual language experience change the brain? If so, how does age of first bilingual exposure impact neural activation for language?We compared how typically-developing bilingual and monolingual children (ages 7–10) and adults recruit brain areas during sentence processing using functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) brain imaging. Bilingual participants included early-exposed (bilingual exposure from birth) and later-exposed individuals (bilingual exposure between ages 4–6).Both bilingual children and adults showed greater neural activation in left-hemisphere classic language areas, and additionally, right-hemisphere homologues (Right Superior Temporal Gyrus, Right Inferior Frontal Gyrus). However, important differences were observed between early-exposed and later-exposed bilinguals in their earliest-exposed language. Early bilingual exposure imparts fundamental changes to classic language areas instead of alterations to brain regions governing higher cognitive executive functions. However, age of first bilingual exposure does matter. Later-exposed bilinguals showed greater recruitment of the prefrontal cortex relative to early-exposed bilinguals and monolinguals.The findings provide fascinating insight into the neural resources that facilitate bilingual language use and are discussed in terms of how early-life language experiences can modify the neural systems underlying human language processing.

Reading Multilingual Literature: The Bilingual Brain and Literacy Education

This paper focuses on the child reading the literatures discussed in the other articles in this special issue of Bookbird . More specifically, it focuses on how the bilingual brain differs from the monolingual brain, and provides a general overview of those areas of difference that relate to reading. I conclude with a brief discussion of the implications of these differences for literacy development and education, paying particular attention to the place for multilingual literatures within literacy development.

The representation and processing of identical cognates by late bilinguals: RT and ERP effects

Across the languages of a bilingual, translation equivalents can have the same orthographic form and shared meaning (e.g., TABLE in French and English). How such words, called orthographically identical cognates, are processed and represented in the bilingual brain is not well understood. In the present study, late French–English bilinguals processed such identical cognates and control words in an English lexical decision task. Both behavioral and electrophysiological data were collected. Reaction times to identical cognates were shorter than for non-cognate controls and depended on both English and French frequency. Cognates with a low English frequency showed a larger cognate advantage than those with a high English frequency. In addition, N400 amplitude was found to be sensitive to cognate status and both the English and French frequency of the cognate words. Theoretical consequences for the processing and representation of identical cognates are discussed.

Meaning first: A case for language-independent access to word meaning in the bilingual brain

This study aimed to determine how deeply a word is processed in the bilingual brain before the word’s language membership plays a role in lexical selection. In two ERP experiments, balanced Spanish–English bilinguals read lists of words and pseudowords in Spanish and English, and performed in each language (1) a language-specific lexical decision task, e.g., respond to real words in Spanish, and (2) a language-specific category decision tasks, e.g., respond to Spanish words that refer to a person. In Experiment 1, infrequent words elicited larger negativity between 350 and 650ms post-stimulus onset for both target and non-target languages. This indicates that language membership did not block lexical access of non-target words, contrary to previous findings. In Experiment 2, we measured the onset of the target-category P300 as a way of determining if words from the non-target language were temporarily treated as targets. When Spanish was the target language, the ERP waveforms diverged early based on semantic category (people versus non-people), indicating that non-target ‘English people’ words were briefly treated as potential targets. This finding indicates that meaning was accessed prior to using language membership for lexical selection. However, when English was the target language, the waveforms diverged first based on language (Spanish versus English) then semantic category. We argue that the order in which meaning or language membership are accessed may be based on the frequency of use of a bilingual’s languages: the more frequently a language is used (English was more frequently used herein), the faster the words are identified as members of the language, and the greater interference it causes when it is not the target language. In brief, these findings make the case for a moment in processing when language membership matters less than meaning.