DOCSLIB.ORG

Global Language Control in Bilingual Language Processing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Global Language Control in Bilingual Language Processing Global Language Control in Bilingual Language Processing Roy Seo A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2019 Reading Committee: Chantel S Prat, Chair Ione Fine Andrea Stocco Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Psychology ©Copyright 2019 Roy Seo University of Washington Abstract Global Language Control in Bilingual Language Processing Roy Seo Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Chantel S. Prat Department of Psychology The majority of research on language processes has been conducted using monolingual English speakers, although more than fifty percent of current world population is bilingual. As a consequence, our understanding of language is limited, particularly with respect to the types of processes that are unique to bilinguals. Bilingual language processing differs from monolingual language processing in that it requires global language control to resolve a conflict arising from simultaneous activation of two languages. My doctoral dissertation will summarize the results of four studies aimed at understanding the neurocognitive bases of the processes by which bilinguals execute such global language control. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 2. MANUSCRIPT 1 ................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 2.2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 23 2.4. RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 37 2.5. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................................................... 57 2.6. CONCLUSIONS AND CAVEATS ................................................................................................................................... 67 2.7. FUNDING ............................................................................................................................................................. 69 2.8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 69 2.9. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL .................................................................................................................................... 69 2.10. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 70 CHAPTER 3. MANUSCRIPT 2 ................................................................................................................................. 82 3.1. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................ 83 3.2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 84 3.2. EXPERIMENT 1 METHOD ......................................................................................................................................... 89 3.3. MATERIALS .......................................................................................................................................................... 91 3.3. EXPERIMENT 1 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 98 3.4. EXPERIMENT 1 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 103 3.5. EXPERIMENT 2 METHOD ....................................................................................................................................... 104 3.6. EXPERIMENT 2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 109 3.7. EXPERIMENT 2 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 114 3.8. GENERAL DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................................... 114 3.9. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 119 CHAPTER 4. MANUSCRIPT 3 ............................................................................................................................... 124 4.1. ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................... 125 4.2. METHOD ........................................................................................................................................................... 134 4.3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 147 4.4. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 158 4.5. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................... 171 4.6. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 172 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................... 179 5.1. MORPHO -SYNTACTIC RULE EXECUTION RECRUITS REGIONS PREVIOUSLY IMPLICATED IN LEXICO -SEMANTIC TASKS ................. 179 5.2. GLOBAL AND LOCAL CONTROL MECHANISMS RECRUIT SEPARABLE BUT OVERLAPPING NEURAL MECHANISMS ....................... 180 5.3. GLOBAL LANGUAGE CONTROL MECHANISMS ARE MORE EFFICIENT THAN ARE LOCAL CONTROL MECHANISMS ..................... 181 5.4. VARIABILITY IN PROACTIVE AND REACTIVE BILINGUAL GLOBAL LANGUAGE CONTROL MECHANISMS .................................... 182 5.5. WHAT IS IN CONTROL OF BILINGUAL LANGUAGE ? ...................................................................................................... 183 5.5.1. The role of the anterior cingulate cortex. ............................................................................................... 183 5.5.2. The role of basal ganglia. ........................................................................................................................ 184 CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 187 CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 188 Chapter 1. Introduction More than fifty percent of the population are bilingual (Shin & Kominsky, 2010), but the majority of research on the neurobiology of language processes has been concentrated on monolingual English speakers (Kovelman, Baker, & Petitto, 2008; Marian & Spivey, 2003; Watson & Bialystok, 1991). As a consequence, our understanding of linguistic processes in the brain are limited, in particular with respect to the facet of language that is unique to bilinguals (Abutalebi & Green 2007; Bialystok & Kroll, 2017; Guo, Misra, & Kroll, 2011). Considerable research on bilingual language processing has shown that both languages are simultaneously co- activated and compete for selection during bilingual language use (Costa, Miozzo, & Caramazza 1999; Hatzidaki, Branigan, & Pickering, 2011; Kroll, Bobb & Wodniecka, 2006; Goldrick, Putnam, Schwarz, 2016). As a result, bilingual language processing demands an additional management mechanism that selects between languages. This process, defined by De Groot and Christoffels (2006) as global language control , is the primary focus of my dissertation research. I am particularly interested in the mechanisms by which global language is accomplished, how they compare to local language control mechanisms shared by monolinguals and bilinguals, and involve the online selection of word forms and application of grammatical rules within a target language. The Adaptive Control Hypothesis (ACH) first proposed by Abutalebi and Green (2007, see also Green & Abutalebi, 2013 for an updated version) is the most comprehensive existing proposal of the neurobiological mechanisms by which bilinguals accomplish language control. According to the ACH, bilingual language control
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Executive Control in Bilinguals: a Concise Review on Fmri Studies
    Executive control in bilinguals: A concise review on fMRI studies. The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Pliatsikas, Christos, and Gigi Luk. 2016. “Executive Control in Bilinguals: A Concise Review on fMRI Studies.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19 (04) (March 11): 699–705. doi:10.1017/ s1366728916000249. Published Version 10.1017/s1366728916000249 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:32640863 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP Published in Bilingualism: Language & Cognition Executive control in bilinguals: A concise review on fMRI studies CHRISTOS PLIATSIKAS Department of Clinical Language Sciences, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading GIGI LUK Harvard Graduate School of Education Address for correspondence: Christos Pliatsikas, Ph. D. University of Reading Department of Clinical Language Sciences School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences Reading, RG6 6AL, UK [email protected] 1 Abstract The investigation of bilingualism and cognition has been enriched by recent developments in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Extending how bilingual experience shapes cognition, this review examines recent fMRI studies adopting executive control tasks with minimal or no linguistic demands. Across a range of studies with divergent ages and language pairs spoken by bilinguals, brain regions supporting executive control significantly overlap with brain regions recruited for language control (Abutalebi & Green, this issue).
    [Show full text]
  • Associations Between Bilingualism and Memory
    Bilingualism: Language and Associations between bilingualism and Cognition memory generalization during infancy: Does cambridge.org/bil socioeconomic status matter? Natalie H. Brito1 , Ashley Greaves1, Ana Leon-Santos2, William P. Fifer3,4 2 Research Article and Kimberly G. Noble 1 2 Cite this article: Brito NH, Greaves A, Leon- Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, 10003; Department of Biobehavioral Santos A, Fifer WP, Noble KG (2020). Sciences, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027; 3Department of Pediatrics, Columbia Associations between bilingualism and University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032 and 4Division of Developmental Neuroscience, New York State memory generalization during infancy: Does Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY 10032 socioeconomic status matter? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1–10. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1366728920000334 Abstract Past studies have reported memory differences between monolingual and bilingual infants Received: 1 October 2019 Revised: 28 February 2020 (Brito & Barr, 2012; Singh, Fu, Rahman, Hameed, Sanmugam, Agarwal, Jiang, Chong, Accepted: 20 April 2020 Meaney & Rifkin-Graboi, 2015). A common critique within the bilingualism literature is the absence of socioeconomic indicators and/or a lack of socioeconomic diversity among par- Keywords: ticipants. Previous research has demonstrated robust bilingual differences in memory gener- bilingualism; socioeconomic status; memory; infancy alization from 6- to 24-months of age. The goal of the current study was to examine if these findings would replicate in a sample of 18-month-old monolingual and bilingual infants from Address for correspondence: a range of socioeconomic backgrounds (N = 92). Results indicate no differences between Natalie Hiromi Brito, language groups on working memory or cued recall, but significant differences for memory E-mail: [email protected] generalization, with bilingual infants outperforming monolingual infants regardless of socio- economic status (SES).
    [Show full text]
  • Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
    Bilingualism: Language and Cognition http://journals.cambridge.org/BIL Additional services for Bilingualism: Language and Cognition: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here Increased processing speed in young adult bilinguals: evidence from source memory judgments ANGELA GRANT and NANCY DENNIS Bilingualism: Language and Cognition / FirstView Article / August 2016, pp 1 - 10 DOI: 10.1017/S1366728916000729, Published online: 29 July 2016 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1366728916000729 How to cite this article: ANGELA GRANT and NANCY DENNIS Increased processing speed in young adult bilinguals: evidence from source memory judgments. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, Available on CJO 2016 doi:10.1017/S1366728916000729 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/BIL, IP address: 128.118.134.16 on 01 Aug 2016 Bilingualism: Language and Cognition: page 1 of 10 C Cambridge University Press 2016 doi:10.1017/S1366728916000729 ANGELA GRANT Increased processing speed in Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University NANCY DENNIS young adult bilinguals: Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University evidence from source memory judgments∗ (Received: November 1, 2015; final revision received: May 17, 2016; accepted: May 17, 2016) Although many studies have investigated the consequences of bilingualism on cognitive control, few have examined the impact of bilingualism on other cognitive domains, such as memory. Of these studies, most have focused on item memory and none have examined the role of bilingualism in source memory (i.e., the memory for contextual details from a previous encounter with a stimulus). In our study, young adult bilinguals and monolinguals completed a source memory test, whose different conditions were designed to stress working memory and inhibitory control.
    [Show full text]
  • Verbal Short-Term Memory and Vocabulary Development Marielle
    Verbal short-term memory and vocabulary development in monolingual Dutch and bilingual Turkish-Dutch preschoolers Marielle Messer Langeveld - Institute for the Study of Education and Development in Childhood and Adolescence Cover design & Layout: Rita H. Klaucke, www.ritaklaucke.nl Printed by Ipskamp Drukkers, Enschede, The Netherlands ISBN 978-90-393-5366-0 © 2010 M. H. Messer All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanically, by photocopy, by recording, or otherwise, without permission from the author Verbal short-term memory and vocabulary development in monolingual Dutch and bilingual Turkish-Dutch preschoolers Verbaal korte-termijn geheugen en woordenschat ontwikkeling van ééntalige Nederlandse en tweetalige Turks-Nederlandse kleuters (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof.dr. J.C. Stoof, ingevolge het besluitvan het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 6 juli 2010 des ochtends te 10.30 uur door Marielle Hilda Messer geboren op 20 mei 1980, te Guilherand, Frankrijk Promotor: Prof.dr. P.P.M. Leseman Co-promotoren: Dr. A.Y. Mayo Dr. J. Boom Contents CHAPTER 1 7 General Introduction CHAPTER 2 27 Is verbal short-term memory a crucial interface between language input and vocabulary acquisition in young bilingual children? A theoretical review CHAPTER 3 83 Phonotactic probability effect in nonword recall and its relationship with vocabulary in monolingual and bilingual preschoolers CHAPTER 4 125 Modeling growth in verbal short-term memory and phonotactic knowledge support: A longitudinal study with monolingual and bilingual preschoolers CHAPTER 5 167 Home language environment influences verbal short-term memory and vocabulary development in monolingual and bilingual children CHAPTER 6 211 General Discussion Samenvatting; Summary in Dutch 229 Dankwoord 237 Curriculum Vitae 241 General introduction 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Bilingualism and Multilingualism on Lexical Retrieval" (2016)
    Cedarville University DigitalCommons@Cedarville Department of English, Literature, and Modern Linguistics Senior Research Projects Languages 4-2016 The ffecE ts of Bilingualism and Multilingualism on Lexical Retrieval Sarah E. Young Cedarville University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/ linguistics_senior_projects Part of the Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, First and Second Language Acquisition Commons, and the Modern Languages Commons Recommended Citation Young, Sarah E., "The Effects of Bilingualism and Multilingualism on Lexical Retrieval" (2016). Linguistics Senior Research Projects. 6. http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/linguistics_senior_projects/6 This Capstone Project is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Cedarville, a service of the Centennial Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in Linguistics Senior Research Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Cedarville. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Running head: MULTILINGUALISM AND LEXICAL RETRIEVAL 1 The Effects of Bilingualism and Multilingualism on Lexical Retrieval Sarah E. Young Cedarville University MULTILINGUALISM AND LEXICAL RETRIEVAL 2 Abstract This research reviews literature that has been written concerning the positive and negative cognitive impact bilingualism has on the speaker. It then takes this research one step further asking whether increasing the number of languages one speaks slows down the person’s lexical retrieval. Methods include an interview and two tests, the data from which strongly supports the hypothesis mentioned in the literature review that bilingualism slows down lexical processing. This research concludes that having more languages does increase a person’s difficulty with retrieving words on demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilingual Memory, to the Extreme: Lexical Processing in Simultaneous
    Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 22 (2), 2019, 331–348 C Cambridge University Press 2018 doi:10.1017/S1366728918000378 MICAELA SANTILLI Bilingual memory, to the Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience (LPEN), Institute of Cognitive and Translational Neuroscience extreme: Lexical processing in (INCYT), INECO Foundation, Favaloro University, Buenos simultaneous interpreters∗ Aires, Argentina MARTINA G. VILAS Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience (LPEN), Institute of Cognitive and Translational Neuroscience (INCYT), INECO Foundation, Favaloro University, Buenos Aires, Argentina National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina EZEQUIEL MIKULAN Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience (LPEN), Institute of Cognitive and Translational Neuroscience (INCYT), INECO Foundation, Favaloro University, Buenos Aires, Argentina (Received: April 06, 2017; final revision received: February 06, 2018; National Scientific and Technical Research Council accepted: February 27, 2018; first published online 16 April 2018) (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina MIGUEL MARTORELL CARO This study assessed whether bilingual memory is susceptible to Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience the extreme processing demands of professional simultaneous (LPEN), Institute of Cognitive and Translational Neuroscience interpreters (PSIs). Seventeen PSIs and 17 non-interpreter (INCYT), INECO Foundation, Favaloro University, Buenos bilinguals completed word production, lexical retrieval,
    [Show full text]
  • Robert W. Schrauf Department of Applied Linguistics 234 Sparks
    1 Robert W. Schrauf Department of Applied 1021 Evergreen Linguistics Drive State College, 234 Sparks Building PA 16801 Phone: The Pennsylvania State (814) 574-6538 University University Park, PA 16802 Phone: (814) 865-9622 Email: [email protected] http://www.personal.psu.edu/rw s23 CURRENT POSITION Professor of Applied Linguistics; Department of Applied Linguistics; Pennsylvania State University; EDUCATION 1998 Postdoctoral Fellow, Duke University Department of Experimental Psychology, Individual National Research Service Award (National Institute of Mental Health), research and training in human memory and psycholinguistics Mentor: David C. Rubin 1995 PhD. Case Western Reserve University, Medical Anthropology: Specialization in Psychological Anthropology; Mentor: Jill E. Korbin 1988 M.A. Case Western Reserve University, Anthropology Mentor: Allan Young 1986 Licentiate, Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia, Theology 1981 M.A. Washington Theological Union, Theology 1980 M.A. Duquesne University, Philosophy 1975 B.A. Saint Fidelis College, Major: Philosophy EMPLOYMENT 2021- Professor of Applied Linguistics, Penn State University 2011- 2021 Professor and Head of the Department of Applied Linguistics 2004-2011 Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Penn State University 2001-2004 Fellow, Cognitive Neurology-Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University. 1999-2004 Research Assistant Professor, Buehler Center on Aging, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University. 1992-1995 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, John Carroll University, Cleveland, Ohio 1986-1995 Associate Professor of Philosophy, Borromeo College of Ohio, Cleveland, Ohio 1987-1994 Parochial Vicar, Saint Francis of Assisi Parish, Cleveland, Ohio 2 1984-1985 Parochial Vicar, Iglesia Santa Mariana de Jesus, Bogotá, Colombia 1981-1984 Parochial Vicar, Iglesia Santa Teresita, Ponce, Puerto Rico 1981-1984 Chaplain, Hospital San Lucas, Ponce, Puerto Rico.
    [Show full text]
  • A Thesis Entitled Narrative Abilities and Resistance to Suggestion In
    A Thesis entitled Narrative Abilities and Resistance to Suggestion in Monolingual and Bilingual Children: Implications for Forensic Interviews by Christina O. Perez Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters of Arts Degree in Experimental Psychology __________________________________________ Dr. Kamala London, Committee Chair __________________________________________ Dr. Jason Rose, Committee Member __________________________________________ Dr. Stephen Christman, Committee Member __________________________________________ Dr. Cyndee Gruden, Dean College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo May, 2019 Copyright 2019, Christina O. Perez This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of Narrative Abilities and Resistance to Suggestion in Monolingual and Bilingual Children: Implications for Forensic Interviews by Christina O. Perez Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters of Arts Degree in Experimental Psychology The University of Toledo May 2019 Children’s narrative accounts play a major role in cases of alleged child maltreatment. Case outcomes are highly dependent upon the statements children provide during forensic interviews. Bilingual children are vastly underrepresented in the forensic interviewing literature despite the overrepresentation of ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system. The present study
    [Show full text]
  • Running Head: a Bilingual Advantage in Memory Capacity a Bilingual
    Running head: A bilingual advantage in memory capacity This is a pre-print of an article published in International Journal of Bilingualism. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1367006920965714 Please cite the published paper as: Durand López, E. M. (2021). A bilingual advantage in memory capacity: Assessing the roles of proficiency, number of languages acquired and age of acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(3), 606-621. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006920965714 A bilingual advantage in memory capacity: Assessing the roles of proficiency, number of languages acquired and age of acquisition Ezequiel M. Durand López Rutgers University Address for correspondence Any correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ezequiel M. Durand López, Rutgers University, 15 Seminary Place-West, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA. A bilingual advantage in memory capacity 2 Email address: [email protected] Abstract Aims and objectives This study examines whether different types of bilingualism modulate memory capacity differently. More specifically, the study assesses the effects of age of acquisition, number of languages acquired and proficiency in the L2 on phonological short-term memory, visuospatial memory and semantic memory. Design Memory capacity was measured by means of three tasks: digit span task (phonological short-term memory), Corsi block task (visuospatial memory) and word span task (semantic memory). Participants were divided into five groups based on the number of languages acquired, age of acquisition and proficiency: monolinguals, intermediate L2 learners, advanced L2 learners, simultaneous bilinguals and multilinguals. Data and analysis Analyses of variance were used to analyze participants’ scores for each of the memory tasks.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 Bilingual Episodic Memory: How Speaking Two Languages Influences Remembering ______
    Episodic Memory • 1 6 Bilingual Episodic Memory: How Speaking Two Languages Influences Remembering ____________________________________________________ Scott R. Schroeder Viorica Marian Northwestern University Abstract In this chapter, we consider how bilingualism affects memory for events from one’s personal past, such as a person’s first day of school many years prior or a conversation held just a few hours ago. We first review studies indicating that the language a bilingual is using at retrieval improves access to experiences that were encoded when that same language was being used. Next, we discuss research showing that how a bilingual encodes and retrieves episodic memories depends on the linguistic structure and cultural associations of the specific language the bilingual is using. Finally, we consider research suggesting that the cognitive and linguistic consequences of long-term bilingual experience can affect encoding and retrieval and might lead bilinguals to show enhanced memory for non-linguistic aspects of events and poorer memory for linguistic aspects. Collectively, these studies reveal that learning and using two languages affects what bilinguals remember and how well they remember it. Introduction “What is memory if not the language of feeling, a dictionary of faces and days and smells which repeat themselves like the verbs and adjectives in a speech, sneaking in behind the thing itself, into the pure present…” - Julio Cortázar A remarkable feat of human memory is the ability to vividly remember details from many past experiences – ranging from meaningful, distant memories, such as a family member’s wedding over a decade ago, to mundane, recent memories, like dinner last night.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Context Guides Memory Content
    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2007, 14 (5), 925-933 Language context guides memory content VIORICA MARIAN AND MARGARITA KAUSHANSKAYA Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois The relationship between language and memory was examined by testing accessibility of general knowledge across two languages in bilinguals. Mandarin–En glish speakers were asked questions such as “name a statue of someone standing with a raised arm while looking into the distance” and were more likely to name the Statue of Liberty when asked in English and the Statue of Mao when asked in Mandarin. Multivalent information (i.e., multiple possible answers to a question) and bivalent information (i.e., two possible answers to a question) were more susceptible to language dependency than univalent information (i.e., one possible answer to a question). Accuracy of retrieval showed language-dependent memory effects in both languages, while speed of retrieval showed language-dependent memory effects only in bilinguals’ more proficient language. These findings sug- gest that memory and language are tightly connected and that linguistic context at the time of learning may become integrated into memory content. Language is known to guide conceptual development ample, Ross et al. (2002) found that bilinguals differed (Gopnik & Meltzoff, 1997; Waxman & Braun, 2005) in number of collective self-statements, self-esteem rat- and to provide a framework for mental representations ings, and cultural views when responding in their two lan- (Gentner & Goldin-Meadow, 2003; Gumperz & Levin- guages. For academic learning, Marian and Fausey (2006) son 1996). Here we examine the relationship between found that bilinguals were better at remembering informa- language and memory by testing accessibility of general tion (e.g., about history, chemistry, etc.) when tested in knowledge across two languages in bilinguals.
    [Show full text]
  • Dorsolateral Prefrontal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Modulates Language Processing but Does Not Facilitate Overt Second Language Word Production
    fnins-12-00490 July 23, 2018 Time: 15:54 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 25 July 2018 doi: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00490 Dorsolateral Prefrontal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Modulates Language Processing but Does Not Facilitate Overt Second Language Word Production Narges Radman1,2*, Juliane Britz1, Karin Buetler3, Brendan S. Weekes4,5, Lucas Spierer1 and Jean-Marie Annoni1 1 Neurology Unit, Section of Medicine, Faculty of Science and Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland, 2 School of Cognitive Sciences, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences, Tehran, Iran, 3 Leenaards Memory Center, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland, 4 Laboratory for Communication Edited by: Science, Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, 5 School of Roberto Cecere, Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Medicine and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, University of Glasgow, Australia United Kingdom Reviewed by: Word retrieval in bilingual speakers partly depends on executive control systems in Juha Silvanto, University of Westminster, the left prefrontal cortex – including dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). We tested United Kingdom the hypothesis that DLPFC modulates word production of words specifically in a James Dowsett, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität second language (L2) by measuring the effects of anodal transcranial direct current München, Germany stimulation (anodal-tDCS) over the DLPFC on picture naming and word translation and *Correspondence: on event-related potentials (ERPs) and their sources. Twenty-six bilingual participants Narges Radman with “unbalanced” proficiency in two languages were given 20 min of 1.5 mA anodal [email protected]; [email protected] or sham tDCS (double-blind stimulation design, counterbalanced stimulation order, 1- week intersession delay).
    [Show full text]