Kalinka Timmer

The role of orthography and phonology in English: An ERP study on first and second language reading aloud

This study investigated the role of orthographic and phonological information in reading aloud. Dutch-English bilinguals (L2) and native English (L1) participants read aloud English words. The contribution of orthographic and phonological activation was distinguished with prime manipulation. Phonological overlap, but not orthographic overlap, facilitated the response latencies for both English L1 and L2 speakers. In contrast, event-related brain potentials also revealed orthographic priming for both groups. Altogether, the present results demonstrate that late L2 speakers exhibit a Masked Onset Priming Effect similar to that of native speakers. In addition, the ERP results revealed that orthographic information is activated earlier during reading, but is not detectable anymore at the behavioral response level when the task is reading aloud.

Bilingualism and working memory capacity: A comprehensive meta-analysis:

Bilinguals often outperform monolinguals on executive function tasks, including tasks that tap cognitive flexibility, conflict monitoring, and task-switching abilities. Some have suggested that bilinguals also have greater working memory capacity than comparable monolinguals, but evidence for this suggestion is mixed. We therefore conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis on the effects of bilingualism on working memory capacity. Results from 88 effect sizes, 27 independent studies, and 2,901 participants revealed a significant small to medium population effect size of 0.20 in favor of greater working memory capacity for bilinguals than monolinguals. This suggests that experience managing two languages that compete for selection results in greater working memory capacity over time. Moderator analyses revealed that largest effects were observed in children than other age groups. Furthermore, whether the task was performed in the first (L1) or second (L2) language for bilinguals moderated the effect size of the bilingual advantage; this factor is often overlooked and our results point to the importance of defining language variables that influence critical cognitive outcomes.

Trial by trial: selecting first or second language phonology of a visually masked word

People often process non-native linguistic information. Here, we investigated whether first (L1) and second language (L2) phonologies are automatically activated. Response latencies and event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded, while Russian–English bilinguals read aloud L1 target words (e.g. PEЙC /reis/ ‘flight’) primed with onset-matching L1 (e.g. PAHA /rana/ ‘wound’) or L2 words (e.g. PACK) and corresponding onset-mismatching primes (e.g. L1: КAPA /kara/ ‘punishment’; L2: HOPE). Responses were faster to targets preceded by L1 onset-matched than by onset-mismatched primes. No priming from L2 primes was found due to conflicting phonologies (e.g. is /r/ or /p/). These results were supported by the ERPs suggesting that both, L1 and L2 phonologies are simultaneously activated, after which the phonology belonging to the language of the prime is selected. The results provide support for non-selective models of bilingual reading, which assume automatic activation of the non-target language phonology even when it is not required by the task.

Earlier and more distributed neural networks for bilinguals than monolinguals during switching

Abstract The present study investigated processing differences between young adults who were English monolinguals or English‐French bilinguals on a task‐ and language‐switching paradigm. The mechanisms responsible for task switching and language switching were investigated using electrophysiological (EEG) measures. In nonverbal task switching, monolinguals and bilinguals demonstrated equivalent behavioral mixing (pure vs. repeat) and switching (repeat vs. switch) costs, but bilinguals were more accurate in the mixed blocks. Bilinguals used a more distributed neural network than monolinguals that captured the nonverbal mixing effect and showed earlier discrimination for the switching effect in the ERPs. In language switching, more distributed networks for bilinguals than monolinguals were found for the switching effect. The scalp distributions revealed more overlap between task switching and language switching for bilinguals than monolinguals. For switch costs, both groups showed P3/LPC modulations in both tasks, but bilinguals showed extended activation to central regions for both switching tasks. For mixing costs, both groups revealed modulations of the N2 but only bilinguals showed extended activation to the occipital region. Overall bilinguals revealed more overlapping processing between task‐ and language‐switching than monolinguals, consistent with the interpretation of integration of verbal and nonverbal control networks during early visual processing for bilinguals and later executive processing for monolinguals. HighlightsMonolinguals and bilinguals performed language‐ and task‐switching while EEG was recorded.ERP waveforms differened for the two language groups.Processing was earlier and more distributed for bilinguals than monolinguals.Task‐ and language‐switching was more similar for bilinguals than monolinguals.

Neural correlates reveal sub-lexical orthography and phonology during reading aloud: a review

The sub-lexical conversion of graphemes-to-phonemes (GPC) during reading has been investigated extensively with behavioral measures, as well as event-related potentials (ERPs). Most research utilizes silent reading (e.g., lexical decision task) for which phonological activation is not a necessity. However, recent research employed reading aloud to capture sub-lexical GPC. The masked priming paradigm avoids strategic processing and is therefore well suitable for capturing sub-lexical processing instead of lexical effects. By employing ERPs, the on-line time course of sub-lexical GPC can be observed before the overt response. ERPs have revealed that besides phonological activation, as revealed by behavioral studies, there is also early orthographic activation. This review describes studies in one’s native language, in one’s second language, and in a cross-language situation. We discuss the implications the ERP results have on different (computational) models. First, the ERP results show that computational models should assume an early locus of the GPC. Second, cross-language studies reveal that the phonological representations from both languages of a bilingual become activated automatically and the phonology belonging to the context is selected rapidly. Therefore, it is important to extend the scope of computational models of reading (aloud) to multiple lexicons.

Dutch-Cantonese Bilinguals Show Segmental Processing during Sinitic Language Production

This study addressed the debate on the primacy of syllable vs. segment (i.e., phoneme) as a functional unit of phonological encoding in syllabic languages by investigating both behavioral and neural responses of Dutch-Cantonese (DC) bilinguals in a color-object picture naming task. Specifically, we investigated whether DC bilinguals exhibit the phonemic processing strategy, evident in monolingual Dutch speakers, during planning of their Cantonese speech production. Participants named the color of colored line-drawings in Cantonese faster when color and object matched in the first segment than when they were mismatched (e.g., 藍駱駝, /laam4/ /lok3to4/, “blue camel;” 紅饑駝, /hung4/ /lok3to4/, “red camel”). This is in contrast to previous studies in Sinitic languages that did not reveal such phoneme-only facilitation. Phonemic overlap also modulated the event-related potentials (ERPs) in the 125–175, 200–300, and 300–400 ms time windows, suggesting earlier ERP modulations than in previous studies with monolingual Sinitic speakers or unbalanced Sinitic-Germanic bilinguals. Conjointly, our results suggest that, while the syllable may be considered the primary unit of phonological encoding in Sinitic languages, the phoneme can serve as the primary unit of phonological encoding, both behaviorally and neurally, for DC bilinguals. The presence/absence of a segment onset effect in Sinitic languages may be related to the proficiency in the Germanic language of bilinguals.

On the production of interlingual homophones: delayed naming and increased N400

ABSTRACT Bilinguals take longer to identify interlingual homophones than control words. For example, Dutch–English bilinguals take longer to identify an English word like “leaf” ([li:f]), a homophone of the Dutch word “lief” ([lif]; meaning “sweet”), than to identify a control word like “branch”. This homophone-delay effect, observed with both visual and auditory presentation, has been interpreted as evidence in favour of language non-selective lexical access. The present article examines whether a homophone effect is also present in word production. Theoretically, homophone production may profit from feedback from a phonemic level back to a lexical level, but may suffer from a semantic conflict during a process of output monitoring. In line with the latter view, the results show (a) a delay in the production of homophones in the second language, (b) an increased error percentage in the production of homophones in both the first and second language, (c) a reduction in P200 amplitude in the production of homophones in the second language and (d) an increase in the N400 in the production of homophones in both languages of the bilingual.