Figure 5 - uploaded by Ana Ines Ansaldo
Content may be subject to copyright.
(colour online) Simple Contrasts; a. (Cognate – dido), b. (Clang – dido), c. (Non-cognate-non-clang – dido). Naming all three categories significantly activates the left inferior frontal gyrus (BA 44, 47 and 9), the left pre-central and the middle frontal gyri (BA 6 and9), the left and the right cingulate gyrus (BA32) and the left insula (BA13), the left and the right fusiform gyri (BA 37, 20 and 19) and the right cerebellum. Also, the left fusiform gyrus (BA 37) and the right and the left cingulate (BA 32), the right and the left insula (BA 13) were activated in all three word-categories. Both Clangs and Non-cognate-non-clangs activated the middle frontal gyrus (BA 46). Only naming Non-cognate-non-clangs activated the right homologues of the left inferior-frontal gyrus (BA 44, 47 and 9), left precentral and the middle frontal gyrus (BA 6 and 9 and 46), as well as the left caudate Body. Statistical parametric maps overlaid onto the average T1-weighted anatomy of all subjects (n = 12). Activation related to only one layer is presented, thus many activations may not be seen on this image. Figure 5.-Colour online, B/W in print 

(colour online) Simple Contrasts; a. (Cognate – dido), b. (Clang – dido), c. (Non-cognate-non-clang – dido). Naming all three categories significantly activates the left inferior frontal gyrus (BA 44, 47 and 9), the left pre-central and the middle frontal gyri (BA 6 and9), the left and the right cingulate gyrus (BA32) and the left insula (BA13), the left and the right fusiform gyri (BA 37, 20 and 19) and the right cerebellum. Also, the left fusiform gyrus (BA 37) and the right and the left cingulate (BA 32), the right and the left insula (BA 13) were activated in all three word-categories. Both Clangs and Non-cognate-non-clangs activated the middle frontal gyrus (BA 46). Only naming Non-cognate-non-clangs activated the right homologues of the left inferior-frontal gyrus (BA 44, 47 and 9), left precentral and the middle frontal gyrus (BA 6 and 9 and 46), as well as the left caudate Body. Statistical parametric maps overlaid onto the average T1-weighted anatomy of all subjects (n = 12). Activation related to only one layer is presented, thus many activations may not be seen on this image. Figure 5.-Colour online, B/W in print 

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
Behavioral and neural correlates of cross-linguistic transfer (CLT) effects were studied at the word level, in a pair of linguistically distant languages. Twelve adult Persian speakers were tested on an overt picture-naming task in L2, during event-related fMRI scanning after an intensive computerized French lexical-learning program including cogna...

Similar publications

Article
Full-text available
Individuals with aphasia frequently show lexical retrieval deficits due to increased interference of semantically related competitors, a phenomenon that can be observed in tasks such as naming pictures grouped by semantic category. These deficits are explained in terms of impaired semantic control, a set of abilities that are to some extent depende...

Citations

... For example, train in English and tren in Spanish are easier to recognize and produce than heart in English and corazón in Spanish for bilingual children. Cognates are easier to recognize and name than noncognates (a) because they have a stronger connection to each other, being more accessible in the lexicon (de Groot, 1992;Floccia et al., 2018;Ghazi-Saidi & Ansaldo, 2017), and (b) because they are easier to remember since there is already a similar space or location in the individual's memory (de Groot & Keijzer, 2000). ...
Article
Purpose This study examined the effect of phonological overlap on English and Spanish expressive vocabulary accuracy as measured by the bilingual Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test–Fourth Edition (EOWPVT-IV). We hypothesized that if languages interact during an expressive vocabulary task, then higher phonological overlap will predict higher expressive vocabulary accuracy, especially in the nondominant language. Method Twenty English-dominant bilingual children (English–Spanish) completed the bilingual EOWPVT-IV. We calculated phonological overlap between 117 English and Spanish words included in the bilingual EOWPVT using the Crosslinguistic Overlap Scale for Phonology. Results Generalized logistic mixed-effect models revealed that phonological overlap and word frequency predicted vocabulary accuracy in Spanish, in addition to item difficulty. Age and item difficulty were the only predictors of English accuracy. Conclusions Phonological overlap was a significant predictor of Spanish vocabulary accuracy (the least dominant language of the children in our sample), suggesting a transfer between vocabulary in the dominant language into vocabulary in the least dominant language. Future studies should investigate how languages interact in bilingual children to provide us with information about how to create and administer vocabulary tests that represent vocabulary in each language and use vocabulary teaching strategies that promote dual language development. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21554838
... Conversely, typologically distant languages would concern what Antoniou & Wright coin as the 'processing complexity effect' (6), as the few linguistic commonalities shared between the L1 and L2 may require greater cognitive resources on the learner's part. This echoes with the French-Persian neuroimaging study by Ghazi-Saidi and Ansaldo (2017), where the authors explain how the activity of naming in distant language pairs turns out to be particularly stimulating. They detail that the management of a distant language 'is less automatic, and must recruit more neural resources for lexical retrieval, and articulatory processing; it also requires more attention and cognitive control, even in cases where there is phonological overlap' (1080). ...
Article
Full-text available
With the increasing consensus that a single effect of bilingualism is unlikely, some scholars shift their focus to elements that may exert an influence on the bilingual brain. One such element that has been garnering attention lately concerns the role of L1-L2 typological distance. In this conceptual analysis, I make the case that the foundations to commence this discussion are still weak at this juncture; conceptualisations of what qualifies as ‘typologically similar’ or ‘distant’ are not well-established in bilingualism research, and the tendency to compare languages as wholes, without considering dimensions and degrees of linguistic difference, can be problematic. Further, reflections on how bilingual cognitive demands are formed and how they are linked to L2 skill engagement (i.e. receptive/productive skills) are rudimentary yet underpowered. Crucially, I highlight the ongoing need to meticulously interpret bilingual neural activity and neurostructural changes before conclusions on the influence of typological distance can be reached. I conclude my critique by proposing a conceptual framework – one that addresses language, cognition, and empirical methods in sequential order – to help us embark more effectively on the theoretical inquiry of whether L1-L2 typological distance can pose an influence on the bilingual brain.
... This advantage was reflected in both an early learning phase (spanning over 5 days), and in a later consolidation period (of 2 weeks). A similar cognate facilitation effect was observed among learners of more distant languages (Persian and French, Ghazi-Saidi & Ansaldo, 2017). ...
... Therefore, the extent to which overlap in form can facilitate learning when there is no meaning-overlap remains unclear. Moreover, the majority of past research tested learning of new meanings to already existent forms WITHIN a given language (but see Ghazi-Saidi & Ansaldo, 2017;Mulík et al., 2019;Otwinowska, Foryś-Nogala, Kobosko & Szewcyzk, 2020), whereas our study aims to better understand the role of phonological-overlap, with and without a semantic-overlap, ACROSS the language boundary in two different languages. One relevant study conducted recently by Mulík et al. (2019), examined how Spanish-English bilinguals with low and high L2 proficiency learned three types of Slovak words: overlapping in phonology but not in meaning with the L1 (Spanish false-cognates), overlapping in phonology but not in meaning with the L2 (English false-cognates) and control words, not overlapping with either of the languages. ...
... Other research observed no difference between false-cognates and control words (Ghazi-Saidi & Ansaldo, 2017;Otwinowska et al., 2020). In particular, Ghazi-Saidi and Ansaldo (2017) taught adult Persian speakers cognates, false-cognates and control French words as novel words. ...
Article
Full-text available
The study examined whether false-cognates, overlapping in form but not meaning across languages, are easier to learn due to form overlap, or more difficult to learn due to meaning competition, compared to unambiguous control and cognate words. Fifty-four native Hebrew speakers learned 14 cognates, 14 false-cognates, and 28 control Arabic words in one session. Cognates were learned better than control items. There was no overall difference in learning false-cognates relative to controls, but individuals with higher phonological short-term memory, or with lower L1 verbal fluency, did exhibit a false-cognate learning-advantage. For these individuals, form overlap was more influential than meaning competition. Lexical decisions to Hebrew words following Arabic learning were slower for false-cognates than controls, indicative of backward influences. The findings reveal the influence of prior knowledge on learning and processing, and highlight the importance of jointly considering item-based and learner-based characteristics during the initial stages of vocabulary learning.
... Kim et al. (2016) showed a greater extent of overlap in brain activation in a pair of more similar languages in terms of orthographic transparency (such as English and Korean) compared to a pair of less similar languages (such as English and Chinese). Ghazi-Saidi and colleagues found that naming in a second language was more effortful and demanding and less automatic when the two languages were distant (Persian and French) (Ghazi-Saidi & Ansaldo, 2017) than when they were close (Spanish and French) (Ghazi-Saidi, 2012in Ghazi-Saidi & Ansaldo, 2017, resulting in more extensive recruitment of neural resources. ...
Article
Full-text available
Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions Previous studies in pairs of typologically distant languages showed that hemispheric processing of metaphoric expressions differs in a native versus second language. The current research explored this finding in a pair of typologically close languages, Arabic and Hebrew. Design/methodology/approach Forty-six Arabic native speakers who were proficient in Hebrew (second language; 30 women, aged 19–28) participated in a divided visual field (DVF) experiment. They were presented with conventional metaphors, literal expressions, and unrelated word pairs and asked to indicate whether the word pairs formed a meaningful expression. Participants were tested in spoken Arabic, literary Arabic, and Hebrew in separate blocks. Data and analysis Mean reaction times and accuracy were analyzed using repeated-measures three-way analysis of variance, with language, visual field, and expression type as independent variables. Findings/conclusions In contrast to previously reported findings, a left-hemisphere advantage or a bilateral pattern of processing was observed for conventional metaphors in both varieties of Arabic and in Hebrew, suggesting similar hemispheric processing in native and second language. Originality Metaphor processing is examined in a pair of typologically close languages. Significance/implications Our findings (in a pair of typologically close languages) differ from those previously reported in pairs of less similar languages, suggesting a modulatory role of language similarity in hemispheric processing of second-language metaphors.
... Persian is not marked for gender and uses the Arabic writing system, whereas English uses the Latin alphabet. The canonical sentence order in English is Subject-Verb-Object (SVO), while in Persian, it is Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) 31 . English and French are considered closely related languages 48 . ...
... In the picture-naming task, linear mixed effect modelling analyses of the VOTs revealed longer VOTs of responses to Switch to L2 compared to Non-Switch trials in the DLP group compared to the CLP group. This result can be explained according to the assumption that DLP bilinguals involve more language control in a bilingual context 31,80 , and as a result, they show slower language switching compared to nonswitching. Interestingly, a different pattern of VOTs in response to Switch vs. Non-Switch naming was found for L2 vs. L1 in the CLP group; while the DLP group showed slower VOTs for Switch trials into L1 and L2, CLP bilinguals showed slower VOTs for Switch trials into L1 but similar VOTs for Non-Switch and Switch trials into L2. ...
Article
Full-text available
Linguistic processes in the bilingual brain are partially shared across languages, and the degree of neural overlap between the languages is influenced by several factors, including the age of acquisition, relative language proficiency, and immersion. There is limited evidence on the role of linguistic distance on the performance of the language control as well as domain-general cognitive control systems. The present study aims at exploring whether being bilingual in close and distant language pairs (CLP and DLP) influences language control and domain-general cognitive processes. We recruited two groups of DLP (Persian–English) and CLP (French–English) bilinguals. Subjects performed language nonswitching and switching picture-naming tasks and a nonlinguistic switching task while EEG data were recorded. Behaviorally, CLP bilinguals showed a lower cognitive cost than DLP bilinguals, reflected in faster reaction times both in language switching (compared to nonswitching) and nonlinguistic switching. ERPs showed differential involvement of cognitive control regions between the CLP and DLP groups during linguistic switching vs. nonswitching at 450 to 515 ms poststimulus presentation. Moreover, there was a difference between CLP and DLP groups from 40 to 150 ms in the nonlinguistic task. Our electrophysiological results confirm a stronger involvement of language control and domain-general cognitive control regions in CLP bilinguals.
... activation of higher-level visual areas) occurring in foreign readers. This shows that foreign language learning is a multidimensional task and should be understood as a complex process, modulated by many factors, amongst others orthographic transparency, linguistic distance, the degree of exposure, learning strategy and age of acquisition ( DeLuca et al., 2019 ;Oliver et al, 2016 ;Morgan-Short et al., 2012 ;Ghazi-Saidi and Ansaldo, 2017 ). To follow this process throughout different stages of acquisition, it is insufficient to compare only two time points. ...
Article
Full-text available
During foreign language acquisition neural representations of native language and foreign language assimilate. In the reading network, this assimilation leads to a shift from effortful processing to automated reading. Longitudinal studies can track this transition and reveal dynamics that might not become apparent in behavior. Here, we report results from a longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, which tracked functional changes in the reading network of beginning learners of Greek over one year. We deliberately chose Greek as foreign language that would have similar orthographic transparency but a different alphabet than the native language (Polish). fMRI scans with lexical and semantic decision tasks were performed at five different time points (every ~3 months). Classical language areas (the left inferior frontal gyrus, the left precentral gyrus, and the bilateral supplementary motor cortex), and cognitive control areas (left inferior parietal lobe and bilateral anterior cingulate cortex) showed stronger activation after the first months of instruction as compared to the activation before instruction. This pattern occured in both tasks. Task-related activity in the reading network remained constant throughout the remaining 6 months of learning and was also present in a follow-up scan 3 months after the end of the course. A similar pattern was demonstrated by the analysis of convergence between foreign and native languages occurring within the first months of learning. Additionally, in the lexical task, the extent of spatial overlap, between foreign and native language in Broca's area increased constantly from the beginning till the end of training. Our findings support the notion that reorganization of language networks is achieved after a relatively short time of foreign language instruction. We also demonstrate that cognitive control areas are recruited in foreign language reading at low proficiency levels. No apparent changes in the foreign or native reading network occur after the initial 3 months of learning. This suggests that task demand might be more important than proficiency in regulating the resources needed for efficient foreign language reading.
... 2) L1 vs. L2: Related to the above, in mixed language contexts, naming in a more dominant L1 requires more neural resources, particularly in brain areas relating to domain-general cognitive control such as right dlPFC and SMA; whereas in single-language contexts, naming in a weaker L2 requires greater neural resources than L1 naming Ghazi-Saidi and Ansaldo, 2017). Such a pattern has been observed even for L2 words that share phonological and/or semantic features with L1 words, namely cognates (shared phonology and semantics) and clangs (shared phonology but not semantics; Ghazi-Saidi and Ansaldo, 2017). ...
Article
A large body of research has indicated that bilingualism may impact cognitive functions, as well as relevant aspects of brain function and structure, through continual practice in language control. The present review aimed to bring together relevant findings on the relationship between bilingualism and domain-general cognitive functions from a neural perspective. The final sample included 210 studies, covering findings regarding neural responses to bilingual language control and/or domain-general cognitive tasks, as well as regarding effects of bilingualism on non-task-related brain function and brain structure. The evidence indicates that a) bilingual language control likely entails neural mechanisms responsible for domain-general cognitive functions; b) bilingual experiences impact neural responses to domain-general cognitive functions; and c) bilingual experiences impact non-task-related brain function (both resting-state and metabolic function) as well as aspects of brain structure (both macrostructure and microstructure), each of which may in turn impact mental processes, including domain-general cognitive functions. Such functional and structural neuroplasticity associated with bilingualism may contribute to both cognitive and neural reserves, producing benefits across the lifespan.
... Most neuroimaging findings show that different regions in both cerebral hemispheres related to the visual and auditory systems are necessary for skilled reading (Glezer et al. 2016). In particular, the bilingual group in our study exhibited greater right hemisphere activity than monolinguals, which has been found to be consistent across bilingual tasks and language pairs (Hull and Vaid 2007;Hervais-Adelman et al. 2015;Fu et al. 2017;Ghazi-Saidi and Ansaldo 2017;Yang et al. 2018;Cargnelutti et al. 2019). Such bilateral activation may also hold true for bilingual patients with brain tumour and epilepsy (Połczyńska et al. 2017) and may not even relate to age of L2 acquisition. ...
Article
Approximately half the world’s population can speak more than one language. In this selective review, we consider whether there is an advantage to bilingualism and whether the bilingual brain is different in terms of both executive functioning and lexical decision-making. We focus on two functional MRI studies from our lab where task performance and brain activation from late proficient bilinguals when using their first (L1) and second (L2) language are compared to matched monolinguals. In Study One, monolinguals produced greater activation than bilinguals during Stroop performance, regardless of task demands. During interference, monolinguals showed more posterior brain activation relative to bilinguals and during response conflict, monolinguals showed greater activation in the anterior cingulate and prefrontal regions. In Study Two, bilinguals recruited more extensive networks when processing L2 than L1 and when compared to monolinguals. Bilinguals also showed weaker lateralisation, particularly in the temporal lobe, during both L1 and L2 lexical decisions. Taken together, learning a second language late confers a benefit to executive functioning but at the expense of decreased cortical efficiency. Research is now required to determine the extent of plasticity in both language- and non-language dedicated areas, and how this plasticity is modulated by experience throughout the lifespan.
... However, the available data suggest that an allegedly larger distance between languages tend to be associated with a more extensive recruitment of control-related regions during language processing (cf. Ghazi-Saidi andAnsaldo, 2017 andRaboyeau et al., 2010). ...
... However, the available data suggest that an allegedly larger distance between languages tend to be associated with a more extensive recruitment of control-related regions during language processing (cf. Ghazi-Saidi andAnsaldo, 2017 andRaboyeau et al., 2010). ...
Article
Notwithstanding rising interest, a coherent picture of the brain's representation of two languages has not yet been achieved. In the present meta-analysis we analysed a large number of functional neuroimaging studies focusing on language processing in bilinguals. We used activation likelihood estimation (ALE) to enucleate activation areas involved in bilingual processing and control of different types of linguistic knowledge - lexico-semantics, grammar, phonology - in L1 and L2. Results show that surprisingly, compared to L2, lexico-semantic processing in L1 involves a widespread system of cortico-subcortical regions, especially when L2 is acquired later in life. By contrast, L2 processing recruits regions exceeding the L1 semantic network and relating to executive control processes. Only few regions displayed selective activation for grammar and phonology. Analyses of language switching highlight a functional overlap between domain-general and bilingual language control networks. Collectively, our findings point to a shared neural network for L1 and L2 with few differences depending on the linguistic level. The emerging picture identifies under-investigated issues, offering clear directions for future research.
... These issues have been well documented (e.g., Macedonia, 2014;Wellsby and Pexman, 2014;Macedonia and Mueller, 2016). Another factor that could account for differences between L1 vs. L2 embodiment is the linguistic distance between languages, which refers to the extent of similarity between the languages and which has previously been shown to play a role in bilingual language processing (e.g., Lindgren and Muñoz, 2013;Abutalebi et al., 2015;Ghazi-Saidi and Ansaldo, 2017). This factor is usually studied in relation to the ease of learning a second language (e.g., Butler, 2012), or in relation to the phonology and morpho-syntax of languages (e.g., Llama et al., 2010;Zawiszewski et al., 2011). ...
Article
Full-text available
The role of the sensorimotor system in second language (L2) semantic processing as well as its clinical implications for bilingual patients has hitherto been neglected. We offer an overview of the issues at stake in this under-investigated field, presenting the theoretical and clinical relevance of studying L2 embodiment and reviewing the few studies on this topic. We highlight that (a) the sensorimotor network is involved in L2 processing, and that (b) in most studies, L2 is differently embodied than L1, reflected in a lower degree or in a different pattern of L2 embodiment. Importantly, we outline critical issues to be addressed in order to guide future research. We also delineate the subsequent steps needed to confirm or dismiss the value of language therapeutic approaches based on embodiment theories as a complement of speech and language therapies in adult bilinguals.