The effects of L1 orthography on processing an artificial logographic script

To date, studies have focused on the acquisition of alphabetic second languages (L2s) in alphabetic first language (L1) users, demonstrating significant transfer effects. The present study examined the process from a reverse perspective, comparing logographic (Mandarin-Chinese) and alphabetic (English) L1 users in the acquisition of an artificial logographic script, in order to determine whether similar language-specific advantageous transfer effects occurred. English monolinguals, English-French bilinguals and Chinese-English bilinguals learned a small set of symbols in an artificial logographic script and were subsequently tested on their ability to process this script in regard to three main perspectives: L2 reading, L2 working memory (WM), and inner processing strategies. In terms of L2 reading, a lexical decision task on the artificial symbols revealed markedly faster response times in the Chinese-English bilinguals, indicating a logographic transfer effect suggestive of a visual processing advantage. A syntactic decision task evaluated the degree to which the new language was mastered beyond the single word level. No L1-specific transfer effects were found for artificial language strings. In order to investigate visual processing of the artificial logographs further, a series of WM experiments were conducted. Artificial logographs were recalled under concurrent auditory and visuo-spatial suppression conditions to disrupt phonological and visual processing, respectively. No L1-specific transfer effects were found, indicating no visual processing advantage of the Chinese-English bilinguals. However, a bilingual processing advantage was found indicative of a superior ability to control executive functions. In terms of L1 WM, the Chinese-English bilinguals outperformed the alphabetic L1 users when processing L1 words, indicating a language experience-specific advantage. Questionnaire data on the cognitive strategies that were deployed during the acquisition and processing of the artificial logographic script revealed that the Chinese-English bilinguals rated their inner speech as lower than the alphabetic L1 users, suggesting that they were transferring their phonological processing skill set to the acquisition and use of an artificial script. Overall, evidence was found to indicate that language learners transfer specific L1 orthographic processing skills to L2 logographic processing. Additionally, evidence was also found indicating that a bilingual history enhances cognitive performance in L2.

The acquisition of an artificial logographic script and bilingual working memory : Evidence for L1-specific orthographic processing skills transfer in Chinese-English bilinguals

Studies of orthographic skills transfer between languages focus mostly on working memory (WM) ability in alphabetic first language (L1) speakers when learning another, often alphabetically congruent, language. We report two studies that, instead, explored the transferability of L1 orthographic processing skills in WM in logographic-L1 and alphabetic-L1 speakers. English-French bilingual and English monolingual (alphabetic-L1) speakers, and Chinese-English (logographic-L1) speakers, learned a set of artificial logographs and associated meanings (Study 1). The logographs were used in WM tasks with and without concurrent articulatory or visuo-spatial suppression. The logographic-L1 bilinguals were markedly less affected by articulatory suppression than alphabetic-L1 monolinguals (who did not differ from their bilingual peers). Bilinguals overall were less affected by spatial interference, reflecting superior phonological processing skills or, conceivably, greater executive control. A comparison of span sizes for meaningful and meaningless logographs (Study 2) replicated these findings. However, the logographic-L1 bilinguals’ spans in L1 were measurably greater than those of their alphabetic-L1 (bilingual and monolingual) peers; a finding unaccounted for by faster articulation rates or differences in general intelligence. The overall pattern of results suggests an advantage (possibly perceptual) for logographic-L1 speakers, over and above the bilingual advantage also seen elsewhere in third language (L3) acquisition.

Dissociating verbal and nonverbal audiovisual object processing

This fMRI study investigates how audiovisual integration differs for verbal stimuli that can be matched at a phonological level and nonverbal stimuli that can be matched at a semantic level. Subjects were presented simultaneously with one visual and one auditory stimulus and were instructed to decide whether these stimuli referred to the same object or not. Verbal stimuli were simultaneously presented spoken and written object names, and nonverbal stimuli were photographs of objects simultaneously presented with naturally occurring object sounds. Stimulus differences were controlled by including two further conditions that paired photographs of objects with spoken words and object sounds with written words. Verbal matching, relative to all other conditions, increased activation in a region of the left superior temporal sulcus that has previously been associated with phonological processing. Nonverbal matching, relative to all other conditions, increased activation in a right fusiform region that has previously been associated with structural and conceptual object processing. Thus, we demonstrate how brain activation for audiovisual integration depends on the verbal content of the stimuli, even when stimulus and task processing differences are controlled.

Auditory context effects in picture naming investigated with event-related fMRI

Naming an object entails a number of processing stages, including retrieval of a target lexical concept and encoding of its phonological word form. We investigated these stages using the picture-word interference task in an fMRI experiment. Participants named target pictures in the presence of auditorily presented semantically related, phonologically related, or unrelated distractor words or in isolation. We observed BOLD signal changes in left-hemisphere regions associated with lexical-conceptual and phonological processing, including the midto-posterior lateral temporal cortex. However, these BOLD responses manifested as signal reductions for all distractor conditions relative to naming alone. Compared with unrelated words, phonologically related distractors showed further signal reductions, whereas only the pars orbitalis of the left inferior frontal cortex showed a selective reduction in response in the semantic condition. We interpret these findings as indicating that the word forms of lexical competitors are phonologically encoded and that competition during lexical selection is reduced by phonologically related distractors. Since the extended nature of auditory presentation requires a large portion of a word to be presented before its meaning is accessed, we attribute the BOLD signal reductions observed for semantically related and unrelated words to lateral inhibition mechanisms engaged after target name selection has occurred, as has been proposed in some production models.

No specific role for the manual motor system in processing the meanings of words related to the hand

The present study explored whether semantic and motor systems are functionally interwoven via the use of a dual-task paradigm. According to embodied language accounts that propose an automatic and necessary involvement of the motor system in conceptual processing, concurrent processing of hand-related information should interfere more with hand movements than processing of unrelated body-part (i.e., foot, mouth) information. Across three experiments, 100 right-handed participants performed left- or right-hand tapping movements while repeatedly reading action words related to different body-parts, or different body-part names, in both aloud and silent conditions. Concurrent reading of single words related to specific body-parts, or the same words embedded in sentences differing in syntactic and phonological complexity (to manipulate context-relevant processing), and reading while viewing videos of the actions and body-parts described by the target words (to elicit visuomotor associations) all interfered with right-hand but not left-hand tapping rate. However, this motor interference was not affected differentially by hand-related stimuli. Thus, the results provide no support for proposals that body-part specific resources in cortical motor systems are shared between overt manual movements and meaning-related processing of words related to the hand.