Neurolinguistic contributions to understanding the bilingual mental lexicon

Introduction Many bilinguals will have had the experience of unintentionally reading something in a language other than the intended one (e.g. MUG to mean mosquito in Dutch rather than a receptacle for a hot drink, as one of the possible intended English meanings), of finding themselves blocked on a word for which many alternatives suggest themselves (but, somewhat annoyingly, not in the right language), of their accent changing when stressed or tired and, occasionally, of starting to speak in a language that is not understood by those around them. These instances where lexical access appears compromised and control over language behavior is reduced hint at the intricate structure of the bilingual lexical architecture and the complexity of the processes by which knowledge is accessed and retrieved. While bilinguals might tend to blame word finding and other language problems on their bilinguality, these difficulties per se are not unique to the bilingual population. However, what is unique, and yet far more common than is appreciated by monolinguals, is the cognitive architecture that subserves bilingual language processing. With bilingualism (and multilingualism) the rule rather than the exception (Grosjean, 1982), this architecture may well be the default structure of the language processing system. As such, it is critical that we understand more fully not only how the processing of more than one language is subserved by the brain, but also how this understanding furthers our knowledge of the cognitive architecture that encapsulates the bilingual mental lexicon. The neurolinguistic approach to bilingualism focuses on determining the manner in which the two (or more) languages are stored in the brain and how they are differentially (or similarly) processed. The underlying assumption is that the acquisition of more than one language requires at the very least a change to or expansion of the existing lexicon, if not the formation of language-specific components, and this is likely to manifest in some way at the physiological level. There are many sources of information, ranging from data on bilingual aphasic patients (Paradis, 1977, 1985, 1997) to lateralization (Vaid, 1983; see Hull & Vaid, 2006, for a review), recordings of event-related potentials (ERPs) (e.g. Ardal et al., 1990; Phillips et al., 2006), and positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of neurologically intact bilinguals (see Indefrey, 2006; Vaid & Hull, 2002, for reviews). Following the consideration of methodological issues and interpretative limitations that characterize these approaches, the chapter focuses on how the application of these approaches has furthered our understanding of (1) selectivity of bilingual lexical access, (2) distinctions between word types in the bilingual lexicon and (3) control processes that enable language selection.

The genome of the domesticated apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.)

We report a high-quality draft genome sequence of the domesticated apple (Malus × domestica). We show that a relatively recent (>50 million years ago) genome-wide duplication (GWD) has resulted in the transition from nine ancestral chromosomes to 17 chromosomes in the Pyreae. Traces of older GWDs partly support the monophyly of the ancestral paleohexaploidy of eudicots. Phylogenetic reconstruction of Pyreae and the genus Malus, relative to major Rosaceae taxa, identified the progenitor of the cultivated apple as M. sieversii. Expansion of gene families reported to be involved in fruit development may explain formation of the pome, a Pyreae-specific false fruit that develops by proliferation of the basal part of the sepals, the receptacle. In apple, a subclade of MADS-box genes, normally involved in flower and fruit development, is expanded to include 15 members, as are other gene families involved in Rosaceae-specific metabolism, such as transport and assimilation of sorbitol.