Event Abstract

Back to Event

Wor(l)ds apart – does the N400 reflect bilingual language distance and meaning in translation? An ERP study of the effects of L1-L2 distance and translation direction in German-English and Cantonese-English bilinguals.

Christina Lutz1, 2*, Lok Yiu Lee2 and Brendan Weekes2
  • 1 ETH Zürich, Switzerland
  • 2 University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR China

Background and Objective: Due to rapid globalization, citizens in different countries are increasingly interconnected, and more people are growing up to or learn to speak more than one language (Bhatia & Ritchie, 2008, p. xxi; Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2012; Jones, 2018; Ma et al., 2014). Research suggests that language processing in the brain of bilingual speakers is different to monolinguals and that bilingualism might confer or at least be correlated with changes in brain structures and connectivity (Abutalebi, Canini, Della Rosa, Green, & Weekes, 2015; Bialystok et al., 2012; Grant, Dennis, & li, 2014; Pereira Soares et al.). Recently, this has been extended to differences in the similarity of languages, as measured by language family and script, whereby more similar languages cause more interference and consequently activate more control structures in the brain to keep them in check (Coderre & van Heuven, 2014; Ramanujan, Fedeli, Abutalebi, & Weekes, 2017). Featuring the Bilingual Interactive Activation Plus model (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002) and the Revised Hierarchal Model (Kroll, Van Hell, Tokowicz, & Green, 2010), it was our aim to shed more light on the process of overt translation and to see whether there would be differences in reaction time and the N400 ERP component, presumed to be indicative of lexical and semantic load and processing, using an EEG approach and mixed effects modeling for analysis, between bilingual groups and translation direction. The main goal of the present study is to investigate language distance in type of script as a variable in the written word processing of bilinguals in two contrasting language combinations: Sino-Tibetan (Cantonese-English bilingual biscriptals) and Indo-European (German-English bilingual monoscriptals) during visual word translation. In consideration of discrepant results in the literature and many possible influencing factors, a mixed modelling approach is used to investigate the substructure of result dynamics and to increase generalizability (Baayen, Davidson, & Bates, 2008; Bagiella, Sloan, & Heitjan, 2000; Bakhtiar, Jafary, & Weekes, 2016; Harald Baayen & Milin, 2010; Law, Yum, & Wing-Lam Cheung, 2017; Lo & Andrews, 2015; Nilipour, Bakhtiar, Momenian, & Weekes, 2017; Tibon & Levy, 2015). Methods: 23 Cantonese-English and 23 German-English bilinguals translated 70 single words from their mother tongue to English and 70 vice versa, while their EEG and response latencies were being recorded. The data was evaluated by means of linear mixed effects models. Results: Accuracy was found to be lower in forward translation for Chinese bilinguals. Reaction time was slower in forward than in backward translation, and was responsive to translation direction, stimulus valence, target word familiarity, and interactions between direction with group and proficiency. Raw mean reaction times were faster in Cantonese than in Germans, but in the GLMM estimates, the reverse was the case. Reaction time was significantly influenced by direction, target familiarity, stimulus valence (p-values all below 0.0001), a marginal interaction of group and direction (p=0.0499), and proficiency bordering on significance (p-value = 0.0514). Reaction time was found to increase with higher proficiency in backward translation, and to decrease with higher proficiency in forward translation. We report a significant modulation of the N400 by main effects of Group, scalp electrode location, concreteness and interactions between electrode scalp location and proficiency, as well as between Group, Direction, and electrode location. The most negative amplitudes were detected in frontal regions. Notably, the N400 amplitude was found to be larger overall in German-English than in Cantonese-English speakers. However, a three-way interaction for Group, Direction, and electrode scalp location was found, such that in Cantonese, there was more frontal negativity and more positive parietal potential in forward than in backward translation, while in German, there seemed to be more negative frontal and more positive parietal potentials in backward than in forward translation. Conclusions: The use of the GLMM was found to change our interpretation of the reaction time, presumably correcting for influencing factors of differential stimulus concreteness and target familiarity perceptions between the bilingual groups. The effects on reaction time backed up the RH model. The findings of N400 are in accordance with a hypothesis of greater influence and thus greater required cognitive control for starkly overlapping languages as suggested by the BIA+ model, the N400 being more negative for the German group overall. However, GLMM reaction time estimates and accuracy data do not reflect this, since forward translation appears to be slower and more effortful in Cantonese natives, if accuracy is compared for the two directions. The difference in translation directions for Cantonese is in accordance with RHM, which states that forward translation takes longer due to involvement of semantics. Closer examination of the data shows that Cantonese-English speakers feature a higher negativity in frontal areas in forward translation than in backward translation. It could thus be that these difficulties in forward translation (longer reaction times and less accuracy) arise due to differences in script or due to difficulty in L2 word retrieval. This finding is in line with our hypothesis that more widespread activation in response to the non-specific semantic information contained in Chinese characters has an inhibitory effect on word selection, while the greater neighborhood activation in German-English bilinguals appear to be faciliatory. However, many answers remain elusive and more analyses are needed for fine-grained interpretations. Much research is yet to be done, specifically on the sub-stages of translation and our knowledge of EEG components. Thus, it seems that with (language) distance does not necessarily come clarity (only less activation), at least not in translation.

Figure 1
Image

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our special thanks to
Prof. Brendan Weekes, who in such an uncomplicated and relatable manner welcomed us into his lab, gave us the opportunity to conduct this project, who always had a lending ear, was quick to answer and give comments on our queries, and to
Prof. I-Fan Su, for providing use with the EEG equipment and processing tools (dongles) and who always had an open door, a kind and patient smile, knowledgeable tips and an answer to our every EEG-related question

References

Abutalebi, J., Canini, M., Della Rosa, P. A., Green, D. W., & Weekes, B. S. (2015). The neuroprotective effects of bilingualism upon the inferior parietal lobule: A Structural Neuroimaging Study in Aging Chinese Bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 33, 3-13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2014.09.008
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of memory and language, 59(4), 390-412.
Bagiella, E., Sloan, R. P., & Heitjan, D. F. (2000). Mixed‐effects models in psychophysiology. Psychophysiology, 37(1), 13-20. doi:doi:10.1111/1469-8986.3710013
Bakhtiar, M., Jafary, R., & Weekes, B. (2016). Aphasia in Persian: Implications for cognitive models of lexical processing. Journal of neuropsychology.
Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. C. (2008). The handbook of bilingualism: John Wiley & Sons.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240-250. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001
Coderre, E. L., & van Heuven, W. J. (2014). The effect of script similarity on executive control in bilinguals. Frontiers in psychology, 5.
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175-197.
Grant, A., Dennis, N., & li, P. (2014). Cognitive control, cognitive reserve, and memory in the aging bilingual brain.
Harald Baayen, R., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2).
Jones, T. (2018). The joys and benefits of bilingualism. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/21/the-joys-and-benefits-of-bilingualism
Kroll, J. F., Van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D. W. (2010). The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(3), 373-381.
Law, S.-P., Yum, Y.-N., & Wing-Lam Cheung, G. (2017). Neural correlates of concreteness effect in semantic processing of single Chinese characters using mixed-effects modeling. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 44, 223-238. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.07.001
Lo, S., & Andrews, S. (2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1171.
Ma, H., Hu, J., Xi, J., Shen, W., Ge, J., Geng, F., . . . Yao, D. (2014). Bilingual cognitive control in language switching: An fMRI study of English-Chinese late bilinguals. PloS one, 9(9), e106468.
Nilipour, R., Bakhtiar, M., Momenian, M., & Weekes, B. S. (2017). Object and action picture naming in brain-damaged Persian speakers with aphasia. Aphasiology, 31(4), 388-405.
Pereira Soares, S. M., Ong, G., Abutalebi, J., Del Maschio, N., Sewell, D., & Weekes, B. A diffusion model approach to analyzing performance on the Flanker task: The role of the DLPFC. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.
Ramanujan, K., Fedeli, D., Abutalebi, J., & Weekes, B. (2017, 2017). [The Influence of Script Similarity on Cross-Linguistic Conflict – an fMRI study of Monoscriptal and Biscriptal Bilinguals].
Tibon, R., & Levy, D. A. (2015). Striking a balance: analyzing unbalanced event-related potential data. Frontiers in psychology, 6(555). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00555

Keywords: Mixed modelling, Bilingualism and Brain, Linguistic distance, translation, Translation direction, Revised Hierarchical Model, BIA+ model, Neuroscience, EEG/ERP, N400 component

Conference: Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, 21 Oct - 23 Oct, 2018.

Presentation Type: poster presentation

Topic: Eligible for a student award

Citation: Lutz C, Lee L and Weekes B (2019). Wor(l)ds apart – does the N400 reflect bilingual language distance and meaning in translation? An ERP study of the effects of L1-L2 distance and translation direction in German-English and Cantonese-English bilinguals.. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2018.228.00080

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 30 Apr 2018; Published Online: 22 Jan 2019.

* Correspondence: Miss. Christina Lutz, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland, chlutz@student.ethz.ch