Morphosyntax processing is related to the P600 event-related potentials (ERPs) component and blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) activation of the Pars opercularis (PO). First, this paper aims to investigate the relation of these variables across individuals. Second, we consider the role of context in morphosyntactic processing.
Design/methodology:
Highly proficient Turkish–Persian bilinguals (N = 33) made morphosyntactic judgments on sentences. In a monolingual context, only L2 sentences (Persian) were presented, and the electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded. In a bilingual context, Persian and Turkish sentences alternated, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was measured.
Data and analysis:
The EEG and fMRI data were taken from separately published experiments on the same participants. Here, we correlated amplitudes of EEG-derived ERP components and the number of activated voxels in fMRI in designated brain regions because both parameters are proportionally attuned to the number of activated neurons.
Findings/conclusions:
Morphosyntactic violations in a Persian monolingual context yielded a P600 component in the ERP. In L1, morphosyntactic violations increased BOLD activation in the left PO and in L2 they activated the posterior superior temporal gyrus (pSTG). The P600 amplitude correlated only with BOLD activity in the left PO for L1. These results first support a critical role of the PO in generating the P600; second, the findings are context-specific and are most pronounced for the presumed base languages in different contexts (i.e., L2 in monolingual and L1 in bilingual contexts). These results are consistent with predictions of the adaptive control theory.
Originality:
This study contributes to the rarely investigated interface between ERPs and fMRI in bilingual speakers during morphosyntactic processing. The results offer novel insights into language context effects.
Significance/implications:
Our findings highlight the importance of cross-modality neuroimaging in bilinguals and language processing in both monolingual and bilingual contexts.
AbutalebiJ.GreenD. W. (2016). Neuroimaging of language control in bilinguals: Neural adaptation and reserve. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4), 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000225
2.
Alemán-BañónJ.RothmanJ. (2016). The role of morphological markedness in the processing of number and gender agreement in Spanish: An event-related potential investigation. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(10), 1273–1298. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1218032
3.
BiceK.KrollJ. F. (2021). Grammatical processing in two languages: How individual differences in language experience and cognitive abilities shape comprehension in heritage bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 58(1), 100963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100963
4.
BogulskiC. A.BiceK.KrollJ. F. (2019). Bilingualism as a desirable difficulty: Advantages in word learning depend on regulation of the dominant language. Bilingualism, 22(5), 1052–1067. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000858
5.
BookheimerS. (2002). Functional MRI of language: New approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 25, 151–188. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.25.112701.142946
6.
BrouwerH.CrockerM. W.VenhuizenN. J.HoeksJ. C. (2017). A Neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. Cognitive Science, 41, 1318–1352. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12461
7.
BrouwerH.FitzH.HoeksJ. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055
8.
BrouwerH.HoeksJ. C. (2013). A time and place for language comprehension: Mapping the N400 and the P600 to a minimal cortical network. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 758. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00758
9.
ChowW. Y.NevinsA.CarreirasM. (2018). Effects of subject-case marking on agreement processing: ERP evidence from Basque. Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 99, 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.12.009
10.
ComrieB. (2009). The world’s major languages (2nd ed.). Routledge.
11.
DeclerckM.KochI.PhilippA. M. (2015). The minimum requirements of language control: Evidence from sequential predictability effects in language switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000021
12.
DiazB.Sebastian-GallesN.ErdociaK.MuellerJ.LakaI. (2011). On the cross-linguistic validity of electrophysiological correlates of morphosyntactic processing: A study of case and agreement violations in Basque. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24(3), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.12.003
13.
DunnA. L.Fox TreeJ. E. (2009). A quick, gradient Bilingual Dominance Scale. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990113
FriedericiA. D. (2018). The neural basis for human syntax: Broca’s area and beyond. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 21, 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.03.004
16.
FriedericiA. D.ChomskyN.BerwickR. C.MoroA.BolhuisJ. J. (2017). Language, mind and brain. Nature Human Behavior, 1(10), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0184-4
17.
FriedericiA. D.PfeiferE.HahneA. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(3), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(93)90026-2
GouchaT.FriedericiA. D. (2015). The language skeleton after dissecting meaning: A functional segregation within Broca’s Area. Neuroimage, 114, 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.011
20.
GreenD. W.AbutalebiJ. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377
GrosjeanF. (2001). The Bilingual’s language modes. In NicolJ. L. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Blackwell Publishing.
23.
GrosjeanF. (2012). Bilingual and monolingual language modes. In ChapelleC. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–9). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0090
24.
GuajardoL. F.WichaN. Y. (2014). Morphosyntax can modulate the N400 component: Event related potentials to gender-marked post-nominal adjectives. NeuroImage, 91, 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.09.077
25.
HartsuikerR. J.PickeringM. J.VeltkampE. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15(6), 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00693.x
26.
HollingsheadA. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Yale University Department of Sociology.
27.
IshkhanyanB.Michel LangeV.BoyeK.MogensenJ.KarabanovA.HartwigsenG.SiebnerH. R. (2020). Anterior and posterior left inferior frontal gyrus contribute to the implementation of grammatical determiners during language production. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 685. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00685
28.
JiaoL.LiuC.De BruinA. M. T.ChenB. (2020). Effects of language context on executive control in unbalanced bilinguals: An ERPs study. Psychophysiology, 57(11), Article e13653. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13653
29.
Jiménez-OrtegaL.BadayaE.CasadoP.FondevilaS.Hernández-GutiérrezD.MuñozF.Sánchez-GarcíaJ.Martín-LoechesM. (2021). The automatic but flexible and content-dependent nature of syntax. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, Article 651158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.651158
30.
KhodadadiM.AsadzadehH.Kalantar GhoreishiM.AmaniH. (2014). Working memory test. Daneman M. & Carpenter P. A., Software. Institute for Behavioral & Cognitive Sciences.
31.
KimA.OsterhoutL. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002
32.
KosM.VosseT.Van Den BrinkD.HagoortP. (2010). About edible restaurants: Conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, Article 222. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00222
33.
KrollJ. F.BobbS. C.HoshinoN. (2014). Two languages in mind: Bilingualism as a tool to investigate language, cognition, and the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414528511
KuperbergG. R.McGuireP. K.BullmoreE. T.BrammerM. J.Rabe-HeskethS.WrightI. C.LythgoeD. J.WilliamsS. C.DavidA. S. (2000). Common and distinct neural substrates for pragmatic, semantic, and syntactic processing of spoken sentences: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(2), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900562138
KwonH.KurikiS.KimJ. M.LeeY. H.KimK.NamK. (2005). MEG study on neural activities associated with syntactic and semantic violations in spoken Korean sentences. Neuroscience Research, 51(4), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2004.12.017
38.
LaiG.O’BrienB. A. (2020). Examining language switching and cognitive control through the adaptive control hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1171. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01171
39.
LeckeyM.FedermeierK. D. (2020). The P3b and P600(s): Positive contributions to language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 57(7), Article e13351. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13351
40.
LevyB. J.McVeighN. D.MarfulA.AndersonM. C. (2007). Inhibiting your native language: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting during second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 18(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01844.x
Martín-LoechesM.NigburR.CasadoP.HohlfeldA.SommerW. (2006). Semantics prevalence over syntax during sentence processing: A brain potential study of noun-adjective agreement in Spanish. Brain Research, 1093(1), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.03.094
43.
MeykadehS. (2021). An investigation of the effects of language proficiency and age of acquisition on neural organization for morphosyntactic processing using ERPs and fMRI [Doctoral dissertation], Tarbiat Modares University.
44.
MeykadehA.GolfamA.BatouliS. A. H.SommerW. (2021a). Overlapping but language-specific mechanisms in morphosyntactic processing in highly competent L2 acquired at school entry: fMRI evidence from an alternating language switching task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 26(15): Article 728549. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.728549
45.
MeykadehS.GolfamA.BatouliS. A. H.SommerW. (2024). The neural basis of number and person phi-features processing: An fMRI study in highly proficient bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 27(3): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728923000615
46.
MeykadehA.GolfamA.NasrabadiA. M.AmeriH.SommerW. (2021b). First event-related potentials evidence of auditory morphosyntactic processing in a subject-object-verb nominative-accusative language (Farsi). Frontiers in Psychology, 16(12): Article 698165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.698165
47.
MeykadehS.KhademA.SulpizioS.SommerW. (2023). Functional connectivity during morphosyntactic processing: An fMRI study in balanced turkish-persian bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 68 (101162): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2023.101162
48.
NevinsA.DillonB.MalhotraS.PhillipsC. (2007). The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research, 1164, 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.05.058
49.
NewmanS. D.IkutaT.BurnsT.Jr (2010). The effect of semantic relatedness on syntactic analysis: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 113(2), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.02.001
50.
NgG.YangH. (2021). Code-Switching patterns differentially shape cognitive control: Testing the predictions of the adaptive control hypothesis. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(3), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000754
51.
NunezP. L.SrinivasanR. (2006). Electric fields of the brain: The neurophysics of EEG (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
RafeekhR.MishraR. (2020). The sensitivity to context modulates executive control: Evidence from Malayalam–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(2), 358–373. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000528
54.
RománP.Gómez-GómezI. (2022). Changes in native sentence processing related to bilingualism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 757023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.757023
55.
ServiceE.HeleniusP.MauryS.SalmelinR. (2007). Localization of syntactic and semantic brain responses using magnetoencephalography. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(7), 1193–1205. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1193
56.
TseC. Y.LeeC. L.SullivanJ.GarnseyS. M.DellG. S.FabianiM.GrattonG. (2007). Imaging cortical dynamics of language processing with the event-related optical signal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(43), 17157–17162. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707901104
57.
TurkenA. U.DronkersN. F. (2011). The neural architecture of the language comprehension network: Converging evidence from lesion and connectivity analyses. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 5, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2011.00001
58.
TylerL. K.Marslen-WilsonW. D.RandallB.WrightP.DevereuxB. J.ZhuangJ.PapoutsiM.StamatakisE. A. (2011). Left inferior frontal cortex and syntax: Function, structure and behavior in patients with left hemisphere damage. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 134(Pt. 2), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awq369
59.
van de MeerendonkN.IndefreyP.ChwillaD. J.KolkH. H. J. (2011). Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations. NeuroImage, 54(3), 2350–2363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.022
60.
van HertenM.ChwillaD. J.KolkH. H. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1181–1197. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1181
61.
VigneauM.BeaucousinV.HervéP. Y.DuffauH.CrivelloF.HoudéO.MazoyerB.Tzourio-MazoyerN. (2006). Meta-analyzing left hemisphere language areas: Phonology, semantics, and sentence processing. NeuroImage, 30(4), 1414–1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.002
62.
WodnieckaZ.SzewczykJ.KałamałaP.ManderaP.DurlikJ. (2020). When a second language hits a native language. What ERPs (do and do not) tell us about language retrieval difficulty in bilingual language production. Neuropsychologia, 141, 107390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107390
63.
WuY. J.ThierryG. (2013). Fast modulation of executive function by language context in bilinguals. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(33), 13533–13537. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4760-12.2013
64.
XuM.BaldaufD.ChangC. Q.DesimoneR.TanL. H. (2017). Distinct distributed patterns of neural activity are associated with two languages in the bilingual brain. Science Advances, 3(7), Article e1603309. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1603309
65.
YuZ.SchwieterJ. W. (2018). Recognizing the effects of language mode on the cognitive advantages of bilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00366
66.
ZaccarellaE.MeyerL.MakuuchiM.FriedericiA. D. (2017). Building by syntax: The neural basis of minimal linguistic structures. Cerebral Cortex, 27(1), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv234
67.
ZawiszewskiA.LakaI. (2020). Bilinguals processing noun morphology: Evidence for the Language Distance Hypothesis from event-related potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 55, 100908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100908
68.
ZawiszewskiA.SantestebanM.LakaI. (2016). Phi-features reloaded: An ERP study on person and number agreement processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(3), 601–626. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641500017X
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
