Bilingualism is the ability to be fluent in two separate languages. Bilingualism is a neuroscience phenomenon that has been proven to have long-term effects in the brain. Dr. Berken’s article “Early bilingualism, language attainment, and brain development” focuses heavily on this aspect of brain development using MRI. Not only is the development a significant find, but the way in which this development occurs and how the skill of acquisition is exhibited in the brain is also being widely researched. One article goes into depth on a specific type of language: logographic languages. Logographic systems have a written language in which a logo or symbol represents a word or symbol. Mandarin and Cantonese are both logographic languages that exist in China. Dr. Fan’s article “The Differences in the Whole-Brain Functional Network between Cantonese-Mandarin Bilinguals and Mandarin Monolinguals” focuses on monolingual Mandarin individuals versus bilingual Mandarin-Cantonese individuals as well as the early onset of a second language with bilingual Mandarin-Cantonese individuals who learned the language at an early age compared to monolingual Mandarin individuals. Using both these articles can give clear insight on the science behind bilingualism, as well as more specific types of bilingualism.
The first article, “Early bilingualism, language attainment, and brain development” by Dr. Berken focuses on bilingualism, neuroplasticity, and the correlations between the two. Neuroplasticity is a term that refers to the notion that the brain has a malleability in terms of structure and function to adapt to the world it experiences. Although neuroplasticity occurs throughout a human’s lifespan, evidence shows that the peak rate of neuroplasticity is displayed at an early stage of development. One aspect that has shown high rates of neuroplasticity is bilingualism. Dr. Berken’s article discusses three studies, however for the purposes of this blog post, we will only focus on one. This study compares early acquisition functional connectivity to late acquisition. For the subjects, three main groups were present: a simultaneous bilingual group, a sequential bilingual group, and a monolingual group. The study focuses on resting-state functional connectivity. As Dr. Berken describes, “In particular, resting-state fMRI determines the functional connections between anatomically separated brain areas at rest, in the absence of task-driven behavior, providing information about the organizational patterns in the brain related to a cumulative bilingual experience” (224). With this study, the results found that there was a greater connectivity in the left and right inferior frontal gyrus in simultaneous bilinguals compared to sequential bilinguals.
Dr. Fan’s article, “The Differences in the Whole-Brain Functional Network between Cantonese-Mandarin Bilinguals and Mandarin Monolinguals” uses fMRI in order to further understand the functional connectivity between logographic-logographic bilinguals, such as Mandarin-Cantonese bilinguals. Results from this study showed that both stronger and weaker functional connectivities existed in bilinguals when compared to monolinguals. One functional connectivity pathway proved through the study was that “both the right IPL and left IFG of the BGs showed stronger functional connectivity with the temporal regions, including the left middle temporal gyrus and bilateral hippocampus, compared with MGs” (Fan). The left inferior frontal gyrus processes phonetics and semantics. Weaker functional connectivities in bilinguals include “ weaker functional connectivity between the right IPL and right inferior occipital gyrus (IOG) and between the right PCG and occipital regions, including the bilateral superior occipital gyrus (SOG) and IOG” (Fan). The bilateral inferior occipital gyrus participates in visual analysis and word recognition– a skill that is key to logographic languages. Although Cantonese and Mandarin share the same written language, Cantonese is mainly spoken rather than written, therefore hindering the ability to read Mandarin. However, both monolinguals and bilinguals carry negligible differences between network efficiency in brain function.
Both articles looked to find functional connectivities within bilinguals when compared to monolinguals. Fan’s article specifically followed logographic languages with the possibility of any differences compared to alphabetic languages. Both articles found great significance in the IFG area. The IFG has become known as a region consistently participating in language comprehension and phonology. Both articles noted the stronger functional connectivity in this area in bilinguals compared to monolinguals. Phonology varies from language to language, with different sounds and phonetics required for each language. Comprehension in multiple languages could be a major reason as to why functional connectivity is stronger in the IFG.
These articles allow for us to visualize and map the linguistic processes in the brain. In further research, entire pathways could be mapped out to compare monolinguals, bilinguals, or multilinguals as well. Future research could also compare how the brain processes languages with no written form compared to languages with a written form.
References
Berken, Jonathan. “Early Bilingualism, Language Attainment, and Brain Development.” Academic.oup.com, Neuropsychologia, 2017, https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/29/4/1532/4975477.
Fan, Xiaoxuan, et al. “The Differences in the Whole-Brain Functional Network between Cantonese-Mandarin Bilinguals and Mandarin Monolinguals.” Brain Sciences, MDPI, 2 Mar. 2021, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8000089/.
No comments:
Post a Comment