Electrophysiological evidence of language switching for bidialectals

Abstract

Language switching is an important issue in the study of bilinguals. However, how the nontarget language affects the production of the target language under the language switch condition is still unclear, especially for bilinguals who speak two dialects (bidialectals). In the present study, we investigate this issue by a picture-naming task and using an event-related potential (ERP) technique. Two groups of proficient bidialectals, Mandarin (L1)-Cantonese (L2) and Cantonese (L1)-Mandarin (L2), participated in the study. They were required to name pictures with Mandarin or Cantonese under language switching conditions and language nonswitching conditions. The results showed that participants of both groups showed significant longer reaction time, larger P200, and smaller N400 under language switching conditions than that under language nonswitching conditions, which reflects the language switching costs. Moreover, participants of the two groups showed different P200 and N400 between Mandarin-Cantonese (MC) switching conditions and Cantonese-Mandarin (CM) switching conditions. Specifically, MC bidialectals showed larger P200 under the CM condition than that under the MC condition, whereas CM bidialectals showed an opposite P200 pattern (CM condition<MC condition). For N400, MC bidilactals showed smaller N400 under the MC condition than that under the CM condition, whereas CM bidilactals also showed a reverse N400 pattern (MC condition>CM condition). These findings supported the language-unspecific selection theory. Overall, our study is the first to provide electrophysiological evidence of language switching between two dialects.

A Preliminary Study on the Correlation Factor Analysis of Language Cognitive Assessment System Based on Scale Construction

“…However, the correlations between some of the factors were greater than 0.85, suggesting poor identification of factor entries and suggesting merging or modifying the form of topic presentation. For example, the correlations between spontaneous expression and orientation, transient memory, and delayed recall; orientation and computation, and delayed recall; computation and retelling, reading, and memory; and transient memory and delayed recall were all greater than 0.85, and the following reasons were considered: on the one hand, it is possible that correlations greater than 0.85 were consistent with the linguistic neuropsychological pathway at the time of question presentation; in addition, linguistic cognition is inextricably linked (Yi, Chen, Chang, Wang, & Wu, 2018), transient memory is highly correlated with delayed recall, as the measured are memory topics, and the memory capacity and length are consistent. The computational factor was examined by asking the subjects to listen and say the corresponding answer, and the computational questions covered the expression and memory-related factor components.…”

Does Diglossia Impact Brain Structure? Data from Swiss German Early Diglossic Speakers

“…This last study suggests that there may be a specific language control system associated with diglossia. Studies on dialect switching in diglossic speakers showed both behavioral slowing and electrophysiological activation during switching between dialects [50] in regions such as the left DLPFC, ACC IPL and basal ganglia [51,52]. Yi et al [50] suggest the implication of the language control system when switching between dialects.…”

How to do Better N400 Studies: Reproducibility, Consistency and Adherence to Research Standards in the Existing Literature

“…When it comes to trial design, seven out of ten studies did not rely on stimulus timing jittering (71.1%) or measures to prevent overlap between motor response and ERP components (52.3%), to reduce sources of noise in ERP recordings. Examples of measures used to prevent overlap between motor response and ERP components included a cue for participants to respond only after the ERP time window had passed (which is efficient only if combined with jittering the cue because of preparatory motor activity) and designs (Yi et al, 2018) in which there was no overt response to stimuli used in the N400 analyses, either because overt responding was not required or because the participants responded to other stimuli. When it comes to artifact elimination method, 62.4% papers reported rejecting all types of artifacts which were detected.…”