2017 Seoul International Conference on Speech Sciences. 10-11 November, Seoul, South Korea

Early L2 Learning is Advantageous in Processing of Syntactic Violation in Bilinguals

Chuluundorj. B 1*, Delgertsetseg. Ch* *University of the Humanities, Mongolia

*chukabegz@humanities.mn, *delgertsetseg@humanities.mn

ABSTRACT Introduction: Brain processing of syntactic material can be altered by bilingualism [1] (i.e. mastering of two languages simultaneously). According to Piaget J., cognitive development of children depends on their age and can be divided into 4 stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational and formal operational. However, the effect of bilingualism on brain processing of sentence grammar and structure violations during these development stages in Mongolian bilinguals is not well known. The recent study aimed to investigate brain function in processing of syntactic information by analysing brain peak waves, such as LAN (left anterior negativity), N400 and P600 in Mongolian monolinguals (control group) and bilinguals. Methods: 20 Mongolian monolinguals and 18 bilinguals aged 3-21 were randomly chosen from the Ulaanbaatar city, Mongolia. From the bilinguals, 13 were Mongolian-English and 5 were Mongolian-Russian, where English and Russian were their second languages (L2). Quantitative electroencephalography was used to record brain event related potentials (ERP) using WEEG32 (Laxta Inc., Korea) in 21 head positions by using international 10-20 system. Speech was presented to the volunteers as sentences with correct or anomalous syntaxes in native language, one word a time. Independent component analysis was used to obtain clean brain waves free of artefacts. Softwares, such as Telescan, Matlab, EEGlab, ERPlab and GraphPad Prism were used for the analysis. Results and Discussion: Bilinguals had lower amplitude power of ELAN, N400 and P600 peaks and higher latency of P600 than monolinguals. This indicates that less effort, but more time is required for processing of speech syntactic violation in bilinguals. Also, the localization of brain activation was different between the two groups in 21 scalp recording sites. ELAN peak is elicited in relation to identification processes of word forms and category [2], whereas N400 plays a role in identification and integration of semantic and morpho-syntactic information [3]. P600 effect is associated with reanalysis and repair of syntactic input [4]. Thus, amplitude power of these peaks during the syntactic tasks indicate on the brain activation power during the processes of word form/category identification (ELAN), morpho-syntactic integration (N400) and reanalysis/repair (P600) of the syntactic input in the brain. Brain activation during syntactic recognition in spoken and written sentences significantly differed among age groups in both mono- and bilinguals. In “between the groups analysis”, the main difference was observed in children aged 3-6 where amplitudes of all three peaks were significantly higher in monolinguals than in bilinguals. Also, similar amplitude differences in N400 and P600 were at ages 9-12 and in ELAN – at ages 12-15. However, there was no significant amplitude difference at other ages. “Within the groups analysis” showed that monolinguals have highest brain activation, in terms of ELAN,

N400 and P600 powers, at ages 3-9 and this decreases with an increase in age. Unlike monolinguals, bilinguals had highest activation at only ages 6-9, but not 3-6. At ages 3-6 they had significantly lower peak amplitude than at ages 6-9 and older. These results suggest that bilinguals spend significantly lower brain power for processing of syntactic violations especially at preoperational stages of development (ages 3-6), differently from the monolinguals. Peak latency of ELAN and N400 did not differ in both groups as well as at various ages. The only latency difference was observed in P600, which was higher in bilinguals than in monolinguals in adolescents (at ages 18-21). Although there was no difference within bilinguals, the monolinguals had a lowest P600 peak latency at ages 9-12 in comparison to other ages. These results indicate that mono- and bilingual children at ages 3-18 process syntactic information with the same speed, however in monolinguals, the quickest processing can occur at late concrete operational stage of development (ages 9-12). L2 onset age, i.e. age at which the second language learning was initiated, had also a significant impact on processing of syntactic information in bilinguals. ELAN, N400 and P600 peak amplitudes were lower at L2 onset ages 3-6 and the lowest amplitude power was detected at L2 onset ages 6-12, in comparison to monolinguals or bilinguals with L2 onset ages below 3. N400 and P600 peak latencies did not alter with various L2 onsets. However, ELAN peak latency was significantly lower when L2 learning was initiated at ages 6-9 in comparison to all other onset ages (data not shown), indicating on the quickest word identification and categorization abilities of bilinguals when L2 learning is initiated at these early ages. Although longer duration of L2 learning can be beneficial (data not shown), the types of L2, such as English and Russian, did not affect the syntactic processing abilities in bilinguals. Thus, the long term benefits of bilingualism in syntactic speech processing can be observed when bilinguals start learning their second language earlier at preoperational and concrete operational stages of cognitive development, i.e. at ages 3-12. Conlcusion: Brain processing of speech syntactic information in native language is less effortful for bilinguals, in comparison to monolinguals. The advantages of bilingualism can be mostly observed when the L2 learning is initiated earlier in their lives – at preoperational and concrete operational stages of their cognitive development. References: [1] Moreno, S., Bialystok, E., Wodniecka, Z. & Alain, C. (2010). Conflict resolution in sentence processing by bilinguals. Journal Neurolinguistics, 23(6), 564-579. [2] Steinhauer, K., Drury, JE (2012). On the early left anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain and Language, 120, 135-162. [3] Osterhout, L. (1992). Event-related potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785-806. [4] Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E. & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 is an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159-201.