Cultural neurolinguistics

Abstract

As the only species that evolved to possess a language faculty, humans have been surprisingly generative in creating a diverse array of language systems. These systems vary in phonology, morphology, syntax, and written forms. Before the advent of modern brain-imaging techniques, little was known about how differences across languages are reflected in the brain. This chapter aims to provide an overview of an emerging area of research -cultural neurolinguistics -that examines systematic cross-cultural/crosslinguistic variations in the neural networks of languages. We first briefly describe general brain networks for written and spoken languages. We then discuss languagespecific brain regions by highlighting differences in neural bases of different scripts (logographic vs. alphabetic scripts), orthographies (transparent vs. nontransparent orthographies), and tonality (tonal vs. atonal languages). We also discuss neural basis of second language and the role of native language experience in second-language acquisition. In the last section, we outline a general model that integrates culture and neural bases of language and discuss future directions of research in this area.

Long-term experience with Chinese language shapes the fusiform asymmetry of English reading

“…First, the posterior fusiform region is believed to be responsible for processing visuoperceptual information (Danelli et al, 2013; Vinckier et al, 2007; Xue and Poldrack, 2007). Due to the complex visual structure and the extreme deep orthography of Chinese, reading Chinese words as compared to English words involves more visuospatial analysis and more whole-word processing, and thus requires a greater involvement of the right posterior fusiform region (Chen et al, 2009; Mei et al, 2013; Tan et al, 2000). …”

“…Chinese-English bilinguals provide a unique opportunity to investigate cross-language influences, because English and Chinese languages differ in several important aspects such as visual appearance and orthographic transparency (Bolger et al, 2005; Chen et al, 2009; Perfetti and Tan, 2013; Tan et al, 2005). Specifically, Chinese characters are composed of intricate strokes packed into a square shape and their phonologies are mainly accessed through whole-word mapping (i.e., addressed phonology), whereas English words are constructed by linear combinations of letters and their phonologies are mainly accessed through grapheme-to-phoneme mapping (i.e., assembled phonology).…”

Native language experience shapes neural basis of addressed and assembled phonologies

“…Logographic languages such as Chinese (a nontransparent orthography) do not have letter-phoneme mappings, and consequently their phonological access relies on addressed phonology (Chen et al, 2009). In contrast, phonological access in alphabetic languages that map graphemes onto phonemes relies more on assembled phonology than that in logographic languages, especially when the alphabetic languages (e.g., Italian) have shallow orthography rather than deep orthography (e.g., English) (Paulesu et al, 2000).…”

Effects of Literacy in Early Visual and Occipitotemporal Areas of Chinese and French Readers

“…Finally, we explored the differences between the neural networks, which the two participant groups used when reading in their native script ( Figure 7C; see Nakamura et al, 2012;Wu et al, 2012;Perfetti et al, 2010;Chan et al, 2009;Chen et al, 2009;Wong, Jobard, James, James, & Gauthier, 2009;Bolger et al, 2005;Tan et al, 2005). Stronger activations in Chinese readers reading Chinese relative to French reading French were found in the lefthemisphere fusiform (MNI: −39 −63 −21, Z = 3.83) and intermediate visual areas (MNI: −39 −81 −6, Z = 4.81) and in the left inferior parietal sulcus (MNI: −27 −57 36, Z = 4.24).…”

“…Most previous studies focused on word recognition in higher visual and general language areas (reviewed in Wu, Ho, & Chen, 2012;Perfetti, Nelson, Liu, Fiez, & Tan, 2010;Chen, Xue, Mei, Chen, & Dong, 2009;Bolger, Perfetti, & Schneider, 2005;Tan, Laird, Li, & Fox, 2005). Here, we focused primarily on written word recognition at the level of early and intermediate visual cortices.…”