Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-7mr9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T17:47:26.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Varying degrees of plasticity in different subsystems within language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2009

By
Lisa D. Sanders ,
Christine M. Weber-Fox  and
Helen J. Neville
Edited by
James R. Pomerantz
Lisa D. Sanders
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology University of Massachusetts at Amherst Tobin Hall, 135 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003
Christine M. Weber-Fox
Affiliation:
Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907
Helen J. Neville
Affiliation:
Director Brain Development Lab; Professor Psychology and Neuroscience University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403-1227
James R. Pomerantz
Affiliation:
Rice University, Houston
Get access

Summary

There are periods in development during which experience plays its largest role in shaping the eventual structure and function of mature language-processing systems. These spans of peak cortical plasticity have been called “sensitive periods.” Here, we describe a series of studies investigating the effects of delays in second language (L2) acquisition on different subsystems within language. First, we review the effects of the altered language experience of congenitally deaf subjects on cerebral systems important for processing written English and American Sign Language (ASL). Second, we present behavioral and electrophysiological studies of L2 semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese-English bilinguals who acquired their second language over a wide range of ages. Third, we review semantic, syntactic, and prosodic processing in native Spanish and native Japanese late-learners of English. These approaches have provided converging evidence, indicating that delays in language acquisition have minimal effects on some aspects of semantic processing. In contrast, delays of even a few years result in deficits in some types of syntactic processing and differences in the organization of cortical systems used to process syntactic information. The different subsystems of language which rely on different cortical areas, including semantic, syntactic, phonological, and prosodic processing, may have different developmental time courses that in part determine the different sensitive period effects observed.

Humans, in comparison to other animals, go through a protracted period of post-natal development that lasts at least 15 years (Chugani & Phelps, 1986; Huttenlocher, 1990).

Type
Chapter
Information
Topics in Integrative Neuroscience
From Cells to Cognition
 , pp. 125 - 153
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bavelier, D., Tomann, A., Hutton, C., et al. (2000). Visual attention to the periphery is enhanced in congenitally deaf individuals. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, RC93, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, C. T. (1993). Emergence of language-specific constraints in perception of non-native speech: a window on early phonological development. In Boysson-Bardies, B., Schonen, S., Jusczyk, P., MacNeilage, P., and Morton, J., eds., Developmental Neurocognition: Speech and Face Processing in the First Year of Life. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1999). Introduction: whys and why nots of the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition. In Birdsong, D., ed., Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Bongaerts, T. (1995). Can late starters attain a native accent in a foreign language? A test of the critical period hypothesis. In Singleton, D. and Lengyel, Z., eds., The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition: A Critical Look at the Critical Period Hypothesis. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 30–50.Google Scholar
Chee, M. W. L., Tan, E. W. L., and Thiel, T. (1999). Mandarin and English single word processing studied with functional magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 3050–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chugani, H. T. and Phelps, M. E. (1986). Maturational changes in cerebral function in infants determined by FDG positron emission tomography. Science, 23, 840–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, R. A., Jakimik, J., and Cooper, W. E. (1980). Segmenting speech into words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 1323–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-day “Wild Child.”New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S. (1989). The case of Chelsea: a new test case of the critical period for language acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
Cutler, A. and Butterfield, S. (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: evidence from juncture misperception. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 218–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., and Segui, J. (1983). A language-specific comprehension strategy. Nature, 304, 159–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., and Segui, J. (1989). Limits on bilingualism. Nature, 340, 229–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., and Segui, J. (1992). The monolingual nature of speech segmentation by bilinguals. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 381–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmorey, K. and Corina, D. (1990). Lexical recognition in sign language: effects of phonetic structure and morphology. Perceptual and Motor skills, 71, 1227–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., and Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., and Osterhout, L. (1999). The neurocognition of syntactic processing. In Brown, C. M. and Hagoort, P., eds., The Neurocognition of Language. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 273–316.Google Scholar
Harwerth, R., Smith, E., Duncan, G., Crawford, M., and Noorden, G. (1986). Multiple sensitive periods in the development of the primate visual system. Science, 232, 235–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huttenlocher, P. R. (1990). Morphometric study of human cerebral cortex development. Neuropsychologia, 28, 517–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Illes, J., Francis, W. S., Desmond, J. E., et al. (1999). Convergent cortical representation of semantic processing in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 70, 347–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J. and Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, K. H. S., Relkin, N. R., Lee, K.-M., and Hirsch, J. (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature, 388, 171–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, D., Milner, B., Zatorre, R. J., Meyer, E., and Evans, A. C. (1995). The neural substrates underlying word generation: a bilingual functional-imaging study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 92, 2899–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, D., Milner, B., Zatorre, R. J., Zhao, V., and Nikelski, J. (1999). Cerebral organization in bilinguals: a PET study of Chinese-English verb generation. NeuroReport, 10, 2841–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, D., Zatorre, R. J., Milner, B., Meyer, E., and Evans, A. C. (1994). Left putaminal activation when speaking a second language: evidence from PET. NeuroReport, 5, 2295–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klima, E. S. and Bellugi, U. (1979). The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. A. (1993). Innate predispositions and the effects of experience in speech perception: the native language magnet theory. In Boysson-Bardies, B., Schonen, S., Jusczyk, P., MacNeilage, P., and Morton, J., eds., Developmental Neurocognition: Speech and Face Processing in the First Year of Life. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 259–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., and Lindblom, B. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255, 606–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamendella, J. T. (1977). General principles of neurofunctional organization and their manifestation in primary and nonprimary language acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 155–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, D. and Lewis, T. L. (1998). Overt orienting toward peripheral stimuli: normal development and underlying mechanisms. In Richards, J. E., ed., Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention: A Developmental Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 51–102.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. and Fischer, S. D. (1989). Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: the bottleneck of non-native sign language processing. Memory and Cognition, 17, 740–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, D. (1981). Sensitive periods in visual development. In Aslin, R., Albers, J., and Petersen, M., eds., Development of Perception. New York: Academic Press, pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
Neville, H. and Bavelier, D. (1999). Specificity and plasticity in neurocognitive development in humans. In Gazzaniga, M., ed., The New Cognitive Neurosciences, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 83–98.Google Scholar
Neville, H. J. (1991). Neurobiology of cognitive and language processing: effects of early experience. In Gibson, K. R. and Petersen, A. C., eds., Brain Maturation and Cognitive Development: Comparative and Cross-cultural Perspectives. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter Press, pp. 355–80.Google Scholar
Neville, H. J. and Bavelier, D. (2001). Effects of auditory and visual deprivation on human brain development. Clinical Neuroscience Research, 1, 248–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neville, H. J., Bavelier, D., Corina, D., et al. (1998). Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: biological constraints and effects of experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 95, 922–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neville, H. J., Coffey, S. A., Holcomb, P. J., and Tallal, P. (1993). The neurobiology of sensory and language processing in language impaired children. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(2), 235–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neville, H. J., Coffey, S. A., Lawson, D. S., et al. (1997). Neural systems mediating American Sign Language: effects of sensory experience and age of acquisition. Brain and Language, 57, 285–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neville, H. J., Mills, D. L., and Lawson, D. S. (1992). Fractionating language: different neural subsystems with different sensitive periods. Cerebral Cortex, 2(3), 244–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neville, H. J., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., and Garrett, M. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence from event related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 155–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, A. J., Bavilier, D., Corina, D., Jezzard, P., and Neville, H. J. (2001). A critical period for right hemisphere recruitment in American Sign Language processing. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, E. L. (1988). Constraints on learning and their role in language acquisition: studies of the acquisition of American Sign Language. Language Sciences, 10, 147–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., and Cutler, A. (1995). Competition and segmentation in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1209–28.Google ScholarPubMed
Ojemann, G. A. (1983). Brain organization for language from the perspective of electrical stimulation mapping. Behavioral Brain Science, 6, 189–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojemann, G. A. and Whitaker, H. A. (1978). The bilingual brain. Archives of Neurology, 35, 409–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pallier, C., Bosch, L., and Sebastian-Galles, N. (1997). A limit on behavioral plasticity in speech perception. Cognition, 64, B9–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patkowski, M. S. (1994). The critical age hypothesis and interlanguage phonology. In Yavas, M., ed., First and Second Language Phonology, San Diego: Singular, pp. 205–21.Google Scholar
Penfield, W. and Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
Perani, D., Dehaene, S., Grassi, F., et al. (1996). Brain processing of native and foreign languages. NeuroReport, 7, 2439–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rauschecker, J. P. and Marler, P. (1987). Imprinting and Cortical Plasticity. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sanders, L. D. and Neville, H. J. (2000). Lexical, syntactic, and stress-pattern cues for speech segmentation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, Research, 43, 1301–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, L. D. and Neville, H. J. (2003). An ERP study of continuous speech processing: I. Segmentation, semantics, and syntax in native English speakers. Cognitive Brain Research, 15, 228–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, L. D. and Neville, H. J. (2003). An ERP study of continuous speech processing: II. Segmentation, semantics, and syntax in non-native speakers. Cognitive Brain Research, 15, 214–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, L. D., Neville, H. J., and Woldorff, M. G. (2002). Speech segmentation by native and non-native speakers: the use of lexical, syntactic, and stress-pattern cues. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 519–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scovel, T. (1988). A Time to Speak: A Psycholinguistic Inquiry into the Critical Period for Human Speech. USA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sebastian-Galles, N. and Soto-Faraco, S. (1999). Online processing of native and non-native phonemic contrasts in early bilinguals. Cognition, 72, 111–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semel-Mintz, E. and Wiig, E. H. (1982). Clinical Evaluation of Language Functions (CELF). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Singleton, D. (1989). Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Weber-Fox, C. M. and Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber-Fox, C. M. and Neville, H. J. (1999). Functional neural subsystems are differentially affected by delays in second language immersion: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilinguals. In: Birdsong, D., ed., Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 23–38.Google Scholar
Weber-Fox, C. and Neville, H. J. (2001). Sensitive periods differentiate processing of open- and closed-class words: an ERP study of bilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 1338–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werker, J. F. and Tees, R. C. (1992). The organization and reorganization of human speech perception. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 15, 377–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werker, J. F. and Tees, R. C. (1999). Influences on infant speech processing: toward a new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 509–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeni-Komshian, G., Flege, J. E., and Liu, H. (1997). Pronunciation proficiency in L1 and L2 among Korean-English bilinguals: the effect of age of arrival in the US. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 3138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×