Exploring the effect of Relative Language Distance on Bilingual Brain Structure – a cross-sectional VBM study
preprint
OA: closed
Abstract
It is known that bilinguals’ perpetual need for language control influences their brain structure in significant ways. But bilinguals’ language control needs are themselves influenced by key dimensions of the bilingual experience – variation in the age of bilingualism-onset, relative language proficiency, exposure and immersion has indeed been shown to have differential effects on bilingual neurostructural profiles. An under-studied dimension of bilingualism that could also generate differing bilingual language control needs is the extent of similarity between bilinguals’ language pairs, referred to in the present study as Relative Language Distance (RLD). The goal of the present study was to explore whether the experience of managing “close” and “distant” languages has any impact at all on bilingual brain structure. To this end, exploratory morphometric analysis of grey matter volumes was carried out on three groups, all very similar in their bilingual profiles except for the factor of RLD – high-distance Cantonese-English (hd-CE), intermediate distance Hindi-English (id-HE) and low-distance Dutch-English (ld-DE) speakers. The results after controlling for contribution of other bilingual dimensions revealed significant bilateral putaminal volume differences between the groups that varied along the relative language distance gradient in the pattern of CE>HE>DE. This might be attributable to the differing articulatory control needs that variation in L1-L2 RLD generates. The present study reveals how the dimension of Relative Language Distance could impact bilingual brain structure.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Citation neighborhood (sparse)
Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.
Cites (1)
References (41)
- The impact of Relative Language Distance on Bilingual Language Control – a functional imaging study via crossref
- doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr287 via crossref
- doi:10.1017/s1366728916000225 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.040 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2012.03.009 via crossref
- doi:10.1007/s00429-015-1121-9 via crossref
- doi:10.1037/bul0000099 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.04.173 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.11.074 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.09.073 via crossref
- doi:10.1111/nyas.13879 via crossref
- doi:10.1002/hbm.20832 via crossref
- doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1068944 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2014.12.006 via crossref
- doi:10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1122 via crossref
- doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.796377 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.01.008 via crossref
- doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00844 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2013.05.014 via crossref
- doi:10.1017/s1366728906002483 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2018.09.004 via crossref
- doi:10.1002/ana.20030 via crossref
- doi:10.1093/cercor/bhh091 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.043 via crossref
- doi:10.1038/431757a via crossref
- doi:10.1097/wco.0000000000000267 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(97)00065-1 via crossref
- doi:10.1007/s00429-016-1307-9 via crossref
- doi:10.1109/42.563663 via crossref
- doi:10.1002/hbm.20460 via crossref
- doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1068 via crossref
- doi:10.1136/jnnp.2004.045948 via crossref
- doi:10.1006/brcg.1999.1100 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.09.031 via crossref
- doi:10.1212/wnl.43.9.1768 via crossref
- doi:10.1162/0898929053124965 via crossref
- doi:10.1038/35094573 via crossref
- doi:10.1007/s00429-017-1450-y via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2014.09.008 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.05.022 via crossref
Source provenance
- crossref
- last seen: 2026-06-15T06:18:01.254528+00:00
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-07-09T06:39:34.564547+00:00