Received: 16 March 2021      Revised: 14 July 2021      Accepted: 21 July 2021

DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12436

ARTICLE

Current trends in electrophysiological research

on bilingual language processing

Katarzyna Jankowiak

Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz

University, Poznan, Poland Abstract
Recently, much psycholinguistic research has been de-
Correspondence
voted to examining cognitive mechanisms engaged in
Katarzyna Jankowiak, Faculty of English,
Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, language processing in the bilingual context, as this
Poland. might provide in-depth insights into how different lan-
Email: [email protected]
guages interact with one another as well as how and
Funding information to what extent language competence affects cognition.
Narodowe Centrum Nauki, Grant/Award
Number: 2017/25/N/HS2/00615
At the same time, along with such a growing interest
in studying bilingual populations, psycholinguistics as
a discipline has been rapidly developing owing to the
more and more widespread use of physiological re-
search methods. Particularly, electroencephalography
(EEG) has received much scholarly attention, as it can
elucidate the exact time course of language process-
ing. The present contribution explores current trends
in EEG research on bilingual language processing and
discusses how event-related potential (ERP) studies and
their findings have been extended from the monolin-
gual to the bilingual context. To this end, the paper dis-
cusses selected ERP experiments into language co-ac-
tivation across different modalities, bilingual executive
control, electrophysiological correlates of new meaning
construction, neural changes accompanying foreign
language learning, and the automaticity of emotional
responding in bilingual speakers.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribu-
tion and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2021 The Authors. Language and Linguistics Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Lang Linguist Compass. 2021;e12436. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/lnc3 1 of 17

https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12436
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 of 17 JANKOWIAK

1 | INTRODUCTION

It is estimated that currently at least 60% of the world's population knows and uses more than
one language to communicate, and consequently bilingualism is now becoming a standard rath-
er than exception (Byers-Heinlein et al., 2019; Grosjean, 2021; Luk, 2017). As a result, it is be-
lieved that bilingualism should be treated as the most common reflection on how language is
used in the world (Fricke et al., 2019). Crucially, bilingualism might also be perceived as a lens
that provides insights into the interplay between language and cognition (De Groot, 2011; Kroll
et al., 2015) by, for instance, allowing to investigate human neuroplasticity across the lifespan
(Baum & Titone, 2014) or to show how cross-language activation can lead to adaptive changes
to the cognitive system (Green & Abutalebi, 2013). Owing to such vital implications that can
be drawn by examining bilingual populations, over the recent decades, bilingual language pro-
cessing has become one of the most extensively investigated research avenues in psycholinguis-
tics. Much attention has been devoted to examining how bilingual speakers process their native
(L1) and non-native (L2) language as well as what factors modulate the automaticity of such
processes.
To provide direct insights into mechanisms engaged in bilingual language processing, more
and more experimental studies are currently employing electrophysiological methods, such
as electroencephalography (EEG). EEG is a non-invasive technique that provides a direct and
continuous measure of neural activity (Cohen, 2014). In order to enable the recording of the
electrical activity generated by the brain, EEG requires electrodes which are placed on partici-
pant's scalp (Luck, 2005) and which together contribute to the EEG signal that reflects the acti-
vation of a large population of pyramidal neurons, estimated between 1000 to as many as 10,000
(Kaan, 2007; Lopes da Silva, 2013).
In studies on language processing, the recorded EEG signal is most frequently analysed in
terms of event-related potentials (ERPs), which are defined as an averaged brain response to an
external event such as, for instance, a word (Kropotov, 2009; Kutas et al., 2006). ERP analyses are
based on averaged brain responses within a pre-determined time frame and over specific elec-
trodes, which are referred to as ERP components and are defined as ‘scalp-recorded neural activ-
ity that is generated in a given neuroanatomical module when a specific computational operation
is performed’ (Luck 2005, p. 59). Consequently, each ERP component reflects particular cognitive
effects of brain function (Kamel & Malik, 2015), with its amplitude size modulated by the degree
of activation of postsynaptic potentials as well as by the number of neurons activated (Kutas &
Federmeier, 2011). Importantly, ERP components are conventionally labelled according to their
polarity (either P-positive or N-negative; e.g., P300, N400), latency relative to stimulus onset (e.g.,
N400 as a negative component evoked at around 400 ms after the presentation of a stimulus),
ordinal position (e.g., N3 as the third negative component), cognitive function (e.g., mismatch
negativity), neural generator (e.g., auditory brainstem response), or scalp location (e.g., left an-
terior negativity as a component observed over left anterior sites; Jankowiak, 2019). The present
contribution provides an overview of selected ERP experiments so as to present current trends in
ERP studies on bilingual language processing with reference to particular ERP components that
are commonly investigated in bilingualism literature.
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JANKOWIAK 3 of 17

2 | LANGUAGE CO-ACTIVATION

In line with computational models of bilingual language processing (e.g., BIA, Dijkstra & van
Heuven, 1998; BIA+, Dijkstra & van Heuven, 2002), language co-activation is defined as a si-
multaneous activation of two language systems (both L1 and L2), even when actively processing
only one of them. The ERP investigation of language co-activation is one of the most researched
avenues in the context of bilingual language processing, and provides crucial insights into how
bilinguals store, organize, and control their two languages (see Jankowiak & Rataj, 2017 for a
discussion).
In ERP studies on language co-activation, of special importance is the N400 ERP component,
which is a negative-going wave that peaks in amplitude at around 400 ms after stimulus onset
and is, usually, observed over centro-parietal electrode positions. The N400 is frequently studied
so as to examine how meaning-related information is stored in semantic memory (Kutas & Feder-
meier, 2000; Kutas & Van Petten, 1994), that is ‘the mental storehouse of what we know about ac-
tions, events, people, places, and things (including words), as stored in the brain’ (Kutas & Feder-
meier, 2011, p. 627). Consequently, the N400 is often referred to as an index of lexico-semantic
memory, with its magnitude reflecting the amount of information that needs to be retrieved from
long-term memory in order to assist lexico-semantic access (Kotz et al., 2012; Kutas et al., 2006).
In line with this assumption, a more robust (i.e., larger, more negative) N400 response is repeat-
edly found in response to low-compared to high-frequency words (Allen et al., 2003), implausi-
ble compared to plausible items (Kutas & Hillyard, 1980), concrete compared to abstract nouns
(Paller et al., 1987), or words embedded in non-supportive as compared to highly supportive
contexts (Federmeier & Kutas, 1999), thus indicating their more cognitively taxing processing.
Experimental studies on language co-activation often test the processing of cognate words
and interlingual homographs. While the former refer to items sharing the same or similar form
and meaning across two languages (e.g., actor as a Spanish-English cognate), the latter include
words that have the same or similar form yet different meanings across languages (e.g., Tag1 as
a German-English homograph). Previous ERP studies have shown that cognates, due to their
cross-language overlap in meaning and form and thus common morphemic representations
across languages (Lalor & Kirsner, 2000), facilitate language processing (both native and non-na-
tive). This, in turn, is reflected in an attenuated N400 response to cognate relative to non-cognate
words (e.g., Comesaña et al., 2012; Peeters et al., 2013). Interlingual homographs, in contrast,
have two representations (one from each language) in the mental lexicon, which are both ini-
tially activated, therefore increasing the amount of information that needs to be retrieved from
semantic memory (Dijkstra & van Heuven, 2002). Consequently, such an extended activation
of long-term memory is reflected in more pronounced N400 amplitudes for interlingual homo-
graphs, as has been confirmed in previous ERP research (e.g., Hoshino & Thierry, 2012; Jouravlev
& Jared, 2014; Kerkhofs et al., 2006). Importantly, such results are observed even in purely mono-
lingual experiments,2 thus indicating a simultaneous co-activation of both languages, even when
attentively processing only one of them.
Language co-activation is also frequently tested in the N400 semantic priming paradigm,
whereby attenuated N400 amplitudes are observed in response to items preceded by semantical-
ly related words. In the bilingual context, the semantic priming paradigm often takes the form
of a translation priming paradigm, where bilingual speakers are presented with word pairs that
represent translation equivalents in the two languages (Jankowiak, 2019). Testing the magnitude
of the N400 translation priming effect in the L1–L2 versus L2–L1 direction can consequently
provide important insights into the strength and automaticity of lexico-semantic links between
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 of 17 JANKOWIAK

words from the two languages (Duñabeitia et al., 2010). For instance, attenuated N400 responses
to strongly connected lexical items typically reflect a decreased activation in long-term memory
necessary to access word meaning (Hoshino et al., 2010).
Importantly, ERP experiments into the translation priming paradigm have shown that the
strength of connections between the two languages is modulated by L2 proficiency level, with a
positive correlation between L2 proficiency level and the automaticity of mechanisms engaged
in the L1–L2 and L2–L1 translation priming effect (see Kroll & Stewart, 1994). Namely, the N400
of a similar magnitude in both priming directions has been mostly found in proficient bilingual
speakers (Duñabeitia et al., 2010; Geyer et al., 2011; but see Midgley et al., 2009). In less proficient
bilinguals, on the other hand, L2–L1 translation priming is likely to be less efficient, as the pres-
entation of an L2 item requires the pre-activation of an L1 translation equivalent. Such a pre-acti-
vation is assumed to reflect initial stages of L2 learning, during which L2 lexical items are usually
learnt through the native language, as a result of which retrieving a meaning of an L2 word is
hypothesized to be accompanied by L1 mediation (Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Potter et al., 1984). This
process, consequently, requires a greater amount of information to be retrieved from semantic
memory, as reflected in larger N400 amplitudes (Hoshino et al., 2010).
Importantly, while the vast majority of bilingual experiments test unimodal bilinguals (i.e.,
users of two spoken languages), currently much attention is also being paid to language pro-
cessing in bimodal bilinguals, who use both a signed and a spoken language. Bimodal bilinguals
exhibit a unique form of bilingualism, as the two languages need to access distinct sensory-motor
systems in order to assist language comprehension and production (Emmorey et al., 2016). For
instance, studies into code-blending (i.e., a simultaneous production and perception of a word
and a sign) show how the production system accesses two lexical representations (a word and a
sign), as well as how the comprehension system simultaneously integrates lexical information
from the two languages. When discussing bimodal bilinguals, it seems crucial to differentiate
between hearing and deaf bimodal bilinguals. Hearing bimodal bilinguals (often called Codas
or ‘children of deaf adults’) have access to both spoken and sign languages, and might switch
dominance from sign language used at home with their deaf family members to spoken language
used in other contexts. Deaf bimodal bilinguals, on the other hand, are often referred to as sign-
print or sign-text bilinguals (Dufour, 1997; Piñar et al., 2011), and acquire written language as
their L2. Importantly, language dominance differs between deaf and hearing bimodal bilinguals,
with signed language being more dominant for deaf bimodal bilinguals, and spoken language for
hearing bimodal bilinguals.
Employing an ERP analysis, Meade et al. (2017) tested deaf bimodal bilinguals, who were
visually presented with pairs of English words in a semantic relatedness task. Unbeknown to
participants, some of the semantically unrelated word pairs were phonologically related transla-
tions in American Sign Language (ASL). The results revealed a priming effect within the N400
time window, where words that were semantically unrelated, but at the same time similar in a
phonological form, elicited attenuated N400 amplitudes compared to items that were unrelated
in both meaning and a phonological form. This consequently points to an automatic co-activa-
tion of signs during word recognition in deaf bimodal bilinguals. Importantly, Lee at al. (2019)
further showed that this co-activation of the two systems in bimodal bilinguals is bidirectional,
as the process of sign recognition also leads to the co-activation of words.
Electrophysiological studies on language co-activation therefore provide strong support for
the language non-selective access view, which posits a simultaneous co-activation of languages
in the bilingual brain, irrespective of being in the monolingual versus bilingual language mode
(Comesaña et al., 2012; Jouravlev & Jared, 2014; Midgley et al., 2008; Peeters et al., 2013; Thierry
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JANKOWIAK 5 of 17

& Wu, 2007). Importantly, ERP evidence shows that such language co-activation is observed in
both uni- and bimodal bilingual speakers.
At the same time, however, it needs to be noted that some studies have indicated that un-
der certain conditions, bilinguals do not necessarily co-activate both languages (Elston-Güt-
tler et al., 2005; Fitzpatrick & Indefrey, 2014; Hoversten & Traxler, 2015; Rodriguez-Fornells
et al., 2002; Schwartz & Kroll, 2006; Titone et al., 2011; Van Hell & De Groot, 2008). For in-
stance, Rodriguez-Fornells et al. (2002) tested proficient Catalan-Spanish bilinguals, who were
presented with Spanish and Catalan words as well as pseudowords. Participants were instructed
to make a speeded button press in response to words presented in the target language only, and
to decide whether the first letter of the word was a vowel or a consonant. The results showed a
more pronounced N400 response to low-frequency compared to high-frequency words, yet only
in the task-relevant language. Such results suggest that bilinguals might be able to suppress the
processing of the task-irrelevant language. Importantly, however, the task employed involved
only language membership and phonology classifications, without examining the activation of
semantic features, which might have led to a potentially distinct degree of language co-activation
depending on the level of processing (e.g., semantic, phonological, etc.).
More recently, Hoversten et al. (2015) tested Spanish-English bilinguals in simultaneous se-
mantic and language membership classification go/no-go tasks to single words. In such a para-
digm, participants are instructed to respond to one type of the stimuli (the go trials) and inhibit
responses to another type of the stimuli (the no-go trials). In their study, Hoversten et al. (2015)
observed the go/no-go divergences at approximately 300 ms after stimulus onset in the language
classification task, and at 400 ms post stimulus in the semantic classification task. Such results
suggest that language membership information was accessed before semantic information,
which indicates that the bilingual brain might be able to rapidly identify the language to which a
critical word belongs to, and consequently to selectively modulate the degree of language co-acti-
vation. Future research should therefore further test under which conditions language member-
ship information might dynamically adjust bilingual lexico-semantic processing, and whether
the co-activation might be modulated by the level of processing.

3 | BILINGUALISM AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL

When investigating bilingual language processing, much scholarly attention has been devoted
to the potential interplay between bilingualism and executive control. A reported advantage for
executive functions has been assumed as one of the most exciting yet controversial findings on
bilingualism (see Dick et al., 2019). Executive control functions are perceived as a cornerstone
of human abilities to direct and organize problem solving mechanisms (Lezak et al., 2004), and
encompass such processes as attention, inhibitory control, task switching, and conflict resolu-
tion. They are frequently measured by employing stimulus-response conflict tasks, whereby
stimulus-response incongruent trials require extended inhibitory mechanisms (e.g., Simon, Erik-
sen-Flanker or Stroop tasks). Furthermore, much research into executive control employs task/
language switching tasks that tap into mental flexibility, which reflects an ability to switch the
attention back and forth between different mental sets (Baddeley, 1996).
Two ERP components have been studied when investigating executive control in bilingual-
ism: the N2 and P3. The N2 is a negative-going wave that peaks in amplitude at around 200–
350 ms post stimulus onset and has an anterior distribution. Previous monolingual research has
shown that in nonverbal (i.e., domain-general) tasks, the component mirrors processes engaged
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 of 17 JANKOWIAK

in conflict detection (e.g., van Veen & Carter, 2002), whereby a more pronounced N2 response is
elicited in high conflict conditions (Grundy et al., 2017). Furthermore, in experiments employing
task switching paradigms, more robust N2 amplitudes were observed in switch than repeat trials
(Kieffaber & Hetrick, 2005; Nicholson et al., 2005; Periáñez & Barceló, 2009), which might be
indicative of an increased executive control involved in the switch relative to the less demanding
repeat condition (Jamadar et al., 2015).
The P3, on the other hand, is a positive-going wave peaking in amplitude between 300 and
500 ms after stimulus onset and characterized by a broad scalp distribution. The component
has been postulated to reflect response inhibition, stimulus categorization and evaluation, and
resource allocation (Jiao et al., 2020; Polich, 2007). In task-switching paradigms, attenuated P3
responses are found in mixed-task compared to repeat task conditions (Barceló et al., 2000; Ga-
jewski & Falkenstein, 2011; Goffaux et al., 2006). Reduced P3 amplitudes observed under more
difficult experimental conditions (i.e., mixed-task trials) are assumed to reflect a decreased
number of available resources in working memory that would facilitate cognitive processing
(Kok, 2001; Polich, 2007).
In the bilingual context, a switching paradigm was employed by Timmer et al. (2017), who
compared English monolinguals with a minimal knowledge of French and balanced Eng-
lish-French bilinguals in language and nonverbal switching tasks, where they had to switch ei-
ther between basic English and French words or between different-coloured shapes, respectively.
Timmer et al. (2017) found more pronounced N2 amplitudes in the switch compared to repeat
trials, yet only in the bilingual group. Similar results were more recently observed by López Zun-
ini et al. (2019), who tested monolingual and bilingual participants in a cued letter-number task
switching paradigm which involved single-task and mixed-task blocks. The ERP results revealed
more robust N2 amplitudes in the bilingual than monolingual group. The findings observed in
the above studies are therefore indicative of a more automatic direction of attention towards the
target item in bilingual relative to monolingual participants, as indexed by the N2 response.
In experiments employing executive control tasks, both N2 and P3 were analysed by Jiao
et al. (2020), who tested unbalanced Chinese-English bilinguals in a modified flanker task which
was interleaved with either a single-language or a mixed-language picture-word matching task.
The results showed larger N2 but smaller P3 responses when performing the flanker task in the
mixed-language compared to single-language condition. First, in line with the aforementioned
studies, a more pronounced N2 response in mixed-language trials points to the allocation of
additional resources necessary during conflict processing in an early stage (see Bialystok, 2017;
Grundy et al., 2017). Second, smaller P3 amplitudes in the flanker task in the mixed-language
relative to single-language condition is in line with previous research (Wu & Thierry, 2013), and
is suggestive of the beneficial effect of mixed-language trials on conflict resolution mechanisms.
This, consequently, might be reflected in a better performance on the flanker task, indexed by
higher accuracy rates and smaller P3 amplitudes. The observed patterns were thus interpreted
as resulting from the fact that participants might have considerably focused on conflict monitor-
ing and detection processes. This, in turn, led to an attenuated demand on cognitive resources
during later processing stages, as observed in the P3 time window (see also Grundy et al., 2017).
Consequently, it seems that language context might play a crucial role in language control and
executive control mechanisms, at least in unbalanced bilinguals. Indeed, language switching ex-
periments have shown that the frequency of exposure to L2 as well as the frequency of switching
could modulate executive control mechanisms engaged when switching between the languages,
with frequently switching bilinguals outperforming those with less exposure to L2 and limited
experience in language switching (Verreyt et al., 2016).
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JANKOWIAK 7 of 17

Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that the current debate in the field of bilingualism leads
to some concerns regarding the bilingual advantage, especially due to the fact that a number of
studies have failed to support this hypothesis (e.g., Dick et al., 2019; Paap et al., 2017; Paap &
Greenberg, 2013; Ratiu et al., 2017; see also van den Noort et al., 2019 for a systematic review on
studies examining bilingual advantage). For instance, Kousaie et al. (2015) compared bilingual
and monolingual participants in a task on lexical ambiguity processing, which is known to require
extended inhibitory control mechanisms. In their ERP experiment, participants were presented
with sentences that biased the reading of a homonym (e.g., bank) towards its either subordinate
or dominant reading. Though Kousaie et al. (2015) expected that bilinguals would demonstrate
superior lexical ambiguity resolution compared to monolinguals, the results showed no evidence
in support for the bilingual advantage hypothesis. Instead, both monolinguals and bilinguals
were successfully able to manage the activation of the multiple meanings of homonyms.
Therefore, ERP studies on the interaction between bilingualism and cognitive control provide
only partial support for the bilingual advantage assumption. On the one hand, it seems that bi-
lingual speakers might outperform monolinguals in executive functions due to potentially more
automatic attention mechanisms that are necessary to switch between languages and/or tasks.
Nonetheless, this hypothesis needs further elaboration by accounting for specific conditions or
groups of participants, in which bilingual advantage does not seem to emerge. Furthermore, it
needs to be noted that even with potential gains in executive function, bilinguals are also disad-
vantaged on various language-related tasks. For instance, bilinguals have been reported to have
smaller vocabularies compared to monolinguals (Bialystok & Luk, 2012), and have poorer per-
formance in picture naming (Gollan et al., 2005; Ivanova & Costa, 2008) as well as verbal fluency
tasks (Bialystok et al., 2008; Gollan et al., 2002; Luo et al., 2010).

4 | ERPS AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Another important research avenue that ERP studies can offer insights into pertains to the subtle
neural changes accompanying word learning (Borovski et al., 2012), as reflected in brain respons-
es to a new, previously unknown linguistic item. Such studies might provide crucial implications
for applied linguistic and second language acquisition (SLA) research, as they can directly point
to teaching and instruction methods that could increase the effectiveness of foreign language
teaching and learning.
Previous ERP research has paid much scholarly attention to investigating the process of
knowledge consolidation, defined as the integration of the memory traces in the hippocampus
with the neocortical memory system (Davis & Gaskell, 2009). In the context of SLA, knowledge
consolidation thus reflects the rate of L2 learning, which should be reflected in modulations
within ERP patterns to learned versus unlearned lexical items. In one of such longitudinal elec-
trophysiological investigations, McLaughlin et al. (2004) tested beginning learners of French in
a lexical decision task to pseudowords (i.e., pronounceable yet non-existing words), semantically
related, and semantically unrelated French words. The scholars found the N400 sensitivity to-
wards French pseudowords after 14 h of language instructions, while the N400 semantic prim-
ing effect was observed after 63 h of foreign language training. Pseudowords were also used by
Bakker et al. (2015), who observed an attenuated N400 to the previously learned items after a
24-h consolidation period, thus indicating a complete process of lexicalization of the new vo-
cabulary items within full one day. Even more interestingly, Pu et al. (2016) examined the con-
solidation rate by conducting more frequent EEG examinations, and found modulations within
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 of 17 JANKOWIAK

the N400 time frame already after 4 h of instructions, thus showing that the process of language
learning and knowledge consolidation involve rapid neural changes.
Importantly, the rate of foreign language learning has been suggested to be crucially mod-
ulated by individual characteristics, such as being a slow versus fast learner. For instance, Yum
et al. (2014) tested English (L1) learners of Chinese (L2) and found modulations of the lateral-
ization of the N170 response: while a left-lateralized N170 was observed in fast learners, and a
more bilateral N170 response was found in slow learners. In previous research, a left-lateralized
N170 was often reported in skilled readers (e.g., Maurer et al., 2005; Rossion et al., 2003) and was
interpreted as reflecting effective phonological recoding of orthographic units (Lee et al., 2007).
When reading in a foreign language, in contrast, a more bilateral N170 response was previously
observed (Kim et al., 2004; Maurer et al., 2008; Proverbio et al., 2002). Based on these differences
in the N170 scalp distribution and in line with previous research, Yum et al. (2014) tentatively
argued that when learning an unfamiliar orthographic system (in this case, Chinese), fast learn-
ers might perform more similarly to skilled readers and may be more effective in the process of
phonological recoding (i.e., combining phonological with orthographic knowledge about words)
relative to slow learners.
Furthermore, ERP studies on language learning might provide valid insights into the efficien-
cy of L2 instruction types, including the role of explicit versus implicit instructions in foreign
language development (Vandenberghe et al., 2019). In order to investigate the effectiveness of
instruction type, Batterink and Neville (2011) presented their participants with pseudowords that
were either contextually embedded (implicit learning) or learned through memorization (explic-
it learning). The researchers found more robust lexical representations to items learned through
implicit learning, as reflected in the N400 response. On a similar note, Chun et al. (2012) tested
vocabulary retention following either extensive reading (implicit learning) or paired-associate
learning (explicit learning), and observed that while both implicit and explicit types of learning
were effective in promoting short-term vocabulary retention, the implicit instructions yielded
superior effects on long-term vocabulary retention. The two studies therefore point to the crucial
role of contextualization in L2 vocabulary learning. Altogether, the ERP investigations discussed
above show that variables related to L2 instruction, including explicit versus implicit attention as
well as individual characteristics of learners themselves, influence neurocognitive processing, as
reflected in ERP patterns.

5 | NEW MEANING CONSTRUCTION IN BILINGUALISM

Linguistic creativity, understood as the ability to construct new meanings, is a concept related
to both executive control and language learning abilities. As a cognitive process, creativity is
defined in terms of an ability to create new ideas and connections between distinct concepts and
mental pictures (Simonton, 2008). In language studies, creativity is often examined by employing
metaphors (e.g., Lawyers are sharks), which require cross-domain mappings that are necessary to
establish lexico-semantic links between metaphor source (e.g., sharks) and target domain (e.g.,
lawyers).
Little attention has, however, been devoted to studying how bilinguals comprehend highly
creative language in their native and non-native language, while such ERP studies allow for pro-
viding insights into exact stages of new linguistic meaning construction. In order to investigate
the process of new meaning construction, researchers often test the processing of novel (unfamil-
iar) novel metaphorical meanings (e.g., Amnesia is a rubber; Jankowiak, 2020). Such metaphoric
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JANKOWIAK 9 of 17

meanings are always not familiar to participants, therefore representing highly creative utteranc-
es, whose meanings have to be constructed on encountering them (Jankowiak, 2019). Monolin-
gual ERP studies on linguistic creativity often describe modulations in response to novel meta-
phoric, as compared to conventional metaphoric and literal language, within the time windows
of the N400 and late positive complex (LPC). Namely, previous research has repeatedly shown a
more pronounced N400 response to novel compared to conventional (familiar) metaphoric and
literal utterances (e.g., Arzouan et al., 2007; Coulson & Van Petten, 2002; Lai et al., 2009), which
points to more complex processes engaged in novel metaphoric meaning construction. Such a
difficulty continues and is still observed within the LPC time frame (500–800 ms), where nov-
el metaphors often elicit sustained negativity (e.g., Arzouan et al., 2007; Goldstein et al., 2012;
Rutter et al., 2012; Tang et al., 2017a; Tang et al., 2017b), which is indicative of the continuing
difficulty of novel metaphoric meaning integration and/or access to the non-literal route when
processing novel metaphors (Jankowiak, 2019).
Only recently has bilingual novel metaphor processing received scholarly attention in the
field of electrophysiological research. In one of the first ERP investigations of how bilingual
speakers construct novel, as compared to conventional, metaphoric meanings in their L1 and
L2, Jankowiak et al. (2017) tested highly proficient Polish-English bilinguals in a semantic deci-
sion task. First, the results showed a language-independent effect within the N400 time frame,
where more robust N400 responses were found to novel than conventional metaphors in both
languages. Second, a language-specific effect was observed within the time window of the LPC,
where sustained negativity was evoked by both novel and conventional metaphors in L2, and by
only novel metaphors in L1. Such findings are suggestive of a decreased sensitivity to metaphor
conventionality in L2 at the stage of meaning integration, as a result of which additional working
memory load (as indexed by sustained negativity) might be required to construct not only novel
but also conventional meanings. Importantly, this effect was replicated in both L2 proficient and
intermediate bilinguals in a study by Wang and Jankowiak (2021). The researchers tested profi-
cient and intermediate Chinese-English bilinguals, and found sustained negativity in response
to both novel and conventional metaphors relative to literal utterances, irrespective of L2 profi-
ciency level.
The exact mechanisms engaged in creative meaning processing were more recently inves-
tigated in a follow-up study by Jankowiak et al. (2021), who examined the processing of novel
nominal metaphors (e.g., Love is a monastery) and novel similes (e.g., Love is like a monastery) in
Polish-English bilinguals. In line with the Career of Metaphor Model (Bowdle & Gentner, 2005),
novel meaning creation requires comparison mechanisms, and therefore, presenting a novel
meaning in a comparison form (i.e., as a simile) should facilitate meaning construction. This
hypothesis has been previously corroborated in a number of monolingual experimental studies
(e.g., Bowdle & Gentner, 2005; Lai & Curran, 2013; Shibata et al., 2012) by revealing a facilitat-
ed processing of novel similes relative to novel nominal metaphors. The results of the study by
Jankowiak et al. (2021) showed that within the N400 time frame, novel similes converged with
novel nominal metaphors, yet only in L2. In the native tongue, in contrast, a more pronounced
N400 response was elicited to novel nominal metaphors than novel similes. However, within the
time window of sustained negativity, the two conditions converged not only in L1, but also in
L2. Such results indicate a similar automaticity of novel meaning processing in both languages,
yet mostly at the stage of semantic integration (reflected in sustained negativity), and not during
lexico-semantic access.
It therefore seems that while bilinguals have been suggested to outperform monolinguals
in creative performance (e.g., Hommel et al., 2011; Leikin & Tovli, 2014; Van Dijk et al., 2019),
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 of 17 JANKOWIAK

when further investigating how bilingual speakers construct new linguistic meanings in their
native and non-native language, ERP studies conducted thus far suggest that they still require
extended lexico-semantic mechanisms when constructing novel meanings in L2 compared to L1.
At the same time, however, these extra processing costs might be already resolved at the stage of
final meaning integration, whereby bilingual speakers engage a similar degree of cognitive load
in both of their languages.

6 | THE INTERACTION BETWEEN BILINGUALISM AND

EMOTIONAL RESPONDING

Recently, much attention in bilingualism research has also been placed on studying the interac-
tion between bilingualism and emotional responding. There is a general consensus in bilingual-
ism literature that bilingual speakers experience a psychological distance when exposed to emo-
tionally laden stimuli in their non-native language (e.g., Caldwell-Harris, 2014; Costa et al., 2014;
Jankowiak & Korpal, 2018). Such a decreased emotional sensitivity to L2 has been explained as
resulting from a number of potential factors, including a lower proficiency level in L2 than L1,
late age of L2 acquisition, or formal (non-emotional) L2 learning contexts (Harris, 2004).
Previous monolingual ERP studies on emotional language processing have often reported
modulations within the early posterior negativity (EPN) time window (i.e., 250–350 ms post
stimulus onset), whereby more negative amplitudes are elicited for both positive and negative
relative to neutral words. Consequently, the component is assumed to reflect increased atten-
tional resources directed towards emotionally laden stimuli (e.g., Herbert et al., 2008; Kissler
et al., 2007; Kissler et al., 2009; Schacht & Sommer, 2009; Scott et al., 2009). Another ERP compo-
nent sensitive to the emotional value of linguistic stimuli is the LPC, which is evoked at around
500–800 ms after the presentation of a stimulus. Previous monolingual experiments have fre-
quently observed a larger LPC response to negatively valenced compared to neutral words (Bayer
et al., 2010; Hofmann et al., 2009; Schacht & Sommer, 2009), which is interpreted as indicative of
a more elaborative processing of emotionally laden than neutral items.
In the bilingual context, Conrad et al. (2011) tested German-Spanish and Spanish-German
bilinguals in a lexical decision task to emotional and neutral words presented in L1 or L2. The re-
sults showed more pronounced EPN and LPC responses to emotional compared to neutral words
in both languages; yet, the EPN peak latency was delayed for around 50–100 ms in L2 relative
to L1. Such results might thus point to a less automatic direction of attention towards emotion-
ally laden stimuli in the non-native language. Similar trends were observed by Opitz and Degn-
er (2012), who tested German-French and French-German bilinguals, and also found a similar
magnitude but a later onset of the EPN response in the non-native tongue. Therefore, a delayed
EPN response to emotional words in L2 compared to L1 seems to indicate that emotionally laden
words are effective in evoking more extended attention mechanisms in both languages; yet, the
emotional identification is more time consuming for L2 than L1 lexical items.
On the other hand, somewhat different results were observed by Chen et al. (2015), who, how-
ever, tested different-script bilinguals. Chinese-English bilinguals performed a lexical decision
task to Chinese (L1) and English (L2) positive, negative, and neutral words. Chen et al. (2015)
found an increased EPN response to positive words, yet only in the native tongue. Though such
a pattern does not conform to the previous studies (Conrad et al., 2011; Opitz & Degner, 2012), it
might result from considerable methodological differences connected with studying same-versus
different-script bilinguals. As for the non-native language, Chen et al. (2015) found modulations
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JANKOWIAK 11 of 17

within the N400 time frame, whereby neutral words elicited increased N400 amplitudes rela-
tive to positive items. Though the N400 sensitivity to emotional value of a word has been little
explored thus far (but see Herbert al et al., 2008), such results might point to a facilitated lexi-
co-semantic access for emotional words in L2. More research is, nonetheless, needed in order
to further explore the role of the N400 response in bilingual emotional language processing in
different-script bilinguals.
Altogether, the aforementioned ERP studies into bilingualism and emotional language pro-
cessing add to the previous psychophysiological research pointing to a decreased sensitivity to
emotional stimuli in L2 than L1 (e.g., Caldwell-Harris, 2014; Costa et al., 2014; Jankowiak & Ko-
rpal, 2018), and they further show that the identification of an emotional value of the presented
lexical items is more cognitively taxing and less automatic in the non-native relative to the native
tongue.

7 | CONCLUSION

The present contribution provides a discussion on current trends in ERP studies on bilingual
language processing by showing how ERP findings have been extended from the monolingual
to the bilingual context. Specifically, the present paper scrutinizes selected electrophysiological
research into language co-activation, bilingual executive control, the interaction between bilin-
gualism and linguistic creativity, neural changes accompanying foreign language learning, and
the automaticity of emotional responding in bilingual speakers. This contribution evidences that
EEG, as a method that provides a continuous measure of brain activity (Cohen, 2014; Jankowi-
ak, 2019; Luck, 2005), can provide valuable insights into how the bilingual brain processes the
native and non-native language as well as how bilingualism as a linguistic phenomenon impacts
cognitive functions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was funded by the National Science Centre, Poland (Grant Number 2017/25/N/
HS2/00615).

ORCID
Katarzyna Jankowiak https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1200-9347

ENDNOTES
1
der Tag (German) – day (English).
2
Throughout the manuscript, monolingual experiments refer to those conducted only on the native (or a more
dominant) language.

REFERENCES
Allen, M., Badecker, W., & Osterhout, L. (2003). Morphological analysis in sentence processing: An ERP study.
Language & Cognitive Processes, 18, 405–430.
Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor
comprehension. Brain Research, 1160, 69–81.
Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 5–28.
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 of 17 JANKOWIAK

Bakker, I., Takashima, A., Hell Van, J. G., Janzen, G., & McQueen, J. (2015). Tracking lexical consolidation with
ERPs: Lexical and semantic-priming effects on N400 and LPC responses to newly learned words. Neuropsy-
chologia, 79, 33–41.
Barceló, F., Muñoz-Cespedes, J. M., Pozo, M. A., & Rubia, F. J. (2000). Attentional set shifting modulates the target
P3b response in the Wisconsin card sorting test. Neuropsychologia, 38(10), 1342–1355.
Batterink, L., & Neville, H. (2011). Implicit and explicit mechanisms of word learning in a narrative context: An
event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3181–3196.
Baum, S., & Titone, D. (2014). Moving toward a neuroplasticity view of bilingualism, executive control, and aging.
Applied PsychoLinguistics, 35, 857–894.
Bayer, M., Sommer, W., & Schacht, A. (2010). Reading emotional words within sentences: The impact of arousal
and valence on event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 78(3), 299e307.
Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological Bulletin,
143(3), 233–262.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 34, 859–873.
Bialystok, E., & Luk, G. (2012). Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual adults. Bilingual-
ism: Language and Cognition, 15, 397–401.
Borovski, A., Elman, J. L., & Kutas, M. (2012). Once is enough: N400 indexes semantic integration of novel word
meanings from a single exposure in context. Language Learning and Development, 8, 278–302.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216.
Byers-Heinlein, K., Esposito, A. G., Winsler, A., Marian, V., Castro, D. C., & Luk, G. (2019). The case for measuring
and reporting bilingualism in developmental research. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 1–16.
Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2014). Emotionality differences between a native and foreign language: Theoretical impli-
cations. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–4.
Chen, P., Lin, J., Chen, B., Lu, C., & Guo, T. (2015). Processing emotional words in two languages with one brain:
ERP and fMRI evidence from Chinese–English bilinguals. Cortex, 71, 34–48.
Chun, E., Choi, S., & Kim, J. (2012). The effect of extensive reading and paired-associate learning on long-term
vocabulary retention: An event-related potential study. Neuroscience Letters, 521, 125–129.
Cohen, M. X. (2014). Analyzing neural time series data. MIT Press.
Comesaña, M., Sánchez-Casas, R., Soares, A. P., Pinheiro, A. P., Rauber, A., Frade, S., & Fraga, I. (2012). The inter-
play of phonology and orthography in visual cognate word recognition: An ERP study. Neuroscience Letters,
529(1), 75–79.
Conrad, M., Recio, G., & Jacobs, A. M. (2011). The time course of emotion effects in first and second language
processing: A cross cultural ERP study with German-Spanish bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(351), 1–16.
Costa, A., Foucart, A., Hayakawa, S., Aparici, M., Apesteguia, J., Heafner, J., & Keysar, B. (2014). Your morals de-
pend on language. PloS One, 9(4), 1–7.
Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study.
Memory & Cognition, 30(6), 958–968.
Davis, M. H., & Gaskell, M. G. (2009). A complementary systems account of word learning: Neural and behavioral
evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 3773–3800.
De Groot, A. M. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An introduction. Psychology Press.
Dick, A. S., Garcia, N. L., Pruden, S. M., Thompson, W. K., Hawes, S. W., Sutherland, M. T., Riedel, M. C., Laird,
A. R., & Gonzalez, R. (2019). No evidence for a bilingual executive function advantage in the ABCD study.
Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 691–701.
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1998). The BIA model and bilingual visual word recognition. In J. Grainger &
A. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 189–225). Earlbaum Associates.
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From iden-
tification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.
Dufour, R. (1997). Sign language and bilingualism: Modality implications for bilingual language representation.
In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 301–330).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JANKOWIAK 13 of 17

Duñabeitia, J. A., Dimitropoulou, M., Uribe-Etxebarria, O., Laka, I., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Electrophysiological
correlates of the masked translation priming effect with highly proficient simultaneous bilinguals. Brain
Research, 1359, 142–154.
Elston-Güttler, K. E., Paulmann, S., & Kotz, S. A. (2005). Who's in control? Proficiency and L1 influence on L2
processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(10), 1593–1610.
Emmorey, K., Mehta, S., McCullough, S., & Grabowski, T. J. (2016). The neural circuits recruited for the produc-
tion of signs and fingerspelled words. Brain and Language, 160, 30–41.
Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long term memory structure and sentence pro-
cessing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 469–495.
Fitzpatrick, I., & Indefrey, P. (2014). Head start for target language in bilingual listening. Brain Research, 1542,
111–130.
Fricke, M., Zirnstein, M., Navarro-Torres, C., & Kroll, J. F. (2019). Bilingualism reveals fundamental variation on
language processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(1), 200–207.
Gajewski, P. D., & Falkenstein, M. (2011). Diversity of the P3 in the task-switching paradigm. Brain Research, 1411,
87–97.
Geyer, A., Holcomb, P. J., Midgley, K. J., & Grainger, J. (2011). Processing words in two languages: An event-related
brain potential study of proficient bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24(3), 338–351.
Goffaux, P., Phillips, N. A., Sinai, M., & Pushkar, D. (2006). Behavioural and electrophysiological measures of task
switching during single and mixed-task conditions. Biological Psychology, 72(3), 278–290.
Goldstein, A., Arzouan, Y., & Faust, M. (2012). Killing a novel metaphor and reviving a dead one: ERP correlates
of metaphor conventionalization. Brain and Language, 123(2), 137–142.
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Fennema-Notestine, C., & Morris, S. K. (2005). Bilingualism affects picture naming
but not picture classification. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1220–1234.
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., & Werner, G. A. (2002). Semantic and letter fluency in Spanish-English bilinguals.
Neuropsychology, 16, 562–576.
Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 25, 515–530.
Grosjean, F. (2021). The extent of bilingualism. In Life as a bilingual: Knowing and using two or more languages (pp.
27–39). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108975490.003
Grundy, J. G., Anderson, J. A., & Bialystok, E. (2017). Neural correlates of cognitive processing in monolinguals
and bilinguals. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1396, 183–201.
Harris, C. L. (2004). Bilingual speakers in the lab: Psychophysiological measures of emotional reactivity. Journal
of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25, 223–247.
Herbert, C., Junghofer, M., & Kissler, J. (2008). Event related potentials to emotional adjectives during reading.
Psychophysiology, 45(3), 487e498.
Hofmann, M. J., Kuchinke, L., Tamm, S., Vo, M. L., & Jacobs, A. M. (2009). Affective processing within 1/10th of
a second: High arousal is necessary for early facilitative processing of negative but not positive words. Cogni-
tive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 9(4), 389e397.
Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Fischer, R., & Christoffels, I. K. (2011). Bilingualism and creativity: Benefits in conver-
gent thinking come with losses in divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 273.
Hoshino, N., Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2010). An ERP investigation of masked cross-script
translation priming. Brain Research, 1344, 159–172.
Hoshino, N., & Thierry, G. (2012). Do Spanish-English bilinguals have their fingers in two pies - or is it their toes?
An electrophysiological investigation of semantic access in bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(9), 1–6.
Hoversten, L. J., Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J. (2015). language membership identification precedes
semantic access: Suppression during bilingual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(11),
2108–2116.
Hoversten, L. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2015). A time course analysis of interlingual homograph processing: Evidence
from eye movements. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(2), 347–360.
Ivanova, I., & Costa, A. (2008). Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech production? Acta Psychologica,
127, 277–288.
Jamadar, S. D., Thienel, R., & Karayanidis, F. (2015). Task switching processes. Brain Mapping, 3, 327–335.
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
14 of 17 JANKOWIAK

Jankowiak, K. (2019). Lexico-semantic processing in bilingual figurative language comprehension: Behavioral and
electrophysiological evidence. Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Jankowiak, K. (2020). Normative data for novel nominal metaphors, novel similes, literal, and anomalous utter-
ances in polish and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49, 541–569.
Jankowiak, K., & Korpal, P. (2018). On modality effects in bilingual emotional language processing: Evidence from
galvanic skin response. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47, 663–677.
Jankowiak, K., Naranowicz, M., & Rataj, K. (2021). Metaphors are like lenses: Electrophysiological correlates of
novel meaning processing in bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(3), 668–686.
Jankowiak, K., & Rataj, K. (2017). The N400 as a window into lexico-semantic processing in bilingualism. Poznań
Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 53(1), 119–156.
Jankowiak, K., Rataj, K., & Naskręcki, R. (2017). To electrify bilingualism: Electrophysiological insights into bilin-
gual metaphor comprehension. PloS One, 12(4), 1–30.
Jiao, L., Liu, C., de Bruin, A., & Chen, B. (2020). Effects of language context on executive control in unbalanced
bilinguals: An ERPs study. Psychophysiology, 57(11), e13653. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13653
Jouravlev, O., & Jared, D. (2014). Reading Russian–English homographs in sentence contexts: Evidence from
ERPs. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 153–168.
Kaan, E. (2007). Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 1(6), 571–591.
Kamel, N., & Malik, A. S. (2015). EEG/ERP analysis: Method and applications. Taylor & Francis Group.
Kerkhofs, R., Dijkstra, T., Chwilla, D. J., & de Bruijn, E. R. A. (2006). Testing a model for bilingual semantic prim-
ing with interlingual homographs: RT and N400 effects. Brain Research, 1068(1), 170–183.
Kieffaber, P. D., & Hetrick, W. P. (2005). Event-related potential correlates of task switching and switch costs. Psy-
chophysiology, 42, 56–71.
Kim, K. H., Yoon, H. W., & Park, H. W. (2004). Spatiotemporal brain activation pattern during word/picture per-
ception by native Koreans. NeuroReport, 15, 1099–1103.
Kissler, J., Herbert, C., Peyk, P., & Junghofer, M. (2007). Buzzwords early cortical responses to emotional words
during reading. Psychological Science, 18(6), 475e480.
Kissler, J., Herbert, C., Winkler, I., & Junghofer, M. (2009). Emotion and attention in visual word processingdan
ERP study. Biological Psychology, 80(1), 75e83.
Kok, A. (2001). On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology, 38(3),
557–577.
Kotz, S. A., Rothermich, K., & Schmidt-Kassow, M. (2012). Sentence comprehension in healthy and brain-dam-
aged populations. In M. Faust (Ed.), The handbook of the neuropsychology of language (pp. 760–777). Black-
well Publishing.
Kousaie, S., Laliberté, C., López Zunini, R., & Taler, V. (2015). A behavioral and electrophysiological investigation
of the effect of bilingualism on lexical ambiguity resolution in young adults. Frontiers in Human Neurosci-
ence, 9, 682.
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bice, K., & Perrotti, L. (2015). Bilingualism, mind, and brain. In M. Liberman & B. H.
Partee (Eds.), Annual review of linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 377–394).
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmet-
ric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.
Kropotov, J. D. (2009). Quantitative EEG, event-related potentials and neurotherapy. Academic Press.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehen-
sion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12), 463–470.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the
event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity.
Science, 207, 203–205.
Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. K. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. In
M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 83–143). Academic Press.
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C. K., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994-2005). In M. Traxler & M.
A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 659–724). Academic Press.
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JANKOWIAK 15 of 17

Lai, V. T., & Curran, T. (2013). ERP evidence for conceptual mappings and comparison processes during the com-
prehension of conventional and novel metaphors. Brain and Language, 127(3), 484–496.
Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain
Research, 1284, 145–155.
Lalor, E., & Kirsner, K. (2000). Cross-lingual transfer effects between English and Italian cognates and noncog-
nates. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4, 385–398.
Lee, B., Meade, G., Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Emmorey, K. (2019). ERP evidence for co-Activation of English
words during recognition of American Sign Language signs. Brain Sciences, 2019(9), 148.
Lee, C. Y., Tsai, J. L., Chan, W. H., Hsu, C. H., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. L. (2007). Temporal dynamics of the con-
sistency effect in reading Chinese: An event-related potentials study. NeuroReport, 18, 47–151.
Leikin, M., & Tovli, E. (2014). Bilingualism and creativity in early childhood. Creativity Research Journal, 26(4),
411–417.
Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). Oxford University
Press.
Lopes da Silva, F. (2013). EEG and MEG: Relevance to neuroscience. Neuron, 80, 1112–1128.
López Zunini, R. A., Morrison, C., Kousaie, S., & Taler, V. (2019). Task switching and bilingualism in young and
older adults: A behavioral and electrophysiological investigation. Neuropsychologia, 133, 107186.
Luck, S. J. (2005). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Luk, G. (2017). Bilingualism. In B. Hopkins, E. Geangu, & S. Linkenauger (Eds.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of
child development (2nd ed., pp. 385–391). Cambridge University.
Luo, L., Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2010). Effect of language proficiency and executive control on verbal fluency
performance in bilinguals. Cognition, 114, 29–41.
Maurer, U., Brandeis, D., & McCandliss, B. D. (2005). Fast, visual specialization for reading in English revealed by
the topography of the N170 ERP response. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 1, 13.
Maurer, U., Zevin, J. D., & McCandliss, B. D. (2008). Left-lateralized N170 effects of visual expertise in reading:
Evidence from Japanese syllabic and logographic scripts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1878–1891.
McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Kim, A. (2004). Neural correlates of second-language word learning: Minimal
instruction produces rapid change. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 703–704.
Meade, G., Midgley, K. J., Sevcikova Sehyr, Z., Holcomb, P. J., & Emmorey, K. (2017). Implicit co-activation of
American sign language in deaf readers: An ERP study. Brain and Language, 170, 50–61.
Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2009). Masked repetition and translation priming in second language
learners: A window on the time-course of form and meaning activation using ERPs. Psychophysiology, 46(3),
551–565.
Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., van Heuven, W. J. B., & Grainger, J. (2008). An electrophysiological investigation of
cross-language effects of orthographic neighborhood. Brain Research, 1246, 123–135.
Nicholson, R., Karayanidis, F., Poboka, D., Heathcote, A., & Michie, P. T. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of
anticipatory task-switching processes. Psychophysiology, 42(5), 540–554.
Opitz, B., & Degner, J. (2012). Emotionality in a second language: It's a matter of time. Neuropsychologia, 50(8),
1961–1967.
Paap, K. R., & Greenberg, Z. I. (2013). There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive process-
ing. Cognitive Psychology, 66(2), 232–258.
Paap, K. R., Myuz, H. A., Anders, R. T., Bockelman, M. F., Mikulinsky, R., & Sawi, O. M. (2017). No compelling
evidence for a bilingual advantage in switching or that frequent language switching reduces switch cost.
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29, 89–112.
Paller, K. A., Kutas, M., & Mayes, A. R. (1987). Neural correlates of encoding in an incidental learning paradigm.
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 67, 360–371.
Peeters, D., Dijkstra, T., & Grainger, J. (2013). The representation and processing of identical cognates by late bi-
linguals: RT and ERP effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(4), 315–332.
Periáñez, J. A., & Barceló, F. (2009). Updating sensory versus task representations during task-switching: Insights
from cognitive brain potentials in humans. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1160–1172.
Piñar, P., Dussias, P. E., & Morford, J. P. (2011). Deaf readers as bilinguals: An examination of deaf readers’ print
comprehension in light of current advances in bilingualism and second language processing. Language and
Linguistics Compass, 5, 691–704.
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
16 of 17 JANKOWIAK

Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10),
2128–2148.
Potter, M. C., So, K. F., von Eckardt, B., & Feldman, L. B. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representation in begin-
ning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(1), 23–38.
Proverbio, A. M., Cok, B., & Zani, A. (2002). Electrophysiological measures of language processing in bilinguals.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 994–1017.
Pu, H., Holcomb, P. J., & Midgley, K. J. (2016). Neural changes underlying early stages of L2 vocabulary acquisi-
tion. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 40, 55–65.
Ratiu, I., Hout, M. C., Walenchok, S. C., Azuma, T., & Goldinger, S. D. (2017). Comparing visual search and eye
movements in bilinguals and monolinguals. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 1695–1725.
Rodriguez-Fornells, A., Rotte, M., Heinze, H. J., Nösselt, T., & Münte, T. F. (2002). Brain potential and functional
MRI evidence for how to handle two languages with one brain. Nature, 6875, 1026–1029.
Rossion, B., Joyce, C. A., Cottrell, G. W., & Tarr, M. J. (2003). Early lateralization and orientation tuning for face,
words, and object processing in the visual cortex. NeuroImage, 20, 1609–1624.
Rutter, B., Kröger, S., Hill, H., Windmann, S., Hermann, C., & Abraham, A. (2012). Can clouds dance? Part 2: An
ERP investigation of passive conceptual expansion. Brain and Cognition, 80(3), 301–310.
Schacht, A., & Sommer, W. (2009). Emotions in word and face processing: Early and late cortical responses. Brain
and Cognition, 69, 538e550.
Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Lan-
guage, 55(2), 197–212.
Scott, G. G., O'Donnell, P. J., Leuthold, H., & Sereno, S. C. (2009). Early emotion word processing: Evidence from
event-related potentials. Biological Psychology, 80(1), 95e104.
Shibata, M., Toyomura, A., Motoyama, H., Itoh, H., Kawabata, Y., & Abe, J. (2012). Does simile comprehension
differ from metaphor comprehension? A functional MRI study. Brain and Language, 121(3), 254–260.
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Creativity and genius. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 679–698). The Guilford Press.
Tang, X., Qi, S., Jia, X., Wang, B., & Ren, W. (2017a). Comprehension of scientific metaphors: Complementary
processes revealed by ERP. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 42, 12–22.
Tang, X., Qi, S., Wang, B., Jia, X., & Ren, W. (2017b). The temporal dynamics underlying the comprehension of
scientific metaphors and poetic metaphors. Brain Research, 1655, 33–40.
Thierry, G., & Wu, Y. J. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-language compre-
hension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(30), 12530–12535.
Timmer, K., Grundy, J. G., & Bialystok, E. (2017). Earlier and more distributed neural networks for bilinguals than
monolinguals during switching. Neuropsychologia, 106, 245–260.
Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whit- ford, V., & Pivneva, I. (2011). Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence
reading: The effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and L1-L2 intermixing. Journal of experimental
psychology: Learning, memory, Cognition, 37, 1412–1431.
van den Noort, M., Struys, E., Bosch, P., Jaswetz, L., Perriard, B., Yeo, S., Barisch, P., Vermeire, K., Lee, S.-H., &
Lim, S. (2019). Does the bilingual advantage in cognitive control exist and if so, what are its modulating fac-
tors? A systematic review. Behavioral Sciences, 9, 27.
van Dijk, M., Kroesbergen, E. H., Blom, E., & Leseman, P. M. P. (2019). Bilingualism and creativity: Towards a
situated cognition approach. Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(2), 178–188.
van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in
bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 431–451.
van Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2002). The timing of action-monitoring processes in the anterior cingulate cortex.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 593–602.
Vandenberghe, B., Montero Perez, M., Reynvoet, B., & Desmet, P. (2019). The role of event-related potentials
(ERPs) as sensitive measures in L2 vocabulary acquisition research. Journal of the European Second Lan-
guage Association, 3(1), 35–45.
Verreyt, N., Woumans, E. V. Y., Vandelanotte, D., Szmalec, A., & Duyck, W. (2016). The influence of lan-
guage-switching experience on the bilingual executive control advantage. Bilingualism: Language and Cog-
nition, 19(1), 181–190.
 1749818x, 2021, 8, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12436 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [09/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JANKOWIAK 17 of 17

Wang, X., & Jankowiak, K. (2021). Electrophysiological insights into the role of proficiency in bilingual novel and
conventional metaphor processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, online first.
Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2013). Fast modulation of executive function by language context in bilinguals. Journal of
Neuroscience, 33, 13533–13537.
Yum, Y. N., Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2014). An ERP study on initial second language vocabu-
lary learning. Psychophysiology, 51, 364–373.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Katarzyna Jankowiak, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Department of Psycholinguistic

Studies, Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland. In her research,
she investigates behavioural and psychophysiological correlates of bilingual language pro-
cessing, employing methods such as reaction times, key-stroke logging, electroencephalogra-
phy, and skin conductance. In particular, she is interested in how bilingual speakers construct
new meanings in their L1 and L2. Additionally, her research is devoted to examining the
interplay between language, emotions, and semantic processing in the bilingual context.

How to cite this article: Jankowiak, K. (2021). Current trends in electrophysiological

research on bilingual language processing. Language & Linguistics Compass. e12436.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12436