Wouldn't that depend on our interpretation of "language" however?
For example, damage to Wernike's and Broca's areas won't prevent a person from being able to draw a picture of a scene. Nor will it affect his or her understanding of the concepts of "future," "past," or such verbal concepts as "to do." Obviously, it will affect the understanding of the _terms_ I just used--but not the principles themselves (i.e., a person with such damage will still know if he or she has eaten yet or will eat later, even if he or she can't communicate that concept in language). Given those facts, is there any reason that such an individual could not learn to communicate non-verbally? For example, the individual might draw a simple picture of him or her-self eating to indicate hunger (or just rub the belly, etc.). That could be extended to behaviors such as expressing happy feelings (draw a flower), sadness (draw a crying face), etc. This raises several questions: How do we define language? Is it the ability to communicate ideas from one person to another? If so, then clearly the examples above would constitute language. Is language confined to the verbal? Then ASL wouldn't be a language (and the fact that stroke victims don't necessarily learn it isn't at issue here really; a stroke has different--and more extensive--effects on the brain than does damage to only the two areas we're discussing). There are ancient languages written totally in pictographs--images representing concepts, not words, are common to such written communications as Egyptian Hieroglyphics, etc. Could a person with such damage learn to use hieroglyphics--and thus to communicate with "language?" What about the next step, the use of Chinese ideograms which originated as pictographs themselves and have only in relatively recent times become symbolic of words? In fact, does the ability to communicate with pictographs necessarily disappear when such damage occurs (anyone know if research in China has demonstrated this)? Modern computers make the combination of large numbers of photographs into a "slide show" a trivial matter. What would be the effect of providing a large library of computer images to an individual with such damage and allowing him or her to assemble a slide show--would he or she be able to do so in a manner that communicated? If so, is there any reason such a task couldn't be computerized in a manner that allowed the person to assemble the pictures, then translated them into a verbal approximation for the non-impaired individual and later translated his or her words into a slide-show for the impaired individual? Would this then constitute language? Now THERE'S a research (and patent) opportunity for someone if it's viable. Portable linguistic interpretation machines as a tool for the handicapped. Rick -- Rick Adams. Capella University Grand Canyon University Jackson Community College [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love you leave behind when you're gone." -Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible" -----Original Message----- From: Tom Allaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 9:50 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: student question: Broca's & Wernicke's Areas I think your student doesn't understand how central to language these areas are. Someone with damage to Broca's area would not be making up their own language, because they haven't just lost their original language, they've lost the processing areas necessary for any language. Similarly, if someone has Wenicke's damage they're not going to learn a new language, unless we're talking about damage occurring quite early in life, in which case the contralateral hemisphere might do the job. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
