First edition published 2011 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge
270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2011 Selection and editorial matter, James Simpson; individual chapters, the contributors
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics / [edited by] James Simpson.
–
1st ed. p. cm.
Includes index.
1. Applied linguistics – Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Simpson, James, 1954 –
P129.R68 2010
418
– dc22
2010023814
ISBN: 978-0-415-49067-2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-83565-4 (ebk)
ISBN 0-203-83565-4 Master e-book ISBN
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2011.
To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk
.
The broad definition of neurolinguistics is that it is the study of language in relation to the brain. This makes it truly interdisciplinary, involving, for example, neuroscience, psychology, linguistics, speech pathology and biology. It also involves the use of a multitude of research methods, such as experimental research, neuroimaging, simulation of brain processes and video recording of spoken interaction. Traditionally, the study of people with brain damage, especially acquired brain damage, which causes a language disorder, has dominated the field.
Neurolinguistics can, however, also be about how the brain and human language and communication developed during evolution and how they develop in children and adults; it can also be about making computer simulations of linguistic processing by the brain; and it can be about localizing activity in parts of the brain involved in language processing by using neuroimaging methods. Neurolinguists can be focused on any of these aspects or on combinations of them. This overview will begin with some of the historical developments of neurolinguistics; it will then give examples of how research in different areas of neurolinguistics is pursued.

Methods in neurolinguistics will be described and research dealing with different aspects of linguistics
– phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics,multilingualism and reading and writing processes
– will be presented. Finally, current trends and future trajectories in neurolinguistics are outlined.
Although the term
‘ neurolinguistics
’ was not introduced until the late 1970s, in a series of volumes called Studies in Neurolinguistics edited by Whitaker et al. (1976
–
9), the interest in studying language in relation to the brain dates far back, probably even as far as Egypt over
5,000 years ago, when trepanation, i.e. drilling holes in the skull bone, was practised as a way to release evil spirits that made people
‘ quiet from sadness
’
. Many observations of brain damage and language problems were made, often as case studies. In ancient Greece, Plato thought of the brain as controlling thought and action, whereas Aristotle thought of the heart as the site of the human soul and the brain as regulating temperature by controlling cooling
460 fluids. In general, there was for a long time a focus on the liquid in the ventricles (holes) of the brain, perhaps also because it was noticed early that consciousness was lost when there was a deep brain lesion affecting the ventricles. It also seemed natural to connect a dynamic flow with the flow of thoughts. Language was therefore, for example, seen as placed in the fourth ventricle, and a loss of speech could be connected to phlegm making the flow of liquid in the fourth ventricle slow down. In the seventeenth century, there was a strong wish to connect the soul, and thereby thought and language, to a unitary centre in the brain. Candidate structures were the pineal gland, which is central in the brain and which Descartes saw as the centre of the soul, and the corpus callosum, which is also central and connects the two hemispheres of the brain and was suggested by Willis. There was a long conflict between the view supported by the church, that the human soul had to be one, and thus have one organ as its site, and researchers who tried to locate different abilities or faculties in different areas of the brain.
Already in the Roman era, the importance of the cortex, i.e. the surface layer of the two hemispheres, was recognized. In the nineteenth century, there was a renewed interest in localizing brain functions in different cortical areas, starting with Gall, who outlined the location of twenty-six human faculties, which he identified from a study of biographies, in a map of the surface on the cortex (Gall and Spurzheim 1810
–
19). His method of crainoscopy, i.e. studying the size of different areas of the skull to identify faculties, later fell into disrepute. He did, however, have supporters in the French Anthropological Society, who set out to prove that
Gall
’ s assumptions about speech and memory for words being placed in the frontal lobe. Thus,
Bouillaud and Auburtin tried to demonstrate that this was true, for example, by referring to cases that could support the claim. Paul Broca, who is often claimed to be the father of neurolinguistics, also demonstrated to the Society the brain of his patient Leborgne, usually referred to as Tan (because that was all he said) in 1861. He had predicted that the brain would have a lesion in the left frontal lobe and this turned out to be true, when the brain was dissected as a demonstration to the Society. He also identified the area for speech production as situated in the left frontal lobe in 1865. Shortly thereafter, Carl Wernicke discovered another cortical area, more posterior in the temporal and to some extent parietal lobes, which was connected to the ability to understand language; he started to sketch a model of language processing by the brain, which covered perception and production by repetition of words. This model was later extended by Lichtheim, who added a not clearly localized
‘ concept center
’ for the understanding and generation of speech. The findings by Broca and Wernicke relating descriptions and demonstrations of brain damage to certain areas of the cortex related to speech production and speech comprehension respectively (Broca 1861, 1865; Wernicke 1874) are often considered the starting point of what today is called neurolinguistics. Following their descriptions, localism and associationism, i.e. trying to find specific areas in the brain for specific language functions and trying to make models based also on the connections between such areas and the role of these connections, continued. In parallel, there was also a more
‘ holistic
’ and evolutionary development started by J. H. Jackson in 1874 and emphasizing the interplay between evolutionary primary and deep (subcortical) brain structures and more recently developed cortical areas in language functions (i.e. more automatized versus more consciously planned language). There were also, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, theories inspired by, for example, gestalt psychology searching for an underlying important cognitive ability, such as intelligence, abstraction or the ability to use symbols, as the crucial ability being damaged in aphasia (e.g. Marie, Glodstein, Head). In 1965, the model designed by
Wernicke and Lichtheim was revived by Geschwind in his book Disconnection Syndromes in Animals and Man and became the basis of the most widely used classification of aphasic

syndromes (see below).
Neurolinguistics
461
Three main classical influencing frameworks in neurolinguistics are
_ The classical view building on Broca, Wernicke, Geschwind and co-workers from the Boston
Aphasia Research Center (e.g. Goodglass and Kaplan 1973), which mainly identifies cortical centres and connections between centres, where lesions can cause different types of aphasia.
_ The view of Alexander Luria (e.g. 1976) where dynamic functional systems consisting of several sub-functions in different brain areas handle language functions and can be disrupted or reorganized by lesions in these areas.
_ The more evolution-based, hierarchical (sometimes called more holistic) view of language processes
‘ repeating evolution
’ by activation from the older and deeper parts of the brain to the later developed and more specialized cortical areas. This view was proposed by John
Hughlings Jackson (1932) and further developed by Jason Brown (1977, 1988) in his theory of
‘ microgenesis
’
.
Although none of the three frameworks provides the whole truth about brain and language, they have framed the thinking of researchers in neurolinguistics, who have used the terminology and models they developed. Today, there are no comprehensive frameworks to take their place and it is probably fair to say that they all contribute parts of our available information, but that we now have many more findings that have to be clarified and which can only partly be explained using the three frameworks.Many researchers, however, still build on parts or combinations of them.
Although many of the classical views and frameworks listed above are still to some extent adequate, current theories as well as data point to far more complex interactions between many different parts of the brain in language processing. There is less focus on the left hemisphere than before, although it is still considered crucial for the sequencing and rhythm of syntax and phonology. The right hemisphere, with its possibly more holistic and spatial focus, including parts of semantic and pragmatic processing, as well as subcortical structures, such as the limbic system, the thalamus and the cerebellum, have come much more into focus. This is connected to neuroimaging findings of activation and to the increased interest in emotion and volition raised by evolutionary studies. It is also connected to the development in linguistics, with its increased interest in semantics and especially pragmatics and with the focus on embodiment, which means that multimodal communication is included. Due to these developments, the delimitation of what is neurolinguistics has changed in terms of what parts of the brain and what parts of language and communication should be studied. Patterns and circuits of activation related to different language processing tasks are the main target of most neurolinguistic studies using measurement and imaging of brain activation. The role of different systems of transmittor substances affecting the activation patterns of cells and cell assemblies is, on a more micro level, also intensively studied.
After this general introduction, it is time to turn to some of the main research areas in neurolinguistics.
This has been by far the most central area with a long tradition of aphasiology studying different aspects of language after brain lesions with different localizations and using this to
Elisabeth Ahl sén
462 design, inspire, confirm, challenge and further develop psycholinguistic models of linguistic processing. A further aim has been to use models and findings in developing more refined methods for investigating and treating various types or aspects of aphasia. Different approaches have been used, depending on the focus of the studies. One tradition, mainly originating from British studies, is to use psycholinguistic models and only indirectly refer to brain localizations
(clinical neuropsychology, e.g. Kay et al. 1992). Another tradition is to build on a traditional neurolinguistic model and try to extend parts of it to directly relate areas of the brain to specific linguistic symptoms of people with aphasia. By using this approach, neurolinguistics has developed more extended typologies of aphasia syndromes, specific process modelling of linguistic production and perception of spoken and written language, and further linkage of brain areas to specific functions involved in sub-processes of language functions.
Currently, the most common ways of studying the relationship between specific brain areas and

language functions are brain activation studies using neuroimaging techniques. The expansion of possibilities to study brain activation during language processing during the last twenty years has been revolutionary for neurolinguistics. It provides the possibility of testing hypotheses by performing reliable group experiments involving linguistic tasks with registrations of brain activity in subjects without brain damage. This has led to a number of creative approaches, which are continuously coming up with new findings and hypotheses. There has not, however, been a corresponding updating of frameworks for description and explanation, so the current state of the art is characterized by a number of findings about language and brain activation, but no comprehensive and coherent theory or framework.
Part of the fascination with many of the studies of brain activation performed today stems from the finding of mirror neurons in macaques, which was made by Rizzolatti and coworkers in 1996 using single cell electrodes for registration. Mirror neurons are single neurons activated both by action and perception, for example both by performing and by watching the hand movement of grasping an object. Findings of
‘ mirroring functions
’ of brain areas as located by functional magnetic resonance imaging have given rise to new ideas about action-perception relations, also in language. The fact that Broca
’ s area developed on top of the area where mirror neurons were found in macaques has given rise to hypotheses about the evolution of language from grasping movements via gestures to language production in
‘ verb-object
’ constructions
(Arbib 2005). This has also lead to a renewed interest in the motor theory of speech perception (Lieberman 1998).
There are a number of related areas that are also studied by neurolinguists, e.g. the development of language and brain in children, and artificial intelligence simulation of language and communication. Two areas that will be presented below are reading and writing disorders, especially dyslexia, and multilingualism.
In all of the above areas, different views of what language is in relation to cognitive functions are set against each other. How much of our linguistic ability is hard-wired and congenital versus how much is learned from external stimuli? To what extent is language a separate ability emanating from a mutation and present only in humans, versus how much is it the result of more gradual evolution and to some extent present also in other primates? The first alternatives in these two questions have been proposed by Chomsky (1992), Pinker (1994)
Neurolinguistics
463 and others, who claim that
‘ linguistic ability
’
(which in their terminology stands for syntax, morphology and phonology) is specific, unique to humans and to a large extent pre-wired.
Other, more functionalist oriented researchers, such as Bates (Bates et al. 1998) and Tomasello
(2008) claim that external stimuli and imitation are crucial and that more general cognitive abilities provide the prerequisites for language development. This is the view associated with research on embodied cognition and communication.
As mentioned in the introduction, many and vastly different methods can be used for the study of brain and language. In early case studies, disturbance of some aspect of language processing was related to areas of the brain which could be identified only by post mortem dissection.
Later, computed tomography (CT), a radiographic method showing X-ray attenuation and thus density variations in brain tissue, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), measurement of magnetic activity of hydrogen, made it possible to get a
‘ picture
’ of the brain lesion. Today, most studies in neurolinguistics are based on dynamic measurement of brain activation.
Such methods are functional MRI (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET). In fMRI, magnetic resonance imaging detects changes in regional blood-oxygen levels (Blood
Oxygen Level Dependent signal
–
BOLD), associated with neural activity and thus identifies dynamic activation patterns, for example, when performing a language task. PET traces injected radioactive positron isotopes tagged with water molecules or glucose. Neural patterns of activation can then be identified from emitted gamma rays. SPECT (single photon emission tomography) measures cerebral blood flow (rCBF) from a single gamma ray.
Dynamic measurements are also made by using electroencephalography (EEG), showing the electrical activity (brain waves) from brain cells by fixing electrodes to the scalp. EEG measurements can be used with repeated stimuli, where the resulting recurring potential can be identified by an average change over numerous events. This technique is called event related potentials (ERP) and has proven very useful in neurolinguistic studies. Magnetoencephalography
(MEG) measures electrical activity related to neural transmission. It is a fairly direct

type of measurement, which does not require averaging and can, thus, be used in single case studies.
Using TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation) by applying magnetic impulses to a specific region, it is also possible to disturb the function of this region and in this way simulate brain damage and study the temporary effects of this.
There are two main types of modelling: symbol processing (based on traditional box-andarrow models) and artificial neural network (ANN) modelling. Hybrid models also exist.
ANN modelling is, for example, described by Franklin (1999) and Murre and Goebel (1996).
Basically, an ANN model builds on simplified principles from real neural networks and consists of layers of nodes with interconnections. The nodes function as model
‘ neurons
’ which fire if the sum of activation hitting them exceeds a threshold value. Activations can be modified and the network can learn by matching a repeated input to a desired output. It is possible to model lesions in the network by, for example, removing nodes or distorting the flow of activation between the nodes. If different linguistic
‘ layers
’ are modelled, it is thus possible to
Elisabeth Ahlsén
464 simulate the symptoms of a particular person with an acquired language disorder, by adapting the network to the behaviour of that person.
The methods used for studying linguistic behaviour in neurolinguistics overlaps with methods used in psycholinguistics, pragmatics and conversation analysis (see also Field, this volume;
Cook, this volume). There is a heavy emphasis on off-line and especially on-line experimental designs and testing, supplemented by questionnaires and interviews and, in the pragmatic tradition, video recording or keystroke logging and analysis of naturalistic communication.
The main characteristic of neurolinguistics is the clear and explicit link to the brain, in one of two ways: (i) by studying people with brain damage, and (ii) by measuring brain activation more or less directly, e.g. by imaging techniques or by measuring reaction times and relating them to processing models.
Neurolinguistics has a strong tradition of direct links to treatment of language disorders after acquired brain injury (aphasia). Many studies are performed by clinicians and studies of treatment effects are common. The main traditional neurolinguistic frameworks of the Boston group and Luria are still widely applied in diagnosing aphasia by identifying aphasia types or syndromes, for example by using the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE)
(Goodglass and Kaplan 1973) or Luria
’ s neuropsychological investigation (Christensen 1974).
Psycholinguistic process models of the symbol manipulation type are used as a basis for interpreting disruptions of linguistic processing in the PALPA (Psycholinguistic Assessment of
Language Processing in Aphasia) (Kay et al. 1992). Pragmatics-based studies of conversation phenomena, the use of gestures and other strategies, including repair, have inspired many speech and language therapists and have promoted the introduction of training of conversation strategies for patients, medical staff and family members. There is, however, a considerable time lag between neurolinguistic research and clinical application of its results in most cases, due to the fairly time-consuming development of clinically useful methods. The most recent trends in research are therefore not always directly reflected in therapy.
A closer look at some neurolinguistic studies of particular phenomena or systems of language will hopefully give a more concrete picture of what neurolinguists can typically do. This will be illustrated by selected examples. (The different aspects of language per se are described in chapters of this volume on phonetics and phonology, grammar, lexis and discourse and also on multimodality and multilingualism.)
In phonology, a recurring question is whether there is a particular basic processing unit and what that unit might be. Candidates have been phonemes (the smallest meaning-distinguishing units between words), phonological features, such as voicing, place or manner of articulation.
The syllable is another candidate which has proven very useful in the study of language disorders.
For example, the sonority of a syllable rises to the peak of the syllable
– a vowel
– and
Neurolinguistics
465 then recedes. Sonority is important for patients with phonological problems and this affects

which consonant in a consonant cluster is preserved and which is omitted. It also causes vowel-insertions between the consonants in a cluster, which then makes more, but less complex, syllables. By referring to sonority it is thus possible to explain why certain phonological structures appear in phonological errors and others do not.
In the study of grammar of people with language disorders, mainly agrammatism (i.e. a limited
‘ telegram style
’ grammar, with omissions and substitutions of grammatical morphemes), different hypotheses about grammatical processing have been proposed. One is the mapping hypothesis, which claims that it is the mapping between the semantic roles (such as agent and patient) of a sentence and parts of speech that is disturbed. A consequence of this hypothesis would be that other strategies are overused, for example, that the first noun represents the agent or that the noun that represents the semantically most likely agent is assigned the agent role, in comprehension. A second hypothesis, the adaptation hypothesis, assumes that agrammatism is an adaptation to a restricted time for processing which does not allow for complex or elaborated sentence structures. This leads to the use of a restricted register with short and simple structures that can be processed fast. According to a third hypothesis, the trace deletion hypothesis, traces of moved elements in syntactic tree structures (according to Chomskyan theories of syntax) are deleted in agrammatism, leaving certain structures remaining. In the framework of embodied communication and mirror neuron-based hypotheses, grammar, which relates to Broca
’ s area, is in focus when relating basic actions, especially a grasping hand movement, to verb-object structures in grammar through an evolutionary process where actions and gestures develop into language (cf. Arbib 2005).
In descriptions of agrammatism, the relatively limited grammatical morphology has been the target of many studies. Cross-linguistic comparisons of agrammatic speech have led to a description of agrammatic morphology as not only loss, but also substitution of grammatical morphemes, especially free morphemes (more than prefixes and suffixes) and problems also with main verbs.
Since word finding and object naming problems, so-called anomia, is a cardinal feature of aphasia and semantically based word substitutions often occur, lexical semantic theories have come into use in trying to describe and explain what happens in the word processing of people with these symptoms. Descriptions have used semantic features as potential units to be modified, for example gender in the case of substituting girl for boy. Semantic networks have also been used. In the example, girl and boy would be close to each other in such a network and have many connections to other words in common. A third way of describing lexical semantic disorders in aphasia is to use prototype theory, where a typical exemplar is central in a prototype field with less typical items more in the periphery of the field. A typical dog could, for example, be a terrier with more exotic dog types like Great Danes and Chihuahuas more peripherally represented. The words for more prototypical items would be easier to find. For example, it has been shown that word training for more peripheral items results in better naming of more central items, whereas the opposite course of action does not show these results for more periheral items (Kiran et al. 2005). Although many studies of naming have focused on nouns, comparisons with naming of actions by verbs have attracted increasing
Elisabeth Ahlsén
466 interest, and the question of how verbs and nouns are encoded and retrieved is the focus of many studies. Here, of course, the role of the verb for the grammatical structure of sentences is central, although many utterances in fact consist of nouns only (cf. Allwood 2001). Activation of pre-motor areas involved in programming movements of different body parts has been shown in relation to the words for actions involving the same body parts (Pulvermüller 2005).
Motor areas are, thus, suggested to be involved in the acquisition and retrieval of motion verbs. In fact, motor areas as well as sensory areas (the sensory-motor region) are now assumed, at least by some researchers (e.g. Gallese and Lakoff 2005), to be responsible for a great part or even all of lexical semantics. This assumption is one of the extensions of mirror neuron-based theories. So-called category specific anomias have also attracted some attention in neurolinguistics. These can, for example, be anomias selectively affecting only nouns or verbs or only words for natural items or artefacts. Is the encoding of the different types of words relying more on certain types of features, e.g. types of visual forms or motor actions, etc., or is there some other category specific to semantic encoding and organization of the
‘ mental lexicon
’
? These types of questions are being asked in this research.

It is now fairly generally accepted that semantics and pragmatics are interdependent aspects which are difficult to treat separately. An example of this is the use and meaning of deictic expressions, such as here, now, I, etc., which all depend on context for their interpretation of meaning. Also, the meaning of most words as well as constructions of several words is most often fully specified only in relation to the particular context. An important aspect of pragmatics is the study of communication in informal conversation and in other everyday life situations by using video recording and analyzing features of interaction and multimodal communication, including also gesture and other actions. The question of how interrelated and interdependent the production of words and gestures are is controversial and related to the question of gesture use as a possible compensatory strategy for people with aphasia. It seems clear that compensatory gesturing occurs and is successful in some patients (Ahlsén 1990;
Feyereisen 1991; Lott 1999) and this causes some difficulty for theories claiming very strong interdependence (e.g. McNeill 2000). The close relation of gestures to speech and the possibility that gestures are sometimes more
‘ robust
’ in relation to aphasia can both be supported by the embodiment and mirror neuron-based approach to the evolution of language.
One of the research areas in neurolinguistics is the relation between speech and writing, both concerning comprehension and production. Similar symptoms have often been assumed for writing as for speech in people with aphasia. Difficulties in executing writing for many people with aphasia, accompanied by apraxia (a disorder affecting the execution of intended movements and actions) and/or right sided hemiplegia affecting the right hand, have made studies of the often slow and strenuous writing of people with aphasia rare. Since partly different areas of the brain are used for sub-processes of speech and writing, and since different time constraints apply to the two modes of communication, it is not surprising that there are actually differences. In studies of text writing by people with aphasia, both based on the produced texts and the on-line production process (as shown by time logging of keystrokes) some differences in relation to their speech output can be noted. The texts produced by many people with aphasia were good, involving correct sentences, an adequate and often well-structured
Neurolinguistics
467 beginning, plot and end and, surprisingly, spelling and grammar errors (in relation to what was expected on the basis of their speech). An analysis of the logged keystrokes showed that the text production had been extremely slow and time-consuming and that almost every word had been changed, often several times (Ahlsén 2006; Behrns et al. 2008).
In the study of acquired dyslexias and in the application of the same perspective to developmental dyslexias and other reading difficulties, two main routes of processing, whole word reading versus grapheme-phoneme conversion, have mostly been assumed (the dual route model of reading) (Coltheart et al. 1993), although ANN alternatives have also been suggested.
Two main types of reading disorder in relation to brain damage are, according to this model, surface dyslexia, which involves problems
‘ sounding out words
’
, i.e. new and long words that are difficult to read, and phonological dyslexia, which involves problems using whole word reading, seen in the inability to read irregular words and sometimes in semantic errors. Deep dyslexia is a third form which combines features from both of the other types, giving rise to, for example, visual and semantic errors in reading. The causes of dyslexia in children are not entirely known, although dyslexia is often associated with a language disorder which also affects speech. The FOX P2 gene is one suggestion of a critical factor. The different types of dyslexia found with acquired brain damage also occur in developmental dyslexia.
Another question in neurolinguistics which attracts attention is how the different languages are organized or processed by the brains of multilingual people. There have been many suggestions of different areas of the brain being active for the two languages and this seems to some extent to be the case. The interpretation is, however, not generally agreed on. The right hemisphere seems to be more active when a person uses a second or third language than when the first language is used. Paradis (2004) provides a likely explanation for this in that much more effort is spent on pragmatic strategies when using a language that one is less proficient in.
Cases of bilingual people with different retrieval patterns for the two languages have attracted some interest, for example, that only one of the languages is recovered; one language is recovered first, then fades away when the second is recovered and the two languages recover to different degrees and with different speed. However, the most common pattern of recovery is parallel for the two languages. Code switching between languages is another area of interest which is compared to the switching between different registers/genres/activity languages that

people use in one language. As multilingualism and code switching are becoming increasingly dominant for many people, this area will continue to be important.
One important trend in neurolinguistic research is the development and use of more varied and refined ways of measuring brain activity in relation to language and communication.
Further development of methods such as fMRI, PET, SPECT, MEG and TMS is taking place, but many other methods have also been introduced that can reflect new aspects and give more refined information.
Another trend in neurolinguistics is the development and use of more varied and refined ways of measuring and analyzing behaviour, for example, multimodal registration of interaction patterns. The development and use of dynamic measures, such as eye movement recordings, automatic recognition and tracing of faces, speakers, magnitude of body movements, head movements, arm movements, etc., as well as phonetic analysis of voice and prosody
Elisabeth Ahlsén
468 features, identity, interaction patterns, attitudes and emotions, information structure, etc., can give us a much more multifaceted and complete picture of linguistic communicative behaviour.
In combination, the strong and speedy development of analysis techniques and methods in both neuroscience and language and communication studies provides substantial possibilities for interdisciplinary studies in neurolinguistics in the near future, but challenges arise when it comes to combining new methods from the two fields and relating them to theoretical frameworks.
The further development of simulation of brain and language using artificial neural networks
(ANN) is a third line of development, which is promising for neurolinguistics and can be linked to the other two. Network models of many different types exist and have been used, for example, to simulate children
’ s acquisition of grammatical forms and syndromes in aphasia.
A challenge for this area is to develop network models further and exploit them to pursue simulation based on mirror neuron theories of interactive communication. The widening scope of neurolinguistics will provide more phenomena to simulate. How to link different
‘ levels
’ of processing
– basic units and means of processing, thereby linking neurophysiology to different aspects of neurolinguistics
– is a task for ANN modelling.
Some of the most active research areas in neurolinguistics are studies of the role of emotions, multimodality, body movements and actions, all examples of the widening of scope and topics for neurolinguistic research. As described above and seen in the increasing number of methods and phenomena of analysis, the focus of what is included in neurolinguistics has widened considerably. Pragmatics, multimodality, action-movement-language and context are in focus and many new findings enhance the need for new and more developed models of interpretation
(see Ahlsén 2008).
The evolutionary trend and the embodiment trend
– the study of mirror functions (imitation and simulation) as a basis for language and communication represent a very strong current development. This also involves a revival of the motor theory of speech perception (Galantucci and Fowler 2006). The link between evolution, ontogeny/acquisition and loss of language is being further explored. If mirroring and imitation are basic functions behind linguistic communication, is there a possible relation of impairment and autism (Frith et al. 2000; Frith and
Wolpert 2004)? If the grasping hand movement is assumed to be central for the development of grammar, what is the relation between aphasia and apraxia (cf. Goldenberg 2003; Ahlsén
2008)?
Some examples that illustrate this trend are the following recent studies and claims:
_ A paper by Corballis adopting the idea that gestures, via pantomime and conventionalization, developed into spoken language, claiming that the addition of voice and vocal features was the cause of left hemsiphere dominance and stating that grammaticalization was part of this conventionalization, caused by the evolution of episodic memory and
‘ mental time travel
’
(Corballis 2010).
_ A paper arguing for maps of coordinated actions rather than continuous maps of the body as the pattern behind our motor repertoires (Fernadino and Iacoboni 2010).
_ A paper arguing that linguistic areas, through top-down mechanisms, stimulate a semantic content-specific reactivation of modal simulations (Ghio and Tettamanti 2010).
Neurolinguistics
469

_ A paper discussing data from measurements of voice parameters and arm kinematics, in terms of the possibility that gestures and words are integrated so that social intention to interact with the interlocutor is transferred from gesture to word (Barbieri et al. 2009).
Neurolinguistics is a research area which is in a phase of considerable dynamic development and expansion. This is due to new theories, methods and techniques in linguistics and neuroscience, based on mirroring functions, embodiment, pragmatics, neuroimaging and simulation techniques. These developments make possible the study of many new aspects of the brain and of language processing. More and more findings are being gathered, and the challenge of combining frameworks from different disciplines and developing theories is enormous. No doubt it is also inspiring and essential in the quest for answers to some of the most intriguing questions we have regarding a better understanding of language functions and language disorders.
clinical linguistics; cognitive linguistics; discourse analysis; multimodality; psycholinguistics
Ahlsén, E. (2006) Introduction to Neurolinguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (A basic introduction to the field of neurolinguistics which gives a good overview for beginners.)
Ingram, J. (2007) Neurolinguistics: An Introduction to Spoken Language Processing and its Disorders,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Ingram provides an introduction to neurolinguistics with an overview of language processing and disorders.)
Stemmer, B. and Whitaker, H. (2008) Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language, New York:
Academic Press. (Stemmer and Whitaker
’ s updated version of the earlier Handbook of Neurolinguistics is a comprehensive work covering most aspects of current neurolinguistics.)
Ahlsén, E. (1990) ‘ Body communication and speech in a Wernicke ’ s aphasic: a longitudinal study ’ ,
Journal of Communication Disorders 24: 1
–
12.
——
(2006)
‘
Comparing corpora of spoken and written narrations produced by persons with aphasia
’
, in J. Toivanen and P. J. Henrichsen (eds) Current Trends in Research on Spoken Language in the Nordic Countries, Oulu: Oulu University Press.
——
(2008)
‘
Embodied communication: aphasia, apraxia and the possible role of mirroring and imitation
’
, Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 22(4
–
5): 1
–
5.
Allwood, J. (2001) ‘ Capturing differences between social activities in spoken language ’ , in I. Kenesei and R. M. Harnish (eds) Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Arbib, M. A. (2005)
‘
From monkey-like action recognition to human language: an evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics
’
, Brain and Behavioral Sciences 28: 105
–
24.
Barbieri, F., Buonocore, A., Dalla Volta, R. and Gentilucci, M. (2009)
‘
How symbolic gestures and words interact with each other
’
, Brain and Language 110(1): 1
–
11.
Bates, E., Elman, J., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D. and Plunkett, K. (1998)
‘
Innateness and emergentism
’
, in W. Bechtel and G. Graham (eds) A Companion to Cognitive
Science, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Behrns, I., Ahlsén, E. and Wengelin, Å. (2008) ‘
Aphasia and the process of revision in writing a text
’
, Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 22: 95
–
110.
Broca, P. (1861)
‘
Perte de la parole
’ , Bulletin de la Sociéte d ’
Anthropologie de Paris 2: 219
–
37.
——
(1865)
‘ Remarques sur la siège de la faculté du langage articulé ’
, Bulletin de la Société d
’
Anthropologie de Paris 6: 330
–
57.
Elisabeth Ahlsén
470
Brown, J. (1977) Mind, Brain and Consciousness, New York: Academic Press.
——
(1988) Life of the Mind, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chomsky, N. (1992)
‘
A minimalist program for linguistic theory
’
, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics,
1, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Christensen, A.-L. (1974) Luria
’ s Neuropsychological Investigation, Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P. and Haller, M. (1993)
‘
Models of reading aloud: dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches
’
, Psychological Review 100: 589
–
608.
Corballis, M. (2010) ‘ Mirror neurons and the evolution of language ’ , Brain and Language 112(1):
25
–
35.
Fernandino, L. and Iacoboni, M. (2010)
‘
Are cortical motor maps based on body parts or coordinated actions? Implications for embodied semantic
’
, Brain and Language 112(1): 44
–
53.
Feyereisen, P. (1991)
‘
Communicative behaviour in aphasia
’
, Aphasiology 5: 323
–
33.
Franklin, S. (1999) Artificial Minds, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frith, C., Blakemore, S. and Wolpert, D. (2000)
‘
Abnormalities in the awareness and control of action ’ , Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences 355: 1771 – 88.

Frith, C. and Wolpert, D. (2004) The Neuroscience of Social Interaction, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Galantucci, B. and Fowler, C. (2006)
‘
The motor theory of speech perception reviewed
’
, Psychonomic
Bulletin and Review 13(3): 361
–
77.
Gall, F. and Spurzheim, G. (1810
–
19) Anatomie et physiologie du système nerveus en général et du cerveau en particulier, Paris: Schoel.
Gallese, V. and Lakoff, G. (2005)
‘
The brain
’ s concepts: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge
’
, Cognitive Neuropsychology 21: 455
–
79.
Geschwind, N. (1965) ‘ Disconnection syndromes in animals and man ’ , Brain 88: 237 – 94 and
585
–
644.
Ghio, M. and Tettamanti, M. (2010)
‘
Semantic domain-specific functional integration for actionrelated vs. abstract concepts ’ , Brain and Language 112(3): 223 – 32.
Goldenberg, G. (2003)
‘
Language shares neural prerequisites with non-verbal capacities
’
, Behavioral
Brain Science 26: 679
–
80.
Goodglass, H. and Kaplan, E. (1973) The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination, Philadelphia:
Lea and Febiger.
Jackson, J. H. (1932) Selected Writings, in J. Taylor (ed.), London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Kay, J., Lesser, R. and Coltheart, M. (1992) PALPA: Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language
Processing in Aphasia, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kiran, S., Ntourou, K., Eubanks, M. and Shamapant, S. (2005)
‘
Typicality of inanimate category exemplars in aphasia: further evidence for the semantic complexity effect
’
, Brain and Language
95: 178
–
80.
Lieberman, P. (1998) Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution, London: W. W. Norton.
Lott, P. (1999) Gesture and Aphasia, Bern: Peter Lang.
Luria, A. R. (1976) Basic Problems in Neurolinguistics, The Hague: Mouton.
McNeill, D. (ed.) (2000) Language and Gesture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murre, J. and Goebel, R. (1996)
‘
Connectionist modeling
’
, in T. Dijkstra and K. de Smedt (eds)
Computational Psycholinguistics, London: Taylor & Francis.
Paradis, M. (2004) A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language, New York: William
Morrow.
Pulvermüller, F. (2005) ‘
Brain mechanisms linking language and action
’
, Nature 6: 576
–
82.
Rizzolatti, G. and Arbib, M. A. (1998)
‘
Language within our grasp
’
, Trends in the Neurosciences 21:
188
–
94.
Rizzolatti, G. and Craighero, L. (2004) ‘ The mirror neuron system ’ , Annual Review of Neuroscience
27: 169
–
92.
Rizzolatti, G., Faciga, L., Gallese, V. and Fogassi, L. (1996)
‘
Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions ’ , Cognitive Brain Research 3: 131 – 41.
Tomasello, M. (2008) Origins of Human Communication, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wernicke, C. (1874) Der aphasische Symptomencomplex, Breslau: Cohn and Weigert.
Whitaker, H. and coeditors (1976
–
79) Studies in Neurolinguistics, New York: Academic Press.
Neurolinguistics
471