“The man who couldn’t speak…” article sample responses
Explain your answer to each question. Cite evidence in the text as appropriate, and
make reference to knowledge outside the text as appropriate.
Comprehension:
- Why was the behavior of patients Leborgne and Lelong abnormal, what
caused the abnormality, and how was Broca able to determine the cause?
Both Leborgne and Lelong were unable to produce language. Leborgne was called
“Tan” because that was essentially the only word he could say, and while Lelong was
able to say a few more words he really couldn’t communicate through language.
However, both men seemed to be able to understand what was being said to them.
Lesions (damage) to the “Broca’s area” section of their brain is what caused the men to
be unable to speak, and Broca believed this was the cause because after the patient’s
died he performed autopsies of their brains. The autopsies indicated that both men had
damage to “Broca’s area” – a portion of the frontal left hemisphere – supporting
Broca’s hypothesis. (114 words)
Analysis:
- What is the distinction between localization of brain function and
lateralization to brain function? Which (localization or lateralization) does
Broca’s work demonstrate?
Localization of brain function refers to when a specific area of the brain is responsible
for a specific behavior. Whereas lateralized brain function means that the two
hemispheres of the brain do NOT mirror each other - that the left hemisphere has some
functions that the right hemisphere does not, and vice versa. Broca’s work
demonstrates localization of brain function because he found that one specific area of
the brain (Broca’s area) is most responsible for the production of speech. Though that
area is a part of the left hemisphere, the focus of his work was not on comparing the
functions of the hemispheres. (104 words)
Evaluation:
- Identify and discuss ONE limitation of the work that Broca did.
One limitation of Broca’s work is that he was only able to investigate his patients’
brains AFTER they died. He observed the patients while alive and noted their behavior,
and it is not unreasonable to conclude that their abnormal behavior was the result of
the brain damage he observed during the autopsy; but, his conclusions would be
stronger if he was able to observe the brains of the patients while they were alive.
Obviously the technology to do this did not exist while Broca lived, but, as mentioned in
the article, the fact that researchers later determined that Broca’s patients had more
widespread damage than his initial assumptions shows the limitation to his work. (114
words)