Elsevier

Cognition

Volume 92, Issues 1–2, May–June 2004, Pages 1-12
Cognition

Introduction
Towards a new functional anatomy of language

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.11.001Get rights and content

Abstract

The classical brain-language model derived from the work of Broca, Wernicke, Lichtheim, Geschwind, and others has been useful as a heuristic model that stimulates research and as a clinical model that guides diagnosis. However, it is now uncontroversial that the classical model is (i) empirically wrong in that it cannot account for the range of aphasic syndromes, (ii) linguistically underspecified to an extent that prohibits contact with the language sciences, and (iii) anatomically underspecified. We briefly summarize some of the central issues that motivate why a new functional anatomy of language is necessary, in the context of introducing a collection of articles that describe systematic new attempts at specifying the new functional anatomy. The major convergent observations are highlighted and the emergent conceptual and empirical trends are identified.

Section snippets

The old functional anatomy of language

Every student of the language sciences has come across the illustration of a left cerebral hemisphere in which there is labeled an inferior frontal area, Broca's area, a posterior superior temporal region, Wernicke's area, and a connecting fiber tract, the arcuate fasciculus. This anatomic diagram, an image with iconic status in neuroscience, forms the basis of a neurolinguistic model that has informed research for almost 150 years and constitutes the canonical model of brain and language

What's right with the classical Wernicke–Lichtheim–Geschwind model?

The classical model contains many viable and relevant ideas, but the model is often misunderstood by modern researchers (for discussion see de Bleser, Cubelli, & Luzzatti, 1993). We review some remarks by Wernicke (1874/1977) that outline the core components of the model, and highlight the extent to which his theorizing was closely related to many contemporary considerations. These remarks are based on Eggert's 1977 translation of Wernicke's original monograph of 1874 (Wernicke, 1874/1977).

Sources of progress: linguistics and cognitive neuroscience

Unsurprisingly, progress on brain-language research has been driven by advances in both linguistics and cognitive neuroscience. A major source of conceptual enrichment and change has been research in theoretical linguistics and psycholinguistics. At least since the 1950s, we assume that there exist many different levels of representation that have independent motivation and their own internal structure. Experimental research in psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics has been (more or less)

Towards a new functional anatomy of language: the present issue

What sets this group of papers apart and what unifies the selection of articles as a group? What makes the contributions special is that each paper articulates a larger scale model than is typically presented in experimental work. In other words, the authors are putting their cards on the table about their larger perspective – and are therefore, of course, willing to be wrong! But, right or wrong, the broad views developed here at the very least provide hypotheses for future research, and in

Trends, convergence, and the emergence of a new model

It is impossible – and perhaps even incoherent – to attempt to summarize the set of findings and models discussed in these articles. Nevertheless, there are several convergent observations and hypotheses.

  • 1.

    Broca's area and Wernicke's area are no longer viewed as monolithic or homogeneous pieces of tissue. Rather, there are attempts to define, subdivide, and functionally interpret both of these cortical regions. It is particularly noteworthy that no paper in the present collection focuses on or

The future: where have we been and where are we going?

The history of neurolinguistics looks like any other domain of the natural sciences. That is, initially, rather coarse distinctions sufficed to account for the basic phenomena of interest, but as knowledge in the biological and the linguistic domains accumulated, numerous necessary modifications were made as the concepts in both domains became finer-grained. An (admittedly naive) optimistic perspective therefore suggests that all is well and that progress in linguistics and psycholinguistics

Acknowledgements

During the preparation of this manuscript, D.P. was a Fellow at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin and was supported by NIH R01DC05660. G.H. was supported by NIH R01DC0361.

References (27)

  • K. Amunts et al.

    Broca's region revisited: cytoarchitecture and intersubject variability

    Journal of Comparative Neurology

    (1999)
  • J.E. Bogen et al.

    Wernicke's region – where is it?

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

    (1976)
  • Broca, P (1861). Remarques sur le siège de la faculté du langage articulé; suivies d'une observation d'aphémie (perte...
  • Cited by (234)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text