Table of Contents
Introduction
Throughout the history of humans, communication has always been vital as a form of connecting and relating to someone else. Gradually, language, a vast multifaceted system, arose to become a main source of communication between individuals. Language itself, most traditionally and universally perceived as the organizing of theoretical illustrative forms on varied measures of linguistic organization, came to have various subtopics up for discussion and debate. Over time, the topic of where language is rooted within the brain came to front and center. This discussion has been a popular, lengthy, and controversial argument. Scholars and experts have either taken the side of language being localized, as in more focused and exclusive to the left hemisphere, or distributed, where language is spread more evenly or close to evenly in both the right and left hemispheres.
Typically, language is usually associated with belonging more to the left side of the brain. In regards to the localized viewpoint, the general understanding of how the human brain examines and assembles language was primarily formed by the study of aphasia, a loss of language most commonly attributed to some sort of head trauma. This exact perspective predominantly assisted in appointing Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area as the dominant roles in language production and comprehension.
It has been long recognized and supported that Broca’s area houses verbally articulated and unwritten language production, while Wernicke’s area is responsible for language comprehension and interpretation. This definitive localized school of thought indicates that the complete and whole process of language production and comprehension is enclosed to areas in the brain recognized as the “ perisylvian zone”. This localized view also tends not to acknowledge much of the role that the right hemisphere plays in language.
127 our experts are availableright now
With respect to and regard to the distributed view, its school of thought vastly differs from the latter. Scholars argue that the distributed language view suggests that language is not just confined to specific regions within the brain, such as the perisylvian zone, instead it is dispersed all across the brain”. This idea also tends to infer that language is interconnected with other experiences involving perception, movement, the brain, physical anatomy, surroundings, objects, and media. Thus, in this case, it is questionable that language comprises a completely unconnected and extremely particular network.
The view goes further to distinguish itself as perceiving language to be a divergent and wide-ranging experience that is spread across diverse areas within the cerebrum, alluding that language is not localizable, but instead that it involves complex and involved interactions. Those also in favor of this view acknowledge that human cognition, a multiplex system in its own right, is not localized and cannot be since it utilizes brains, physical human bodies, environments, social and environmental relationships and interactions in order to work as one. So, with language mirroring cognition in that too many factors play a role in its overall working, language itself can in no way be so simply localized.
Preference in This Topic
I believe that language is both localized and distributed throughout the various areas of the brain. I believe that the left hemisphere is practically the powerhouse for language and in that same sentiment, simultaneously acknowledging the role that the right hemisphere plays in regard to language processing, appropriate conversational behavior, and understanding the intonation and stress of speech. Language is much more than just verbally speaking, as it also encompasses nonverbal communication, pragmatics, and comprehending speech as integral parts as well. Thus, I support both claims and schools of thought.
Within the left hemisphere of the brain, language is rooted and the traditional elements such as syntax, morphology, and phonology can be found here, but language encompasses more than just verbally speaking. Yet, language also depends on pragmatics, which requires a higher level of thinking in regards to processing and understanding conversational and written language. Although the right hemisphere is not completely responsible for the overall production of pragmatics, it does play a significant role.
An unmarked and healthy right hemisphere permits for the expected processing of non-literal statements that goes past the fundamental comprehension of syntax and vocabulary. Apart from their ability to still comprehend simple sentences, patients experiencing pragmatic deficits attributed to right hemisphere disorder, undergo crucial communicative dysfunction in their day-to-day life. A span of research findings proposes that the right hemisphere makes necessary and needed contributions to language processing and organizing in both the typical and injured brain and, particularly, in patients experiencing both fluent and nonfluent aphasia.
In a study looking at remediation and recovery after left focal brain injury, it was found that therapy practices focused distributed remediation proved successful. While the left hemisphere, the frontal region especially, does hold a critical and definitive role still following damage, activity in the temporal and parietal regions linked to a surprisingly improved result. Therefore, proposing that in the damaged brain, a few operations connected with language are healed and revived in more of a distributed fashion including both hemispheres.
As more research and findings arise and come to present itself, it appears that both the left and right hemisphere make equal and vital contributions to language processing and production. Language is too complex and involved of a process to only be separated into specific areas, yet it is also too distinct to be completely spread out with no focus at all. The system of language is both localized and distributed throughout the brain in order to convey and comprehend verbal messages being transmitted and absorbed.
Clinical Implications
Research, treatment, and assessment are vital and integral components to the field of Speech Language Pathology treating and assessing. So with respect to language localization, it is necessary to consider the clinical implications of where language is centralized and localized when considering the current and future research, treatment, and assessment procedures. This is especially true in cases of patients with aphasia, right hemisphere disorder, apraxia, and other language and communication disorders, where one region may be more seriously affected than the other.
In terms of research regarding distributed language and localized language, most of the knowledge regarding treatment for speech and language disorders favors and supports the localized language view. Due to most of the available knowledge being in favor for the localized view, most of the popular treatment supports this view as well.
Future research focusing on leaning towards distributed language would greatly affect and alter the practice in that treatment techniques would vastly change. Some clinicians work on implementing therapy practices that suppress actions and activity of the right hemisphere in order to strengthen its left counterpart, especially when treating aphasia. While this practice has been successful for many people, if research leans more to a distributed view, certain practices such as this one will have to change to account for the new findings presented, in order to provide the best treatment. I could see therapy practices drastically changing to encompass a more involved therapy requiring the participation of the various brain areas.
If research remains to stay focused solely on a more localized view, some consequences that could result can be failed or prolonged treatment. Evidence-based practice is the preferred method in the field of speech language pathology, and as a part of this method, the clinician has a responsibility to do what is best for the client. It would also be unethical and irresponsible for speech language pathologists to ignore new findings and research presented, so for this reason, clinicians must stay updated with the research that is available and accessible.
