I am slightly confused on how handedness affects the brain hemispheres with respect to language. I'd like to read more into that. I could be wrong, but I feel like that has more to do with corellation rather than causation. I know the text states it's not quite a symmetrical relationship, but it does feel like a far-fetched claim altogether.
I do not believe language is purely biological, but I think there are definitely parts of it that are. I remember learning about Broca's and Wernicke's area, and that is an excellent example of language's biology. If Broca's area is damaged, your speech is affected, which is part of the biology of the brain. If Wernicke's area is damaged, your comprehension is affected, but speech is unaffected. Clearly, there are many aspects of language and speech which are ingrained into the brain, however, language is taught to us, meaning we're not born with the ability to communicate with evolved speech. It is something that has to be taught, it's not like many animals with the biological instinct to walk. We must develop it.
Like I talked about previously, Broca's (lower part of frontal lobe) and Wernicke's area are important to the production of speech, but there are many parts of the brain that can contribute to language and language processing per the first reading. The area in front of the fissure of Ronaldo (and motor cortex) helps with written language. For speech comprehension, the auditory complex plays a pivotal role in receiving feedback through the ear. There are many other parts that help us as well but I believe these are most important.
Conceptualizing and processing meaning has many different parts. For one, "meaning" refers to many different things, so it's important to distinguish between all the "meanings". For example, the book provides a few different examples to refer to this: "intend", "indicate", "refer to", "have significance", and "convey". All of these require example or even visual aid to understand the significance of these forms of meaning. By itself, the word "mean" doesn't make much sense. To analyze this, the word must be put into semantic context. I compare this to when someone asks for a word to be used in a sentence like a spelling bee.
I am not quite sure if I've been inspired in new ways to learn a language by these readings. The findings were interesting, especially with the processes of the brain, but I don't think that's quite the answer you're looking for. I think repetition by mouth of words and then writing it might be helpful based on the readings, but who knows if that's the most efficient way to learn a language.
Replies