Two things, first off, the brain uses more than just broca's area and wernicke's area for language. The findings I had heard about signed languages using different parts of the brain than vocal languages were not that they used entirely different areas, but that they didn't totally map to each other either, this article doesn't say anything to tell me if that is still true.
Second, it's actually really depressing. The greater the extent to which the brain uses different areas, the greater the benefit of having a signed and a spoken language, because then in case of health issues (injury, stroke, etc.) the less the chance of aphasia. Losing language ability is horrible, but losing one of two languages is not nearly as horrible. I suspect though that there is still protective benefit to having a spoken and a signed language, just not if broca's or wernicke's is taken out, which makes sense as those two are vastly tied to language ability.
It's actually the main reason I want to push ASL into being a standard second language for as many people as possible, but there are other benefits (such as the ability to communicate quietly without disturbing people when you need to in theaters, libraries, etc.). I may need to change my opinion if the science changes.
But I know of people who had health issues and lost the ability to speak verbally, but could still sign. And I think this really does happen (I don't know of it ever happening the other way around, but I'd like research to be done). It seems likely that some things could hit one language and not the other. The question is, is this any more the case with a signed and a spoken language as it would be with two spoken languages? I ~think~ so, but this could be wrong.
Losing the ability to speak any language is truly horrible. It's incredibly frustrating and difficult, and it tends to happen at times when people are more unable to take care of themselves, and thus have a stronger need to communicate with others. I really would like fewer people to have to undergo that experience.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-27 12:13 am (UTC)Second, it's actually really depressing. The greater the extent to which the brain uses different areas, the greater the benefit of having a signed and a spoken language, because then in case of health issues (injury, stroke, etc.) the less the chance of aphasia. Losing language ability is horrible, but losing one of two languages is not nearly as horrible. I suspect though that there is still protective benefit to having a spoken and a signed language, just not if broca's or wernicke's is taken out, which makes sense as those two are vastly tied to language ability.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-27 12:17 am (UTC)This is MSNBC. I'm waiting for languagelog or others to detail everywhere they're wrong.
And your argument for a fallback area of the brain makes sense.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-27 12:24 am (UTC)But I know of people who had health issues and lost the ability to speak verbally, but could still sign. And I think this really does happen (I don't know of it ever happening the other way around, but I'd like research to be done). It seems likely that some things could hit one language and not the other. The question is, is this any more the case with a signed and a spoken language as it would be with two spoken languages? I ~think~ so, but this could be wrong.
Losing the ability to speak any language is truly horrible. It's incredibly frustrating and difficult, and it tends to happen at times when people are more unable to take care of themselves, and thus have a stronger need to communicate with others. I really would like fewer people to have to undergo that experience.