Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:43:11.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The neurobiology of sign language and the mirror system hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Karen Emmorey
Karen Emmorey*
Affiliation:
Lab for Language and Cognitive Neuroscience, 6495 Alvarado Road, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92120, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I suggest two puzzles for the Mirror System Hypothesis. First, there is little evidence that mirror neuron populations for words or for signs exist in Broca's area, and a mirror system is not critical for either speech or sign perception. Damage to Broca's area (or to the mirror system for human action) does not result in deficits in sign or speech perception. Second, the gesticulations of speakers are highly integrated with speech, but pantomimes and modern protosigns (conventional gestures) are not co-expressive with speech, and they do not co-occur with speech. Further, signers also produce global, imagistic gesticulations with their mouths and bodies simultaneously while signing with their hands. The expanding spiral of protosign and protospeech does not predict the integrated and co-expressive nature of modern gestures produced by signers and speakers.

Keywords

sign languagegesturepantomimeBroca's area
Type
The perspective from sign language
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 5 , Issue 2-3: Special Issue , September 2013 , pp. 205 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arbib, M. 2012. How the brain got language: The mirror system hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corina, D. P., McBurney, S. L., Dodrill, C., Hinshaw, K., Brinkley, J. & Ojemann, G.. 1999. Functional roles of Broca's area and SMG: Evidence from cortical stimulation mapping in a deaf signer. NeuroImage 10. 570–581.Google Scholar
Corina, D. & Knapp, H. P.. 2008. Signed language and human action processing: Evidence for functional constraints on the human mirror-neuron system. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1145. 100–112.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. 1999. Do signers gesture? In Messing, L. & Campbell, R. (eds.), Gesture, speech, and sign, 133–159. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Xu, J., Gannon, P., Goldin-Meadow, S. & Braun, A.. 2010. CNS activation and regional connectivity during pantomime observation: No engagement of the mirror neuron system for deaf signers. NeuroImage 49. 994–1005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodzinsky, Y. & Amunts, K. (eds.). 2005. Broca's region. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hickok, G. 2008. Eight problems for the mirror neuron theory of action understanding in monkeys and humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21(7). 1229–1243.Google Scholar
Hickok, G. 2010. The role of mirror neurons in speech and language processing. Brain & Language 112. 1–2.Google Scholar
Hickok, G., Costanzo, M., Capasso, R. & Miceli, G.. 2011. The role of Broca's area in speech perception: Evidence from aphasia revisited. Brain & Language 119. 214–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickok, G., Kritchevsky, M., Bellugi, U. & Klima, E. S.. 1996. The role of the left frontal operculum in sign language aphasia. Neurocase 2(5). 373–380.Google Scholar
Knapp, H. & Corina, D.. 2010. A human mirror neuron system for language: Perspectives from sign languages of the deaf. Brain & Language 112. 36–43.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I. & Jaques, J.. 2000. Gesture production during stuttered speech: Insights into the nature of gesture-speech integration. In McNeill, D. (ed.), Language and gesture, 199–214. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. 2012. How language began: Gesture and speech in human evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. & Duncan, S.. 2000. Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In McNeill, D. (ed.), Language and gesture, 141–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poizner, H., Bellugi, U. & Klima, E. S.. 1987. What the hands reveal about the brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rogalsky, C., Love, T., Driscoll, D., Anderson, S. W. & Hickok, G.. 2011. Are mirror neurons the basis of speech perception? Evidence from five cases with damage to the purported human mirror system. Neurocase 17(2). 178–187.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. 2009. Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica 174. 241–275.Google Scholar