Embodied language and the process of language ...

Embodied language and the process of language learning and teaching Giovanni Buccino1 and Marco Mezzadri2 1Università

Magna Graecia, Catanzaro, Italy / 2Università di Parma, Italy

This chapter consists of three main parts: in the first part we report very briefly the results of empirical studies supporting an embodied view of language processing including emotional language. In the second part we report about recent approaches to language learning and teaching with the purpose to underline how these approaches have tried to include or be supported by empirical data coming from neuroscience. The focus is on the relation between language learning and teaching, and emotions. Finally, in the third part we forward some general implications for language teaching based on the embodied approach to language processing. In our view experience is a prerequisite for any language competence where experience is related to our capacity to interact with the world and with other people, thus involving relational and emotional competences. In this perspective also relational and emotional competences influence language acquisition processes. Keywords: language, embodiment, education, language teaching, sensorimotor experience

1. The embodied language The embodied approach to language is relatively recent and contrasts with a more classical view, where language material is considered as amodal (e.g. Fodor 1975; Pylyshyn 1984; Mahon and Caramazza 2005; Mahon and Caramazza 2008; Chatterjee 2010). The core of the embodiment implies that human beings use the same neural substrates to experience the world (motorically or sensorially) also to process and understand language material, verbs, nouns or sentences describing that experience. In recent years this approach has been largely discussed and supported (Lakoff 1987; Glenberg 1997; Barsalou 1999; Pulvermüller 2002; Gallese 2003; Gallese and Lakoff 2005; Fischer and Zwaan 2008; Jirak et al. 2010). Thus far, the empirical work in this field has focused on language referring to action, i.e. action verbs or sentences. Several neurophysiologic studies, using doi 10.1075/ceb.10.10buc © 2015 John Benjamins Publishing Company

192 Giovanni Buccino and Marco Mezzadri

techniques that allow one to look directly at the time course of brain activity like electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), have clearly shown that during reading or listening to action verbs there is a recruitment of the motor/ premotor cortex. This recruitment occurs 150–170 ms after stimuli presentation (for review see Pulvermüller et al. 2009). Further, Pulvermüller et al. (2005) found that the magnetic stimulation of hand and leg motor and premotor areas in the left hemisphere, 150 ms after word onset, led to facilitation in recognizing meaningful arm and leg action-related verbs among meaningless pseudo words, briefly presented on a computer screen, when participants gave their responses with the mouth. Complementary to these findings, studies carried out by means of neurophysiological and behavioral techniques, where verbs were used as grammatical categories, showed that at an early time point (150–170 ms) from stimulus presentation a decrease of MEP amplitudes and coherently slower motor responses occurred in the effector (the hand, for example) involved in the actual execution of the action expressed by the verb. Note that typically these verbs express actions implying the use of an object (Buccino et al. 2005; Boulenger et al. 2006; Sato et al. 2008; Dalla Volta et al. 2009). These findings were interpreted as an interference effect due to the fact that the motor representation of a biological effector was engaged in two tasks at the same time: processing of language material and performance of a motor response. It is worth underlining that these findings are not at odds with the above mentioned EEG and MEG studies supporting an early recruitment of the motor system during language processing and possibly a specific role in this function. Rather they seem to reinforce this notion showing that when the motor system is engaged in both a linguistic and a motor task participants pay a cost. These findings provide strong evidence for an early and likely automatic, involvement of the cortical motor system in the processing of action-related language. Moreover a very recent study has shown that a reversible inactivation of ventral premotor cortex induced by repetitive TMS can affect the comprehension of sentences related to hand actions (Tremblay et al. 2012). Other behavioral studies have demonstrated that the execution of a motor response is facilitated following the comprehension of sentences that describe actions taking place in the same direction as the motor response (e.g. Glenberg and Kaschak 2002). This action-sentence compatibility effect (ACE) occurs when the response is performed soon after the comprehension of the sentence or right before its end (Kaschak and Borreggine 2008). More specifically, Taylor and Zwann (2008) have observed that, within the sentence, ACE is time-locked to the comprehension of the verb that defines the action or to a postverbal adverb that does not shift focus from the action. In comparison with the studies quoted above, where the recruitment of the motor system during language processing has been shown to occur at 150–170 ms after stimulus onset, action compatibility effect appear therefore a later phenomenon. Together these findings were interpreted as resulting from an interaction between activation of the motor system for language understanding and activation for response. Further evidence for an interaction between activation of the motor system and language processing comes from brain imaging techniques, EEG and fMRI, which



Embodied language and the process of language learning and teaching 193

showed that presentation of verbs associated with different effectors, results in somatotopic activation of motor areas (Pulvermüller et al. 2001; Hauk et al. 2004; Tettamanti et al. 2005) and common activation in Broca’s area for action-related sentences and their action counterparts (Baumgaertner et al. 2007). The mechanism through which words referring to actions, i.e. verbs, could elicit the motor representations for action itself can be explained in terms of the mirror neuron mechanism. Mirror neurons are a set of neurons found in premotor and parietal cortex which are active both when an individual acts and when they observe action or hear action-related sounds. Areas in the brain where mirror neurons have been found are also known as the mirror neuron system (Fabbri-Destro and Rizzolatti 2008; Hari and Kujala 2009).This system also appears to have a somatotopic organization (Buccino et al. 2001; Wheaton et al. 2004; Sakreida et al. 2005).There is increasing experimental evidence that the mirror neuron system is involved not only in motor functions but also in a number of cognitive functions, like observational learning, imitation, coding the intention of other people’s actions and language. It has been therefore hypothesized that words referring to action could employ the same system to transfer motor representations from the speaker to the listener. As we have seen there is ample evidence for a role of the motor cortex in action verbs understanding. There has been much less focus on noun processing, even though embodiment theory predicts that nouns should elicit a similar response in the motor system. According to classical linguistic theories, verbs and nouns have diverse neural underpinnings. Indeed clinical, brain imaging and neurophysiologic studies (see Vigliocco et al. 2011 for review) supported the notion that distinct neural structures are recruited during processing of nouns and verbs. However, since nouns refer to objects, and objects are known to be represented in the motor/premotor cortex, in the embodied perspective it must be expected that nouns, at least those referring to concrete graspable objects, like verbs, are represented in the motor system. It is worth reminding here that the manipulation of actual objects involves a fronto-parietal circuit in the brain, both of monkeys and humans (Jeannerod et al. 1995; Rizzolatti et al. 2004; Binkofski et al. 1999) reflecting sensori-motor transformations, that is the transformation of specific object features in appropriate motor plans to interact upon them. Perception of object-related actions and objects alone also modulates activity in the motor system. Evidence exists for this effect both in non-human primates and humans. In particular, for monkeys, a set of neurons, now referred to as “canonical neurons,” have been shown to respond during the perception of objects which can be manipulated (Rizzolatti et al. 1988; Murata et al. 1997; Raos et al. 2006;). Using brain imaging techniques similar findings have been demonstrated in the human brain (Grèzes et al. 2003). In sum, the perception of objects that have the potential for being manipulated, activate the very system responsible for actual manipulation. In other words, the brain responds to the affordances (Gibson 1977, 1979) of an object. A recent paper highlights the relationship between motor activity and the properties/affordances of manipulable objects by showing that changing the physical (affording) properties of the object, changes the motor response to it (Buccino

194 Giovanni Buccino and Marco Mezzadri

et al. 2009). It seems likely that in the same way that mirror neurons could underlie verb processing, canonical neurons could underlie noun processing and enable the recruitment of the motor system. Few studies have been dedicated to addressing the issue of the activation of the motor cortex during language tasks, in which nouns are used alone as stimuli. One example of a TMS study using nouns presented alone does indicate an involvement of ventral premotor cortex (PMv) in the processing of tool-related words (Cattaneo et al. 2010) but does not address further timing effects or narrower semantic categories. As far as we know, there are no such available neuroimaging studies but nouns have been used preceded by other word forms (e.g. Hoenig et al. 2008). In behavioral studies there is some indication that presentation of nouns can interact with motor activity. In a kinematic study, Glover et al. (2004) showed that reading nouns referring to small and large objects (e.g. “grape” or “apple”) that require a precision grip or a power grip, respectively, interfered with the planning of grasping movements directed to targets of different size. Similarly, Tucker and Ellis (2004), using a categorization task in which nouns referring to different size objects were used as stimuli, and responses were given by manipulating a mechanical device requiring a precision grip or a power grip, found faster performance when there was compatibility between the grip implied by the noun and the grip required to respond. A consistency effect between action preparation and noun processing was subsequently observed by Lindemann et al. (2006) who evidenced that planning grasping-to-use movements directed toward everyday objects (e.g. a glass) facilitates the semantic activation of nouns that are related to the action goals of the object use (e.g. mouth). Myung et al. (2006) showed that words denoting man-made objects that share elements of manipulation knowledge (e.g. “piano” and “typewriter”) prime one another in a lexical decision task. More specifically, Bub et al. (2008) showed that the manipulation knowledge evoked by words of man-made objects includes details of specific hand movements associated with both the overall volumetric properties of objects and their conventional use. Although the interaction between noun processing and motor activity has already been addressed in behavioral studies, the issue of the timing remains. As for verbs, it is of great relevance to distinguish between an early recruitment of the motor system (within 150–200 ms), which in turn might be considered crucial to language processing and understanding, and later phenomena which could represent an interaction between language and the motor system, not necessarily relevant to language per se. To our knowledge, only Boulenger et al. (2006, 2008) assessed the time course of linguistic-motor activation using nouns, but, as these nouns referred to non graspable objects, no definitive conclusions may be drawn on the matter. In a very recent study we investigated the involvement of the motor system in noun processing (Marino et al. 2013). Right-handed participants were presented with foot-related nouns, hand-related nouns, and abstract nouns. They were required to indicate by hand responses (left or right) when a word was concrete. Effects were tested at an early (150 ms) and a late (1150 ms) go-signal delivery. The time points were chosen to coincide with those of a previous behavioral experiment on verbs, which



Embodied language and the process of language learning and teaching 195

showed a significant motor modulation early in word processing, an effect which disappeared when the motor response was given by the late time point (Sato et al. 2008). Furthermore, we tested the involvement of left and right hemisphere primary motor areas (right or left hand). The results showed that at the early go-signal, slower right hand responses were found for hand related nouns compared to foot related nouns, the opposite pattern was found for the left hand. These findings demonstrate an early lateralized modulation of the motor system during noun processing, most likely crucial for noun comprehension. Moreover a Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) study was carried out to compare modulation of the motor system when subjects read nouns referring to objects which are Artificial or Natural and which are Graspable or Ungraspable (Gough et al. 2012). TMS was applied to the primary motor cortex representation of the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle of the right hand at 150 ms after noun presentation. Analyses of Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs) revealed that across the duration of the task, nouns referring to graspable artifacts (tools) were associated with significantly greater MEP areas. Analyses of the initial presentation of items revealed a main effect of graspability. The findings are in line with an embodied view of nouns, with MEP measures modulated according to whether nouns referred to natural objects or artifacts (tools), confirming tools as a special class of items in motor terms. In this context, it is worth underlining that there is evidence of tool-specific activity in the human parietal cortex (Valyear et al. 2007), in an area that appears to be phylogenetically specific of human primates (Peeters et al. 2009). Finally using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded from two antagonistic muscles, the first dorsal interosseus (FDI) of the hand and the extensor communis digitorum (EC) of the forearm. FDI is involved in grasping actions and EC in releasing. TMS pulses were delivered while participants were reading adjectives expressing either negative or positive pragmatic properties, at 150ms after presentation of language material. Overall findings showed an interaction of adjective type (positive, negative) and muscle (FDI, EC), the effect being driven by a significant difference for negative adjectives. Further analysis aimed at investigating the effectiveness of positive adjectives showed a similar, but opposite, pattern of effects for the positive words in the initial two blocks. These results indicate that, as for verbs and nouns, adjectives recruit the sensorimotor system, and their processing is best explained by an embodiment rather than an amodal approach to language. To sum up, recent empirical data seem to suggest an early recruitment of sensorimotor structures during processing of a number of grammatical categories (nouns, verbs and even adjectives), at least when these verbal labels refer to concrete situations. Since this involvement occurs at an early time point (within 150–200 ms after stimuli presentation) it is reasonable to speculate for a crucial role of this activation in language processing, and not just related to non specific interactions between language and the motor system. So far we have reviewed papers strongly supporting the notion that language processing is mediated by the same neural structures actually involved in coding the actions expressed by verbs or in coding the objects expressed by nouns. However all

196 Giovanni Buccino and Marco Mezzadri

experiments reported assessed the modulation of the motor system due to language material referring to concrete objects or to specific actions. What about emotions? Are words related to emotions embodied like words referring to concrete objects or actions? Before considering how language of emotions may be processed in the brain, it is worth to consider how we can recognize and understand whether another individual is angry, happy or sad. In recent times it has been forwarded that the neural mechanisms devoted to the comprehension of emotional states are not different from those responsible for the comprehension of other actions, known to be mediated by mirror neurons. Following this approach, the comprehension of emotions could be based on a mechanism which allows one to “feel” the emotions of others by recruiting the same neural structures through which he/she feels those same emotions. In recent times several studies have supported this view. In an fMRI study it has been shown that the observation and the imitation of facial expressions related to emotions (e.g., fear, anger, happiness, disgust, sadness) recruits the same neural structures (insula, amygdala and ventral premotor cortex) active during the actual production of those same facial expressions (Carr et al. 2003). It may be argued that these neural structures are endowed with a mirror mechanism devoted to recognition and understanding of emotions similar to the one encoded by mirror neurons and devoted to the understanding of actions. In the same vein, by means of fMRI it has been assessed what cortical areas are active during the personal experience of disgust obtained by inhalation of disgusting substances and during the observation of other individuals inhaling the same substances and feeling the same emotion. The results of this study have demonstrated that the anterior part of the left insula is active both during the actual experience of disgust and the observation and recognition of the same emotion in other people’s faces. It is most likely, therefore, that in this part of the brain there are neurons endowed with a mirror mechanism specifically devoted to disgust (Wicker et al. 2003). Furthermore evidence in this direction also comes from clinical practice: a patient with a lesion centered in the anterior insula was unable to feel disgust, but, most importantly for the aim of our reasoning, he was not able to recognize this emotion on the face of other individuals. Summing up, from the empirical data reviewed above it may be argued that the comprehension of emotions recruits to some extent the same neural structures involved in the subjective and actual experience of those emotions. Interestingly even in the case of pain there might be a mirror mechanism subserving our capacity to perceive and recognize the pain felt by other individuals. Despite pain is not an emotion in the strict sense of the word, there is no doubt that it is accompanied by several emotional states. By recording the activity in the neurons of anterior cingulate cortex in one patient, it has been shown that in this area there are neurons involved both during the subjective perception of pain and when painful stimuli were applied on the body of other individuals (Hutchison et al.1999). In a similar manner, in an interesting fMRI study anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex were recruited during the delivery of painful stimuli to the participants, but also during the painful stimulation of other people. This recruitment was modulated by the kind of personal relationships



Embodied language and the process of language learning and teaching 197

to the person who underwent painful stimulation (Singer et al. 2004) This is not to say that this first person, experiential manner to recognize and interpret emotions is the only way we have to interpret other people’s emotions. There might be situations where other strategies come into play. In an embodied view of language processing it may be assumed that processing words expressing or related to emotions will engage the same neural systems involved in the actual experience of those same emotions (Niedenthal 2007), in the same manner in which motor representations in the brain may be crucial for processing language related material. There are, of course, in the case of the study of words expressing emotions several difficulties due to the intrinsic nature of emotions. In fact they imply, for example, facial expressions, viscero-motor aspects, emotional states so that language can impact emotion, even when there is no direct reference to emotion states (Havas and Matheson 2013). Think of the sentence “The water park is refreshing on the hot summer day”: even if there is no specific emotional content, there is no doubt it will induce positive feelings, or even smiling especially if you are experiencing a terribly hot summer. Despite these complications, there is increasing evidence that the processing of words expressing emotions recruit cortical and subcortical neural structures (including the anterior cingulate cortex, insula, ventral premotor cortex and amygdala), like the corresponding emotional states do (for review see Citron 2012). The fact that emotional language is most likely embodied, like language material referring to actions and objects is, may be at the basis of what Adam Smith noted already in 1759, when he wrote Our joy for the deliverance of those heroes of tragedy who interest us, is as sincere as our grief for their distress, and our fellow-feeling with their misery is not more real than that with their happiness. We enter into their gratitude towards those faithful friends who did not desert them in their difficulties; and we heartily go along with their resentment against those perfidious traitors who injured, abandoned, or deceived them.  (Smith 1759)

Even the charm of literature, to some extent, may reside in a mirror mechanism which allows us to internally enact experiences and emotions of our heroes.

2. Approaches in language teaching LT methodology is concerned with language education and studies the nature of language education from a theoretical point of view. The theoretical component comes into contact and develops a dynamic relationship with the practical dimension consisting of the procedures and practices required to conduct and evaluate the processes of language education (see Balboni 2006). By its nature, LT methodology is part of the human sciences, and is, therefore, a science de l’imprécis (Puren 1997, 2000; see also Moles 1990) but has chosen to deal with the sciences called “natural,” that is with branches of knowledge that make the measurability of data one of their cornerstones. Throughout the twentieth century,

198 Giovanni Buccino and Marco Mezzadri

this led language teaching methodologists to adopt methods and research tools which can be defined “scientific,” objective, thus contributing to the development of scientific fields such as, by way of example, language testing. However, in dealing with the issues of language education and in carrying out research in this area, a tension between needs of different kinds has often emerged. LT methodology has had to face and solve problems related to the practical needs of language education. Therefore it has designed theoretical frameworks of reference within which teaching methods or approaches have been placed. It has also adopted and used knowledge from other scientific areas to find solutions to the problems affecting the main stakeholders of the complex processes of language learning, teaching and assessment. In doing so, LT methodology has sometimes run the risk of examining research data in not sufficiently rigorous and objective terms. Furthermore, it has transferred to its area – sometimes prematurely – theories which are valid in some cases but are not unanimously recognized by the scientific community. This is the case of the theories related to cerebral dominance (Danesi 1988, 1998) or the identification of one or more critical periods in the development of the human brain (Lenneberg 1967; for a critical review Bialystok 2001; Bailey et al. 2001). With regard to these issues, in 2002, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) spoke of “neuromyths” to identify the misuse the world of education had made of some neuroscientific theories in an attempt to find shortcuts which turned out to have little or no validity. It followed that as a result of both pressure to improve overall school performance and excitement and interest about education that could be brain-based, many myths and misconceptions have arisen around the mind and brain outside of the scientific community.  (OECD 2002)

However, sharing Goswami’s perspective, we feel we can say that “the potential for neuroscience to make contributions to educational research is great. Nevertheless, bridges need to be built between neuroscience and basic research in education” (Goswami 2004). One of the premises of LT today is the need to embrace a holistic perspective in dealing with the issues related to language learning and teaching. The learner is taken into account with his various spheres, including the emotional one. LT has long been dealing with emotions in language acquisition and has tried to create teaching approaches aimed at the integration of the different aspects of the individual. We may recall a book which is a milestone and whose title perfectly clarifies the perspective: Humanism in language teaching (Stevick 1990). Since the 1960s the term “humanistic,” to which the concept of “affective” is added, is what has characterized the work of the Italian LT school of Venice supported by scholars such as Titone, Freddi, Balboni (for a review, see Balboni 2012). Recently, this very same school have felt the need for an update of this concept and have shifted to the idea of a teaching approach which they have defined as “cognitive-emotional,” thus summing up the two main aspects (Cardona 2010a/b).



Embodied language and the process of language learning and teaching 199

So the interest in the psychological dimension – a particular impact have had the works of J. Bruner and C. Rogers, but also H. Gardner (1983) and his theory of multiple intelligences – and in research on neurobiological foundations of language and on the acquisition of a language is accompanied by the studies more specifically dedicated to emotions. The meeting point can be found in the research on learning motivation. Moreover, books like Damasio’s Descartes’ Error (1994) and Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence (1996) are particularly influential and reinforce the already initiated reflection on the works of Krashen and Schumann and their integration into the world of LT. It is on the latter that we wish to concentrate now. Following his research of the ‘80s, in the early ‘90s, Schumann proposed a theory of motivation based on a neurobiological perspective, along with other scholars (see Jacobs and Schumann 1992; Pulvermüller and Schumann 1994; Schumann 1994 and 1999). At the center of his theory is the process of stimulus appraisal: in short, the brain evaluates and processes the stimulus that comes from outside and this action leads to a kind of emotional response. The evaluation of the stimulus develops according to five “dimensions”: novelty, attractiveness, need-significance (i.e. the ability of the stimulus to respond to the learner’s needs), coping potential (that is the individual’s feeling to be able to handle the stimulus); social and self-image, that is if and how far the stimulus is compatible with social rules and the self-perception or self-esteem of the individual. Schumann’s five dimensions can be analyzed and further explained as tools or teaching attitudes which can arouse positive emotions in the learner. As a consequence, the perspective inaugurated by Schumann allows research on motivation to embrace new dimensions, weaving their way with that of other scholars who work on similar issues. It is the case of LeDoux (1996), who investigates the neurobiology of emotions and memory processes, or Fabbro (1999), who contributes significantly to associate language education issues with neuroscience. The option which is being offered to language teachers is that of a reinterpretation of the relationship between learning and emotions on the basis of a new role assigned to a crucial aspect of motivation: pleasure. Positive emotions have to help create the right attitude towards learning, generating the pleasure of learning. When the learner has or has reached such a level of motivation, it is sufficient for a teacher to propose something new, possibly in a varied way, to succeed in generating positive emotions and start an efficient learning process. This fortunate situation is not the only one in a language learning context. Learners often study a language for other reasons, they are not motivated by the simple fact that learning arouse positive emotions in them, but rather they feel the need for studying a language or must do so (Balboni 2013). In these cases a teacher has to work harder on their emotions keeping in mind that, as Schumann states, a positive stimulus appraisal is what causes the arousal, the positive reaction which allows learners to start the learning process. Generating positive emotions from the very beginning of the learning process, e.g. during the language lesson, also means inhibiting the creation of affective filters, as Krashen (1981) calls those frequent psychological barriers which clash with any effective learning process, to the point of impairing it.

200 Giovanni Buccino and Marco Mezzadri

Emotions and meaning are also tightly related. Since the ‘60s we have experienced a strong and so far persisting shift of focus from form to meaning and therefore to theories that consider language a system for the expression of meaning. The centrality of meaning and communicative interaction is supported by the work of prominent cognitive psychologists like U. Neisser (1967), as well as by concepts such as D. Ausubel’s successful notion of “meaningful learning” (Ausubel 1968). In the 1960s and ‘70s further research made psycholinguistic studies available to LT methodology which enabled language methodologists to interpret the processes of comprehension, in line with the shift from linguistic form to the communication of meaning. The fact that the processes of comprehension had started to play a key role made it possible to reinterpret communicative interaction between individuals and to investigate what is believed to guide it at the level of brain functioning. The approach is still psychological and leads to pay attention to the proposals of scholars such as, for instance, Goodman (1967) with his idea of the reading process as a “guessing game,” or to the concept of “expectancy grammar” formulated by Oller (1979) or to Minsky’s Frame System Theory (Minsky 1977). The adoption of these concepts had a great influence on language teaching which, for example, began to stress vigorously pre-reading or pre-listening processes, i.e. the phases previous to any form of direct exposure to the text. In this way students’ previous knowledge is activated. In other words, students’ life experiences became strategic and crucial not only for learning but also for teaching purposes. These initial processes are meant to be a driving force for the understanding of the text. Moreover, efficient learning processes are supported and fostered by a meaning-centered approach enriched by an attitude based on the student’s self-fulfillment through the emotions aroused by the motivation and the pleasure of learning through discovery. This is one of the reasons why LT started looking at theories on motivation such as Schumann’s or Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence, but as we have seen the perspective adopted still disregards a closer look at how the human brain works. We hope that an embodied approach to language may offer new ways of studying these aspects and eventually support LT approaches and methods or help innovate them.

3. Embodiment and implications for language teaching What appears central to the embodied approach to language processing is the sensorimotor experience – which, as we have pointed out above, also includes emotional and relational experiences – to which specific language elements such as nouns, verbs, adjectives and words expressing emotional states refer. Experience is central both to language comprehension and language production. If so, this notion is most relevant in our opinion in second language learning and teaching: when a content has to be expressed and learned in a second language, it should refer to something which has already been experienced sensori-motorically and emotionally by the learner. This implies at least four procedural rules for language teachers:



Embodied language and the process of language learning and teaching 201

(1) the content to be taught should be targeted to the learner and revolve around the learner’s experience, e.g. what’s the point of teaching a four-year-old Italian child the word “indigo” in English if he or she has never experienced this color through an indigo object and the word has never been used in his/her mother tongue? While this reinforces language teaching approaches based on graded syllabi, it also underlines the need for a personalization which takes into account the specific and particular learner’s experience. (2) If experience does not support the language elements to be taught, then the first step is to encourage the development of specific sensori-motor experiences which will then be verbally labeled. This means that not only a second language should be taught and learned to be used in communicative contexts but that communicative contexts should be the starting point of any language learning process. In this respect, the process which has seen a methodological evolution from the concept “from form to meaning” to the idea “from meaning to language” should evolve towards the notion of “language as meaning” where meaning is experience. From a methodological point of view this implies, in our view, reconsidering various techniques and approaches such as imitation learning and action learning as premises and prerequisites for language learning. (3) During the language teaching process the approach to any new language input (whether a reading or a listening text, or whichever other text type) should move from the (re)activation of pre-knowledge and experience. Practically, when exposing the learner to a text the teacher should verify the underlying pre-knowledge about the topic during the so called motivation phase of a typical teaching unit and then proceed to fully capitalize and develop both new content and meaning (experience) and the corresponding language labels. When speaking to an Italian child about English breakfast, the teacher has to make sure that the child knows that breakfast defines what you eat in the morning, that in different countries breakfast may be different and so on; only at this stage (when “experience” of breakfast has been verified or, alternatively, acquired) nouns, verbs and other parts of speech together with syntax, follow. (4) By definition emotions bring about a subjective dimension based on personal experiences. The language labelling process of such experiences implies a variety of situations referring to those experiences. So when describing sadness or other words related to sadness, a teacher should elicit the learner’s experience, the same way as we do that when activating verbs or nouns referring to motorically relevant situations. In the case of words defining emotions, the possibilities of language labelling increase because the individual experiences generating emotions are multifacetic. This implies a didactic treatment of semantic fields free from traditional attitudes such as those which deal with the teaching of new words of the same field as something external to experience and somehow objective, therefore in some way not embodied but amodal. A more experiential approach involves the richness of differentiated individualized results, i.e. individual experiences become examples of, for instance, fear and its variations. If a student presents an experience which he or she feels as fearful, other students could upgrade this to a level of frightfulness or to one of terror by appraising the first student’s narrative and relating it to their own experiences.

202 Giovanni Buccino and Marco Mezzadri

In conclusion, in the recent past approaches in language teaching have made attempts to bring to the classroom and translate into teaching practice a number of empirical evidences; this to respond to an increasing need to fill the gap between neuroscience (and brain) and language teaching methodology. We believe that the so called embodied approach to language on the one hand may support further some of the current approaches on an empirical basis; on the other, it may suggest and open new strategies in language teaching focusing on the notion of motor and sensorial experience as a premise and a pre-requisite for any language acquisition.

References Ausubel, David P. 1968. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bailey, Donald B., Bruer, John T., Symonds, Frank J. and Lichtman, Jeff W. (eds). 2001. Critical Thinking about Critical Periods. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Balboni, Paolo E. 2006. The Epistemological Nature of Language Teaching. Perugia: Guerra. Balboni, Paolo E. 2012. Le Sfide di Babele. Torino: UTET. Balboni, Paolo E. 2013. “Il ruolo delle emozioni di studente e insegnante nel processo di apprendimento e insegnamento linguistico.” EL.LE 1 (2): 7–30. Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. “Perceptual symbol systems”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577–609. Baumgärtner, Annette, Buccino, Giovanni, Lange, Rüdiger, McNamara, Adam and Binkofski, Ferdinand. 2007. “Polymodal conceptual processing of human biological actions in the left inferior frontal lobe.” European Journal of Neuroscience 25: 881–889. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05346.x Bialystok, Ellen. 2001. Bilingualism in Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511605963 Binkofski, Ferdinand, Buccino, Giovanni, Posse, Stefan, Seitz, Rüdiger J., Rizzolatti, Giacomo and Freund, Hans J. 1999. “A fronto-parietal circuit for object manipulation in man: Evidence from an fMRI-study.” European Journal of Neuroscience 11: 3276–3286. DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.1999.00753.x Boulenger, Véronique, Roy, Alice C., Paulignan, Yves, Deprez, Viviane, Jeannerod, Marc and Nazir, Tatjana A. 2006. “Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of processing.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18: 1607–1615. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1607 Boulenger, Véronique, Silber, Beata Y., Roy, Alice C., Paulignan, Yves, Jeannerod, Marc and Nazir, Tatjana A. 2008. “Subliminal display of action words interferes with motor planning: A combined EEG and kinematic study.” Journal of Physiology 102: 130–136. Bub, Daniel N., Masson, Michael E. J. and Cree, George S. 2008. “Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words.” Cognition 106: 27–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.010 Buccino, Giovanni, Binkofski, Ferdinand, Fink, Gereon R., Fadiga, Luciano, Fogassi, Leonardo, Gallese, Vittorio, Seitz, Rüdiger J., Zilles, Karl, Rizzolatti, Giacomo and Freund, Hans J. 2001. “Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: An fMRI study.” European Journal of Neuroscience 13: 400–404.



Embodied language and the process of language learning and teaching 203

Buccino, Giovanni, Riggio, Lucia, Melli, Giorgia, Binkofski, Ferdinand, Gallese, Vittorio and Rizzolatti, Giacomo. 2005. “Listening to action-related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: A combined TMS and behavioral study.” Cognitive Brain Research 24: 355–363. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.02.020 Buccino, Giovanni, Sato, Marc, Cattaneo, Luigi, Rodà, Francesca and Riggio, Lucia. 2009. “Broken affordances, broken objects: A TMS study.” Neuropsychologia 47: 3074–3078. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.07.003 Cardona, Mario. 2010a. Il Ruolo della Memoria nell’Apprendimento delle Lingue. Torino: UTET. Cardona, Mario. 2010b. “L’approccio cognitivo-emozionale e il visconte dimezzato.” In Facilitare l’Apprendimento dell’Italiano L2 e delle Lingue Straniere, Fabio Caon (ed.), 26–38. Torino: UTET. Carr, Laurie, Iacoboni, Marco, Dubeau, Marie-Charlotte, Mazziotta, John C. and Lenzi, Gian L. 2003. “Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: A relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic areas.” Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences USA 100: 5497–5502. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0935845100 Cattaneo, Zaira, Devlin, Joseph T., Salvini, Francesca, Vecchi, Tomaso and Silvanto, Juha. 2010. “The causal role of category-specific neuronal representations in the left ventral premotor cortex (PMv) in semantic processing.” Neuroimage 49: 2728–2734. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.048 Chatterjee, Anjan. 2010. “Disembodying cognition.” Language and Cognition 2: 79–116. DOI: 10.1515/langcog.2010.004 Citron, Francesca M. M. 2012. “Neural correlates of written emotion word processing: A review of recent electrophysiological and hemodynamic neuroimaging studies.” Brain and Language 122: 211–226. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.007 Della Volta, Riccardo, Gianelli, Claudia, Campione, Giovanna C. and Gentilucci, Maurizio. 2009. “Action word understanding and overt motor behavior.” Experimental Brain Research 196: 403–412. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-009-1864-8 Damasio, Antonio. 1994. Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Danesi, Marcel. 1988. “Neurological bimodality and theories of language teaching.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10: 13–31. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263100006938 Danesi, Marcel. 1998. Il Cervello in Aula. Perugia: Guerra. Fabbri-Destro, Maddalena and Rizzolatti, Giacomo. 2008. “Mirror neurons and mirror systems in monkeys and humans.” Physiology 23: 171–179. DOI: 10.1152/physiol.00004.2008 Fabbro, Franco. 1999. The Neurolinguistics of Bilingualism. Hove: Psychology Press. Fischer, Martin H. and Zwaan, Rolf A. 2008. “Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61: 825–850. DOI: 10.1080/17470210701623605 Fodor, Jerry A. 1975. The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gallese, Vittorio. 2003. “A neuroscientific grasp of concepts: From control to representation.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Science 358i: 1231–1240. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2003.1315 Gallese, Vittorio and Lakoff, George. 2005. “The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in reason and language.” Cognitive Neuropsychology 22: 455–479. DOI: 10.1080/02643290442000310 Gardner, Howard. 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

204 Giovanni Buccino and Marco Mezzadri

Gibson, James J. 1977. “The theory of affordances.” In Perceiving, Acting and Knowing, Robert Shaw and John Bransford (eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gibson, James J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Glenberg, Arthur M. 1997. “What memory is for.” Behavioral and Brain Science 20: 1–19. Glenberg, Arthur M. and Kaschak, Michael P. 2002. “Grounding language in action.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9: 558–565. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196313 Goleman, Daniel. 1996. Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury. Goodman, Kenneth. 1967. “Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game.” In Journal of the Reading Specialist 6: 126–135. DOI: 10.1080/19388076709556976 Goswami, Usha. 2004. “Neuroscience and education.” In British Journal of Educational Psychology 74: 1–14. DOI: 10.1348/000709904322848798 Gough, Patricia M., Riggio, Lucia, Chersi, Fabian, Sato, Marc, Fogassi, Leonardo and Buccino, Giovanni. 2012. “Nouns referring to tools and natural objects differentially modulate the motor system.” Neuropsychologia 50: 19–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.10.017 Grèzes, Julie, Armony, Jorge L., Rowe, James and Passingham, Richard E. 2003. “Activations related to ‘mirror’ and ‘canonical’ neurones in the human brain: An fMRI study.” Neuroimage 18: 928–937. DOI: 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00042-9 Grèzes, Julie, Tucker, Mike, Armony, Jorge, Ellis, Rob and Passingham, Richard E. 2003. “Objects automatically potentiate action: An fMRI study of implicit processing.” European Journal of Neuroscience 17: 2735–2740. DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02695.x Hari, Riitta and Kujala, Miiamaaria V. 2009. “Brain basis of human social interaction: From concepts to brain imaging.” Physiology Review 89: 453–479. DOI: 10.1152/physrev.00041.2007 Hauk, Olaf, Johnsrude, Ingrid and Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2004. “Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex.” Neuron 41: 301–307. DOI: 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9 Havas, David A. and Matheson, James. 2013. “The functional role of the periphery in emotional language comprehension.” Frontiers in Psychology 4: 294. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00294 Hoenig, Klaus, Sim, Eun-Jin, Bochev, Viktor, Herrnberger, Bärbel and Kiefer, Markus. 2008. “Conceptual flexibility in the human brain: Dynamic recruitment of semantic maps from visual, motor, and motion-related areas.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20: 1799–1814. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20123 Hutchison, William D., Davis, Karen D., Lozano, Andres M., Tasker, Ronald R. and Dostrovsky, Jonathan O. 1999. “Pain related neurons in the human cingulated cortex.” Nature Neuroscience 2: 403–405. DOI: 10.1038/8065 Jacobs, Bob and Schumann, John H. 1992. “Language acquisition and the neurosciences: Towards a more integrative perspective.” Applied Linguistics 13: 282–301. DOI: 10.1093/applin/13.3.282 Jeannerod, Marc, Arbib, Michael A., Rizzolatti, Giacomo and Sakata, Hideo. 1995. “Grasping objects: The cortical mechanisms of visuomotor transformation.” Trends in Neuroscience 18: 314–320. DOI: 10.1016/0166-2236(95)93921-J Jirak, Daniel, Menz, Mareike M., Buccino, Giovanni, Borghi, Anna M. and Binkofski, Ferdinand. 2010. “Grasping language: A short story on embodiment.” Consciousness and Cognition 19: 711–720. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.06.020 Kaschak, Michael P. and Borreggine, Kristin L. 2008. “Temporal dynamics of the action-sentence compatibility effect.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61: 883–895. DOI: 10.1080/17470210701623852



Embodied language and the process of language learning and teaching 205

Krashen, Stephen D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York: Pergamon. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 LeDoux, Joseph. 1996. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Lindemann, Oliver, Stenneken, Prisca, van Schie, Hein T. and Bekkering, Harold. 2006. “Semantic activation in action planning.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32: 633–643. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.633 Mahon, Bradford Z. and Caramazza, Alfonso. 2005. “The orchestration of the sensory-motor systems: Clues from neuropsychology.” Cognitive Neuropsychology 22: 480–494. DOI: 10.1080/02643290442000446 Mahon, Bradford Z. and Caramazza, Alfonso. 2008. “A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content.” Journal of Physiology 102: 59–70. Marino, Barbara F., Gough, Patricia M., Gallese, Vittorio, Riggio, Lucia and Buccino, Giovanni. 2013. “How the motor system handles nouns: A behavioral study.” Psychological Research 77: 64–73. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-011-0371-2 Minsky, Marvin. 1977. “Frame System Theory.” In Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, P. N. Johnson-Laird and P. C. Wason (eds). London: Cambridge University Press. Moles, Abraham A. 1990. Les Sciences de l’ Imprécis. Paris: Seuil. Murata, Akira, Fadiga, Luciano, Fogassi, Leonardo, Gallese, Vittorio, Raos, Vassilis and Rizzolatti, Giacomo. 1997. “Object representation in the ventral premotor cortex (area F5) of the monkey.” Journal of Neurophysiology 78: 2226–2230. Myung, Jong-Yoon, Blumstein, Sheila E. and Sedivy, Julie C. 2006. “Playing on the typewriter, typing on the piano: Manipulation of knowledge of objects.” Cognition 98: 223–243. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.11.010 Neisser, Ulric. 1967. Cognitive Psychology. Des Moines, IA: Meredith. Niedenthal, Paula M. 2007. “Embodying emotion.” Science 316: 1002–1005. DOI: 10.1126/science.1136930 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2002. Understanding the Brain: Towards a New Learning Science Ch. 4.6: 69–77. www.oecd.org. Oller, John W. 1979. Language Tests at School. Harlow: Thomas Longman. Peeters, Ronald, Simone, Luciano, Nelissen, Koen, Fabbri-Destro, Maddalena, Vanduffel, Wim, Rizzolatti, Giacomo and Orban, Guy A. 2009. “The representation of tool use in humans and monkeys: Common and uniquely human features.” The Journal of Neuroscience 29 (37): 11523–11539. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2040-09.2009 Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2002. The Neuroscience of Language. London: Cambridge University Press. Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Härle, Markus and Hummel, Friedhelm. 2001. “Walking or talking? Behavioral and neurophysiological correlates of action verb processing.” Brain and Language 78: 143–168. DOI: 10.1006/brln.2000.2390 Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Hauk, Olaf, Nikulin, Vadim V. and Ilmoniemi, Risto J. 2005. “Functional links between motor and language systems.” European Journal of Neuroscience 21: 793–797. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03900.x

206 Giovanni Buccino and Marco Mezzadri

Pulvermüller, Friedemann and Schumann, John H. 1994. “Neurobiological mechanisms of language acquisition.” Language Learning 44: 681–734. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994. tb00635.x Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Shtyrov, Yuri and Hauk, Olaf. 2009. “Understanding in an instant: Neurophysiological evidence for mechanistic circuits in the brain.” Brain and Language 110: 81–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.12.001 Puren, Christian. 1997. “Concepts et conceptualisation en didactique des langues: Pour une épistémologie disciplinaire.” Études de Linguistique Appliquée 105: 1–3. Puren, Christian. 2000. “Méthodes et constructions méthodologiques dans l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des langue.” Les Langues Modernes 1: 68–70. Pylyshyn, Zenon W. 1984. Computation and Cognition. Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press. Raos, Vassilis, Umiltà, Maria-Alesandra, Fogassi, Leonardo and Gallese, Vittorio. 2006. “Functional properties of grasping-related neurons in the ventral premotor area F5 of the macaque monkey.” Journal of Neurophysiology 95: 709–729. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00463.2005 Rizzolatti, Giacomo, Camarda, Rosalino, Fogassi, Leonardo, Gentilucci, Maurizio, Luppino, Giuseppe and Matelli, Massimo. 1988. “Functional organization of inferior area 6 in the macaque monkey. II. Area F5 and the control of distal movements.” Experimental Brain Research 71: 491–507. DOI: 10.1007/BF00248742 Rizzolatti, Giacomo, Fogassi, Leonardo and Gallese, Vittorio. 2004. “Cortical mechanisms subserving object grasping, action understanding and imitation.” In The Cognitive Neurosciences III, Michael. S. Gazzaniga (ed.), 427–440. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sakreida, Katrin, Schubotz, Ricarda I., Wolfensteller, Uta and von Cramon, D. Yves. 2005. “Motion class dependency in observers’ motor areas revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging.” Journal of Neuroscience 25: 1335–1342. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4170-04.2005 Sato, Marc, Mengarelli, Marisa, Riggio, Lucia, Gallese, Vittorio and Buccino, Giovanni. 2008. “Task related modulation of the motor system during language processing.” Brain and Language 105: 83–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.10.001 Schumann, John H. 1994. “Where is cognition? Emotion and cognition in second language acquisition.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 231–42. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263100012894 Schumann, John H. 1999. The Neurobiology of Affect in Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Singer, Tania, Seymore, Ben, O’Doherty, John, Kaube, Holger, Dolan, Raymond J. and Frith, Chris D. 2004. “Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain.” Science 5661: 1157–1162. DOI: 10.1126/science.1093535 Stevick, Earl. 1990. Humanism in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, Lawrence J. and Zwaan, Rolf A. 2008. “Motor resonance and linguistic focus.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61: 896–904. DOI: 10.1080/17470210701625519 Tettamanti, Marco, Buccino, Giovanni, Saccuman, Maria C., Gallese, Vittorio, Danna, Marco, Scifo, Paola, Fazio, Ferruccio, Rizzolatti, Giacomo, Cappa, Stefano F. and Perani, Daniela. 2005. “Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17: 273–281. DOI: 10.1162/0898929053124965 Tremblay, Pascale, Sato, Marc and Small, Steven L. 2012. “TMS induced modulation of action sentence priming in the ventral premotor cortex.” Neuropsychologia 50: 319–326. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.12.002



Embodied language and the process of language learning and teaching 207

Tucker, Mike and Ellis, Rob. 2004. “Action priming by briefly presented objects.” Acta Psychologica 116: 185–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.01.004 Valyear, Kenneth F., Cavina-Pratesi, Cristiana, Stiglick, Armanda J. and Culham, Jody C. 2007. “Does tool-related fMRI activity within the intraparietal sulcus reflect the plan to grasp?” NeuroImage 36: T94-T108. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.031 Vigliocco, Gabriella, Vinson, David P., Druks, Judit, Barber, Horacio and Cappa, Stefano F. 2011. “Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies.” Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews 35: 407–426. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007 Wheaton, Kylie J., Thompson, James C., Syngeniotis, Ari, Abbott, David F. and Puce, Aina. 2004. “Viewing the motion of human body parts activates different regions of premotor, temporal, and parietal cortex.” NeuroImage 22: 277–288. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.12.043 Wicker, Bruno, Keysers, Christian, Plailly, Jane, Royet, Jean-Pierre, Gallese, Vittorio and Rizzolatti, Giacomo. 2003. “Both of us disgusted in my insula: The common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust.” Neuron 40: 655–664. DOI: 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00679-2