Investigating the Validity of Neurolinguistic Approaches through Previously and Recently Made Studies

Abstract

Purpose: To introduce the schools of neurolinguistics from the point of view of specialists from different fields which are related in one way or another to this field (neurolinguistics) and to review analytically a number of the studies wherein it has been decided to what extent each neurolinguistic approach is valid according to its proof or disproof in the mentioned studies (theses and dissertations).
Method: Only books, theses and dissertations have been used as the data of this research-paper; therefore, this research-paper is qualitative, theoretical, comparative and analytic, that is it has nothing to do with statistics or other practical (applied) research tools.
Results and Conclusions: Results indicated that different tools and techniques have been used in the reviewed researches to decide on the validity of neurolinguistic approaches which merely include: computer-tomography scan (CTS) with x-ray use, magnetic- resonance imaging (MRI), functional-magnetic resonance imagining (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), positron-emission tomography (PET) and magnetic encephalography (MEG). Other techniques include computer-simulation, priming, dichotomy, Wada test, and psycholinguistic modeling. Additionally, analysis of reviewed studies have come to support to a great extent either (localizationists’ view) or (connectionists’ view). In other words, other approaches namely (holists’ view) and (unitarism’s view) have appeared to be [invalid]. Other approaches like (Equi-potentiality theory) appears to some extent in some cases (patients) whom their right hemispheres showed some marks of linguistic abilities, but the idea that the two hemispheres work equally and can do the same job concerning language is [invalid]. Regarding (dynamic-localizationists) and (based-evolutionists), as far as I am concerned and with the reference to the results of the above mentioned studies, they are more like (connectionists’ and Localizationists’) views, but with a little bit differences which means they are [valid] but not as clearly discussed and used as (connectionism) and (localizationism).