Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture

10

General Semantics Bulletin

Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture

BRAIN AND MEANING*

by

Karl H. PribramStanford University

There are few species-specific Referencebehaviors that characterize homo aa-gDZ and even these are found in pri-mordial form in the great apes . Thelist is interesting : the fact that fe-males have the potential for beingsexually active throughout their cycle,also true of pygmy chimpanzees (1);humor and laughter, also present inKoko the gorilla (2) ; the ability tocreate cognitive commodities (such asbicycles, automobiles, agricultural crops,musical instruments, churches and thelike), analogously observed by Goodallin chimpanzees in the wild. (3) But,as in the case of the natural languages,where signs in American Sign Languagecan be taught to the extent of three-word strings, these abilities remainprimitive. (4) Only humans make com-plex natural languages and language-likestructures such as mathematics andmusic. Of these, the natural languagesare the most universal. The questiontherefore arises as to what is differentabout bt= sapiens that allows lin-guistic communication .

One answer is that human brainsmake the difference : brain damagelocalized to separate brain systems isaccompanied by disturbances of lan-guage which distinguish different lin-guistic aspects from one another .This essay reviews the evidence forthese distinctions.

The Development of Referential Pro--cessing

A neurolinguistic analysis of lan-guage systems can profitably beginwith speculations on the origins oflanguage framed in the distinctionsderived from Charles Peirce . (5) Lin-guistic processing most likely began asvisual-gestural communication, andonly later became audiovocal . Thereis considerable evidence that initiallyprimate communication proceeded byestablishing a reciprocal relationshipbetween image (icon) and information(indicant, index) using visual-gesturalmechanisms. Thus, as noted, apeshave been taught to indicate theircommunications by American Sign Lan-guage, and the cave paintings of earlyman suggest considerable skill at iconicsymbolization. A plausible scenario ofthe origins of SDeech might be thatfrustrations with visual-gestural com-munication due to darkness aroundcampfires, distance, or other awkwardcircumstances became expressed invocalizations which then became differ-entiated into tokens for the unseengestures. In this fashion, the vocalexpressions became symbols and signsinitially standing in lieu of images(icons) and information (indicatingobjects and events), and then supplan-ting the gestures entirely because of

*Presented as the 1984 Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture at the Yale Club,New York, November 9, 1984.

Number 52 . 1985

overwhelming adaptive advantage. Inshort, the expressions became words.

It is likely that these first expres-sions of frustrations were holophrasesrelated to actions. The human propen-sity is to nominalize and so holophrasesindicating experienced processes becamenouns denoting things. But thingsdeprived of action become static andtherefore fail to adequately representexperience. Predication resolves thisinadequacy and the propositional utter-ance is born.

jage and Information in Referentialprocessing

As documented by Piere Marie,Bay, and Hacaen and Angelergues (6),a central language processor based onthe auditory projection system and itsassociated cortex accounts for much oflanguage processing. With use of adja-cent accessory "poles" in the precen-tral, parietal, and occipotemporal corti-ces, expressive, somatic, and visualcommunication is established simply byan overlap of functional areas . Theprimary auditory projection is ideallyplaced for such overlap. The derivationof the acoustic system from gill andjaw is reflected in the cortex by thefact that auditory projections encom-pass both somatic area II superiorly,and motor face and mouth areas ante-riorly. (7) Even when such proximitydoes not exist, "associations" withinthe primary projection are presentinnately or established through learning .(8) Electrocortical evidence obtainedin the visual mode shows cells to bepresent that react to auditory stimula-tion (9), to the presence or absence ofreinforcement, and to the intention ofmaking a specific movement . (10) Theroute by which such "associations" areestablished is unknown, but in theauditory cortex the path need not belong.

For the most part, the centrallanguage processor is located in theleft hemisphere in right-handed individ-

11

uals. As noted, words and propositionsinitially refer to objects and events,and as such become indicants pointingto alternatives. In view of the factthat when such indicators are audio-vocal, they are arbitrary, they consti-tute symbols (according to Peirce'sdefinition) . Shannon and Weaver (11)developed a measure of the number ofalternatives indicated by a communi-cation . This measure was called thequantity of uncertainty reduced by theamount of information conveyed. Sym-bolic linguistic communication, primarilya left-hemisphere function, thus reflectsthe information processing competenceof this hemisphere.

What then is the role of the ho-mologous formations of the right hemi-sphere? To the extent that parts ofimages can "stand in" for the whole,such stand-ins become signs of theimages -- and of the objects andevents which are imaged. The cornerof a mouth, a raised eyebrow, becomesigns not only of the fact of a personbut of the expressions being communi-cated by that face . Signification, non-verbal communication, primarily a right-hemisphere function, thus reflects theimage processing competence of theright hemisphere .

Pragmatics

Syntaematics and Rhetoric

But by what mechanism are thesehigher-order symbols and signsachieved? A most likely possibility isthat pragmatic processing involvingthe functions of the frontolimbic fore-brain continuously modifies image andinformation processing once vocal ex-pression becomes involved in communi-cation. The limbic systems are primar-ily concerned with monitoring thestates of the organism that are expres-sed as hunger, thirst, sex, etc. (12)In addition, the intensive aspects ofpain and temperature are regulated bythese systems. (13) These basic func-tions are reflected in higher-order

12

processes as establishing the needs anddesires, i.e., the basis for the utilitiesthat determine what reinforces theorganism's behavior. (14) In essence,therefore, these systems establish aninternally determined pragmatic pontextwithin which the organism approachesthe world. This internal context isexpressed in aphasics when they com-municate their feelings through gesturesand explicatives, and with "emotional"language and simple songs . (15)

The limbic forebrain shares regula-tion of context-dependent behaviorwith that part of the frontal cortexwhich has been developed so highly inhumans, and which has been shown tofunction as the "association" area ofthe limbic systems. (16) This polarportion of the frontal cortex makespossible the distribution of behavioralresponses according to the probabilitythat the behavior will have an effectiveoutcome, i.e., that it will be reinforc-ed. (17) Thus, frontal cortex partici-pates in determining the utilities which,as noted, organize the context withinwhich an organism approaches hisworld. (Utilities are defined in eco-nomic theory as derived multiplicativelyfrom desires and probabilities .)

Linguists and psychologists haveup to now paid little heed to the prag-matics of language . The line of evi-dence and reasoning pursued here sug-gests that pragmatic processes arederived from mechanisms that establishdesirabilities and the probabilities ofreinforcement given a particular stateof desire. The linguistic expression ofsuch pragmatic processes would there-fore be episodic, i.e., would be depen-dent on momentary state. Some mne-monic mechanism must also be involvedsince state change is monitored andoutcome (reinforcement) probabilityestimates are made. Cognitive psychol-ogists often refer to such mnemonicprocesses as short-term, but more re-cently and accurately the process hasbeen defined as "episodic" memory (18)to distinguish it from more universally


applicable semantic stores .

Forming a Language The R;le ofPausing and Parsing

In nonhuman primates, lesions ofthe frontolimbic forebrain but not ofthe posterior convexity, interfere withthe performance of a task which canbe used as a model for relating episod-ic, context-dependent constructions tolinguistic processing . This task is thedelayed alternation procedure duringwhich a subject is reinforced for alter-nating his responses between two boxes .During the interval between opportu-nities for response, an opaque screenhides the boxes . The screen is kept inplace for 5 - 60 seconds, depending onhow difficult one chooses to make thetask. When the interval between op-portunities is equal, subjects withfrontolimbic lesions invariably fail thetask; i.e., they seem to forget whichbox they previously chose, successfullyor unsuccessfully. When, however, theintervals between opportunities aremade unequal though regular -- e.g., 5sec before box 1 must be chosen and15 sec before box 2 is the correctchoice -- then the deficit is quicklyovercome. (19)

The reason for performing theabove experiment was that it seemedas if a monkey's failing the alterna-tion task were in much the same situa-tion as a person hearing or reading aparagraph in which letters and wordswere separated by equal intervals .Thus MARESEATOATSANDDOESEAT-OATSANDLITTLELAMBSEATIVY isunintelligible until parsed into words .In general, chunking (20) has beenfound to be an essential processingmechanism when the limits of com-petency are involved. (21) In humans,the pragmatic, prosodic aspects oflanguage are handled primarily by theright hemisphere (22), perhaps its fron-tal portion. The tests used to deter-mine this are flashes -- noise, patternmasks, and tests for rhyming based onmeaningful and non-meaningful words,

Number 52, 1985

i.e., matched semantically or phonet-ically .

It is remarkable that the sameparts of the brain are responsible forthe operations that determine contextby way of pragmatic processing andthose that determine the pauses neces-sary to parsing utterances, i.e., expres-sions into phrases and words . Thisidentity of neural substrate suggeststhat pauses in speech provide the con-textual cues within which the logicalcontent becomes related to the speak-er's state : his mood, his momentarydesires, and probability estimates ofsuccess in meeting those desires . Prag-matic processing forms (gives form to)the linguistic production . The prosod-ies, the pauses, inflections, and thedynamic range of speech form thecontext in which the content of thecommunication occurs. This rhetorical,idiosyncratic aspect of language forma-tion may be responsible for the rapidtransformation of a language into dia-lect by an intimate group and thus thevariety of languages used by man .

Further, this relationship betweenpragmatics and the farm of languageexpression may underlie the process ofpredication . Making words into senten-ces would not be necessary unless astatement about state, about desireand belief (probability), etc., were atstake . Thus predication stems frompragmatic processing while nomination,i,e., making words more universallymeaningful, results from semantic imageand information processing.

Syntactics

The Structural Aspects of Language

What then is the role of syntax?Syntax must reflect both the pragmaticform, the rhetoric, of language and itsreferential meaning, its semantics .Neurologically, both the frontolimbicforebrain and the posterior convexityof the brain are directly connected tosuch subcortical motor structures as

13

the basal ganglia, which are known toregulate postural and sensory sets . (23)These basal structures are, in turn,intimately connected with the centrallylocated motor cortex which organizesskills .

Over the past three decades agreat deal has been learned about thehierarchical nature of processing infor-mation by the use of symbols . (24)The construction of programs thatmake serially operating computers intoeffective data storage and retrievalmechanisms has shown that such pro-grams must categorize data into itemswhich can be universally retrieved andare thus essentially context-free.Hierarchies of such context-free items(bit ----> bytes --> words) are thencompiled into assemblers, which inturn are the elements of more complexprogramming languages .

The importance of this distinctionbetween syntactic forms is broughthome by the types of grammar thathave been found useful in analyzinglinguistic performances . The simplestof these are the stochastic and state-dependent grammars in which any par-ticular utterance falls out, as it were,of the probabilities set up by previousutterances. Flesch counts of the inci-dence of usage of words in the Englishlanguage are based on such a modeland have been found wanting in ex-plaining not only natural speech (25)but also language disabilities due tobrain damage . (26) A more effective,though still limited, model has beenphrase structure grammar in which thehierarchic relationships between group-ings of utterances are mapped. One ofChomsky's major contributions hasbeen to demonstrate the limitations ofthe phrase structure grammar and tosuggest (I) that transformations (opera-tions on redundancy, on the repetitiveaspects of language) occur in language ;(ii) that these transformations are gov-erned by rules which transcend thehierarchical organizations of phrasestructures; and (iii) that these rules

14

evoke meaning. What has occupiedChomskian linguistics for the pasttwenty years is to specify what suchrules might look like .

Procedures

More recently, cognitive psycho-logists interested in simulating humanexperience and behavior have foundthat exclusive reliance on hierarchicalorganization does not reflect the fullnature of human perception, action,and communication. Even the relativelysimple process of compiling demandsarbitrary decisions that are specific tothe "episode" or situation, e .g., theparticular computer in Ug. More andmore, these investigators have resortedto the construction of episode-specificprogram clusters that can be flexiblyswitched into an ongoing programwhenever a situation so demands . (23)As noted earlier, in primates evidencehas accumulated to support the hypoth-esis that the frontal cortex operatessuch a context-sensitive mechanism andbecomes, in this sense, the executiveorgan of the brain. (27)

Computer scientists have also beendeveloping organizations of programsthat can make them function moreusefully. The new developments gounder such names as "procedures" (28),"scripts" (29), etc. They are eminentlypragmatic in that they group togetherin a cluster those routines (parts ofprograms) that are repeatedly used,mark the cluster, and call up thatmarked cluster whenever it is needed.The advantage of such procedures isthat computation can simultaneouslyproceed in several clusters and theresults of the computation are flexiblyaddressed in response to some over-arching "executive" program . (29)

Music and Language

I have elsewhere (29) drawn thecomparison between the functions ofthe frontal cortex of primates andsuch executive procedures . The neuro-


behavioral evidence thus suggests thata procedural pragmatics is the basisfor transformational rules . Bernsteinhas identified in his pursuit of linguis-tic analysis of music (30) one verypowerful set of procedures for us : (a)repetition, (b) variation in repetitionsthat generate novelty (note that "in-vention" and "inventory" share thesame root), and (c) deletions of repeti-tions which generate potential meaningsthrough ambiguity (thus we are dealingonce again with a generative syntax) .My neurobehavioral results obtained onnonhuman primates suggest that thisset of procedures is generally applicableto the problem of specifying the natureof transformations and of a generativegrammar. It is for this reason that Ifound Bernstein's contribution excitingand valuable.

The analysis, should it prove viable,has an interesting consequence forunderstanding music and natural lan-guage -- especially as used in poetry.These consequences are that the evoc-ative aspects of cognitive competenciesare not so much due to transforma-tional rules as they are to transforma-tional proceoures. The search forhierarchically organized rule-structuresleads in every instance to a phrase-structure grammar. Transformationson these phrase structures are episode-specific, involve a large amount ofhistoricity, occur within the contextof phrase structures, and are extremelycontext-sensitive. Whether one wishesto call such relatively arbitrary (i.e.,context-dependent) procedures "rule"-governed remains an open question .The resemblance is more to a casethan to a phrase structure, as hasbeen emphasized by Fillmore . (31)The important point is that the struc-ture of transformational procedures isdistinct from a hierarchically organizedphrase-structure grammar, and thatdifferent brain systems are involved inorganizing the hierarchical and trans-formational structures .

I believe that comparing music

Number 52, 1985

with natural language is most reward-ing : Despite the severely limited infor-mation processing and resulting refer-ential semantics, music is rich in mean-ing. This meaning is derived frompragmatic procedures which also enrichnatural languages, especially in theirpoetic usages . Pragmatic proceduresare based on repetition, on variationsof repetitions, and on deletions ofexpected repetitions. It is processessuch as these which have been shownto be functions of the frontolimbicformations of the forebrain which cantherefore be considered to constructthe long sought-after principles oftransformations which are the corner-stone of Chomskian generative grammar .Transformations are shown, however,to be procedural in that they are epi-sode- and context-specific rather thanhierarchically organized : Case-struct-ural rather than phrase-structural .Pragmatic variations on repetitions,deletions of expected phrases, associa-tive clusterings involving a largeamount of historicity can be sharplydistinguished from hierarchically orga-nized rule structures . This analysis,based on the study of music, has thusproved a fascinating and unsuspectedlyfruitful foray into cognitive science .

The Inside and Outside of LanLruage

A Cultural Hypothesis

The fact that aphasics can stillexpress their feelings through exple-tives, and even "emotional" languageand simple song (which, as noted above,have been shown to be related to thelimbic portions and the right hemi-sphere of the forebrain) would fit theconception that the neurolinguisticsystem damaged in aphasia primarilyaddresses semantic processes and doesnot involve pragmatics . How, then,does the pragmatic aspect of humanlanguage become involved in communi-cation? It is possible that this occursonly through the environment -- thatthere is no corticocortical connectionnor subcortical convergence involved at

15

9.11. When the neural information pro-cessing system becomes sufficientlypowerful (i.e., has sufficient memoryand coding capability), it can treat thetokens of expression (of others and ofself) as signs, signifying social ratherthan physical situations. This power,of course, would be immensely enhancedwhen memory is augmented externally,and the evocative as well as referentialmeaning feed back to the brain's lan-guage processor by way of the senses .

Pylyshin (32) has suggested a testof cognition penetrability to determineto what extent brain networks areessential to a linguistic processor .When the process is shown independentof global cognitive experience, It islikely to be "wired in." However,Pylyshin is addressing only the hierar-chical aspects of referential processing,not the pragmatics of language as out-lined here. Thus his test of cognitivepenetrability might be a test of theinvolvement of pragmatic mechanisms,not a test of extracranial participa-tion.

Localization

With this neurolinguistic analysisas background, and given the culturalhypothesis as a viable alternative, letus nonetheless examine carefully thepossibility that somewhere within thebrain, the semantic and pragmatic as-pects of language become integral.There is little question that in thehuman cerebral cortex areas can befound that are either absent in sub-humans or present only in rudiment .The large development of frontal cortexin terms of man's vaulting foreheadwas already noted by the early phre-nologists. Equally impressive is thegrowth of the posterior nonprojectioncortex centering on the angular gyrus,and the confluence of parieto-, tem-poral, and occipital cortical formations.(33) Does the quantitative increase inthese cortical structures herald thequalitative transformational changeexpressed as human language?

16

My answer to this question is atentative "no." I reason as follows :if the cortical growth is = 3g to beresponsible for the development ofhuman language, evidence should leadto two major language "centers" : onewell forward in the frontal cortex, theother in the tissues around the angulargyrus. The evidence for and against amajor category of aphasia centered onthe third frontal convolution providesan excellent starting point . If the farfrontal cortex (34) is to be givenweight equal to Wernicke's (12), theidea that new cortical accretions areresponsible for human language is ten-able. So let us look at the problemhanded us by Broca .

All of the evidence (35) showsthat expressive aphasia does not resultfrom damage as far forward as thefrontal pole . To fit the facts of acortical topography peculiar to man,even Broca's area (the third frontalconvolution) is too ventral and pos-terior a location for a new language"center" to be developed in tissue notpresent in subhuman primates. Elec-trical stimulation of the third frontalconvolution, in all primates includingman, arrests facial mimicry as well assyntactic processing . It is thus a para-pyramidal motor area. Further, this isnot the locus of the new cortical ac-cretion.

The place of the territory aroundthe angular gyrus in the developmentof human language is not so easilydisposed of. Aphasic symptoms resultwhen the cortex of the angular gyrusis damaged . But again the match isimperfect (36). All of the evidencepoints to the posterior part of thesuperior temporal gyrus as the locusinvolved in Wernicke's syndrome andholds that Wernicke's is the locus ofprocesses involved in referential com-prehension. Also, as in the case ofthe frontal cortex, although the fit isbetter, the angular gyrus is not exactlythe place of maximum new accretion


of cortex in man; it is somewhat tooclose to the Sylvian fissure to beequated with the considerable anatom-ical development of intrinsic nonprojec-tion cortex .

These mismatches, although someof them are slight, give me an uneasyfeeling when the origin of human lan-guage is attributed simply to thegrowth of new areas in the frontaland posterior intrinsic cortex .

Connections and Disconnections.

If not the new areas directly, per-haps their development brings with itnew functional pathways that allowexpressive and conceptual aspects ofcommunication to interact. This possi-bility is detailed in the aphasia litera-ture under the heading of disconnectionsyndromes most recently advocated byGeschwind. (37) Earlier versions ofthe disconnection view were voiced byFreud, Liepman, and Dejerene . (38)All these authors adduce specific casehistories in support of their suggestionthat one or another major pathway ispathologically involved in the produc-tion of a language (or language-related)disorder. Unfortunately, to date com-prehensive and quantitative behavioralanalyses such as those produced byBay, and Hacaen and Angelergues (6),have not always been performed onsuch patients . Often the anatomicalverification of the lesion also leaves agood deal to be desired : multiple dam-age may be reported when a singlefocus is held responsible for the dis-order; histological serial analysis ofthe entire brain is seldom performed.

Furthermore, Zaidel (22) has showna dissociation between prosodic andphonemic reference in patients withcallosectomy. The connections maywell play an important role in normallinguistic processing, and disconnec-tions under certain pathological condi-tions may produce severe disruption ofsuch processing, Nonetheless, it isequally well documented that these

Number 52. 1985

connections in and of themselves arenot always JIM essential ones necessaryfor normal processing to occur .

Arraigned against the corticocorti-cal disconnection hypothesis are agreat number of subhuman primateexperimental findings . In the monkeyit appears that intrahemispheric cor-ticocortical connections play a minor,if any, role in the organization of thepsychological process . But monkeys donot talk the way humans do . Is thedifference in importance of cortico-cortical pathways the critical reasonwhy they do not? Or do the cortico-subcortical connections shared by allprimates, which up to now have beenignored, play the critical role?

The Centrencechalie Hypothesis_

Convergence of pragmatic andconceptual processing at some subcorti-cal locus or loci is, on the basis ofsubhuman evidence, a serious contenderas an explanation for the emergenceof human language. Subcortical forma-tions are rarely given more than curso-ry inspection when the brains of apha-sics are studied. When the lesion iscaused, as it so often is, by disease ofthe middle cerebral artery, the basalganglia, parts of the thalamus, andmany fiber tracts are affected.Penfield, among others, opted on thebasis of his experience for a centrence-phalic mechanism in the production ofhuman language (39) . Careful surgicalexcisions of cortex so rarely producelasting changes in man or monkey thatone is literally driven to the subcorticalformations for an answer to questionsof localizing the site of disturbances.

The one exception to this is, ofcourse, Wernicke's zone in the posteriorpart of the superior temporal gyrus .(36) Here, because neurosurgeons treadwith extreme caution, data are hard tocome by but opinion is strong and tothe point : in the adult, at least, dam-age is not to be hazarded .

17

The centrality of Wernicke's zoneand the possibility that subcorticalconvergences are critical to the pro-duction of human language make up thecentrencephalic hypothesis. This hy-pothesis takes strength from the sub-human primate experimental resultsthat show that the nonprojection cortexassociated with the auditory mode liesin the midtemporal region (40) ; thatmost likely this cortex exerts its rolein audition through efferents coursingto subcortical stations in the auditoryprojection systems (41) ; that removalof this cortex results even in monkeysin the inability to discriminate vowelsounds (42); and that contrary to anyother cortical removals in subhumanprimates, unilateral damage plays havocwith certain (conditional) types ofsensory discriminations. (43)

The subcortical locus upon whichthe symbolic and signifying processescan conveniently converge has not asyet been conclusively established .From the results of experiments onnonhuman primates, however, the basalganglia and related nuclei in the upperm idbrain are the best candidates(though Ojeman (44) suggests that thethalamus should be seriously consid-ered). These are motor structuresinvolved in producing the muscularsettings necessary to action. It shouldtherefore not be too surprising thatcommunicative and linguistic acts alsodepend on the function of these motorstructures.

Recently, data obtained in thecomputerized tomographic image recon-structive technique (CAT Scans) haveprovided strong evidence that lesionsof the basal ganglia are indeed involvedin aphasia . Thus Naeser (45) hasshown that the head of the caudatenucleus is ordinarily damaged in Broca'saphasia, and, from our own laboratory,evidence presented by William Gordon(46) has indicated that basal ganglialesions rather than cortical involvementcharacterize the syndrome . Gordonhas reviewed his findings and those of

18

others in a lucid and robust support ofthe centrencephalic hypothesis.

In addition, other work by Gordonand Illes (47), utilizing patients withHuntington's Chorea, has related lin-guistic structure, such as pausing andthe relative frequency of use of open-and closed-class words, to the severity

and presumed location of brain damage .These studies have implicated the far-frontal cortex and head of the caudatenucleus in prolonged pausing and exces-sive reliance on open-class words(which becomes extreme in Broca'stype of nonfluent aphasia). Only whenthe chorea is far advanced and damageto Wernicke's area of cortex and theunderlying basal ganglion, the putamen,occurs, does linguistic communicationbecome semantically impoverished .

Thus both the corticortical discon-nections and the centrencephalic hy-pothesis continue to be tenable. Tech-niques to test them are available .

REFERENCES

1. Sue Savage Rumbaugh (private communication).

2 . Patterson, F. & Lindon, E. (1981) JIM education

$okq, New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

3. Lawick-Goodall, J. (1971) In UM Shadow QL IY". Boston : Houghton Mifflin .

4. (a) Gardner, R. A. & B. T. Gardner (1969) "Teaching sign language to a chim-panzee." Wig, 1.Q: 664-672; (b) Patterson, F. G. (1979) Linguistic capabil- .dies Qf g lowland gorilla, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofPsychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA .

5 . Peirce, C. S. (1934) Collected gapers (Vols. I-VI) . Cambridge, MA : HarvardUniversity Press.

6. (a) Marie, P . (1926) Tr uvaux al Memoires, Vol. 1. Paris : Masson; (b) Bay,E. (1964) "Principles of classification and their influence on our concepts ofaphasia." In r?isorders Qj iggguage. A. V. S. de Reuck and M . O'Connor,Eds. : 122-142. Ciba Foundation Symposium . Boston, MA : Little Brown & Co;(c) Hacaen, H. & R. Angelergues (1964) "Localization of symptoms in aphasia ."In nisorderg QL language. A . V. S. de Reuck & M . O'Connor, Eds . : 223-246.Boston, MA : Little Brown & Co .


Quantitative behavioral evaluations ofaphasic patients and serial histologicalreconstructions of their lesions andresulting degeneration (e .g., retrogradechange in the thalamus) will go a longway toward supporting or disconfirmingthe disconnection hypothesis. Especial-ly important is a comprehensive evalua-tion of whether language--related andnonlanguage disturbances are correlatedor whether they are separable when adisconnection syndrome is suspected .

With regard to the centrencephalichypothesis, the current vogue in elec-trical stimulations of deep brain struc-ture should uncover evidence regardingpossible subcortical language mecha-nisms, as should the lesion evidencecoming from computerized tomographyand nuclear magnetic resonance. Suchstudies, over the next decade, shouldprovide the necessary crucial facts totest the centrencephalic hypothesis .

Number 52 . 1985

19

7. Pribram, K. H., B. S. Rosner & W. A. Rosenblith (1954) "Electrical responsesto acoustic clicks in monkey : Extent of neocortex activated." J, jqeurophysiol,,11: 336-344.

8 . Pribram, K . H., D. N. Spinelli & M . C. Kambak (1967) "Electrocortical corre-lates of stimulus response and reinforcement ." Sciences 1Z: 95, 96,

9. Spinelli, D. N., A. Starr & T. Barrett (1968) "Auditory specificity in unit re-cording from cat's visual cortex ." L U . Ngurol., 2,: 75-84.

10. Spinelli, D. N. & K . H. Pribram (1970) "Neural correlates of stimulus responseand reinforcement." Bra 2=., 17: 377-385 .

11. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W . (1949) fl mathematical theory g$ communica-tins. Urbana, IL : University of Illinois Press .

12. (a) See Pribram et al., see (8) above; (b) Pribram, K. H. (1971) Languages, gfUg Brain : Experimental paradoxes wW principles in ueuropsycholovy. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall .

13. Ibid., Chaps. 9 and 10.

14. (a) Pribram, K. H. (1977) "Peptides and protocritic processes." In L. H. Miller,C. L. Sandman, & A. J. Kastin (Eds.), NenrppFptide influences ga .U& brAingpcJ behavior. New York : Raven Press, pp. 213-232; (b) Pribram, K. H. (1977)"Values : A sociobiological analysis ." In I search f= absolute values :Harmony among tg sciences. New York : ICF Press, pp. 641-651; (c) Douglas,R. J. & K. H. Pribram (1966) "Learning and limbic lesions ." Neurgpsychologia,4: 197-220; (d) Pribram, K. H., R. Douglas, & B. J. Pribram (1969) "The natureof non-limbic learning ." J, Comp. phwiol. psychol., &.- 765-772.

15. (a) Robinson, B. W. (1976) "Limbic influences on human speech ." Am. wYork Acad. 5j., 2$Q: 761-771; (b) Myers, R. E. (1976) "Comparative neurologyof vocalization and speech : Proof of a dichotomy." Am. N&y York .j., Z$Q: 745-757 .

16. Pribram, K . H. (1958) "Comparative neurology and the evolution of behavior ."In A. Roel & G. G. Simpson (Eds.), behavior Und evolution . New Haven, CT :Yale Univ. Press, pp. 140-164,

17. Pribram, K. H. (1961) "A further experimental analysis of the behavioral defi-cit that follows injury to the primate frontal cortex ." LAD. Neurol., a, pp .432-466 .

18. (a) Pribram, K. H. (1984) "Brain systems and cognitive learning processes." InH . L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.), teal cognition.Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum, pp. 627-656; (b) Tulving, E. (1970) "Short term andlong term memory : Different retrieval mechanisms." In K. H. Pribram & D.Broadbent (eds.), Tg Biology gf Memory. New York : Academic Press; (c)Tulving, E. (1972) "Episodic and semantic memory ." In E. Tulving & W.Donaldson (eds.), Organization gf Memory . New York : Academic Press .

19. (a) Pribram, K. H. & W. E. Tubbs (1967) "Short-term memory, parsing, and the

20


primate frontal cortex ." Science, JK: 1765-1767; (b) Pribram, K . H., H. C.Plotkin, R. M . Anderson, & D. Leong (1977) "Information sources in the delayedalternation task for normal and 'frontal' monkeys." l europsychologj, 1k:329-340.

20. (a) Miller, G. A. (1956) "The magical number seven, plus or minus two, or,some limits on our capacity for processing information." Psychol. ggy., L3:81-97; (b) Simon, H. A. (1974) "How big is a chunk?" Science, lU: 482-488 .

21. McGuinness, D. & K. H. Pribram (1975) "Arousal, activation and effort in thecontrol of attention." psych, Review, 61: 116-149.

22. (a) Moscovitch, M. (1983) "Stages of processing and hemispheric differences inlanguage in the normal subject." In M. Studdert-Kennedy (Ed.), PsychobiologyQL language. Cambridge, MA : The MIT Press, pp. 88-104; (b) Zaidel, E. (1983)"On multiple representations of the lexicon in the brain ; The case of twohemispheres." In M. Studdert--Kennedy (Ed.), Psychobiology Qi language.Cambridge, MA : The MIT Press, pp. 105-125.

23. Miller, G. A., E. Galanter, & K. H . Pribram, (1960) glans and LLQ, structure Qibehavior. New York : Holt. (Chap. 14).

24. Pribram, K. H. (1977) "New dimensions in the functions of the basal ganglia ."In C. Shagass, S. Gerson, & A. J. Friedhoff (Eds.), Psychopatholovv gDd bindysfunction. New York : Raven, pp. 77-95 .

25. (a) Howes (1957a) "On the relation between the intelligibility and frequencyof occurrence of English words." J, Acoust. 5g &n=., ?„l : 296-305; (b) Howes(1957b) "On the relation between the probability of a word as an associationand in general linguistic usage." J, . 59.c, Psychol., : 75-85; (c)Howes (1964) "Application of the word-frequency concept to aphasia." InDisorders Qi j,angu4ge . Ciba Foundation Symposium. London : Churchill .

26. Winograd, T. (1977) "Framework for understanding discourse ." StanfordUniversity Monograph. Stanford, CA : Stanford University.

27. Schank, R. C. & R. P. Abelson (1977) Scripts., Ply, Goals, g&d Understanding .Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum .

28. (a) Miller, G . A. & P. Johnson-Laird (1976) La. n~gg WW Perceptioa.Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press ; (b) see Winograd, (26) above; (e)see Schank & Abelson (1977) above .

29. Pribram, K. H, (1973) "The primate frontal cortex --- executive of the brain."In A. R. Luria & K. H. Pribram (eds.), rrontal Lobed UD~d tbg Regulation QfBehavior. New York : Academic Press.

30. Bernstein, L. (1976) Thg W)answered question: ,A talks &t jjarvard, (TheCharles Eliot Norton Lectures .) Cambridge, MA : Harvard Univ . Press .

31. Fillmore, C. J. (1968) "The case for case ." In Universals in linguistic theory.New York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

32. Pylyshin, Z . W. (1983) "A psychological approach." In M. Studdert-Kennedy

Number 52, 1985

21

(Ed.), Psychobiology gj<, )angu4ve. Cambridge, MA : The MIT Press, pp. 1.7-19 .

33, Blum, J. S., K . L. Chow & K. H. Pribram. (1950) "A behavioral analysis of theorganization of the parieto-temporo-preoccipital cortex ." J, Comp. Neurol„ U:53-100.

34. (a) Broca, P. (1.861) "Remarques s ur le siege de la faculte du langage articulesuivies dune observation d'aphemie (perte de la parole)." g;,;1], . S$cieteAnatomique. dg ~a ~: 330-357; (b) Broca, P. (1878) "Anatomie comparee descirconvolutions cerebrales . Le grand lobe limbique et la scissure limbiquedans la serie des manniferes ." gev,. Anthroo., j,,: 385-498; (c) see Pribram etal., (8) above .

35. (a) Luria, A . R. (1964) "Factors and forms of aphasia ." In Disorders gf LUL-guage. A. V. S. de Reuck & M. O'Connor, Eds. : 143-161. Ciba FoundationSymposium . Boston, MA : Little Brown & Co . ; (b) Luria, A.R. (1966) higher,cortical junctions in mom. New York: Basic Books; (c) Penfield, W. & L.Roberts. (1959) Speech 61W brain mechanisms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ .Press; (d) Teuber, H. L. (1960) In Handbook gJ phvsiology : Neurophysiology,Ygl, 3. 1595-1668. J. Field, H. W. Magoun, V. E. Hall, Eds. Washington, DC :American Physiological Soc.; (d) see Pribram et al., (8) above .

36. Bogan, J. E. & Bogan, G. M . (1976) "Wernicke's region -- where is it?" 4U.NeW York Ate. &i., 280 : 834-843 .

37. Geschwind, N. (1965) "Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man ." Br in$$,: 237-294.

38.

39. See (a) Penfield & Roberts, (35b) above ; (b) see Robinson, (15a) above .

40. Dewson, J. H. III, K . H. Pribram & J. Lynch (1969) "Effects of ablations oftemporal cortex upon speech sound discrimination in the monkey ." EXg.Neurol„ ?A: 591-597 .

41.

(a) Freud, S. (1953) Qp aphasic. Authorized and translated by E. Stengel .New York : International Univ. Press; (b) Liepman, H. (1912) "Anatomischebefunde bei a hasischen and apraktischen ." Neurol • „ al: 1524-1530; (c)Dejerene, J. (1914) Semiologie c affections dU cystme nerveuZ.. Paris :Masson et Cie .

(a) Dewson, J. H, III, K . W. Nobel & K. H. Pribram (1966) "Corticofugal influ-ence at cochlear nucleus of the cat : Some effects of ablation of insulartem-poral cortex." Din. $g,5„ ?1 151-159; (b) Nobel, K. W. & J.H. Dewson III(1966) "A corticofugal projection from insular and temporal cortex to thehomolateral colliculus in cat." ,f, AW, $gs., fit : 67-75.

42. Dewson, J. H. III & A. Cowey. (1969) "Discrimination of auditory sequences bymonkeys."

Ire, M: 695-697 .

43. (a) Dewson, see (41a) above ; (b) Dewson, J. H. III & A. C. Burlingame (1975)"Auditory discrimination and recall in monkeys ." Science, ].n, : 267-268 .

44. Ojeman, G. A. (1983) "Localization of common cortex for motor sequencingand phoneme identification ." In M. Studdert-Kennedy (Ed .), Psychobiology gL

22


fig. Cambridge, MA : The MIT Press, pp. 69-76 .

45. Naeser, M. A. (1983) "CT scan lesion size and lesion locus in cortical andsubcortical aphaslas." In A. Kertesz (Ed.), Localization in neuropsychology,pp. 63-119 .

46. (a) Gordon, W . (1983) "Memory disorders in aphasia --- I. Auditory immediaterecall." rieuropsycholoLri% j: 325-339; (b) Gordon, W . (1984) "Neuropsycho-logical assessment of aphasia," in preparation .

47. Gordon & Illes, in preparation.

BIOGRAPHY

Karl Pribram, M.D., Professor of Neuro-science at Stanford University, self-proclaimed "fan of Korzybski," isstrongly qualified to discuss the rela-tionship between general semanticsand its neuro-linguistic, neuro-semanticunderpinnings and implications .

One of the co-originators of holo-gram models of the brain, his interestsspan the wide range of issues relatedto brain-behavior-environment (the"organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environ-ment") including the roles of languageand music (a special language) as orga-nized Ly but grLyanizing the nervoussystem.

Dr . Pribram has written, co-authored, or supervised the productionof 14 books and (at last count) 358scholarly papers. An internationallyknown and much sought after lecturer,his 'footprints' are legion in the litera-ture of the neurosciences. It is prac-tically impossible to examine the indexof a current book on neurology (etc .)without encountering "Pribram, K.H. . . . )"

Dr. Pribram received his under-graduate and medical training at theUniversity of Chicago (M .D., 1941); in1948 he became Diplomate of theAmerican Board of NeurologicalSurgery. His career has been remark-able for its combining of active medicalpractice and teaching with wide-rangingresearch and writing, not avoiding thegrowing edge of disciplined speculation

in the neurosciences . He has heldappointments at leading centersthroughout the United States, amongthem the Yerkes Laboratories ofPrimate Biology and Yale UniversitySchool of Medicine. From 1951 to1958 he was Director of Research andLaboratories at the Institute of Livingin Hartford, CT . His association withStanford dates from 1958 where he isnow Professor in the department ofPsychology and Psychiatry andBehavioral Sciences and Head of theNeuropsychology Laboratories . In 1962Dr. Pribram received the NationalInstitutes of Health Lifetime CareerResearch Award in Neuroscience .

Among his major published worksare BZAJU fln~d Behayigr, Languages QLLJg Brain and his chapter, "BrainMechanisms in Music" in the recentlypublished Music Mind and Brain : T I&Neurgpsy hn o v gL Music (PlenumPress, 1982) .

Documents

Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture