Call and Response: The Rhythms of Cognition in Literacy

Image by DALLE3

¹Call and response, a pattern rooted historically in sub-Saharan African cultures, offers a compelling framework for pedagogical understanding of human cognition and communication, in my view. Teachers could probably benefit from learning names and locations of the sub components of the human brain, but laypeople are fully capable of grasping the gist of the significance of recent insights without the labels.

According to recent neuroscience, this rhythmic exchange of call and response mirrors the firing of neurons in our brains during both writing and reading processes. The “call” activates parts of the brain to spark speaking and writing, the response activates parts of the brain co-occurring with reading. Writers think and then wrap their thoughts in a blanket of words. Readers turn back the blanket of words and return them to thought, retracing the writer’s journey.

In an effort to deepen my perspective on a number of issues arising this summer from public debates about the Science of Reading, the nature of human consciousness, and the horrors of artificial intelligence, I decided to visit the CSUS library for a search of research on how coordination works between Wernicke’s area, associated with language comprehension, and Broca’s area, associated with language production. Before reading several 2024 studies mostly from the Neurobiology of Language I thought I had a functional grasp of these areas. I now realize that my understanding has been not only impoverished, but reductive.

Suspecting that Wernicke had to be involved even when Broca was talking, I was ecstatic to find I was right, though for the wrong reasons. I was missing the big picture. Examining shared neural activities between Wernicke's and Broca's areas, on the cutting edge of the journals, uncovers a cognitive symmetry between the writer's 'call' and the reader's 'response.’

My new perspective bridges neuroscience and literacy studies while resonating with Bakhtinian concepts of dialogism and utterance. As I explored this cognitive call and response between Wernicke and Broca, I began to apprehend how the brain's domain-specific areas (reading and writing) and global or general cognitive work (communicate) harmonize human comprehension and composition.​ It takes two small motors cranking away in pockets of the brain and a whole brain. Without the whole brain nothing is gained.

It turns out that Language is indeed Whole, and so is the brain. Three cheers for Whole Brain instruction, the next progressive reform movement.

***

In this upcoming section I urge you to read with caution. I’m not hallucinating, but I am well out of my depth and am basing these broad comments on insights I came to while reading a small collection of studies from current scholarly journals in neuroscience. Neuroscientists who may happen to be reading please comment and correct any serious misunderstandings on my part.

I want to use what I’ve learned to turn the neurological activity of the human brain into a metaphor for a community of learners. Within the community there isn’t just one kid with a Broca’s area, a specialized location for speech, there are as many Broca’s as there are learners, and they are all unique. The way to strengthen each Broca is by speaking to one another.

My first big insight—a duh (sigh) moment for me—was this: Neural communication brain spots in domain-specific vs general whole brain cognitive activity touch on fundamental questions of brain organization and function. Automobiles must have engines, but they must have tires and brakes as well.

Teachers, especially in narrow disciplines, should pay attention to the idea that subject-specific thinking occurs and relies on the whole brain regardless of the subject. It’s not like when I’m reading or listening I’m working Wernicke and when I’m writing or speaking I’m working Broca or when I’m studying the geography I’m using visual processing locations. My prior understanding of Broca was a place for speech production and articulation, involving the motor planning and execution of speech. It does those things for sure, but not alone, and not only.

Neuroscientists study domain-specific neural communication areas specialized in neural circuits that process information related to particular cognitive domains or tasks (e.g., language, face recognition, spatial navigation). Specific loops often involve specific brain regions specialized for certain functions, and they are more efficient and faster in processing domain-relevant information, sometimes developing through experience and learning. Dedicated task areas afford rapid, automated processing as well as growth of expertise in specific domains.

General cognitive neural communication is a whole-of-brain affair. Broader, more flexible neural networks support general cognitive processes applicable across various domains and involve multiple brain regions, crossing traditional functional boundaries. They adapt to novel situations and tasks and are slower but more flexible than domain-specific loops. Working memory engages at least three and probably more brain regions while attention networks share one region with working memory and two regions not involved in working memory. The executive function is located in one particular location with tons of connections to other regions across the expanse of the brain.

Scripted phonics teaching broken down in micro steps may well strengthen Broca’s area. This area, however, is never functionally separate from Wernicke’s area, and both areas must learn to work under the executive function, which has an actual dedicated place. For example, reading a novel text involves both language-specific loops and general attention and working memory networks. The balance and efficiency of domain-specific vs. general loops can vary between individuals, contributing to cognitive strengths and weaknesses, another reason not to teach to a brain area in isolation. Learners need to learn how their brains work by using them.

In the field there is debate about even the existence and extent of domain-specific processing. Advanced neuroimaging techniques are revealing awfully complex connectivity patterns that support both specific and general cognitive processes. The distinction between domain-specific and general cognitive loops has interesting parallels in artificial intelligence, particularly in the debate between specialized vs. general AI systems. As near as I can tell, experts in artificial intelligence are of thirteen minds, like Wallace Steven’s blackbirds, when it comes to the future arrival of true general AI.

*****

Exploring call and response through a Bakhtinian lens offers a theoretical perspective on language, communication, and meaning-making to illuminate both human pedagogy and the role of AI, though I will comment in a separate post on AI. Mikhail Bakhtin, a Russian philosopher, developed several key concepts that align well with the idea of call and response, Wernicke and Broca. Dialogism is a core concept: Bakhtin viewed all language and thought as inherently dialogic, meaning that every utterance is in a conversation with other utterances, past and future.

I call to you about the dialogical nature of language, the idea that every thought one has or hears or reads demands that one’s inner voice responds; you respond to my call about dialogism by using your inner voice to find a place for the idea in your own perspective. You find a place for it, or you reject it, or you pass it by thoughtlessly, and the action you take shapes future utterances, calls you make. Without this push and pull of ideas in separate minds, linking knowledge and meaning among individuals in communities of learning, language would be meaningless and therefore without purpose—much like a phonetic text devoid of content or a rote reading of a history book.

Heteroglossia, the presence of multiple voices or perspectives within a single linguistic expression, is the place where Bahktin reaches for the executive function, located in the prefrontal cortex with tentacles throughout the brain. Every reader faces heteroglossia, because every writer is but a partner in the activity, and both must be aware of outside voices speaking to them. Sometimes a writer is a mouthpiece for an ideology or a product, using the voice of power camouflaged in the warmth of a human voice. Awareness of the multiplicity of voices embedded in an utterance and in one’s response ought to be taught in reading and writing classes.

Aware as you are that one voice of this text putting out “calls” about the brain is not an expert in brains, though we have a modicum of evidence that he has one, you must explore these ideas through a heteroglossic filter, a device to separate the chorus speaking through me and through you. I’m revoicing ideas I responded to during recent reading events. I’m giving voice to my biases. My voice is calling out ideas as I understand them from a non-expert’s reading of texts written for cutting-edge experts. My intention is to communicate these ideas as a way to better understand them myself through calling out for your response, and to contribute to teachers’ thinking about pedagogy.

Addressivity is an aspect of language as individuals read or write it during acts of communication. The writer does better by considering an intention with respect to the reader when searching for words. Who am I addressing? What response do I desire? The reader reads more deeply by considering addressivity of a text. Writers do not put a return address on texts. Texts are one-way streets. Nonetheless, every utterance is directed towards someone, even if that someone is myself, and anticipates a response, and during the reading the responsive reader thinks about the degree of fit between the writer’s intentions and the actual response constructed by the reader. Every text “calls” for a response and places a responsibility on the reader to answer. Neither writer nor reader can complete a literacy event without keeping a close eye on the other.

*****

The cat is out of the bag. Experts know far more about how the brain works than they know about how to teach to it, but much still remains to be learned about the brain. Advocates for phonics first are not applying brain research to instructional materials but cherry picking. The studies in my reference list emphasize that brain functioning is a global matter. There are specific areas that handle specific jobs, but always within the context of a Whole Brain using Whole Language. There is no particular reason to assume that teaching to a specific area is required. As a layman in brain science—indeed, like many of the advocates of phonics are—the Science of Reading is far ahead of its skis. In fact, unless I’m completely misunderstanding the studies, findings even about specific brain areas are not yet firm. Janke, Liem, and Merillat (2020), for example, were at a loss to explain their findings vis a vis the accepted wisdom:

“Interestingly, in our study, the brain metrics for Broca's area are unrelated to language comprehension and even verbal fluency. This is, indeed, astonishing since verbal fluency and semantic retrieval have been shown to be related to activations in the vicinity of Broca's area. That we have not found a strong relationship between the brain metrics for Broca's area and the language functions is difficult to explain without slipping too much into speculations” (p.1132).

Educators should recognize that language processing and learning are intricate, interconnected processes that engage multiple brain regions simultaneously. The call-and-response pattern, mirroring neural activities in areas like Wernicke's and Broca's, underscores the importance of interactive, dialogic approaches to teaching reading and writing.

Rather than focusing on isolated skills, educators should aim to create rich, contextualized learning environments that engage both domain-specific and general cognitive processes. Understanding the brain's plasticity and individual variations in cognitive strengths emphasizes the need for adaptive teaching strategies. Teachers are professionally responsible for attending to the brain functioning of their learners, not to implementing an instructional recipe that may or may not fit the situation.

Embracing Bakhtin's concepts of dialogism and heteroglossia can guide educators in fostering critical thinking and diverse perspectives in language instruction. Ultimately, effective language education should reflect the brain's holistic uptake and output of language, integrating specific cognitive and psycholinguistic skills within broader communicative contexts, and encouraging learners to actively engage in meaningful dialogue with texts and ideas. By aligning teaching methods with the brain's natural processes, educators can create more effective, engaging, and impactful learning experiences that prepare students for the complex linguistic demands of the modern world.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1. How to cite this article: Jäncke L, Liem F, Merillat S. Are language skills related to structural features in Broca's and Wernicke's area?. Eur J Neurosci. 2021;53:1124–1135. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.1503

Species-specific calls activate homologs of Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas in the macaque. Ricardo Gil-da-Costa1–4, Alex Martin2, Marco A Lopes1, Monica Mun˜oz5, Jonathan B Fritz6 & Allen R Braun1

Citation: Orpella, J., Flick, G., Assaneo, M. F., Shroff, R., Pylkkänen, L., Poeppel, D., & Jackson, E. S. (2024). Reactive inhibitory control precedes overt stuttering events. Neurobiology of Language, 5(2), 432–45

Citation: Wolna, A., Szewczyk, J., Diaz, M., Domagalik, A., Szwed, M.,& Wodniecka, Z. (2024). Tracking components of bilingual language control in speech production: An fMRI study using functional localizers. Neurobiology of Language, 5(2), 315–340. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00128 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00128

RESEARCH ARTICLE | APRIL 10 2019 Wernicke’s area and broca’s area in functional connectivity of language Fernando Villanueva Junes; Eduardo Barragan; Daniel Alvarez; Pilar Dies; Silvia Hidalgo Tobon AIP Conf. Proc. 2090, 040012 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5095915