The Brain & Language
The Times of London publishes an excellent monthly scientific supplement, 'Eureka'. The following observations were made in the February 5, 2010 edition, pp21-24, in a report written by Hannah Devlin. (Our comments in brackets).
Until recently it was thought that language processing, of which reading is a part, took place in just two brain areas. However, studies are overturning this view. Dr Joe Devlin of the University College London says, "Something like two thirds of the brain is involved in language processing. It's a whole brain experience". This is supported by a pioneer in the field, Professor Friedmann Pulvermuller of the University of Cambridge. He studies the relationship between language and action and supports Wittgenstein's view that "language is woven into action". Professor Pulvermuller believes that the brain's action system doesn't just respond to meaning - it contributes to it. It's a two-way flow from the language system to the motor-system, so action-areas of the brain are actually used to understand words not just implement them.
Ms Devlin sums up, "It demonstrates scientifically what all great writers have instinctively known all along: that we don't just understand words, we feel them". (Our italics).
And our individual experiences will subtly alter how we feel words. (An obvious example is the personal differences in feelings towards some peoples' names; these are often influenced by our emotional memories of someone with that name). Professor Michael Morris of Columbia University tested this emotional involvement across a range of action words. He took three groups of students and described stock market activity in three ways: with 'agent metaphors' like jumped and climbed; 'mechanical metaphors' such as drop and bounce and simple non-metaphorical descriptors such as increased. The results suggested that exposure to the action agent metaphors worked better in persuading students that any given trend would continue. He suggests that these words make people feel part of the action. His belief is that marketing people instinctively use this language to promote successful outcomes. (Obviously, we think instinct isn't a good enough basis on which to build verbal ID).
Professor Morris also has some stimulating views on how we attribute thoughts, desires and intentions to others (in our case we'd talk about your brand as a person). The latest research says we are much less likely to theorise about a point of view, instead simulating it in our own mind. This is empathetic behaviour. The article quotes Morris as saying, "It shows that simulation is implicitly embedded in language processing". (We believe brands need to make these emotional, rather than functional, verbal connections. And also that language and thinking are inseparable. Ergo, poorly thought through brand language will inevitably suggest poor quality thinking from within the organisation that produces it).
Ms. Devlin concludes "that (language) hijacks almost all of the brain for its own ends is what makes it perhaps the crowning glory of human evolution".
Check out Eureka at www.timesonline.co.uk/eureka
