7/27/2019 87.1.Collier

1/5

clause linkers may then be relatively low since the job is effectively done by other means. Theproblems connected with this topic are seen as an issue for further investigation (393).

The universal semantic types of clause linking enumerated above are shown to exist in all lan-guages analyzed in the volume, albeit represented in different ways. The interpretation of certainsemantic types is more dependent on the broader narrative context than others. As Aikhenvaldnotes, this issue requires further investigation.A crosslinguistic study of prosody in clause linking

would also be a most fruitful direction for future research. Although all languages employprosody as an additional means for marking clause linking, it is not always given the attention itdeserves. Apposition of dependent clauses may have a different semantic effect compared withapposition of independent clauses. Further in-depth studies can help us understand how theclause types influence the semantics of linking in various ways. The possible existence of addi-tional semantic subtypes should not be excluded. Further parameters relevant to clause linkingmay relate to the overall grammatical structure of each language. A substantial grasp of the wholegrammar is necessary for an adequate description of the semantics of clause linking.

One interesting aspect of the analyses in this volume is found in the discussions of the relationsbetween dedicated clause linkerswhich are exclusively allocated to a particular functionandless determined linking devices. The degree of accuracy with respect to the expression of the se-

mantic relationship seems to be a highly relevant parameter. Johanson (1993), for example, drawsattention to differences with respect to the degree of semantic sharpness or preciseness of linkingdevices that express meanings of cause in Turkic and other languages. In the case of relativelyhigh semantic accuracy, the causal relationship is expressed in a precise way by means of lan-guage-specific grammatical devices such as English because, therefore, French parce que, car, orGerman weil, da. In the case of relatively low semantic accuracy, the relationship is expressed inan unfocused or vague way, the causal interpretation being derivable from a similar concept, as anonsemanticized pragmatic inference, for example, English thus, accordingly, in this way, thatbeing so, inasmuch as, insofar as, considering that, French alors, or German insofern (als),demgem. Studying the choice of more or less precise devices available at one and the sametime in a given language might add an interesting dimension to further investigations into the

processes of clause linking.Built upon an innovative theoretical basis and well-documented empirical materials from an

impressively wide and representative variety of the worlds languages, this book presents awealth of insightful analyses and highly useful suggestions for further research on clause linking.

REFERENCE

JOHANSON, LARS. 1993. Typen trkischer Kausalsatzverbindungen. Journal of Turkology 1.21367.

Seminar fr OrientkundeMainz UniversityDE-55099 Mainz, Germany

[johanson@uni-mainz.de]

Language talent and brain activity. Ed. by GRZEGORZ DOGIL and SUSANNE MARIAREITERER. (Trends in applied linguistics 1.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. Pp. v,366. ISBN 9783110205183. $137 (Hb).

Reviewed by ARDEN COLLIER, SAMEERASHAIE, and LORAINE K. OBLER,

City University of New York, Graduate CenterNeuroscience has branched into multiple subfields, among them neurolinguistics, thanks largely

to the advent of increasingly sophisticated noninvasive brain imaging techniques such as func-tional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Neurolinguistics holds out the possibility of offering

192 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 87, NUMBER 1 (2011)

7/27/2019 87.1.Collier

2/5

more conclusive answers to questions about which linguists have so far only been able to specu-late, as it renders the ephemeral nature of language processing comparatively concrete and tangi-ble. Language talent and brain activity (LTBA) represents a useful contribution to the literature inthat it provides focused investigation into a specific aspect of second language (L2) acquisitionwhat its authors refer to as LANGUAGE TALENTas well as broad literature reviews covering boththe century-long history of research into language functions in the brain, and more recent work on

bilingualism in the brain.As stated in the preface and first two chapters, the contributors are interested in finding expla-

nations for the particular talents that some L2 learners display in achieving native-like or near-native L2 pronunciation. MATTHIAS JILKA, in Talent and proficiency in language (116), sug-gests that talent is inborn while proficiency is acquired, making the distinction clear. However,in a homogeneous population such as the one they study (Germans who have learned English inschool from around age ten), if one examines them as young adults, the relatively high profi-ciency of someat least with respect to their approximation to native-like Englishmay betaken to reflect innate talents (and indeed in later chapters, some authors use the two terms inter-changeably). This is what makes LTBA a pioneering work: so far, few neurolinguists have ex-plored why it is that some seem to pick up languages and accents more readily than others.

The title of this volume does require some clarification. First, the reader should not expect tofind a series of reports on investigations into the connection between brain activity and languagetalent. Instead, LTBA has an unusual format: its thirteen chapters reflect somewhat disparate com-ponents of a single sizable project, for which a team based largely at the University of Tbingenand at Universitt Stuttgart collected a pool of German first language (L1) learners of English,administering to them a comprehensive set of tests and classifying them along a continuum of tal-ent in their ability to produce native-like English. Seven chapters report on data from substudiesof the larger project and draw their subjects from the same pool of participants, although not allcontributors make that clear. Following are brief summaries of the contributions directly relatedto the core study.

Another chapter by Jilka, Assessment of phonetic ability (1766), introduces the overall ob-

jective of the project, which, as stated above, is to conduct a multifaceted examination of L2 pro-nunciation talent. Jilka presents information on the 117 participants in the study: 102 German L1speakers and fifteen English L1 controls. The former group is comprised of about fifty percentcollege-age students and fifty percent members of the wider community. Participants were se-lected based on a self-assessment of their proficiency in L2 pronunciation, as reported in an on-line questionnaire. This chapter also includes a description of the various tasks employed toevaluate both nonverbal and verbal talent in production and perception at segmental andsuprasegmental levels of speech, some of which are standardized tests, such as the Modern Lan-guage Aptitude Test (MLAT) or the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. Jilka does notmention, however, any brain imaging studies conducted on the participants in the core study.

GIUSEPPINA ROTA and SUSANNE MARIA REITERER, in Cognitive aspects of pronunciation talent

(6796), discuss empathic skills, mental flexibility, working memory, and intelligence. Whileverbal and nonverbal IQ, as measured by Ravens Progressive Matrices, do not predict L2 pro-nunciation talent by the authors measures among the sixty participants they report on here, non-verbal IQ does correlate with what they term the overallscore on the three subtests of the MLATthat they employed, as well as with each of the subtests individually: phonetic coding, grammat-ical sensitivity, and vocabulary learning. Furthermore, the overall MLAT and the phonetic codingsubtest correlate positively with measures of verbal IQ.

Beginning with a discussion of definitions of personality from psychoanalytic, behaviorist, dis-positional, cognitive, and biological/neuroscientific perspectives, XIAOCHEN HU and SusanneMaria Reiterers Personality and pronunciation talent (97130) seeks to clarify the relationshipof personality to pronunciation talent based on data from sixty-two of the core studys partici-

pants. While no correlation obtains between extraversion and pronunciation, other personalityfactors such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, and readiness to empathize do correlate withpronunciation ability. In addition, the authors refer to an fMRI study they have conducted, pre-sumably Hu et al. 2009.

REVIEWS 193

7/27/2019 87.1.Collier

3/5

DAVIDE NARDO and Susanne Maria Reiterer open Musicality and phonetic language aptitude(21356) with a description of various tests used to measure musicality. The authors report ondata from sixty-six participants who appear to be part of their larger study (though that is neverstated directly). The data show that L2 pronunciation and musical talentparticularly rhythmperception, pitch perception, and the ability to singare not independent phenomena. The neuro-scientific evidence points to shared networks used in both linguistic and musical processing, sug-

gesting that the size of Heschls gyrus could constitute a possible marker of musicality as wellas language talent.

In Sociolinguistic factors in language proficiency: Phonetic convergence as a signature of pro-nunciation talent (25778), NATALIE LEWANDOWSKI examines a strategy in dialogue wherebyspeakers adapt to certain features employed by their conversational partners. After a summary ofstudies conducted on phonetic convergence with an emphasis on the theoretical framework ofusage-based accounts of language, Lewandowski reports on eight participants from the largerpopulation who have been divided into groups of more- and less-talented L2 speakers of English.Her study indicates that the participants abilities to accommodate their dialectal pronunciation tothat of their interlocutors correlates with their level of L2 pronunciation talent.

HENRIKE BAUMOTTES Segmental factors in language proficiency: Coarticulatory resistance as

a signature of pronunciation talent (279304) describes an acoustic study of velarization of Eng-lish /l/ and the influence of neighboring segments on it, as produced by twenty-nine speakers ofSwabian German, a dialect known for its relatively clear /l/ (i.e. nonvelarized) pronunciation.While not even the eleven L2 English speakers designated as proficient are entirely accent-freeon this English phoneme, what does distinguish the particularly proficient participants from thosewho are average or below is that their pronunciation of /l/ shows greater velarization in certainformants and environments and less coarticulatory resistance: that is, the former are able to breakaway from their habitual L1 patterns of coarticulation and form new ones more in line with thoseof native speakers of their L2.

VOLHA ANUFRYKreports on a study of thirty-eight German L1 speakers in Prosodic factors inlanguage proficiency: Intonational variation as a signature of pronunciation talent (30536),

finding that the variability of intonational categories produced in a paragraph read-aloud task cor-relates both phonetically and phonologically with talent/proficiency. Anufryk also argues that itis important to discriminate between positive and negative transfer of L1 variation patterns intothe L2.

Interspersed among the chapters described above and covering a range of topics associatedwith language learning and pronunciation talent are the remaining chapters, some more and someless pertinent to the questions at hand. The following two emphasize brain imaging research.WOLFGANG GRODD, DIRK WILDGRUBER, and VINOD KUMAR open Functional imaging of lan-guage competent brain areas (13153) with an introduction to Brocas area, Wernickes area, andadditional regions traditionally considered responsible for language. While they describe variousmethods used to map language areas of the brain, the focus is on fMRI and diffusion tensor im-

aging (DTI) studies conducted at the authors institutions, the findings of which are included insections dealing with multiple aspects of language production and perception. Susanne MariaReiterers Brain and language talent: A synopsis (15592) provides a literature review of vari-ous brain imaging studies of talented/proficient/successful bilinguals that were conducted prior tothe publication of this volume. Highlights of the findings include those of Golestani & Pallier2007 and Golestani et al. 2002, 2007, in which it was determined that a higher degree of myeli-nation in posterior parietal regions and in left Heschls gyrus may enhance language learning,while Golestani and Zatorre (2004) noted relatively high levels of left angular gyrus activityamong proficient L2 learners. These two chapters contain nuggets of fascinating information;however, the reader is left with the impression that in LTBA we have been given a cross-sectionalslice of an interesting ongoing study and that more brain-related results have been, or will be, re-

ported elsewhere. Readers of LTBA will wish that already published articles had been summa-rized in the volume. Earlier works that appear relevant to the central project include Baumotte etal. 2007, Jilka et al. 2007, 2008, Reiterer et al. 2005a, 2005b, 2008, 2009.

From an editing perspective, the selection of topics covered in LTBA is interestingly varied.There is one major shortcoming, however: almost all chapters contain both syntactic and seman-

194 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 87, NUMBER 1 (2011)

7/27/2019 87.1.Collier

4/5

tic errors. Of course, those of us who do not easily read German must appreciate that the contrib-utors wrote LTBA in English. Some chapters (those by Jilka, Lewandowski, and Anufryk) readrelatively easily, while others would have benefited from more thorough editing. A handful of er-rors also have to do with content. For example, in claims about the pronunciation talent of theirsubject pool, statements by Grzegorz Dogil and Baumotte in their respective chapters appear tocontradict each other: the former claims that SOME subjects speak English as an L2 without an ac-

cent, while the latter claims that NO subjects speak accent-free English. Also contradictory aretwo citations in Reiterers Brain and language talent of the findings in Chee et al. 2004: the firston p. 163 inaccurately describes the anterior cingulate as LESS active in unequal bilinguals thanequal bilinguals, when it is in fact MORE active according to the original article. Reiterer laterdiscusses the same piece with an accurate summary of the results on p. 175, but a reader unfamil-iar with Chee et al. 2004 would not know which of the two was correct. Such content-based er-rors are, however, relatively rare.

Because LTBA includes both reports of original research and review articles, as well as an ex-tensive literature review in most chapters, it is more suitable for a reader familiar with linguisticsbut less versed in neurolinguistics. For example, the chapters by Reiterer or by Grodd, Wild-gruder, and Kumar are appropriate as introductory-level pieces for those who are unfamiliar with

the study of the brain and language in general or bilingualism in particular. Overall, LTBA pro-vides an ample foundation for the topics it covers, and many of its chapters can serve as a spring-board for further investigation.

REFERENCES

BAUMOTTE, HENRIKE; MATTHIAS LENZ; GRZEGORZ DOGIL; and SUSANNE M. REITERER. 2007. Coarticulatoryresistance as a basis for foreign accent: V-to-V coarticulation in German VCV-sequences: A pilot study.Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching, ed. by Siska vanDaele, Alex Housen, Folkert Kuiken, Michel Pierrard, and Ineke Vedder, 1125. Wetteren: UniversaPress.

CHEE, MICHAEL W. L.; CHUN SIONG SOON; HWEE LING LEE; and CHRISTOPHE PALLIER. 2004. Left insula acti-vation: A marker for language attainment in bilinguals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-ences 101.1526570.

GOLESTANI, NARLY; NICOLAS MOLKO; STANISLAS DEHAENE; DENIS LEBIHAN; and CHRISTOPHE PALLIER. 2007.Brain structure predicts the learning of foreign speech sounds. Cerebral Cortex 17.57582.

GOLESTANI, NARLY, and CHRISTOPHE PALLIER. 2007. Anatomical correlates of speech sound production. Cere-bral Cortex 17.92934.

GOLESTANI, NARLY; TOM PAUS; and ROBERT J. ZATORRE. 2002. Anatomical correlates of learning novelspeech sounds. Neuron 35.9971010.

GOLESTANI, NARLY, and ROBERT J. ZATORRE. 2004. Learning new sounds of speech: Reallocation of neuralsubstrates. NeuroImage 21.494506.

HU, XIAOCHEN; HERMANN ACKERMANN; MICHAEL ERB; DAVIDE NARDO; WOLFGANG GRODD; and SUSANNE M.

REITERER. 2009. Mapping brain structure and personality in an adult sample of second language pro-nunciation talent. NeuroImage 47.S118 (Supplement 1).JILKA, MATTHIAS; VOLHA ANUFRYK; HENRIKE BAUMOTTE; NATALIE LEWANDOWSKI; GIUSEPPINA ROTA; and SU-

SANNE M. REITERER. 2008. Assessing individual talent in second language production and perception.New sounds 2007: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Lan-

guage Speech, ed. by Andreia Rauber, Michael Watkins, and Barbara Baptista, 22439. Florianpolis:Federal University of Santa Catarina.

JILKA, MATTHIAS; HENRIKE BAUMOTTE; NATALIE LEWANDOWSKI; SUSANNE M. REITERER; and GIUSEPPINAROTA. 2007. Introducing a comprehensive approach to assessing pronunciation talent. Proceedings of the International Conference of Phonetic Sciences 16.173740.

REITERER, SUSANNE M.; MICHAEL L. BERGER; CLAUDIA HEMMELMANN; and PETER RAPPELSBERGER. 2005a.Decreased EEG coherence between prefrontal electrodes: A correlate of high language proficiency? Ex-

perimental Brain Research 163.10913.REITERER, SUSANNE M.; MICHAEL ERB; WOLFGANG GRODD; and DIRKWILDGRUBER. 2008. Cerebral process-

ing of timbre and loudness: fMRI evidence for a contribution of Brocas area to basic auditory discrim-ination. Brain Imaging and Behavior2.110.

REITERER, SUSANNE M.; CLAUDIA HEMMELMANN; PETER RAPPELSBERGER; and MICHAEL L. BERGER. 2005b.Characteristic functional networks in high- versus low-proficiency second language speakers detected

REVIEWS 195

7/27/2019 87.1.Collier

5/5

also during native language processing: An explorative EEG coherence study in 6 frequency bands.Cognitive Brain Research 25.56678.

REITERER, SUSANNE M.; ERNESTO PEREDA; and JOYDEEP BHATTACHARYA. 2009. Measuring second languageproficiency with EEG synchronization: How functional cortical networks and hemispheric involvementdiffer as a function of proficiency level in second language speakers. Second Language Research25.77106.

Linguistics Department and Speech and Hearing DepartmentCity University of New York, Graduate Center365 Fifth AvenueNew York, NY 10016[ardenlcollier@gmail.com][sameerashaie@gmail.com][loraine.obler@gmail.com]

The anatomy of meaning: Speech, gesture, and composite utterances. By N. J. EN-FIELD. (Language culture and cognition 8.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2009. Pp. xii, 252. ISBN 9780521880640. $112.99 (Hb).

Reviewed by PAUL KOCKELMAN, Barnard College, Columbia University

This book focuses on composite utterances, where the meaning of a single communicativemove turns on the interrelation between multiple signs, partaking of both verbal and gesturalmodalities. Based on over ten years of linguistic and ethnographic research with speakers of Lao(a language of Southeast Asia), each of its six chapters presents a detailed case study of a cross-linguistically relevant domain. The first half treats the deictic component of moves, focusing on

composite utterances that incorporate demonstratives, lip-pointing, and hand-pointing. The sec-ond half treats the illustrative components of moves, focusing on composite utterances that in-volve modeling artifacts, diagramming social structures, and editing such models and diagrams.While all of the chapters involve painstaking analysis of speech-plus-gesture in interaction, itselfgrounded in the authors extensive knowledge of the language and culture of his field site, it istheorized from a broadly comparative and typological stance. It thereby provides not only richcase examples to think through (whatever ones theoretical commitments), but also a sophisti-cated analytic framework to apply (whatever ones empirical focus). Enfields book constitutesan outstanding contribution to the literature on gesture, language, and interaction.

The analytic framework is explicitly neo-Gricean (grounded in inference and intentionality)and neo-Peircean (grounded in indexicality and context). This fact distinguishes it from much

work on language and gesture that has minimal sophistication with respect to meaning; and it dis-tinguishes it from much work on meaning that takes its inspiration from neo-Saussurean seman-tics (focused on context-free types). Moreover, it is empirically grounded in detailed, multimodalanalysis of video-recorded interactions in situ (versus experimental settings, elicitation sessions,or imagined situations), which distinguishes it from much work in relevance theory, semiotics,gesture studies, discourse analysis, and cognitive linguistics. Finally, it also takes some inspira-tion from key ideas, topics, and methods in conversational analysis and linguistic anthropology,and thereby weaves together the sequencing of moves in situated interaction and the social rela-tions and cultural values of a speech community. Notwithstanding its topical and areal focus,then, the analysis is meant to be general: how signs and minds emerge from and contribute tocode, context, and culture.

The first part of the book, Deictic components of moves, consists of three chapters on deicticsigns (or symbolic indexicals). The key function of these signs is to link conventional and non-conventional signs: demonstratives, lip-points, and hand-points. These chapters thereby offer de-scriptions of the variety of forms underlying joint-attentional processes as well as the multiplefunctions served by such processes. They should be broadly relevant to psychologists working onshared intentionality, linguists investigating the pragmatics-semantics interface, ethologists inter-

196 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 87, NUMBER 1 (2011)