Inclusion in Linguistic Education: Neurolinguistics, Language, and Subject

Inclusion in Linguistic Education: Neurolinguistics, Language, and Subject

Dionéia Motta Monte-Serrat (Universidade de Ribeirão Preto, Brazil)
Copyright: © 2018 |Pages: 19
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-4009-0.ch009
OnDemand PDF Download:
No Current Special Offers


Education norms have been altered over the years; however, marginalization problems in linguistic education have not changed. A contemporary approach to linguistic education is taken in which individuals with brain injury or dysfunction are not observed isolatedly from the operations that structure them. This chapter is a study on the signification processes that are constituted during enunciation by subjects who, due to brain dysfunction, appropriate reality and produce conscience of themselves in a particular fashion. Linguistic monitoring articulated with neurolinguistics is suggested in order to promote rhythmic, lexical, and syntactic modifications in such subjects' discourse so as to place the significant chain in order as regards its oral or written production. Hence, subjects with brain dysfunction can develop authorship characteristics as concerns both language appropriation and the subjective aspect, thus showing unicity under the form of coherence: such subjects' creative imagination is imposed, ordinating and coordinating the content expressed.
Chapter Preview


There is a concern in education about the fact that its regulatory norms are altered and that, in spite of such alterations, marginalization problems in linguistic education have not changed over the years. In this chapter, knowledge resulting from years of research on social inclusion and, more recently, inclusion-related issues concerning language learning by children and youngsters with brain injury have been brought together. These are the reasons that have led to the articulation between the theoretical knowledge from neurolinguistics, the Theory of Discourse (Pêcheux, 1988) and the Theory of Literacy (Tfouni, 1992, 2005). The complexity of such articulation is focused on proposing that the concept of authorship can serve as a basis for building a contemporary view of linguistic education so that such view will become more responsive to the difficulties surrounding the topic.

This complex and interdisciplinary theoretical articulation is necessary to deconstruct the systematic look of bureaucratic educational evaluation processes that do not play their political role in society and are not involved with marginalized subjects. All this complexity is due to the presence of elements and forces of such processes that are linked in time and space and need to be evaluated under different perspectives. Trewhella (2016) says that interdisciplinary research can attain the “kind of predictive capability that could inform policy makers”. The author states:

Policies that govern the hiring, promotion and allocation of resources often work against interdisciplinary research. If interdisciplinary research is to flourish in academia, then its reward systems have to recognize the different paces at which interdisciplinary research may proceed as well as the fact that it is often a team rather than an individual accomplishment. There is also a need for flexible organizational structures that can operate across discipline-focused departments (Trewhella: 2016).

In this chapter, we need the flexibility of the interdisciplinary because, in this investigation, we have different paces from those in most of the research conducted in this field. We are concerned about real linguistic inclusion that can improve the quality of life of the studied subjects.

The questions pursued in this study began with the investigation on the reason why less literate subjects are marginalized when they participate in literate events held by public institutions (Monte-Serrat, 2013). In later research, the social marginalization of children and youngsters with brain injury (hydrocephalus) who were awaiting surgery or had been operated on at a public hospital (University of São Paulo Medical School, FMRP-USP) was investigated. It was observed that the study on these children’s physical limitations based only on the bias of neuroscience would be restricted to a materialistic perspective whose object rests on mechanistic conceptions of mental events.

Such restricted study perspective moves away from phenomena related to the subject that is defined as “self”, and to a conscience, which must not be ignored in scientific investigation. An example that such materialistic perspective would bring frustrating results would be the fact that it is applied to the evaluation of children with hydrocephalus, who, due to their brain injury, are not able to develop mathematical thinking or logical reasoning. Baloyannisstates that, in spite of

experimental work and much speculation emphasizing the importance of connections between thalamic nuclei and the cortex of the brain's hemispheres and the developed thalamocortical recurrency, there is not a conclusive explanation of consciousness at the level of neural mechanisms, not even when analysing and tracing the interactions between nerve cells and the neurotransmitters associated with them (Baloyannis, [2009]2017, p. 1).

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book: