The origins of language: Signs of success

The Economist ^ | Feb 19th 2004 | Anon

[Pharmboy]

Interesting stuff. Thought some of you might like to see this.

[Pharmboy]

+Ping+

[JudyB1938]

However, the key commonality is that their spontaneously created languages resemble fully-formed languages. [snip]

That result, if confirmed in other studies, could have profound implications. Another much-argued question in linguistics is whether there is some sort of grammatical template that acts as part of a language instinct and is wired into the brains of new-born children.

Now THAT is an interesting concept. I believe it could lead credence to the Tower of Bable story in scripture and how people could INSTANTLY begin speaking other languages.

[rface]

I'll read this later.....

[realpatriot71]

Another much-argued question in linguistics is whether there is some sort of grammatical template that acts as part of a language instinct and is wired into the brains of new-born children.

It's not outside the realm of possibilities at all, and in fact, I think the idea probably explains the phenomenon quite well. There us a definite "language area" in your brain - "stroke out" the wrong areas and people can speak, but not understand language, or visa versa, or both understanding and speech can be destroyed.

[angkor]

Another much-argued question in linguistics is whether there is some sort of grammatical template that acts as part of a language instinct and is wired into the brains of new-born children.

When he's not being an bloviating poseur and is doing what he's actually good at, this is the question that got Chomsky a professorship at MIT.

Transformational Grammar.

Fascinating stuff, also covered by many cultural anthropologists and also in the more ethereal realm by Gregory Bateson.

[angkor]

There us a definite "language area" in your brain - "stroke out" the wrong area...

But it's clearly not a physical area of the brain, since many stroke victims do recover the ability to speak.

Scholars and researchers have been beating on this question for the last century, so it's equally interesting that there's no solid answer on it yet.

[Dark Wing]

FYI

[realpatriot71]

But it's clearly not a physical area of the brain, since many stroke victims do recover the ability to speak.

Actually, it is a physical area - Broca's and Wernikie's areas; left temporal lobe for most folks. The amount of recovery after a stroke is inversely poprotional to the length of time that neurons went without oxygen

[PatrickHenry]

Interesting. But only for part of the ping list.

[angkor]

Actually, it is a physical area

Generally speaking that's true, e.g, language happens within the brain.

But the processes and mechanisms of language are complicated, and there is no single neurological study which locates all linguistic processes within any specific section of the human brain.

The best that has been posited is that various functions within the brain contribute to the processes of perception, syntax, motor control, and memory, all of which constitute language as a whole.

[realpatriot71]

But the processes and mechanisms of language are complicated, and there is no single neurological study which locates all linguistic processes within any specific section of the human brain. The best that has been posited is that various functions within the brain contribute to the processes of perception, syntax, motor control, and memory, all of which constitute language as a whole.

I can't disagree with anything you've said. The brain is interconnected in such a fashion that "language" as an idea or concept needs more than just the simple areas of the brain dealing with language and speech to correctly communicate in a larger executive context. However, I can kill a specific spot of brain and said person will no longer be able to understand language at all, no matter how well other functions are operating.

[RightWingAtheist]

One my first papers as an undergrad actually dealt with this. It has been theorized that language first evolved as series of iconic hand gestures accompanied by gutteral vocalizations. These sounds later developed into the spoken language we have today. The theory would explain why both spoken and sign languages follow the same syntatical rules, as well as why deaf babies "babble" with their hands.

In my Master's program, I did a literature survey on neo-Darwinist approaches to the evolution of communication. If I have time, I'll see if I can dig up the reference list.

[RightWingAtheist]

It has been postulated that the visual and linguistic modules are strongly correlated, and possibly even "split" from the same ancestral module. It would explain why we have have both a "spoken" and "gestural" grammar, as well as our abilities at writing and visual representation (drawing and sculpting, etc.), traits which can NOT be explained as being a result of selective evolutionary pressures, as language can.

[RightWingAtheist]

Judging by the way these kids are acting, I'd say they must be Kunich supporters.

[Pharmboy]

Thank you for your informed reply.

And, by the way, although I fiercely defend the religionists against the left-wing secularists, I am your screen name.

[angkor]

OK, but back to the original point, I'm simply saying that the "language template" referred to in the article is not located in any specific physical section of the brain. It's a meta-function also associated with "learning" (which is of a higher order than mere syntax).

That's why I mentioned Bateson in my first post. He seemed to have a philosophical handle on the dynamics of learning itself, which might (or might not) be the meta-template that drives language.

Haven't studied this stuff in years, but it's interesting.

[realpatriot71]

OK, but back to the original point, I'm simply saying that the "language template" referred to in the article is not located in any specific physical section of the brain. It's a meta-function also associated with "learning" (which is of a higher order than mere syntax).

Interesting - language is an area that I don't know much about.

[angkor]

traits which can NOT be explained as being a result of selective evolutionary pressures, as language can.

Expand on that statement when you have a moment.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP