Kreger D.- Did Neanderthals have Language

VIP免费

2024-11-24 0 0 95.84KB 34 页 5.9玖币

侵权投诉

Did Neanderthals Have Language?

Kreger D.

Introduction

The following paper will attempt to propose a reasonable explanation for acceptance

of Neanderthal capacity for language, and the probability that some form of language

was used for social communication. This explanation will deal with brain expansion, and

the secondary effects of brain expansion on the gross morphology of modern human

and Neanderthal crania. This paper begins with an examination of language acquisition

in modern human brain structure, and put forth that language acquisition,

development, and capacity were the driving forces behind human brain enlargement.

Language acquisition will be studied in detail and a theoretical model of brain

development will be put forth to explicate this acquisition. A theoretical model will

then be given to explain how this mechanism could develop the modern human brain.

Finally, this expansion of the brain will be examined in light of morphological changes

in the crania, and a comparison made between the evolutionary conditions that could

select for the differences between modern humans and Neanderthals.

The Language Acquisition argument will be constructed in the following manner: A

discussion of the theoretical mechanism of Universal Grammar, a discussion of the

theoretical mechanism of "modularity of the mind", and the biological mechanism of

brain circuitry acclimation. Pros and cons will be covered on these mechanisms, with

the brain circuitry acclimation model being chosen as a reasonable theoretical model

of brain development according to both philosophical and biological acceptability.

Discussion on language acquisition will be followed by reasoning for language

acquisition and development as the driving force in hominine brain expansion

throughout time. This reasoning will be supported as theoretically possible by the

evolutionary mechanism of genetic assimilation, which will be discussed in detail as the

vector through which social pressure results in evolutionary change. Finally, this paper

will focus on the consequences of brain expansion on gross cranial morphology, and

the differences between modern humans and Neanderthals. This comparison will take

into consideration evolutionary and social pressures as causes of these differences in

the two populations, and then will postulate that Neanderthals had the capacity for

language, but that there is no way to prove short of evidence of written language that

they did or did not use a modern form of language for communication.

Language Acquisition and Ontogenetic Brain Development

Universal Grammar

The mechanism of "universal grammar" is a conceptualized system where specific rules

are thought to be universally present in all language, a set of basic underlying

grammatical structures required for language functionality. The basis for the modern

concept of universal grammar was a 1957 book written by Noam Chomsky, entitled

Syntactic Structures

. This volume is generally considered "revolutionary" for the

development of modern linguistics (Falk 1998: 463). The view of an all-

encompassing set of structural language rules was not a new idea, and this concept

was not the main reason for the academic success of the Chomsky paradigm. Rather,

Chomsky’s take on universal grammar was considered important because he, "did not

restrict his work to the description of language structures, he sought explanations for

the principles of human language$quot; (Falk 1998: 463). Chomsky drew upon

philosophy to construct a model of human language acquisition that purported that the

essential grammar structures of language (the seventeenth and eighteenth century

grammaire générale

of rationalism) were a genetically transmitted entity.

Chomsky claimed that his Universal Grammar model explained the underlying

homogeneity of human languages, the absence of "primitive" language types, and the

seemingly savant-like ability of young children to master fundamentals of language use

(Falk 1998: 463-464; Goodwin 1994: 100; Mithen 1996: 44). Universal

Grammar became most widely associated with the latter phenomenon. Since

Chomsky also insisted "that the extraordinarily rapid acquisition of linguistic

competence by human infants and the degree of creativity displayed is so far beyond

anything demonstrated by other species that it reveals a

qualitatively distinct

level of

cognitive organization" (Goodwin 1994: 100; emphasis added), Universal Grammar

became a

qualitatively distinct

trait used to define

H. sapiens

as a species. This

distinction led the Universal Grammar model of Chomsky to be separated from its

conceptual basis, and shifted to a biological basis by anti-evolutionists, even though

there was and is no genetic or biological evidence of language rules somehow

biologically structured in the brain. Thus,

the study of language has been and remains a citadel of anti-evolutionary sentiment. It

is easy to see why anti-evolutionists would seize upon any excuse to accentuate the

alleged differences between the class of men and angels, on the one hand, and the

class of vegetables and brutes, on the other. Anything to find a difference that is

essential and qualitative rather than a matter of degree (Ghiselin 1997: 138).

This concept of differences that are qualitative versus quantitative is an import one

when considering the Chomskian paradigm. The idea of Universal Grammar as a

conceptualized theory that explains human language acquisition must be separated

from the idea of Universal Grammar as a qualitatively distinct human trait. The use of

UG as the former is a philosophically valid theory about what goes on in the black box

of human language acquisition, while the latter use is an anti-evolutionary mechanism

used to differentiate humans from all other species. In this latter capacity, UG is also

assumed to be the correct and/or only mechanism of language acquisition. This stance

is considered anti-evolutionary, because in claiming UG as a defining characteristic of

H. sapiens

in such a synchronic manner, the possibility of human evolution is implicitly

denied. Since only humans have UG, and UG is present only in humans (a

qualitatively distinct trait), then evolution beyond the present state of humanity is

denied in light that a human population that changes will still have UG, and will thus

still be "human". Conversely, since UG is only present in humans, an earlier non-

human species could not develop UG because only humans can have UG, and if no

species could evolve UG, then there was no human evolution. This use of Chomskian

UG is obviously not scientifically, nor philosophically sound, but it shows the inherent

danger in postulating discrete human traits on a non-quantitative basis.

When describing why UG is considered a reasonable conceptualization of the black

box of human language acquisition, UG is often described as a biologically

"triggered" behavior (Aitchison 1998: 560-579). Biologically triggered behaviors

cover a wide range of physiological behaviors (e.g. sexual maturity), which are

genetically programmed, but do not occur when understimulated by the environment

(either macro- or microenvironment), or when under conditions of extreme stress.

There are generally six accepted "hallmarks" of biologically controlled behavior that

must be satisfied if UG is to be even considered a genetic predisposition:

1.) The behavior emerges before it is necessary.

2.) Its appearance is not the result of a conscious decision.

3.) Its emergence is not triggered by external events (though the surrounding

environment must be sufficiently "rich" for it to develop adequately).

4.) There is likely to be a "critical" period for the acquisition of the behavior.

5.) Direct teaching and intensive practice have relatively little effect.

6.) There is a regular sequence of "milestones" as the behavior develops, and these

can usually be correlated with age and other aspects of development (Aitchison

1998: 561).

The first two hallmarks will not be discussed due to the inability to test for their

veracity in UG. Since it is generally assumed that they are true (Aitchison 1998:

561-562), I will accept the null hypothesis of their veracity. The third and fourth

hallmarks are also seemingly acceptable under UG, as shown in the case of "Genie"

(Fromkin et al. 1998: 588-605), although the term "critical" period may be better

used to refer to as a window of optimal language acquisition, rather than a window of

language acquisition in any qualitative level of development (Fromkin et al. 1998:

602-603). The claim that direct teaching and intensive practice have relatively little

effect on language acquisition is debatable but will be generally accepted in this paper.

Eric H. Lenneberg has quantified the regular sequence of "milestones" into twelve

sequences from twelve weeks of age up to four years (1998: 556-559). All normal

children seem to go through these steps in the same relative order, but at varying

ages. Therefore, for the sake of argument, UG will be considered to fulfill the generic

requirements of a biologically "triggered" behavior.

Now that UG has been shown to be a feasible mechanism of language acquisition, as

an unexplained biological mechanism, evidence beyond a model that fits the data must

be considered. As a model of genetically programmed language structures, there must

be areas of the brain that house these rules. Thus, if these areas are damaged,

language functions should be damaged. Proponents of UG tend to focus on three

pieces of evidence that seem to follow this supposition: brain lateralization, Broca’s

area, and Wernicke’s area. "Lateralization refers to the fact that each hemisphere

appears to be specialized for different cognitive functions" (Fromkin et al. 1998:

600). It has been consistently shown through experimentation that the left

hemisphere of the brain is associated with language use in approximately 94% of

humans (Curtis and Barnes 1989: 889-891). Broca’s area is an area on the lower

portion of the left prefrontal cortex, where damage causes a profound disturbance in

the ability to speak (Deacon 1997: 281). Wernicke’s area is an area on the posterior

part of the temporal cortex on the left side, which, when damaged disturbs the ability

to understand speech (Deacon 1997: 281). On the surface, everything seems to be

providing evidence for UG.

However, there are serious problems with using these three examples as evidence for

the existence of Universal Grammar. First, lateralization seems to be caused by

genetic factors that are unassociated with language. Lateralization is caused by genetic

文档加载中……请稍候！
如果长时间未打开，您也可以点击刷新试试。

下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便

5.9 玖币 0人已下载

立即下载 VIP免费下载

Kreger D.- Did Neanderthals have Language.pdf

共34页,预览4页

还剩页未读，继续阅读

声明：本站为文档C2C交易模式，即用户上传的文档直接被用户下载，本站只是中间服务平台，本站所有文档下载所得的收益归上传人(含作者)所有。玖贝云文库仅提供信息存储空间，仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理，对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。若文档所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私，请立即通知玖贝云文库，我们立即给予删除！

Kreger D.- Did Neanderthals have Language

相关推荐

开通VIP享超值会员特权

作者详情

相关内容

热门标签

举报选择: