Language evolution and an emergent property

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 271-276

  Okanoya, Kazuo ^a  

^a RIKEN BRAIN SCIENCE INSTITUTE   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY CORTEX; AUTOMATION; BEHAVIOR; BRAIN REGION; COGNITION; GENE EXPRESSION; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LANGUAGE DISABILITY; LEARNING; LIMBIC CORTEX; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; VOCALIZATION;

ANIMALS; AUDITORY PATHWAYS; EVOLUTION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; VOCALIZATION, ANIMAL;

EID: 34247131146     PISSN: 09594388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.conb.2007.03.011     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Hauser M.D., Chomsky N., and Fitch W.T. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?. Science 298 (2002) 1569-1579
2. Fitch W.T., Hauser M.D., and Chomsky N. The evolution of language faculty: clarifications and implications. Cognition 97 (2005) 179-210. An extended account of [1]. Language is not a single faculty, but can be factored into several independent modules that can be divided into two large groups. One group includes the abilities to handle sensory-motor learning and understand a conceptual-intentional framework and other abilities that are shared with non-human animals; this group is called the faculty of language in the broad sense (FLB). The other group includes a language-specific faculty that is called the faculty of language in the narrow sense (FLN).
3. Pinker S., and Jackendoff R. The faculty of language: what's special about it?. Cognition 95 (2005) 201-246. These authors questioned the recursion-centered view of human language proposed in [1] and suggested that more attention be paid to other unique features of human language.
4. Jackendoff R., and Pinker S. The nature of language faculty and its implications for evolution of language. Cognition 97 (2005) 211-225
5. Okanoya K. Functional and structural pre-adaptations to language: insight from comparative cognitive science into the study of language origin. Jap Psychol Res 46 (2004) 207-215
6. Gould S.J., and Vrba E.S. Exaptation: a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8 (1982) 4-15
7. Szamado S., and Szathmary E. Selective scenarios for the emergence of natural language. Trends Ecol Evol 21 (2006) 555-561
8. Marcus G.F., Vijayan S., Bandi Rao S., and Vishton M. Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science 283 (1999) 77-80
9. Hauser M.D., Weiss D., and Marcus G. Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins. Cognition 86 (2002) B15-B22
10. Fitch W.T., and Hauser M.D. Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate. Science 303 (2004) 377-380
11. n). Birds learned to discriminate the two strings, and probe tests reinforced the idea that discrimination was based not on a local cue but on the cognitive ability of recursion. For example, one of the probe tests was conducted to refute the possibility that the starlings learned only regularity in finite-state grammar and discriminated the two sets of grammars based on exclusion. When four agrammatical probe patterns (AAAA, BBBB, ABBA and BAAB) were used in an ABAB (finite-state grammar) versus AABB (context-free grammar) discrimination training, three of the four birds trained to respond to finite-state grammar stimuli correctly rejected probe patterns, whereas only one bird incorrectly classified some of these stimuli. All four birds trained to respond to context-free grammar stimuli correctly rejected probe stimuli.
12. Marcus G.F. Startling starlings. Nature 440 (2006) 1117-1119
13. ••].
14. Gil-da-Costa R., Martin A., Lopes M.A., Munoz M., Fritz J.B., and Braun A.R. Species-specific calls activate homologs of Broca's and Wernicke's areas in the macaque. Nat Neurosci 9 (2006) 1064-1070. Positron emission tomography (PET) was used to determine the site of activation caused by species-specific calls in rhesus macaques. The results suggest that the stimulation activated area 6 or F5, but could not determine whether this region is the monkey equivalent of human BA44.
15. Petrides M., Cadoret G., and Mackey S. Orofacial somatomotor responses in the macaque monkey homologue of Broca's area. Nature 435 (2005) 1235-1238. Cytoarchitectural and electrophysiological studies were conducted to determine whether macaque monkeys possess brain areas homologous to Broca's area in humans. A small area rostral to area 6 had a granular structure similar to Broca's area. Stimulating this region resulted in fine movement of the orofacial region. Therefore, this area is a strong candidate for the Broca homologue in monkeys.
16. Lai C.S., Fisher S.E., Hurst J.A., Vargha-Khadem F., and Monaco A.P. A forkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nature 413 (2001) 519-523
17. Enard W., Przeworski M., Fisher S.E., Lai C.S., Wiebe V., Kitano T., Monaco A.P., and Paabo S. Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Nature 418 (2002) 869-872
18. Ullman M.T., and Pierpont E. Specific language impairment is not specific to language: the procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex 41 (2005) 399-433
19. Lieberman P. The pied piper of Cambridge. Linguistic Review 22 (2005) 289-301
20. Marcus G., and Rabagliati H. What developmental disorders can tell us about the nature and origins of language. Nat Neurosci 9 (2006) 1226-1229
21. Teramitsu I., Kudo L.C., London S.E., Geschwind D.H., and White S.A. Parallel FoxP1 and FoxP2 expression in songbird and human brain predicts functional interaction. J Neurosci 24 (2004) 3152-3163
22. Haesler S., Wada K., Nshdejan A., Morrisey E.E., Lints T., Jarvie E.J., and Scharff C. FoxP2 expression in avian vocal learners and non-learners. J Neurosci 24 (2004) 3164-3175
23. Scharff C., and Haesler S. An evolutionary perspective on FoxP2: strictly for the birds?. Curr Opin Neurobiol 15 (2005) 694-703
24. White S.A., Fisher S.E., Geschwind D.H., Sharff C., and Holy T.E. Singing mice, songbirds, and more: models for FOXP2 function and dysfunction in human speech and language. J Neurosci 26 (2006) 10376-10379
25. Webb D.M., and Zhang J. FoxP2 in song learning birds and vocal learning mammals. J Hered 96 (2005) 212-216
26. Hopcroft J.E., Motwani R., and Ullman J.D. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation (2000), Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing
27. Wehner R., and Menzel R. Do insects have cognitive maps?. Annu Rev Neurosci 13 (1990) 403-414
28. Bartlett M., and Kazakov D. The origins of syntax: from navigation to language. Connect Sci 17 (2005) 271-288
29. Lieberman M.D., Chang G.Y., Chiao J., Bookheimer S., and Knowlton S. An event-related fMRI study of artificial grammar learning in a balanced chunk strength design. J Cogn Neurosci 16 (2004) 427-438
30. Kirby S. Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure: an iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity. IEEE J Evol Comp 5 (2001) 102-110
31. Kirby S., and Christiansen M.H. From language learning to language evolution. In: Christiansen M.H., and Kirby S. (Eds). Language Evolution (2003), Oxford University Press, Oxford 272-294
32. Wray A. Protolanguage as a holistic system for social interaction. Lang Commun 18 (1998) 47-67
33. Merker B., and Okanoya K. The natural history of human language: bridging the gap without magic. In: Nehaniv C.L., Cangelosi A., and Lyon C. (Eds). Emergence of Communication and Language (2006), Springer-Verlag 403-420. The authors outline the mutual segmentation hypothesis of language origin. Pre-human animals were singing apes. Their songs were learned from conspecifics and song variation was associated with variation in the context in which songs were sung. The mutual copying of songs produced several substrings that are common to multiple songs sung in different situations. These substrings gradually came to represent the union of these different situations.
34. •] to occur. To segment song strings, the basal ganglia submit a short-range prediction of the song time series to the prefrontal cortex, whereas the prefrontal cortex provides a rule-based prediction of the song temporal pattern to the basal ganglia. The given song strings are segmented via this loop. In parallel with this loop, a hippocampus-prefrontal cortex loop also segments the behavioral contexts. The interaction of these two structures enables the mutual segmentation of strings and contexts.
35. Mithen S. The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body (2005), Weidenfeld & Nicholson
36. Hurford J.R. Human uniqueness, learned symbols and recursive thought. Eur Rev 12 (2004) 551-565
37. Gardner T.J., Naef F., and Nottebohm F. Freedom and rules: the acquisition and reprogramming of a bird's learned song. Science 308 (2005) 1047-1049
38. Rose G.J., Goller F., Gritton H.J., Plamondon S.L., Baugh A.T., and Cooper B.G. Species-typical songs in white-crowned sparrows tutored with only phrase pairs. Nature 432 (2004) 753-758
39. Chomsky N. The Minimalist Program (1995), The MIT Press
40. Arbib M.A. From monkey-like action recognition to human language: an evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics. Behav Brain Sci 28 (2005) 105-124
41. Jurgens U. Neural pathways underlying vocal control. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 26 (2002) 235-258
42. 15O PET study. Cereb Cortex 15 (2005) 1835-1847
43. Jarvis E.D. Selection for and against vocal learning in birds and mammals. Ornithol Sci 5 (2006) 5-14. Using stimulus- or action-dependent gene expression patterns, Jarvis found three components (one auditory and two vocal motor) common to the brains of independently evolved vocal learning groups of birds (songbirds, hummingbirds and parrots). Based this finding, Jarvis argued that the three components in the brain enable vocal learning regardless of the species. He extended his idea to explain language learning in humans and argued that the areas responsible for language learning are basically homologous for the auditory and analogous for the vocal motor components in bird song learning.
44. Iwaniuk A.N., Dean K.M., and Nelson J.E. Interspecific allometry of the brain and brain regions in parrots (Psittaciformes): comparisons with other birds and primates. Brain Behav Evol 65 (2005) 40-59