Studies in Neurolinguistics: Volume 4

Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics: A Series of Monographs and Treatises

Studies in Neurolinguistics

Volume 4

HAIGANOOSH WHITAKER

HARRY A. WHITAKER

Department of Psychology, The University of Rochester, Rochester, New York

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

PERSPECTIVES IN NEUROLINGUISTICS AND PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

Copyright

List of Contributors

Preface

Figure, Table, and Quotation Credits

Contents of Previous Volumes

Chapter 1: The Evolution of Human Communication Systems

Publisher Summary

INTRODUCTION

EVOLUTION OF COMMUNICATIVE AND OTHER COMPLEX BEHAVIORS (BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS)

EVOLUTION OF THE PRIMATE VOCAL TRACT AND EAR (PERIPHERAL STRUCTURES)

EVOLUTION OF THE BRAIN (CENTRAL CONTROL AND PROCESSING SYSTEMS)

ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND VOCAL LEARNING

CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX: COMPARISON OF VARIOUS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS IN BIRDS, PONGIDS, AND HUMANS IN TERMS OF HOCKETT’S DESIGN FEATURES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Chapter 2: The Neural Control of Eye Movements in Acquired and Developmental Reading Disorders

Publisher Summary

INTRODUCTION

DISORDERS OF THE SACCADIC EYE MOVEMENT SYSTEM

ACQUIRED DYSLEXIA

DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA

DISCUSSION

SUMMARY

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Chapter 3: Structure in a Manual Communication System Developed Without a Conventional Language Model: Language Without a Helping Hand

Publisher Summary

THE ROLE OF LINGUISTIC INPUT IN LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

METHOD

THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS AND DERIVATION OF CODING CATEGORIES

CATEGORIZATIONS OF RELATIONAL MEANINGS

STRUCTURE IN THE DEAF CHILD’S REPRESENTATION OF SEMANTIC RELATIONS

DISCUSSION

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

APPENDIX A: NUMBER OF PHRASES PRODUCED BY EACH CHILD CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO LENGTH

APPENDIX B1: DAVID’S ACTION PHRASES PRODUCED DURING SESSIONS 1-VIII34

APPENDIX B2: CHARACTERIZING SIGNS IN DAVID’S ACTION PHRASES PRODUCED DURING SESSIONS I–VIII

APPENDIX C1: DONALD’S ACTION PHRASES PRODUCED DURING SESSIONS I–XI

APPENDIX C2: CHARACTERIZING SIGNS IN DONALD’S ACTION PHRASES PRODUCED DURING SESSIONS I–XI

APPENDIX D1: KATHY’S ACTION PHRASES PRODUCED DURING SESSIONS I–IX

APPENDIX D2: CHARACTERIZING SIGNS IN KATHY’S ACTION PHRASES PRODUCED DURING SESSIONS I–IX

APPENDIX E1: CHRIS’S ACTION PHRASES PRODUCED DURING SESSIONS I–III

ACT–RECIPIENT–ACTOR

APPENDIX E2: CHARACTERIZING SIGNS IN CHRIS’S ACTION PHRASES PRODUCED DURING SESSIONS I–III

APPENDIX F1: DENNIS’S ACTION PHRASES PRODUCED DURING SESSIONS I–IV

APPENDIX F2: CHARACTERIZING SIGNS IN DENNIS’S ACTION PHRASES PRODUCED DURING SESSIONS I–IV

APPENDIX G1: TRACY’S ACTION PHRASES PRODUCED DURING SESSIONS I–II

APPENDIX G2: CHARACTERIZING SIGNS IN TRACY’S ACTION PHRASES PRODUCED DURING SESSIONS I–II

Chapter 4: Aphasic Dissolution and Language Acquisition

Publisher Summary

THE REGRESSION HYPOTHESIS

THE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM

INFLECTIONAL SYSTEMS

NAMING AND WORD RETRIEVAL

PRODUCTION AND COMPREHENSION OF COMPLEX UTTERANCES

STATUS OF THE REGRESSION HYPOTHESIS

Chapter 5: VOT Distinctions in Infants: Learned or Innate?

Publisher Summary

HIGH AMPLITUDE SUCKING

HEART RATE HABITUATION

AUDITORY EVOKED RESPONSE

EXPERIMENT 1

EXPERIMENT 2

DISCUSSION

Chapter 6: Disruption of Written Language in Aphasia

Publisher Summary

THE ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE

TYPES OF WRITING DISRUPTION

ANALYSIS OF APHASIC WRITING

SPONTANEOUS WRITING OF A SINGLE APHASIC

CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Chapter 7: Linguistic Aspects of Lexical Retrieval Disturbances in the Posterior Fluent Aphasias

Publisher Summary

THE MEANING OF USE

CODING LEXICAL ITEMS

TYPES OF RETRIEVAL DISTURBANCES

Chapter 8: Neurologic Correlates of Anomia

Publisher Summary

DEFINITIONS

EXAMINATION FOR ANOMIA

VARIETIES OF ANOMIC APHASIA

VARIETIES OF WORD-FINDING DISTURBANCE

DISCUSSION OF CLINICAL CASES

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Chapter 9: On Linguistic Perseveration

Publisher Summary

INTRODUCTION

THE CASES STUDIED

UNITS SUBJECT TO PERSEVERATION

PERSEVERATION IN SPONTANEOUS SPEECH

THEORIES EXPLAINING PERSEVERATION

Subject Index

PERSPECTIVES IN NEUROLINGUISTICS AND PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

Series Editor. Harry A. Whitaker,     DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, ROCHESTER, NEW YORK

HAIGANOOSH WHITAKER and HARRY A. WHITAKER (Eds.).

Studies in Neurolinguistics, Volumes 1, 2, and 3

NORMAN J. LASS (Ed.). Contemporary Issues in Experimental Phonetics

JASON W. BROWN. Mind, Brain, and Consciousness: The Neuropsychology of Cognition

SIDNEY J. SEGALOWITZ and FREDERIC A. GRUBER (Eds.). Language Development and Neurological Theory

SUSAN CURTISS. Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day Wild Child

JOHN MACNAMARA (Ed.). Language Learning and Thought

I. M. SCHLESINGER and LILA NAMIR (Eds.). Sign Language of the Deaf: Psychological, Linguistic, and Sociological Perspectives

WILLIAM C. RITCHIE (Ed.). Second Language Acquisition Research: Issues and Implications

PATRICIA SIPLE (Ed.). Understanding Language through Sign Language Research

MARTIN L. ALBERT and LORAINE K. OBLER. The Bilingual Brain: Neurophysiological and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism

HAIGANOOSH WHITAKER and HARRY A. WHITAKER (Eds.). Studies in Neurolinguistics, Volume 4

In preparation

TALMY GIVON. On Understanding Grammar

CHARLES J. FILLMORE, DANIEL KEMPLER and WILLIAM S.-Y. WANG (Eds.). Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior

Copyright

COPYRIGHT © 1979, BY ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR ANY INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER.

ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.

111 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003

United Kingdom Edition published by

ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. (LONDON) LTD.

24/28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Main entry under title:

Studies in Neurolinguistics.

(Perspectives in neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics)

Includes bibliographies and indexes.

1. Speech, Disorders of. 2. Languages––Physiological aspects. 3. Neuropsychology. I. Whitaker, Haiganoosh. II. Whitaker, Harry A. [DNLM: 1. Language. 2. Neurophysiology. WL102 S933]

RC423.S74 616.8′552 75–13100

ISBN 0-12-746304-6 (v.4)

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

79 80 81 82 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

List of Contributors

Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors’ contributions begin.

Temple Baker(241),,     Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas 76019

D. Frank Benson(293),,     The Neurobehavioral Center, Boston Veterans Administration Hospital, and Neurology Department, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 02130Hugh W. Buckingham, Jr. (269, 329), Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

Maureen Dennis(211),,     Department of Psychology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X8, Canada

William Orr Dingwall(1),,     Linguistics Program, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742

Susan Goldin-Meadow(125),,     Department of Education, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637

Dennis L. Molfese(225),,     Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901

Victoria J. Molfese(225),,     Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901

Francis J. Pirozzolo(97),,     Department of Neurology, Minneapolis Veterans Administration Hospital, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417

Keith Rayner(97),,     Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003

Renee Freedman Stern(241),,     Program in Communication Disorders, The University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75235

Hanna K. Ulatowska(241),,     Program in Communication Disorders, The University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75235

Haiganoosh Whitaker(329),,     Department of Psychology, The University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627

Harry A. Whitaker(329),,     Department of Psychology, The University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627

Carole Ann Wiegel-Crump(211),,     Troy University, European Division, Soesterberg, The Netherlands, and The International School, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Preface

This is the fourth in a series of volumes of original research and review papers in neurolinguistics. The continuation of the series will mark an expansion of the scope of the series: This will be the last volume devoted exclusively to language phenomena. In subsequent volumes, all research areas in the field of neuropsychology will be represented. The series will be retitled Studies in Neurolinguistics and Neuropsychology. This expansion of coverage is warranted by the almost phenomenal growth of neuropsychology over the past few years. Neurological, linguistic, psychological, and speech pathology societies all include sections in their annual meetings devoted to papers on neuropsychological and neurolinguistic topics.

As in the three previous volumes, the present work is heterogeneous both in theoretical perspective and in topical coverage. In our opinion, this accurately reflects the discipline today: It is not working under a uniform paradigm and there are not a few, narrowly defined areas of research. There is another, pragmatic reason for the inclusion of multiple topics in this, as in the other volumes. As editors, we believe it is our responsibility to make important review and research papers available to the scholarly community as quickly as possible. Withholding a paper from publication for a long period of time in order to pair it with another paper on a similar topic does not serve anyone’s interests. As before, we continue to solicit and are always receptive to all scholarly approaches and perspectives to any topic in the field of human brain and behavioral relationships.

In Chapter 1, Dingwall reviews the history of studies on, and the evidence for, The Evolution of Human Communication Systems. Fully appreciating the interdisciplinary complexity, he develops a framework for analyzing communication systems and examines the behavioral and neurological homologies among man, apes, and other species.

In Chapter, Pirozzolo and Rayner consider the problem of ‘The Neural Control of Eye Movements in Acquired and Developmental Reading Disorders," referring both to the literature and their own experimental research data. They argue that dyslexia is not caused by abnormal eye movements, although two types of dyslexic subjects do appear to have predictable differences in their eye movements during reading.

In Chapter 3, Goldin-Meadow addresses an unusual topic, Structure in a Manual Communication System Developed Without a Conventional Language Model. The basic focus is on the role of linguistic input in language acquisition. She establishes the criteria for determining that the signs used by the children in her study do have communicative function and a linguistic (phrase) structure.

In Chapter 4, Dennis and Weigel-Crump address a question first formulated by Hughlings Jackson in the nineteenth century. Aphasic Dissolution and Language Acquisition is a study of the regression hypothesis. The evidence indicates that there is little unequivocal support for the regression hypothesis.

In Chapter 5, Molfese and Molfese analyze VOT Distinctions in Infants. Voice onset time, a basic acoustic cue for distinguishing stop consonant pairs such as /b,p/, has recently been used in a number of infant studies in order to assess prelanguage linguistic abilities. The authors report their evidence that the VOT discrimination is made by 2–5-month-old infants, but not newborns, thus questioning the innateness of this sensory process.

In Chapter 6, Ulatowska, Baker, and Stern look at the Disruption of Written Language in Aphasia. They review the nature of agraphia in the broader context of written language and its relation to spoken language, and present an analysis of aphasic writing. Of particular note is the detailed syntactic analysis, not generally found in analyses of agraphia.

In Chapter 7, Buckingham considers Linguistic Aspects of Lexical Retrieval in the Posterior Fluent Aphasias. Both a psycholinguistic and a neurolinguistic framework are given for the nature of lexical items (words) in language and in a grammar. These frameworks are then applied to the analysis of the anomic aphasia usually seen in patients with lesions to the posterior language zones. Various hypotheses concerning aspects of word finding, lexical retrieval, are discussed.

In Chapter 8, Benson complements Chapter 7 with Neurologic Correlates of Anomia. The clinically distinct types, methods for diagnosing, and the anatomic correlates of the anomias, are all reviewed in detail. Benson concludes that anomia is not a unitary, specific aphasic disturbance, but has many varieties as well as many clinico-anatomical correlations.

In Chapter 9, On Linguistic Perseveration, Buckingham, Whitaker, and Whitaker present the first review of this phenomenon. Perseveration does not appear to have a distinct localization. Different linguistic units are subject to perseveration in aphasic patients, most noticeably phonemes, syllables, and words. Illustrative examples and theoretical conclusions are given.

Clinicians and research scientists will find the material in this and the previous volumes of interest. Clinical neurologists and speech pathologists will find new theories and methods derived from the behavioral sciences. Linguists will find important new data against which performance models of language must be tested; they will also welcome insights into the language-research techniques of neuropsychologists. Psychologists will find insights into language structure and brain function, which represent the best of the interdisciplinary focus that is neurolinguistics. The most obvious goal of neurolinguistics and neuropsychology is a synthesis of the brain sciences, the behavioral sciences, and the clinical sciences. It does not matter whether one’s primary interest is in language, the brain, or in the therapy and rehabilitation of the brain-damaged patient. As in the previous three volumes of this series, we hope that the reader will perceive a sense of the scope as well as the interest and excitement of many of the topics in this field.

Figure, Table, and Quotation Credits

Contents of Previous Volumes

VOLUME 1

1. Neurolinguistic Models of Language and Speech Yvan Lebrun

2. CNS Maturation and Language Acquisition Esther Milner

3. Subcortical Language Mechanisms George A. Ojemann

4. The Role of Phonology in Linguistic Communication: Some Neurolinguistic Considerations Marc L. Schnitzer

5. Neurogenic Disorders of Output Processing: Apraxia of Speech Donnell F. Johns and Leonard L. LaPointe

6. Broca’s Area and Broca’s Aphasia J. P. Mohr

7. Agrammatism Harold Goodglass

8. Psycholinguistic Structures in Aphasia: Studies in Syntax and Semantics Edgar B. Zurif and Alfonso Caramazza

9. Transcortical Motor Aphasia Alan B. Rubens

Subject Index

VOLUME 2

1. A Case of Isolation of the Language Function Haiganoosh Whitaker

2. The Language Performance of the Oral Deaf Linda Swisher

3. Neurolinguistic Analysis of Jargonaphasia and Jargonagraphia André Roch Lecours and Françoise Rouillon

4. The Neural Basis of Language Qua Gesture Doreen Kimura

5. Cerebral Asymmetry Stephen D. Krashen

6. Linguistic Performance in the Short-Term following Cerebral Commissurotomy Joseph E. Bogen

7. Spatial Abilities Alfred 0. Dick

8. Neurolinguistic Research on Reading Disorders Resulting from Left Hemisphere Lesions: Aphasic and Pure Alexia H. Hecaen and H. Kremin

Subject Index

VOLUME 3

1. Auditory Comprehension in Aphasia François Boller, Youngjai Kim, and James L. Mack

2. Bilingualism and Aphasia Michel Paradis

3. The Nature of Conduction Aphasia: A Study of Anatomic and Clinical Features and of Underlying Mechanisms Eugene Green and Davis H. Howes

4. The Limbic System in Human Communication John T. Lamendella

5. A Model of Individual Differences in Hemispheric Functioning Curtis Hardyck

6. Variability and Constraint in Acquired Dyslexia John C. Marshall and Freda Newcombe

7. The Question of Electrophysiological Asymmetries Preceding Speech Ronald S. Levy

1

The Evolution of Human Communication Systems

William Orr Dingwall,     UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

Publisher Summary

This chapter discusses some of the basic elements of modern evolutionary theory as it applies within biology. This theory seeks to account for changes that take place within populations of plants and animals over time. The individuals making up such populations at a given moment display wide variability in both phenotype as well as genotype. There are two main forces in evolution: variation created by random factors and a filter, whose properties are determined by factors that may be subsumed under the rubric of natural selection, which maintains or alters distributions of characteristics in various ways. One of the outcomes of the gradual accrual of divergent characteristics is the radiation of species, that is, the development of populations that do not interbreed. Such populations may be separated in time or may be coextant. The barriers to interbreeding involve a number of factors termed as isolating mechanisms. The biochemical evidence derives from three basic types of comparisons. One involves combining single strands from the DNA of two species. Such strands will recombine except at those points at which they are chemically different. A second method involves comparing the sequencing of amino acids in various types of protein molecules, such as those found in the blood. Finally, the immunological approach involves injecting a protein, such as serum–albumin, taken from one species into an animal from another species. This will result in antibodies being produced.

INTRODUCTION

… it is of as little use to be a good reasoner when there are no facts to reason upon, as it is to be a good bricklayer when there are no bricks to be built with.

[Edward B. Tylor, 1878, p. 15]

The topic of this chapter has engaged philosophers since the beginning of recorded history and, no doubt, before. As is the wont of philosophers (and some of the most renowned of all time have turned their attention to this problem), many, widely divergent, often conflicting, solutions have been proposed.¹ Some of the more frequent elements that figure in these solutions are present in Table 1.1, lest it be imagined that current views, to be touched on later, are overly original. These themes, as in some vast intellectual fugue, are introduced alone or in conjunction only to disappear, reappear in transposition or in totally new combinations depending on the times. It is not my purpose here to survey this complex segment of the history of ideas.²

TABLE 1.1

The Evolution of Human Communication Systems: Some Recurrent Themes.

Whether taken singly or arranged in complex causal chains, in the absence of hard facts and an overall framework within which they could be interpreted, there were few if any constraints imposed on solutions fashioned from the elements in Table 1.1. It is this state of affairs that Tylor laments in the opening quotation and that led, in large part, to the banning of speculation on this topic altogether. It is with this subject that we shall begin our discussion.

The Fall and Rise of a Question

THE BANNING OF THE QUESTION

In 1866, what Stam (1976) refers to as the annihilation of the question, took place. In the second bylaw of its constitution, the Société de linguistique de Paris, which had been founded the year before, stated Article II: The Society will accept no communication dealing with … the origin of language … . This ban was to be reconfirmed in 1911. The Philological Society of London, albeit unofficially, followed suit. Commenting on Max Müller’s attack on evolutionary theory, Alexander Ellis, the president of the Society, concluded that: We shall do more by tracing the historical growth of one single work-a-day tongue, than by filling waste-paper baskets with reams of paper covered with speculations on the origin of all tongues.

Even if the weight of Tylor’s argument or scepticism concerning the more imaginative solutions to the question³ might move the reader to sympathize with such a ban, it seems evident upon reflection that is was ill-conceived and strangely inopportune.

First of all, lack of empirical evidence need not impede brilliant insight, any more than the presence of such evidence necessarily guarantees its correct interpretation. Relying on logical argument alone, Leucippus was able to develop the atomic theory, while Aristotle, able to rely on the results of numerous dissections, failed to discover the correct function of the brain, imagining it to be the cooling system of the body. Historical aspects of any endeavor whether in the natural or human sciences are forced to operate with less than a complete set of facts. This does not and should not rule out investigation of the origin of the universe, of life, or of any aspect of behavior such as human communication.

Second, it is becoming clear that it is unlikely that we shall ever be able to fully explain any but the most trivial aspects of human behavior either diachronically or synchronically. We must be satisfied with models that more or less closely approximate the phenomenon we seek to explain. The convergence of evidence from as many sources as become available will continue to play an important role in chosing among conflicting hypotheses (see Rose, 1973).

Third, the Ban of 1866 was inopportune in that it was imposed just at the time when a mass of new facts relevant to the question was becoming available as well as a comprehensive framework within which to interpret them. In 1859 The Origin of Species was published by Charles Darwin, culminating over 100 years of discussion of evolution (see Mayr, 1972). While it scarcely mentioned man, it nevertheless laid the foundations for the rational investigation of the origin of his communicative behavior. Just three years before the Ban, T. H. Huxley, Darwin’s Bulldog, published his brilliant work on man’s place in nature, wherein he collected a vast amount of behavioral, anatomical, and paleontological evidence for man’s descent from a common ancestor with the apes. His method, which foreshadows that of this chapter, quite correctly arrives at the conclusion that the gorilla and chimpanzee share a closer relationship to man than they do to other apes and monkeys. The last section of Huxley’s work highlights the fact that, as early as 1829, fossil remains of what was eventually to be termed Homo sapiens neanderthalensis had been uncovered. Finally, in 1871, we have Darwin’s own contribution to the evolution of man, followed one year later by his important work The Expressions of the Emotions in Man and Animals. In both these works, the evolution of human communication systems was discussed in some detail.

Finally, it might be argued that although linguists undoubtedly felt at the time of the Ban that they were in the vanguard of science because of the successes of the comparative method, they were actually in the process of isolating themselves from the mainstream of the human sciences by a misinterpretation of evolutionary theory. It was widely felt that language could be regarded as a natural organism, whose structure could be validly studied in isolation from the beings that produced it and from the contexts within which it was produced. To quote Schleicher (1873): Languages are natural organisms, which, unregulated by the will of man, arise according to certain laws, grow and develop, and then become old and die out [p. 7]. It is only now beginning to dawn upon us how mistaken this notion is.⁴

THE RATIONALE FOR THE BAN

Although other disciplines that abided more closely by the teachings of biology continued their interest in the evolution of human communication systems, linguistics itself gradually abandoned all research into this topic. Thus one is lucky to find any reference to it in modern texts on linguistics. Those that do mention the subject do so only as an excuse for cataloguing the reasons against pursuing such a question.

First, it is usually pointed out that written evidence for language can only be traced back some 5000 years, to the earliest writings of the Sumerians. This may not be completely true, as we shall see below when we discuss Marshack’s recent findings indicating that symbolic notations existed at a much earlier date. Also it overlooks the fact that the development of writing itself may contain hints as to how communication systems in general may have evolved (see Pfeiffer’s [1969] interesting comments on this topic, which will be expanded on later). Second, it is customary to point out that the reconstruction of proto languages can shed little light on the primitive stages of language, as they tend to be more complex than their modern descendants. The heuristics of comparative reconstruction are unlikely to lead to any other result. Internal reconstruction applied to the results of the comparative method (see Lehmann, 1955) could lead to such simplification however. Thus Lehmann postulates but a single vowel phoneme for the prestress stage of pre-Indo-European. Further, both Bender (1973) and Kiparsky (1976) agree that the methods of reconstruction can push back our knowledge of language at most some 20–30 thousand years. This may be all that is necessary if we are to accept Lieberman’s argument against true language in some fossil hominids generally assigned to the subspecies Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Third, we learn that there are no truly primitive languages extant today. Thus, the Tasaday, even though they live in what is equivalent to a stone age culture, presumably have a language which has the same potential for the efficient transfer of complex information as English. I am inclined to believe that any member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, which the Tasaday surely are, possesses such a communication system simply by virtue of being members of the species. This supposition is based on the known range of cognitive capacities in our species and has nothing to do with the degree of primitiveness of human communication systems, for which linguists have no measures whatsoever. Finally, it is standard to point out that structures relevant to speech and language do not fossilize. While this is true to some extent, it underestimates the abilities of investigators to utilize what evidence is available in the fossil record to reconstruct these missing structures. After all, linguists are not the only scholars privileged to reconstruct lost features! This objection also overlooks the possibility of deriving evidence from extant species vis-à-vis the structures in question, namely the vocal tract, ear, and nervous system.

NEW SOURCES OF EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION

Despite the Ban and the ensuing, progressively increasing, neglect of the topic by most linguists, there has been a resurgence of interest in the evolution of human communication systems. Two august societies: the American Anthropological Association and the New York Academy of Sciences have recently provided fora for the review of current research on the topic (see Wescott, 1974; Harnad, Steklis, & Lancaster, 1976). New books have begun appearing on the topic, and it has even become respectable once more to treat it in linguistics texts (see Bolinger, 1975). The basic reason for this rebirth of interest is the great expansion of relevant data from a wide variety of disciplines. This is coupled with an intellectual climate that increasingly pushes towards merger of, or at least increased cooperation among, disciplines dealing with animal (including human) behavior (see Wilson, 1975; Mason & Lott, 1976).

What then is the make-up of this expanded data base? Some of its major components are listed in outline form below:

1. rapidly expanding fossil evidence coupled with increased ability to date it accurately

2. reconstructions of the brain, as well as peripheral structures, based on fossil evidence

3. increased data from the neurosciences:

a. comparative neurological studies

b. neurolinguistic studies

c. research in experimental phonetics and hearing and speech science

4. biochemical studies of the relatedness of animal species

5. studies of nonhuman primates in the wild and in the laboratory leading to increased knowledge of their complex behaviors in general and their communicative behavior in particular

6. studies of signing and nonverbal communicative behavior in general in human and nonhuman primates

7. renewed research on the effects of isolation on the development of communicative behavior

8. increasing knowledge of the normal ontogenesis of language in humans

9. studies of vocal learning in nonprimates particularly birds

10. investigation of the graphic behavior of early hominids

11. research on language universals

12. increased understanding of linguistic structures and their complexity

Many of these sources of information will be tapped at various points in this discussion. Some, such as language universals, are of questionable relevance. Such universals, if they indeed exist, may well result from the fortuitous overlap of behaviors constrained by species-specific neural and peripheral structures. There is no reason to believe such universals provide any insight into the make-up of the primordial structure (see Kiparsky [1976] for a different argument leading to the same conclusion).

It should be cautioned that we are at a primitive stage in the evaluation of almost every item on this list and that reevaluation of current evidence, as well as the rapid accretion of new evidence, may well vastly alter our perspective of things in the future.

For many centuries biology consisted solely of the accumulation of data such as those just listed. With the advent of the theory of evolution, it gained a framework within which such facts could be interpreted. Since certain aspects of this framework are crucial to our investigation, we now turn to a discussion of it.

The Evolutionary Approach

The fact that almost all the evidence listed in the previous section derives from disciplines other than linguistics should not be surprising. As noted, with the imposition of the Paris Ban, linguists gradually turned their backs on the question of language origins. They also effectively turned their backs on biology with their treatment of language as an organism that can be studied in isolation. This odd view persists (see, for example, Stevick, 1963) despite cogent arguments raised against it (see Hockett, 1957). Insofar as an evolutionary approach to human communication has even been considered, most linguists have adopted the discontinuity view of Lenneberg (1967) and Chomsky (1972). This view stresses that human language is not only species-specific, but also that the structures that subserve it are task-specific, that is, distinct from other mental functions. As we shall see, this view derives from an overly restrictive concept of language, which is then further held to be either present or absent as a totality in a given species (see Dingwall, 1975). Since it is felt that human communication either has no evolutionary history or that that history is irrevocably lost to us, no serious attempt has been made by linguists to investigate the origin of language within the framework provided by evolutionary theory. In this section, recent work on the concept of behavioral homology, which makes available a methodology for such an investigation, will be reviewed.

First of all, let us consider briefly some of the basic elements of modern evolutionary theory as it applies within biology. This theory seeks to account for changes that take place within populations of plants and animals over time. The individuals making up such populations at any given moment display wide variability in both phenotype (morphology and behavior) as well as genotype (the sum of inherited genetic material). The phenotype variance observed is determined by the variance in the genotype plus the variance in the environment, as well as their interaction. This fact may be expressed mathematically as: σ²p = σ²g + σ²e + σ²ge (see Murphy, 1973; Whalen, 1971). Genotypic variance is due not only to such factors as recombination and crossing over which occur during reproduction but also to various types of random genetic changes collectively termed mutations. These latter constitute the primary source of new genetic material.

If we were to draw samples at random from populations of plants and animals over time, we might observe patterns such as those in Figure 1.1. Here we see a simple instance of divergent development from a population sample with a single mode vis-a-vis the characteristic in question to one with an overlapping bimodal distribution. As an example, we know that cats and dogs are descended from a common ancestor. Yet they have clearly diverged in many characteristics, one of which is snout size. Dogs (excluding those with atypical characteristics cultivated by man) have a long snout, while cats have a short one. This, like other changes over time, is the result of natural selection. Certain phenotypes have a better chance of survival because of their higher degree of adaptedness to their environment. The selection of certain phenotypes over others changes the make-up of the genotype variance in the population, because such phenotypes have a greater opportunity to reproduce. Hutchinson (1974) believes that a change in hunting habits (tracking prey over long distances rather than stalking and pouncing upon it) may have originally produced the selective advantage for large versus small snouts. This is a typical example of behavioral evolution preceding structural change.

Figure 1.1 Divergence of population samples over time.

Other patterns of evolution besides divergence may occur. There may be a simple change in a population. This is typified by a gradual change such as that from A to B in Figure 1.1 without a split of the population into C. This may be the course followed in the shift in the hominid line from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Finally, there may be very little or no change over time if environmental factors remain relatively stable. Thus, the lamp shell Lingula, which lives in a deep sea environment, has changed very little in over 500 million years.

Thus there are two main forces in evolution: variation created by random factors and a filter whose properties are determined by factors that may be subsumed under the rubric of natural selection, which maintains or alters distributions of characteristics in various ways.

THE PRIMATE RADIATION

One of the outcomes of the gradual accrual of divergent characteristics is the radiation of species, that is, the development of populations that do not interbreed. Such populations may be separated in time (Homo erectus versus Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, presumably) or may be coextant (cats and dogs). The barriers to interbreeding involve a number of factors termed isolating mechanisms (see Hutchinson, 1974, 193ff.; Avers, 1974, 225ff.).

In Figure 1.2 we have a simplified representation, in the form of a phylogenetic tree, of such a radiation of species within the subphylum vertebrata. In the bottom half of the figure are more detailed trees for the class of mammals and the order of primates, to which the hominids (modern man together with his fossil ancestors) ultimately belong. It should be noted that the primate lineages constitute early offshoots of the insectivores (represented today by such animals as shrews and hedgehogs). Leaving aside the issue of whether the tarsiers are to be grouped with the prosimian suborder (represented in this figure by lemurs and lorises) or form a separate suborder of their own, the remaining primate suborder is that of the anthropoidea, from which first the New World Monkeys (e.g., squirrel monkeys and capuchins) and then the Old World Monkeys (e.g., macaques and baboons) split, leaving the super-family hominoidea.

Figure 1.2 (a) Simplified evolutionary trees of vertebrates, mammals, and primates. Specific examples of animal types are shown in brackets. (b) Revised evolutionary tree for the hominoids.

At this point the tree diagram has been revised in order to bring it into greater accord with current thought. A considerable volume of morphological, biochemical, and behavioral evidence points to a closer relation between the Great Apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) and man than between the Lesser Apes (gibbons and siamangs) and man. Further, among the Great Apes, the African varieties (chimpanzee and gorilla) appear to be somewhat closer relatives of man than the Asian variety (orangutan) (see Figure 1.2b).

The biochemical evidence derives from three basic types of comparisons. One involves combining single strands from the DNA of two species. Such strands will recombine except at those points at which they are chemically different. A second method involves comparing the sequencing of amino acids in various types of protein molecules, such as those found in the blood (hemoglobin). Finally, the immunological approach involves injecting a protein, such as serum-albumin, taken from one species into an animal from another species. This will result in antibodies being produced. Reactions to serum containing such antibodies can be used to gauge the relationships between various animals and the donor of the serum-albumin.

Evidence derived from these techniques is impressive in that (1) phylogenetic trees drawn on the basis of this evidence accord well with those such as that in Figure 1.2 based on other independent sources of data and (2) as Table 1.2 demonstrates, biochemical evidence drawn from a number of divergent sources is remarkably consistent. The immunological distances (ID) and percentage of differing amino acids (AAD) between man and a wide assortment of primates works out as follows:

TABLE 1.2

The Evolutionary Distance between Humans and Chimpanzees and Humans and Rhesus Monkeys.a

aAlthough the units of measurement of evolutionary distance differ in the different studies, the distance between humans and chimpanzees is in all cases less than a quarter of the difference between humans and rhesus monkeys. (Some of the data are cited by S. L. Washburn, personal communication. Mutations minimum number of point mutations per number of shared codons; ID = immunological difference.)

Because of the great similarity of these measures among the chimpanzee, the gorilla, and man, Goodman (1974) has gone so far as to suggest that the former two be reclassified as hominids, leaving only the orangutan in the pongid family. Others point out that the organismal difference between the pongids and hominids is sufficiently great to make us believe that the macromolecular differences cannot be telling the whole story. King and Wilson (1975) suggest that the true differences may lie in regulatory genes. This may turn out to be true, but, on the other hand, after our survey of behavioral and morphological differences, the reader may be willing to agree with Washburn and Moore (1974) that most of the differences relate to superficial matters of appearance that came late in evolution.

There is also an apparent lack of consistency between dates derived from the fossil record and from biochemical measures. Perhaps this can be explained by various factors such as increased gestational and generation lengths that may have decelerated molecular evolution in hominoids (see Goodman, 1974; as well as Sarich, 1974; Wilson & Sarich, 1969; and Byles, 1976).

Although for some the ability of the scientist to produce amino acids under conditions thought to have existed on this planet before life began or the demonstrated presence of DNA in the cells of all living matter may constitute convincing evidence for the theory of evolution, for most it is probably the existence of fossil plants and animals of no longer extant varieties—particularly the existence of fossil man. Whereas the biochemical data has had the effect of pushing the date of the ape-man split forward in time, more and more fossil discoveries have pushed back the date of the emergence of man.

Figure 1.3 provides a chronology of the more important fossil hominids, based in part on Campbell (1972). There has been no attempt to construct a phylogenetic tree, as this appears premature at this point. Most authorities agree that the earliest fossils classifiable as hominid are those of the genus Ramapithecus, found in Asia, Africa, and Europe. As we have only jaw fragments and teeth, there is no way of determining cranial capacity or whether this hominid walked upright. The recently discovered Ngorora (Kenya) molar is probably of this genus.

Figure 1.3 The fossil record of the hominids: A chronology.

Next we encounter a group of fossils that intervene in time between Ramapithecus and Homo erectus. Some of these belong to the genus Australopithecus (A. boisei, A. africanus, A. robustus), others are classified by some as Homo (Homo habilis).

The most complete hominid fossil yet found, Lucy, is felt by its discoverer, Don Johanson, to belong to the genus Australopithecus. Richard Leakey’s famous skull ER 1470 is probably best classified as Homo because of its exceptional cranial capacity (810 cc).

It is clear that if these classifications are accurately dated, then two genera of hominids coexisted in Africa. If Leakey’s recent Homo erectus find is correctly dated at from 1.5 to 1.8 million years old, then there is also overlap with yet a third genus. The Ndutu skull discovered by A. A. Mturi in