>Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> >> >> Gerry, there are a lot of differences in oral anatomy between
humans & chimps, eg, humans have everted lips, a smaller mouth, less
prognathism, a highly vaulted palate, a smooth palate vault, a round tongue,
a descended os hyoid & larynx. Moreover, the cerebral control in humans is
about twice that in chimps (area 4) and the coordination of area 4 by the
prefrontal areas is much better developed in humans (eg, area 44 or Broca).
Yes, these differences are great enough to prevent them from speaking.
Marc
>> >> >Thanks Marc. That's the explanation I was looking for. And it was
so succinctly worded as well. So although chimps can be taught wrote tasks,
the chimp will never speak a "Nostratic" language. Correct? Gerry 2/14/00
>> >> Correct. Marc
>> >And Marc, why will chimps never be able to speak a Nostratic language?
Is it because of their hard wiring or because they don't have a template
imbedded in their brain? IOW, are you pro or anti Chomsky? Gerry 2/15/00
>> Chomsky has fabricated difficult generative "rules", which don't explain
anything. I prefer linguists like Greenberg & Comrie & Dik. But I don't see
what this has to do with chimps. Chimps don't have our enlarged area 4
(precentral areas) for the control over the fine movements of the oral
cavity, they lack our coordination of these areas by area 44 (Broca), they
have a rather different anatomy of the mouth & throat (see above), probably
they have different & smaller temporal areas for the analysis of speech
sounds, and they lack our enlarged association areas in the brain. Raised in
a human family & after years of training they can't say more than 3 or 4
different "words". Besides that, I don't think there is a sharp difference
in biological neural systems between hard & soft ware (IOW, I don't know
what you mean by "template"). Marc
>Hi Marc, your answer is very concise and very biological which it should
be. But language acquisition isn't only that which is biological. Part of
language has a cultural factor.
As you know, I am an extreme Darwinist with a very biological & a very
functional view on human behaviour. There's no contradiction between
biological & cultural. Think of the bird dialects that differ according to
the forest they live in. Or the dolphins who learn the pecularities of their
individual sounds from their mothers.
>But another, perhaps less well explained factor and absolutely one that is
difficult to document, goes beyond biological and cultural. And whatever we
call this factor (I'm not even sure what Chomsky calls it) it is responsible
for the inherited knowledge that we receive. And this is what I am referring
to as template. This template in our brains is a type of language map that
allows infants to contextualize the word patterns and associations, to
understand the syntax of her particular (native) language, and place the
grammar of a particular languge in its appropriate place. Without this
template humans would be no different from chimps or gorillas. Also, within
the human populations, some folks have a better defined template than do
others. Does this make sense? Gerry
I don't know. I can only speak about the known brain differences between
humans & apes. Some of these differences (absent from apes, see above) allow
human children to learn a certain language. You can find one of my papers on
language evolution & chimp/human brain differences at
http://www.flash.net/~hydra9/marcaat.html
Marc