Wordsmith.org
Posted By: of troy a gene for language - 10/04/01 12:53 PM
From today's NY times, and since some, hi jackie for some unfathomable reason, hate going to the site, the first third of the article..

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/04/science/04LANG.html

Scientists Report Finding a Gene for Speech

By NICHOLAS WADE

team of geneticists and linguists say they have found a gene that
underlies speech and language, the first to be linked to this uniquely
human faculty.

The discovery buttresses the idea that language is acquired and generated by
specific neural circuitry in the brain, rather than by general brain faculties.

The gene, which joins a handful known to affect human behavior, is of
particular interest because its role is to switch on a cascade of other genes in
the developing brain of the fetus. Biologists hope that by identifying these
"downstream" genes, they may be able to unravel the genetic basis of human
language.

The discovery may also help scientists answer the vital question of when
language evolved and whether the power it gave modern humans was the
primary reason they flourished and spread rapidly around the world.

Some scientists, however, say they believe the gene may be less specific to
language than it seems. So the new finding could simply fuel a longstanding
debate among linguists as to whether the brain handles language through
mechanisms specifically dedicated to the task or through a more general
system.

The new discovery is described in today's issue of Nature by Dr. Anthony P.
Monaco of the University of Oxford in England and colleagues.

The gene first came to light through study of a large family, half of whose
members have trouble pronouncing words properly, speaking grammatically
and making certain fine movements of the lips and the tongue. Asked to
speak a repetitive sound like "pataca pataca pataca," they will stumble over
each iteration. Outsiders have trouble understanding them when they speak,
and family members have difficulty understanding one another. Some of the
affected members, though not all, seem normal otherwise, suggesting that a
specific impairment of speech and language is the root of their problem.

The new study shows that all the affected members have inherited a
mutation, or variant piece of DNA, in a specific gene. The mutation affects a
single unit in the 6,500 units of DNA that make up the gene. So delicate is
the human genetic programming that this minuscule change suffices to
sabotage the whole faculty of speech and language.

The carriers of this variant gene resemble other people who have
impairments of language. They came to researchers' attention in 1990 only
because there were so many of them, all related and all living in the same
area of London. The family now has 29 members in three generations, 14 of
whom have the disorder.

The first linguist to study the family, Dr. Myrna Gopnik of McGill University
in Montreal, reported in 1990 that affected members were unable to change
the tense of verbs correctly, a finding that provoked considerable stir in the
linguistic world because it implied the existence of genes for grammar.

But in a later study of the family, Dr. Faraneh Vargha-Khadem of the
London Institute of Child Health identified a much wider range of speech and
language deficits, and some effects on general intelligence. The variant gene
"affects speech, but with knock-on effects in nonverbal ability," Dr.
Vargha-Khadem said.

Posted By: Faldage Re: a gene for language - 10/04/01 01:40 PM
Oooh. Thanks, ledasdottir. I love this kind of speculation. Fits right in with my attempts at unsuccessfully understanding the universe.

Not a bit of sarcasm implied emoticon. I really *do love this stuff[/white

Posted By: of troy Re: a gene for language - 10/04/01 01:47 PM
i hate it! it makes me feel that not only do i have dyslexia, but i have somehow missed a step on the evolutionary ladder.. or somehow i have taken a step backwards. i can no longer blame my mother's addiction to nicatine -- the fault is not in the stars, the fault lies with me..

Posted By: Rouspeteur Re: a gene for language - 10/04/01 05:09 PM

There is speculation that the current Prime Minister of Canada, the Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien, suffers from this sort of genetic impairment. He mangles both English and French so badly at times that even his own staff do not try to translate for reporters. Apparently, he was asked to participate in a study but declined. He could have been a good candidate because of the large size of his family (~12 siblings) and the fact that a lot of his relatives have remained in the same area for a considerable amount of time.

Rouspeteur

Posted By: Faldage Re: a gene for language - 10/04/01 05:54 PM
Here's a link to the Nature article itself:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/011004/011004-16.html

Posted By: wow Re: a gene for language - 10/04/01 09:29 PM
not only do i have dyslexia, but i have somehow missed a step on the evolutionary ladder..

No, you're just ahead of some of us.

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: a gene for language - 10/04/01 09:30 PM
There is speculation that the current Prime Minister of Canada, the Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien, suffers from this sort of genetic impairment.

Ottawa? Hell's bells, you don't have to leave Washington to find it!

Posted By: Rouspeteur Re: a gene for language - 10/04/01 10:18 PM
Our Prime Minister's language difficulties are more structured (for want of a better word) in that he makes the same kinds of grammatical errors repeatedly. For example, mixing singular and plural forms. I have never heard that his writing skills are lacking so it is just an oral affliction. Also, though I would never vote for the man, I do not think that it is a sign of his intelligence or lack thereof.

As to Mr. Bush, he seemed to be suffering the from the dual afflictions that a significant segment of the press don't like him and he gets tongue-tied. (As opposed to Bill Clinton who was disliked by a large segment of the press and, oh never mind..) I think that perhaps people are misunderestimating Mr. Bush.

Posted By: wsieber Re: a gene for language - 10/05/01 05:21 AM
The trouble with all this genetic research: a gene "for" something is identified by correlating a mutation with a deficiency of the property considered. So it only tells us that the intact gene is necessary for the function. We have no idea what else is just as necessary. Furthermore, the gene under consideration might also be needed for a lot of other functions - like our mouth, that probably served food uptake long before the adventitious discovery of speech.

Posted By: Bingley Re: a gene for language - 10/05/01 05:58 AM
The Nature article links to this article http://www.nature.com/nsu/981126/981126-2.html , which says that even people blind from birth gesture while speaking.

Bingley
Posted By: wsieber Re: a gene for language - 10/05/01 07:51 AM
By accident, I found this other link, which gives an expert opinion on this subject:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/message/14862

Posted By: maverick Re: a gene for language - 10/05/01 09:33 AM
Thanks, all, for some fascinating links. Yes, Werner, I completely share your reservations about the positive and negative inferences one can legitimately draw from this kind of evidence. An outstanding feature of speech, for me, is the way the body utilises components that clearly had another primary function initially. This tends to lead me towards those who argue that language is borne of deep-seated pattern formation in the brain - that it is only one output of a deeper function. I shall tote off Schoenemann's article to read tonight!

Posted By: Rouspeteur Re: a gene for language - 10/05/01 11:05 AM
A study I read about several years ago from McGill University in Montreal studied the brain activity of two groups of bilingual test subjects. One group learned French pretty much at the same time as they did English while the second group acquired French later.

The subjects' brain activity was measured when they were asked to perform in French. The patterns for each group were very different and for the group that learned French later there was a short, though measurable, lag time. The lag time was noted even in those subjects that would have been considered completely fluent with no accent.

Rouspeteur

Posted By: maverick Re: a gene for language - 10/05/01 12:49 PM
What conclusion do you draw, Rouspeteur? [pause] C'est a dit, qu'est-ce que tu crois?
some forms of French come more naturally than others...


Posted By: Faldage Re: a gene linked to language - 10/05/01 01:28 PM
All this information all over sudden for this poor Fool trying to unsuccessfully understand the universe!

Follow wsieber's link and look at the response linked to at the bottom of the page. The link *that correspondent gives is to a 38 page .pdf document that I have printed out and will read sometime. It should also be noted that the gentleman in wsieber's link is responding to a newspaper article; it won't be the first time the press has converted "a gene linked to..." into "a gene for...".

Still, I love all this new information for me to gobble up and attempt to digest. I am already churning stuff around in my brain and coming up with more questions. Particularly note that the gene discovered in humans is also present in mice.

Posted By: Bean Re: a gene for language - 10/05/01 02:44 PM
The subjects' brain activity was measured when they were asked to perform in French. The patterns for each group were very different and for the group that learned French later there was a short, though measurable, lag time. The lag time was noted even in those subjects that would have been considered completely fluent with no accent

I've often wondered about this. I first started learning Italian when I was 3 or 4, and I also spent kindergarten in French Immersion. Then to further confuse me linguistically, I lived in Sardinia for two years. Although you couldn't really call me fluent in French any more, what I do say comes naturally, there is no stopping to translate words before saying them. And I wouldn't have any trouble communicating in Quebec if I had to. I've always thought I had somehow managed to internalize all the French that my teachers were saying to me, even though I didn't understand it at the time. I did go back into immersion for three years in junior high and I found the language came quite naturally; I never had much trouble picking up vocabulary.

In contrast, I have been trying to learn Turkish, and it is a STRUGGLE. It has absolutely no connection to Latin, as French and Italian do. I was shocked at how different my Turkish experience has been!

Posted By: Rouspeteur Re: a gene for language - 10/05/01 04:22 PM
>> What conclusion do you draw, Rouspeteur?

I think you can teach an old dog new tricks, he might just do them differently. Seriously though, I think that at a very young age the brain is still quite malleable and new pathways can be set down. My children are learning new words each day and creating new pathways. (They don't know which language they are learning, they just know which sounds mean what.) They will end up speaking without an accent in both languages as a result.

I first entered French immersion in Grade 6 (11-12 years-old) and although competent in the language I will never be mistaken for a native speaker. New pathways can be created but they will never be as efficient as the ones created in infancy. I would liken it to people who are able to learn how to speak again after a stroke.

Rouspeteur

Posted By: Jackie Re: a gene for language - 10/05/01 05:12 PM
Here's the link to the article in wsieber's site that I think is the one mav toted:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~ptschoen/syntax.emergence.pdf
I like his division of "language" into phonetics, semantics, and syntax. According to his definitions, I'd say the so-called speech gene concerns phonetics: production and perception of the actual sounds (or signs) used by language.
I, too, have problems with saying there's "a gene for speech". That's way too broad a category for one poor little ol' gene to cover, all by its lonesome! I'm not that up on DNA and all, but I do know there are different parts of our make-up that control, for ex., hearing--the physical capacity to hear things; the way we interpret what we hear (what Prof. Schoenemann calls semantics, re: language); how we decide what we want to communicate;
and the physical capacity to make the sounds that we want to make. And I suspect this "speech gene" may have something to do with either the second or fourth of the things that I just mentioned.
As was said, communication involves more than verbal language. For ex., in the movie The Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger portrays a cybernetic organism that has A.I. (hi mav!) and no emotions. Well, Arnie's acting was a little too good in one scene: when something threatening suddenly appeared, the "emotionless" character's eyes widened. This is an automatic response for humans, though I suppose with determination it could be overcome. We haven't come that far down the evolutionary track: our hairs can still stand up in scary situations, as does, say, a dog's ruff, making it appear bigger and therefore more likely to win a battle.
Language and communicating: how could anyone not be interested in it?


Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: a gene for language - 10/05/01 08:57 PM
It seems to me that the article took the sociobiological approach - "I believe this to be true, so, ipso facto, it is true."

I think those who have said that this particular gene may be one of several (or more) which, missing or mutated, will impede the speech faculty are probably bang-on. Good sense, folks!

© Wordsmith.org