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.pdfI 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?
