Babel's Dawn

A Dab of This and a Dribble of That

Siberian jay signals don't just distinguish between predators; They distinguish between what predators are doing.

The surprises at the end of 2007 have put me in the mood for steady breakthroughs, but of course most science isn’t like that. Most science consists of the patient assembly of little bits of information that do or do not fit into the emerging picture puzzle. If they do, they support a sense of being on the right path. If they do not, they remind everyone not to become too confident. The past few weeks have seen the publication of various articles with dips and dabs of that sort of information. They cannot support a whole post on this wordy blog, but they do provoke some thinking about speech origins, so I thought I would list a few together. Let’s begin with the ones that do not fit immediately into this blog’s framework:

Birds Also Use FoxP2

Finches. Click to hear the two male finches, a zebra finch and a society finch, singing. It seems they need a properly functioning FoxP2 gene to learn their songs, just as humans need the gene to master articulate speech.

The FoxP2 gene is the only genetic basis of speech yet identified, although exactly what it contributes has remained a mystery. Without a normal FoxP2 gene people do not articulate their words well and also have some problems with syntax. It turns out that songbirds also require a properly functioning FoxP2 gene if they are to sing their song accurately and completely, says an article in the December PLoS Biology (available online here) by Constance Scharff and others. Thus, we at last have an experimental method of probing the role of FoxP2 in vocal development. Apparently the gene is important in helping young birds/people learn to imitate the sounds chirped/spoken around them.

A New Framework

Don't Look Down! Yikes. Yosemite Sam has run out of ground to stand on. So has the standard framework for understanding speech origins.

I’ve been thinking about this blog’s posts that appeared during the past two months. Reporting on one revolutionary article after another has forced me to regroup. During the 16 months I’ve been reporting on developments concerning speech origins I’ve changed my mind about so many important points that I’m now asking questions quite different from the ones I began with. So this post will set out a framework for speech origins that seems more in tune with the material I have reported.

The standard framework for speech origins is very much in keeping with an individualistic, rationalistic view of human behavior. The rationalism side assumes that speech organizes symbols to express their relationships, while the individualism part supposes that genes are selected to increase the speaker’s ability to control others through the rational power speech provides.

A traditional humanist might want to quarrel with this or that point, but the whole structure is supported by distinct lines of inquiry. So even if a doubter questions one proposition, the structure remains sturdy and able to stand. However, when I sat down to list the major changes I have made as a result of this blog I discovered the whole established structure has been replaced. Like Yosemite Sam finally noticing the ground beneath his feet has gone, I’m forced to holler Yikes.