Advertisement

The Modality-Independent Capacity of Language: A Milestone of Evolution

Chapter

Abstract

The chapter makes a distinction between language impairment and production errors such as apraxia, dysarthria and speech sound disorders. It argues against the gestural theory of language evolution and for the evolution of a “general language bias.” Hence, the chapter introduces the concept of a modality-independent capacity of language. This capacity is revealed by similarities in the acquisition of speech and sign languages; for example, babbling by deaf and hearing babies. With a few exceptions, these languages also share important brain mechanisms. The chapter also discusses whether a general language capacity which cuts across the modalities and can be expressed by different articulators is unique to the human species. Finally, this chapter discusses the reasons for the dominance of spoken languages.

Keywords

Auditory Cortex Sign Language Language Impairment Deaf Child Deaf People 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Antia, S. D., Jones, P. B., Reed, S., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2009). Academic status and progress in communication in deaf and hard-of-hearing students in general education classrooms. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 293–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbib, M. A. (2009). Evolving the language ready brain and the social mechanisms that support language. Journal of Communication Disorders, 42, 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedny, M., Richardson, H., & Saxe, R. (2015). “Visual” cortex responses to spoken language in blind children. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 11674–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolhuis, J. J., Tattersall, I., Chomsky, N., & Berwick, R. C. (2015). Language: UG or not to be, that is the question. PLoS Biology, 13, e1002063. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corballis, M. C. (2010). Mirror neurons and the evolution of language. Brain & Language, 112, 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corina, D. P. (1998). Studies of neural processing in deaf signers: Toward a neurocognitive model of language processing in the deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corina, D. P., Lawyer, L. A., & Cates, D. (2013). Cross-linguistic differences in the neural representation of human language: Evidence from users of signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 587. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corina, D. P., McBurney, S. L., Dodrill, C., Hinshaw, K., Brinkley, J., & Ojemann, G. (1999). Functional roles of Broca’s area and supramarginal gyrus: Evidence from cortical stimulation mapping in a deaf signer. NeuroImage, 10, 570–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern day “wild child”. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. de Boysson-Bardies, B. (1999). How language comes to children: From birth to two years (M. DeBevoise, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species. The co-evolution of language and the human brain. London: Penguin books.Google Scholar
  12. Dolata, J. K., Davis, B. L., & Macneilage, P. F. (2008). Characteristics of the rhythmic organization of vocal babbling: Implications for an amodal linguistic rhythm. Infant Behavior & Development, 31, 422–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Emmorey, K., Petrich, J. A., & Gollan, T. H. (2013). Bimodal bilingualism and the Frequency-Lag Hypothesis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fogassi, L., Ferrari, P. F., Gesierich, B., Rozzi, S., Chersi, F., & Rizzolatti, G. (2005). Parietal lobe: From action organization to intention understanding. Science, 308, 662–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fujii, S., & Wan, C. Y. (2014). The role of rhythm in speech and language rehabilitation: The SEP hypothesis. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 8, 777.Google Scholar
  17. Ghazanfar, A. A., & Takahashi, D. Y. (2014). Facial expressions and the evolution of the speech rhythm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 1196–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gollan, T. H., Slattery, T. J., Goldenberg, D., Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Rayner, K. (2011). Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 140, 186–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hockett, C. D. (1960). The origin of speech. Reprint from Scientific American, 603.Google Scholar
  20. Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Knoors, H., & Marschark, M. (2012). Language planning for the 21st century: Revisiting bilingual language policy for deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17, 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kovelman, I., Mashco, K., Millott, L., Mastic, A., Moiseff, B., & Shalinsky, M. H. (2012). At the rhythm of language: Brain bases of language-related frequency perception in children. Neuroimage, 60, 673–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krentz, U. C., & Corina, D. P. (2008). Preference for language in early infancy: The human language bias is not speech specific. Developmental Science, 11(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Lieberman, P. (2000). Human language and our reptilian brain: The subcortical bases of speech, syntax and thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lieberman, P. (2015). Language did not spring forth 100 000 years ago. PLoS Biology, 13, E1002064. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacNeilage, P. F., & Davies, B. L. (2000). On the origin of internal structure of word forms. Science, 288, 527–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayberry, R. (1995). Mental phonology and language comprehension or What does that sign mistake mean? In K. Emmorey & J. Reilly (Eds.), Language, gesture, and space (pp. 355–370). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Mayberry, R., & Eichen, E. (1991). The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood. Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 486–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newport, E. L. (1991). Contrasting conceptions of the critical period for language. In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesist of mind: Essays in biology and cognition (pp. 111–130). Cambridge, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Nyström, P. (2008). The infant mirror neuron system studied with high density EEG. Social Neuroscience, 3(3-4), 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (1988). The role of audition in baby babbling. Child Development, 59, 441–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Petitto, L. A., Holowka, S., Sergio, L. E., Levy, B., & Ostry, D. J. (2004). Baby hands that move to the rhythm of language: Hearing babies acquiring sign languages babble silently on the hands. Cognition, 93, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Petitto, L. A., & Marentetto, P. F. (1991). Babbling in the manual mode: Evidence for the ontogeny of language. Science, 251, 1483–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rizzolatti, G., & Arbib, M. A. (1998). Language within a grasp. Trends in Neoroscience, 21, 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rydberg, E., Gellerstedt, L. C., & Danemark, B. (2010). The position of the deaf in the Swedish labor market. American Annals of the Deaf, 155, 68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Teoh, S. W., Pisoni, D. B., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2004). Cochlear implantation in adults with prelingual deafness. Part 1. Clinical results. Laryngoscope, 114, 1536–1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thelen, E. (1991). Motor aspects of emergent speech: A dynamic approach. In N. A. Krasnegor, D. M. Rumbaugh, R. L. Schiefelbush, & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Biological and behavioral determinants of language development (pp. 329–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Vouloumanos, A., & Werker, J.F. (2004). Tuned to the signal: the privileged status of speech for young infants. Developmental Science 7(3), 270–276.Google Scholar
  41. Vouloumanos, A., & Werker, J. F. (2007). Listening to language at birth: Evidence for a bias for speech in neonates. Developmental Science, 10(2), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations