Reply to comment

Sorry I wrote this message in response to a post on brain and language in another course forum (362) by a student there. Although parts of the message responds rather directly with the original post, I do explicitly deal with the issue of brain and behavior. Here, the issue of socially vs. biologically determined language use is taken up. In variation of the “neurobiology vs. soul” dichotomy we’ve developed, I argue that this specific set of behaviors (language use) has both a social and biological constitution, or in other words is influenced by both biological and non-biological (this is how I interpret “soul”) factors. I don't think its particularly useful or informing to develop absolutist "soul" vs. "brain" camps while talking about human experience, but I do think it will make for more lively class discussions.
James
(message below)

I’m also interested in the development of language. In the case of Creole, however, I would argue that the language itself involved not the spontaneous generation (or ‘invention’) of a completely novel linguistic system, but rather the modification of preexisting linguistic conventions in a social space inhabited by speakers of different languages. This process was probably more gradual than spontaneous (in a temporal sense), in that it didn’t develop in the space of a few weeks or months, but rather over the course of years and decades, through the everyday interaction of different groups of people. In the example of the deaf boy who learned to gesticulate towards his family, one might question the extent to which the invented sign language constitutes a complex language system as compared with more traditionally conceived systems (languages). Also, if the boy were absent from the social companionship constituted by his family, would he still have developed the ability to use hand signals? Here, I think, the “critical age hypothesis” is worth mentioning, if for no other reason that it suggests an inborn biological component to language acquisition. This hypothesis suggests that the first years of a child’s life constitute a critical period for language acquisition- Within this timeframe, a child will naturally acquire language in a social setting; After this time period, the individual will be less able to acquire language in a social setting.
There is some reading available on the internet pertaining to so-called “feral child syndrome” in which case children growing in the absence of human contact will be either
for periods superceding the “critical period” (roughly, the first four to five years) of language acquisition, the individual has severely limited language and communicative faculties, and is minimally able develop socially and linguistically thereafter. One well-known (and tragic) case study was that of “Genie”, a child left alone for a number of years, and thereafter brought into contact with linguists/scientists who tried to help as best they could. Here is the first link found on Google when searching for “Genie”, but if you are interested, there is quite a bit of reading on both the critical period hypothesis and feral child syndrome:
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/language.php
Another interesting series of observations relate to stroke victims and aphasiacs, whose language disorders have been causatively linked with damage to specific regions of the broca’s center, a region of the left cerebral hemisphere linked with motor mechanisms governing articulated speech.

That said, language might not be an all-or-nothing ‘biological vs. social’ phenomena, and there are observations and theories that suggest to suggest that both anatomy and social setting contribute to early language acquisition and subsequent use patterns. I’m not sure whether this is at all relevant to messages other than Natsu’s, but her original message made me think about language as a biological or social construct. I’m interested in reading more rigorously scientific material, if anyone has any suggestions for a textbook or articles explaining specific aspects of brain anatomy as they relate to language use and motor skills.

A more tangential (but interesting) topic that comes to mind when thinking about neurobiology and language is that of the evolution of language and handedness as interpreted through the fossil record. When I was in college, a current topic in archaeology and physical anthropology was the development of the biological capacity for language use, as marked by morphological variation in our archeologically unearthed ancestors (Archaic Homo Sapiens ). One argument suggested that the increasing complexity of brain anatomy correlated with the development of handedness and language systems. While it seems fairly straightforward to suggest that, as our brains became more complex, they were better able to perform the mental functions associated with language use, the interest in handedness involved analyses by archaeologists that suggested the preferential use of left or right handed instruments, based on tooth decay patterns in individual skeletons, as well as on wear patterns on stone tools, which corresponded, chronologically, to changes in brain anatomy (or at least cranial anatomy) and remnants of writing. There was also some speculation about the correlation of handedness and language use, but it might be best to consult anthropology or archeology journals and articles for a more accurate account of the research. I also think Janet Monge, who used to teach at Bryn Mawr may have done some relevant research.