A Study of Human Speech and Language - Term Paper Example

A Study of Human Speech and Language There are a number of theories regarding the acquisition of speech and language in human beings. Some scientists theorize that human speech and language must be genetically pre-determined. According to Lieberman, a 2001 study described a gene referred to as FOXP2 that was thought responsible for the acquisition of speech and language in humans (2013). FOXP2 belongs to a group of genes, which synthesis a protein that has ‘foxhead-box’ domains (Lieberman, 2013). Over the years, there has been much improvement in the evidence that supports that human genetics are responsible for the attainment of human speech and language. The development of language and speech starts as early as in infancy. Studies show that speech and language learning begin in the uterus with the infant’s recognition of its mother’s voice. Lieberman explains that anatomical changes and modifications in the human vocals for example the increase in length and the lower lying larynx compared to other animals is thought to play a crucial role in the development of human speech (2013). These improvements have been found to enable humans to produce a wide range of repertoire. However, changes in human genetic makeup have been shown to impact aspects related to neurologic system. Neurological aspects that control human motor control ability as well as those that lead to higher cognitive capabilities involved in speech development and language have been shown to be gene-determined. Genes are responsible for the development of Speech and Language in Human Beings This research aims at investigating factors that influence development of speech and language in human beings to promote the conclusion that genes are responsible for human being’s speech and language development. The research questions are: What makes genes dominate than other factors in the development of speech and language in human beings? The world is really being unlocked by advances in technology and is high end application in science. Voice, language, and speech are the tools used by humans to communicate with each other. Additionally, language is a significant and unique system that distinguishes humans from other animals and results to the development of race and heritage in normal child in terms of mother tongue inheritance (Dorothea, 2012). However, lack of sufficient technology and scientific knowledge has seen heated debates emerge over the development of science and language. Proponents have held strongly that human language depends on factors like adequate intelligence and environmental simulation (Mesoudi, Alan, McElligott, and David, 2011). Conversely, opponents held that human speech originated genetically. The result has been two perspectives of human language origin which are: evolutionally adaptations linked to “specified gift” and instinct for operations of gene-related evolution and cognition processes hence “Universal grammar” approach. Each group has lived to prove their argument and founded it on basic components like phonology, semantics, grammar and pragmatics. These two standpoints have led to lack of consensus on human speech origin especially due to lack of evidence. However, the recent discovery FOXP2 sets out to define that with or without other factors like environment and intelligence simulation genes are responsible for speech development. According to Dediu (2011), the issue of human language origin has remained a topic of heated debates and discussions with not any consensus having been arrived eat for lack of evidence. The implications have been that serious research on the issue had been avoided in the 20th century. Conversely, the 21st century has seen tremendous development on the hypothesis of how, where, when and why there was language emergence in the first place. In order to study human language in an evolutionary approach, understanding some of the earliest hypothesis on language development included early speculations, the obligatory reciprocal altruism hypothesis, mother tongue hypothesis, the tower of Babel hypothesis and the gossip and grooming hypothesis Dediu (2011). In the mother-tongue hypothesis of 2004, language is said to have evolved first from mother to their offspring owing to trust and cooperation oozing from genetically shared interests but was disapproved since assortment in animals like apes does not support language development. Further, the gossip and grooming hypothesis where individuals service their relationships for sustainable alliances undermined capacity of commitment despite time consumption and incurred expenses (Dediu, 2011). Obligatory reciprocal altruism hypothesis meant that language development required intentionally advanced honesty but failed to define enforcement of obligatory reciprocity. These constraints on hypothesis of human language development prompted further research on human language development through historical theories and models of language acquisition. Comparison of the factors that make language a unique aspect in human by Fedurek & Katie (2011) reveals that primitive and human vocalizations have plasticity and other aspects that promise to improvement in understanding speech and language evolution both genetically and environmentally. However, this development in human language has long been stalled with the only dominant aspect about human language and speech development being left to in almost indefinite debate. The debate on nature and nurture has seen linguists continue to disagree on which is the dominant factor in the development and acquisition of the presence of language while only trying to prove selves as more dominant. A typical human would be quick to conquer that language development is more about nurture. However, a scientists like Fisher and Lai would invesetigate the issue of genes and language by understanding the responsibility of genes in language acquisition and development (Fisher, Lai, & Monaco, 2003). Linguists emphasizing on nature use the theory of universal grammar that posits that all languages are structurally founded and that no child is hard-wired to genetically speak a given language (Dominguez & PaskoRakic, 2009). From the FOXP2 gene in the KE family, this concept is true since language and speech disorder get severe for each of the succeeding KE family generation. Through innateness theory, the universal grammar is facilitated by the presence of inborn language acquisition elements that are determined biologically while the KE family reveals language disorder as arising from point of gene mutation. This could imply that human genome is fundamental in humanizing humans while language acquisition results to maturation. In the first years of life, navists believe that through interaction of the brain and universal grammar, children become fluent in their language (Fedurek & Katie, 2011). However, environmental and intelligence factors that emphasize that language acquisition results from usage and experience and that no genes are involved cannot be neglected in the theory of human language development (Larson, Vivian, & Hiroko, 2010). From a behaviorist point of view, children assisted by adults and environment acquire language patterns from interactions and response to environmental circumstances. According to (Dominguez & PaskoRakic, 2009), experience and usage influence in language development and acquisition follows behaviorist theory coupled with operational conditioning. With operational conditioning, children are subjected to rewards and punishment for their conduct and within any environment, the child’s behavior results to favorable consequences or avoidance of harmful effects (Larson, Vivian, & Hiroko, 2010). The child in the behaviorist theory depends on experience and trial and error, first uttering single words, to gradually acquire words which they use to construct abstract expressions. Behaviorist linguists believe that language elements of proper pronunciation are perfected by accumulated knowledge and experience to alter the brain over time. Other theories in support of experience are cognitive theory and social interactionist theory. According to (Dediu, 2011) innateness and usage and experience do not satisfactorily provide an understanding of why children experience language disorders or why some diseases wipe out knowledge of language like Alzheimer’s disease. The recent first step in understanding the contribution of genes in human language and speech development has been through the study of language disorders and lost language knowledge (Fisher, Lai, & Monaco, 2003). The minimized changes in FOXP2 gene in the KE family could be linked to human language development as discovered by Fisher, Simon in 2001.The significance of this recent developments suggest that human innateness could be associated with acquisition of receptive or expressive language subject to sufficient intelligence. The evidence of present dominant mutated FOXP2 gene condition in three generation KE family resulted to ease understanding spoken words but struggle stringing words together in all affected victims. The rearrangement of chromosomes in the sequencing of FOXP2 gene in KE family indicated that genome mutation altered language development abilities for the KE family (Fisher, Lai, & Monaco, 2003) This research aims at investigating why genes are dominate over environmental and intelligence factors in the acquisition of language and how genes present themselves in language and speech acquisition. The research will be achieved using qualitative methods to examine the factors that make innateness credited to the acquisition of human language and if there exists any criticism against it. In this case, single case study will be used to explore the association of genes to human language and speech study given the many years of no consensus as to whether genes or the environment are associated with the development of language (Larson, Vivian, & Hiroko, 2010). In this case, multiple case studies will also be applicable since cross-case analysis or theory extension is needed. Further, survey method will not be used given that there is no need for data from numerous organizations to be collected through questionnaires, telephone or from published statistics and analyzed through statistical techniques. Data collection will generally involve case study qualitative content analysis while the tool to be used is systems of categories where content and meaning is correlated while the data to be collected is the meaning of text. The interpretation of study results will involve creation of significance of texts and significance found in text. Consequently, the emphasis will involve permitting emergence of various information categories from text and comprehending the significance for understanding the meaning of the given context an item is being analyzed The expected result is that since gene mutation results to language and speech disorders then, normal genes are responsible for language and speech acquisition in children. The case study for review is the recent language and speech disorders linked to FOXP2 gene discovered by Fisher, Simon in 2001. According to Kojima (2003), learning one’s mother tongue has remained very natural and inborn in most cases hence disregarding the need for official instructions. The naturalness sets apart humans from the apes which are the closest relatives. One most interesting gene study in language and development was FOXP2 that caused speech and language disorder in the KE family (Fisher, Lai, & Monaco, 2003). In this 3-generational family, approximately half the members had severe disorder in speech and language and investigations by Dr. Fisher and Dr. Cecilia revealed the disorder transmission was through an autosomal primary monogenic attribute. The publicized information about the KE family was that they were suffering from grammartical suffixation rules usage and this apparently proposed the presence of genes dedicated to grammar. In addition, the affected family members had unyielding dispraxia, with their speech being inconceivable for any inexperienced listener. KE family is credited for introduced a genome-wide search for association with an isolated chromosome 7 region linked to speech and language disorder and involvement in chromosomal abnormality. Such mapping of single gene disorders was reliable in its previos use in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy where chromosomal abnormaility was identifid from huge swapped pieces at the ends of two different chromosomes. Chromosome 7 was of the two that had swapped segments and it linked closely with Chromosome 7 of the KE family which was named FOXP2. FOXP2 belongs to the Forkhead Family-transcription factors. Transcription factors are known for their attribute of switching other genes on and off within the cell and are fundamental during development since they direct cell specialization and creation of pattern. The name forkhead has largely been influenced by spikehead structures in the embryos of fruitfly where the first FOXP2 gene mutated. In humans, forkhead gene family mutations has been linked to developmental disorders like immune deficiency and glaucoma. In FOXP2 gene, the region of encoded protein found to mutate only leaves the cell dependent on a copy of normal gene (Fisher, Lai, & Monaco, 2003). For the KE family, FOXP2’s mutation point co-segregates with the present speech and language acquisition disorder and the severe grammartical and linguistic impairment. For the family, the generational disorder was as a result of gene interrupted by translocation in an individual with similar disorder but unrelated. Translocation results to two FOXP2 functional copies that appear to be necessary for normal spoken language acquisition. In summary, the FOXP2 gene is the first to be linked to speech and language disorders in humans. The discovery sheds a lot of light on the long lived debate on whether or not innateness or behaviorism is responsible for language and speech acquisition. For the affected members of the KE family, the point of mutation is envisaged to result to impact Chromosome 7 which is linked to deficits in language for specific language impairment or SLI. This findings could imply that the presence of normal genes without mutations responsible for normal language and speech development while environmental factors only play a supplimentary role. Works Cited Dediu, D. (2011). Are Languages Really Independent from Genes? If Not, What Would a Genetic Bias Affecting Language Diversity Look Like? BioOne, 83(2), 279-296. Dominguez, M. H., & PaskoRakic. (2009). Language Evolution: The importance of Being Human. Nature, 462(7270), 169. Dorothea, M. (2012). Language development. (2nd Rev. ed ed.). New York: Russell & Russell/Atheneum Publishers,. Fedurek, P., & Katie, S. (2011). Primate Vocal Communication: A Useful Tool for Understanding Human Speech and Language Evolution. Human Biology, 153. Fisher, S. E., Lai, C. S., & Monaco. (2003). DECIPHERING THE GENETIC BASIS OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE DISORDERS. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 26, 57-80. Kojima, S. (2003). A search for the Origins of Human Speech: auditory and Vocal Functions of the Chimpanzee. Kyoto, Japan: Kyoto University Press. Larson, R., Vivian, M., & Hiroko, Y. (2010). The Evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieberman, P. (2013). The Unpredictable Species: What Makes Humans Unique. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mesoudi, Alex, Alan G. McElligott, and David, Adger (2011). Introduction: Integrating Genetic and Cultural Evolutionary Approaches to Language. Human Biology. 83(2), 141-151. Read More