Insanity peg game in 4 moves

Communication Studies Of Language Acquistion

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in its strongest form is not supported, but the fact remains that our first language or languages exert a powerful influence on how we think about the world and how we communicate with others about our thoughts. Considering what you have learned about language acquisition and about communication in at least one other area of communication studies (e.g., performance, communication and technology, interpersonal, group communication, organizational communication, rhetoric), write an essay in response to the following question:

How does the acquisition of a first language or languages facilitate or limit our perception of and communication with others?

Essays should be 600-1200 words, typed, double-spaced, 12 pt Times New Roman or Cambria. Essays are due by 7 pm, Monday, April 13, 2015. If you cite Fromkin, et al., please cite with the page number only. All other courses must be cited in APA and a references list must be included. Reference lists are not included in the word count.

An Introduction to Language, Ninth Edition Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, Nina Hyams

Senior Publisher: Lyn Uhl

Publisher: Michael Rosenberg

Development Editor: Joan M. Flaherty

Assistant Editor: Jillian D’Urso

Editorial Assistant: Erin Pass

Media Editor: Amy Gibbons

Marketing Manager: Christina Shea

Marketing Coordinator: Ryan Ahern

Marketing Communications Manager: Laura Localio

Senior Content Project Manager: Michael Lepera

Senior Art Director: Cate Rickard Barr

Senior Print Buyer: Betsy Donaghey

Permissions Editor: Bob Kauser

Production Service/Compositor: Lachina Publishing Services

Text Designer: Brian Salisbury

Photo Manager: John Hill

Cover photograph: © Ed Scott/ maXximages.com

Printed in Canada 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions

Further permissions questions can be emailed to permissionrequest@cengage.com

In memory of Irene Moss Hyams

vii

INTRODUCTION

Brain and Language 3

The Human Brain 4 The Localization of Language

in the Brain 5 Aphasia 6 Brain Imaging Technology 12 Brain Plasticity and Lateralization

in Early Life 14 Split Brains 15 Other Experimental Evidence

of Brain Organization 16

PART 1

The Nature of Human Language

Preface xiii

About the Authors xix

Contents

The Autonomy of Language 18 Other Dissociations of Language

and Cognition 19 Laura 20 Christopher 20

Genetic Basis of Language 21

Language and Brain Development 22 The Critical Period 22 A Critical Period for Bird Song 25 The Development of Language

in the Species 26

Summary 28 References for Further Reading 29 Exercises 30

PART 2

Grammatical Aspects of Language

CHAPTER 1

Morphology: The Words of Language 36

Dictionaries 38

Content Words and Function Words 38

Morphemes: The Minimal Units of Meaning 40 Bound and Free Morphemes 43

Prefixes and Suffixes 43 Infixes 45 Circumfixes 45

Roots and Stems 46 Bound Roots 47

Rules of Word Formation 47 Derivational Morphology 48 Inflectional Morphology 50 The Hierarchical Structure of Words 53 Rule Productivity 56

Exceptions and Suppletions 58 Lexical Gaps 59

Other Morphological Processes 60 Back-Formations 60 Compounds 60

“Pullet Surprises” 63

Sign Language Morphology 63

viii CONTENTS

Morphological Analysis: Identifying Morphemes 64

Summary 67 References for Further Reading 68 Exercises 68

CHAPTER 2

Syntax: The Sentence Patterns of Language 77

What the Syntax Rules Do 78 What Grammaticality Is Not Based On 82

Sentence Structure 83 Constituents and Constituency Tests 84

Syntactic Categories 86 Phrase Structure Trees and Rules 89

Heads and Complements 102 Selection 103 What Heads the Sentence 105

Structural Ambiguities 109 More Structures 111

Sentence Relatedness 115 Transformational Rules 115

The Structural Dependency of Rules 117

Further Syntactic Dependencies 120

UG Principles and Parameters 124

Sign Language Syntax 127

Summary 128 References for Further Reading 129 Exercises 130

CHAPTER 3

The Meaning of Language 139

What Speakers Know about Sentence Meaning 140

Truth 140 Entailment and Related Notions 141 Ambiguity 142

Compositional Semantics 144 Semantic Rules 144

Semantic Rule I 145

Semantic Rule II 145 When Compositionality Goes Awry 146

Anomaly 147 Metaphor 149 Idioms 150

Lexical Semantics (Word Meanings) 152 Theories of Word Meaning 153

Reference 154 Sense 155

Lexical Relations 156 Semantic Features 159

Evidence for Semantic Features 160 Semantic Features and Grammar 160

Argument Structure 163 Thematic Roles 164

Pragmatics 167 Pronouns 167

Pronouns and Syntax 168 Pronouns and Discourse 169 Pronouns and Situational Context 169

Deixis 170 More on Situational Context 172

Maxims of Conversation 172 Implicatures 174 Speech Acts 175

Summary 176 References for Further Reading 178 Exercises 178

CHAPTER 4

Phonetics: The Sounds of Language 189

Sound Segments 190 Identity of Speech Sounds 191 The Phonetic Alphabet 192

Articulatory Phonetics 195 Consonants 195

Place of Articulation 195 Manner of Articulation 197 Phonetic Symbols for American

English Consonants 204 Vowels 206

Tongue Position 206 Lip Rounding 208

Contents ix

Distinctive Features of Phonemes 238 Feature Values 238 Nondistinctive Features 239 Phonemic Patterns May Vary across

Languages 241 ASL Phonology 242 Natural Classes of Speech Sounds 242 Feature Specifications for American

English Consonants and Vowels 243

The Rules of Phonology 244 Assimilation Rules 244 Dissimilation Rules 248 Feature-Changing Rules 249 Segment Insertion and Deletion Rules 250 Movement (Metathesis) Rules 252 From One to Many and from Many

to One 253 The Function of Phonological Rules 255 Slips of the Tongue: Evidence for

Phonological Rules 255

Prosodic Phonology 256 Syllable Structure 256 Word Stress 257 Sentence and Phrase Stress 258 Intonation 259

Sequential Constraints of Phonemes 260 Lexical Gaps 262

Why Do Phonological Rules Exist? 262

Phonological Analysis 264

Summary 268 References for Further Reading 269 Exercises 270

Diphthongs 208 Nasalization of Vowels 209 Tense and Lax Vowels 209 Different (Tongue) Strokes

for Different Folks 210 Major Phonetic Classes 210

Noncontinuants and Continuants 210 Obstruents and Sonorants 210 Consonantal 211 Syllabic Sounds 211

Prosodic Features 212 Tone and Intonation 213

Phonetic Symbols and Spelling Correspondences 215

The “Phonetics” of Signed Languages 217

Summary 219 References for Further Reading 220 Exercises 221

CHAPTER 5

Phonology: The Sound Patterns of Language 226

The Pronunciation of Morphemes 227 The Pronunciation of Plurals 227 Additional Examples of Allomorphs 230

Phonemes: The Phonological Units of Language 232

Vowel Nasalization in English as an Illustration of Allophones 232

Allophones of /t/ 234 Complementary Distribution 235

PART 3

The Biology and Psychology of Language

The Creativity of Linguistic Knowledge 289

Knowledge of Sentences and Nonsentences 291

Linguistic Knowledge and Performance 292

What Is Grammar? 294 Descriptive Grammars 294

CHAPTER 6

What Is Language? 284

Linguistic Knowledge 284 Knowledge of the Sound System 285 Knowledge of Words 286

Arbitrary Relation of Form and Meaning 286

x CONTENTS

The Acquisition of Signed Languages 355

Knowing More Than One Language 357 Childhood Bilingualism 357

Theories of Bilingual Development 358

Two Monolinguals in One Head 360 The Role of Input 360 Cognitive Effects of Bilingualism 361

Second Language Acquisition 361 Is L2 Acquisition the Same as L1

Acquisition? 361 Native Language Influence in L2

Acquisition 363 The Creative Component of L2

Acquisition 364 Is There a Critical Period for L2

Acquisition? 365

Summary 366 References for Further Reading 368 Exercises 369

CHAPTER 8

Language Processing: Humans and Computers 375

The Human Mind at Work: Human Language Processing 375

Comprehension 377 The Speech Signal 378 Speech Perception and

Comprehension 379 Bottom-up and Top-down

Models 381 Lexical Access and Word

Recognition 383 Syntactic Processing 384 Speech Production 387

Planning Units 387 Lexical Selection 389 Application and Misapplication

of Rules 389 Nonlinguistic Influences 390

Computer Processing of Human Language 391 Computers That Talk and Listen 391

Prescriptive Grammars 295 Teaching Grammars 297

Language Universals 298 The Development of Grammar 299 Sign Languages: Evidence for the Innateness

of Language 300 American Sign Language 301

Animal “Languages” 302 “Talking” Parrots 303 The Birds and the Bees 304 Can Chimps Learn Human Language? 306

In the Beginning: The Origin of Language 308 Divine Gift 309 The First Language 309 Human Invention or the Cries

of Nature? 310

Language and Thought 310

What We Know about Human Language 315

Summary 317 References for Further Reading 318 Exercises 319

CHAPTER 7

Language Acquisition 324

Mechanisms of Language Acquisition 325 Do Children Learn through Imitation? 325 Do Children Learn through Correction

and Reinforcement? 326 Do Children Learn Language through

Analogy? 327 Do Children Learn through Structured

Input? 329 Children Construct Grammars 330 The Innateness Hypothesis 330 Stages in Language Acquisition 332

The Perception and Production of Speech Sounds 333

Babbling 334 First Words 335 Segmenting the Speech Stream 336 The Development of Grammar 339 Setting Parameters 354

Contents xi

Computational Lexicography 409 Information Retrieval and

Summarization 410 Spell Checkers 411 Machine Translation 412 Computational Forensic

Linguistics 414

Summary 418 References for Further Reading 420 Exercises 421

Computational Phonetics and Phonology 391

Computational Morphology 396 Computational Syntax 397 Computational Semantics 402 Computational Pragmatics 404 Computational Sign Language 405

Applications of Computational Linguistics 406 Computer Models of Grammar 406 Frequency Analysis, Concordances,

and Collocations 407

PART 4

Language and Society

CHAPTER 9

Language in Society 430

Dialects 430 Regional Dialects 432

Phonological Differences 434 Lexical Differences 435 Dialect Atlases 436 Syntactic Differences 436

Social Dialects 439 The “Standard” 439 African American English 442 Latino (Hispanic) English 446 Genderlects 448 Sociolinguistic Analysis 451

Languages in Contact 452 Lingua Francas 453 Contact Languages: Pidgins

and Creoles 454 Creoles and Creolization 457 Bilingualism 460

Codeswitching 461

Language and Education 463 Second-Language Teaching Methods 463 Teaching Reading 465 Bilingual Education 467 “Ebonics” 468

Language in Use 469 Styles 469 Slang 470

Jargon and Argot 470 Taboo or Not Taboo? 471

Euphemisms 473 Racial and National Epithets 474 Language and Sexism 474

Marked and Unmarked Forms 475 Secret Languages and Language

Games 476

Summary 477 References for Further Reading 479 Exercises 480

CHAPTER 10

Language Change: The Syllables of Time 488

The Regularity of Sound Change 489 Sound Correspondences 490 Ancestral Protolanguages 490

Phonological Change 491 Phonological Rules 492 The Great Vowel Shift 493

Morphological Change 494

Syntactic Change 496

Lexical Change 500 Change in Category 500 Addition of New Words 500

Word Coinage 501

xii CONTENTS

CHAPTER 11

Writing: The ABCs of Language 540

The History of Writing 541 Pictograms and Ideograms 541 Cuneiform Writing 543 The Rebus Principle 545 From Hieroglyphics to the Alphabet 546

Modern Writing Systems 547 Word Writing 548 Syllabic Writing 549 Consonantal Alphabet Writing 551 Alphabetic Writing 551

Writing and Speech 553 Spelling 556 Spelling Pronunciations 560

Summary 561 References for Further Reading 562 Exercises 563

Glossary 569

Index 601

Words from Names 502 Blends 503 Reduced Words 504 Borrowings or Loan Words 504

Loss of Words 507 Semantic Change 508

Broadening 508 Narrowing 509 Meaning Shifts 509

Reconstructing “Dead” Languages 509 The Nineteenth-Century

Comparativists 510 Cognates 511

Comparative Reconstruction 514 Historical Evidence 516

Extinct and Endangered Languages 518

The Genetic Classification of Languages 520 Languages of the World 523

Types of Languages 525

Why Do Languages Change? 528

Summary 530 References for Further Reading 531 Exercises 532

xiii

The ninth edition of An Introduction to Language continues in the spirit of our friend, colleague, mentor, and coauthor, Victoria Fromkin. Vicki loved lan- guage, and she loved to tell people about it. She found linguistics fun and fasci- nating, and she wanted every student and every teacher to think so, too. Though this edition has been completely rewritten for improved clarity and currency, we have nevertheless preserved Vicki’s lighthearted, personal approach to a com- plex topic, including witty quotations from noted authors (A. A. Milne was one of Vicki’s favorites). We hope we have kept the spirit of Vicki’s love for teaching about language alive in the pages of this book.

The first eight editions of An Introduction to Language succeeded, with the help of dedicated teachers, in introducing the nature of human language to tens of thousands of students. This is a book that students enjoy and understand and that professors find effective and thorough. Not only have majors in lin- guistics benefited from the book’s easy-to-read yet comprehensive presentation, majors in fields as diverse as teaching English as a second language, foreign lan- guage studies, general education, psychology, sociology, and anthropology have enjoyed learning about language from this book.

Highlights of This Edition This edition includes new developments in linguistics and related fields that will strengthen its appeal to a wider audience. Much of this information will enable students to gain insight and understanding about linguistic issues and debates appearing in the national media and will help professors and students stay cur- rent with important linguistic research. We hope that it may also dispel certain common misconceptions that people have about language and language use.

Many more exercises (240) are available in this edition than ever before, allowing students to test their comprehension of the material in the text. Many of the exercises are multipart, amounting to more than 300 opportunities for “homework” so that instructors can gauge their student’s progress. Some exer- cises are marked as “challenge” questions if they go beyond the scope of what is

Preface Well, this bit which I am writing, called Introduction, is really the er-h’r’m of the book, and I have put it in, partly so as not to take you by surprise, and partly because I can’t do without it now. There are some very clever writers who say that it is quite easy not to have an er-h’r’m, but I don’t agree with them. I think it is much easier not to have all the rest of the book.

A. A. MILNE, Now We Are Six, 1927

The last thing we find in making a book is to know what we must put first.

BLAISE PASCAL (1623–1662)

xiv PREFACE

ordinarily expected in a first course in language study. An answer key is avail- able to instructors to assist them in areas outside of their expertise.

The Introduction, “Brain and Language,” retains its forward placement in the book because we believe that one can learn about the brain through lan- guage, and about the nature of the human being through the brain. This chapter may be read and appreciated without technical knowledge of linguistics. When the centrality of language to human nature is appreciated, students will be motivated to learn more about human language, and about linguistics, because they will be learning more about themselves. As in the previous edition, highly detailed illustrations of MRI and PET scans of the brain are included, and this chapter highlights some of the new results and tremendous progress in the study of neurolinguistics over the past few years. The arguments for the autonomy of language in the human brain are carefully crafted so that the student sees how experimental evidence is applied to support scientific theories.

Chapters 1 and 2, on morphology and syntax, have been heavily rewritten for increased clarity, while weaving in new results that reflect current thinking on how words and sentences are structured and understood. In particular, the chapter on syntax continues to reflect the current views on binary branching, heads and complements, selection, and X-bar phrase structure. Non-English examples abound in these two chapters and throughout the entire book. The intention is to enhance the student’s understanding of the differences among languages as well as the universal aspects of grammar. Nevertheless, the intro- ductory spirit of these chapters is not sacrificed, and students gain a deep under- standing of word and phrase structure with a minimum of formalisms and a maximum of insightful examples and explanations, supplemented as always by quotes, poetry, and humor.

Chapter 3, on semantics or meaning, has been more highly structuralized so that the challenging topics of this complex subject can be digested in smaller pieces. Still based on the theme of “What do you know about meaning when you know a language?”, the chapter first introduces students to truth-conditional semantics and the principle of compositionality. Following that are discussions of what happens when compositionality fails, as with idioms, metaphors, and anomalous sentences. Lexical semantics takes up various approaches to word meaning, including the concepts of reference and sense, semantic features, argu- ment structure, and thematic roles. Finally, the chapter concludes with prag- matic considerations, including the distinction between linguistic and situational context in discourse, deixis, maxims of conversation, implicatures, and speech acts, all newly rewritten for currency and clarity.

Chapter 4, on phonetics, retains its former organization with one significant change: We have totally embraced IPA (International Phonetics Association) notation for English in keeping with current tendencies, with the sole exception of using /r/ in place of the technically correct /ɹ/. We continue to mention alterna- tive notations that students may encounter in other publications.

Chapter 5, on phonology, has been streamlined by relegating several complex examples (e.g., metathesis in Hebrew) to the exercises, where instructors can opt to include them if it is thought that students can handle such advanced mate- rial. The chapter continues to be presented with a greater emphasis on insights through linguistic data accompanied by small amounts of well-explicated for-

Preface xv

malisms, so that the student can appreciate the need for formal theories without experiencing the burdensome details.

Chapter 6 is a concise introduction to the general study of language. It now contains many topics of special interest to students, including “Language and Thought,” which takes up the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; discussions of signed languages; a consideration of animal “languages”; and a treatment of language origins.

The chapters comprising Part 3, “The Psychology of Language,” have been both rewritten and restructured for clarity. Chapter 7, “Language Acquisition,” is still rich in data from both English and other languages, and has been updated with newer examples from the ever expanding research in this vital topic. The arguments for innateness and Universal Grammar that language acquisition pro- vides are exploited to show the student how scientific theories of great import are discovered and supported through observation, experiment, and reason. As in most chapters, American Sign Language (ASL) is discussed, and its important role in understanding the biological foundations of language is emphasized.

In chapter 8, the section on psycholinguistics has been updated to conform to recent discoveries. The section on computational linguistics has been substan- tially reorganized into two subsections: technicalities and applications. In the applications section is an entirely new presentation of forensic computational linguistics—the use of computers in solving crimes that involve language, and, similarly, resolving judicial matters such as trademark disputes.

Part 4 is concerned with language in society, including sociolinguistics (chap- ter 9) and historical linguistics (chapter 10). Readers of previous editions will scarcely recognize the much revised and rewritten chapter 9. The section “Lan- guages in Contact” has been thoroughly researched and brought up to date, including insightful material on pidgins and creoles, their origins, interrelation- ship, and subtypes. An entirely new section, “Language and Education,” dis- cusses some of the sociolinguistic issues facing the classroom teacher in our mul- ticultural school systems. No sections have been omitted, but many have been streamlined and rewritten for clarity, such as the section on “Language in Use.”

Chapter 10, on language change, has undergone a few changes. The section “Extinct and Endangered Languages” has been completely rewritten and brought up to date to reflect the intense interest in this critical subject. The same is true of the section “Types of Languages,” which now reflects the latest research.

Chapter 11, on writing systems, is unchanged from the previous edition with the exception of a mild rewriting to further improve clarity, and the movement of the section on reading to chapter 9.

Terms that appear bold in the text are defined in the revised glossary at the end of the book. The glossary has been expanded and improved so that the ninth edition provides students with a linguistic lexicon of nearly 700 terms, making the book a worthy reference volume.

The order of presentation of chapters 1 through 5 was once thought to be nontraditional. Our experience, backed by previous editions of the book and the recommendations of colleagues throughout the world, has convinced us that it is easier for the novice to approach the structural aspects of language by first look- ing at morphology (the structure of the most familiar linguistic unit, the word). This is followed by syntax (the structure of sentences), which is also familiar

xvi PREFACE

to many students, as are numerous semantic concepts. We then proceed to the more novel (to students) phonetics and phonology, which students often find daunting. However, the book is written so that individual instructors can pres- ent material in the traditional order of phonetics, phonology, morphology, syn- tax, and semantics (chapters 4, 5, 1, 2, and 3) without confusion, if they wish.

As in previous editions, the primary concern has been with basic ideas rather than detailed expositions. This book assumes no previous knowledge on the part of the reader. An updated list of references at the end of each chapter is included to accommodate any reader who wishes to pursue a subject in more depth. Each chapter concludes with a summary and exercises to enhance the student’s interest in and comprehension of the textual material.

Acknowledgments Our endeavor to maintain the currency of linguistic concepts in times of rapid progress has been invaluably enhanced by the following colleagues, to whom we owe an enormous debt of gratitude:

Susan Curtiss University of California, brain and language Los Angeles Jeff MacSwan Arizona State University bilingual education,

bilingual communities

John Olsson Forensic Linguistic forensic linguistics Institute, Wales, U.K. Fernanda Pratas Universidade Nova pidgin/creoles de Lisboa Otto Santa Ana University of California, Chicano English Los Angeles Andrew Simpson University of Southern language and society California

We would also like to extend our appreciation to the following individuals for their help and guidance:

Deborah Grant Independent consultant general feedback Edward Keenan University of California, historical linguistics Los Angeles Giuseppe Longobardi Università di Venezia historical linguistics Pamela Munro University of California, endangered Los Angeles languages Reiko Okabe Nihon University, Tokyo Japanese and gender Megha Sundara University of California, early speech Los Angeles perception Maria Luisa Zubizarreta University of Southern language contact California

Preface xvii

Brook Danielle Lillehaugen undertook the daunting task of writing the Answer Key to the ninth edition. Her thoroughness, accuracy, and insightful- ness in construing solutions to problems and discussions of issues will be deeply appreciated by all who avail themselves of this useful document.

We also express deep appreciation for the incisive comments of eight review- ers of the eighth edition, known to us as R1–R8, whose frank assessment of the work, both critical and laudatory, heavily influenced this new edition:

Lynn A. Burley University of Central Arkansas Fred Field California State University, Northridge Jackson Gandour Purdue University, West Lafayette Virginia Lewis Northern State University Tom Nash Southern Oregon University Nancy Stenson University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Mel Storm Emporia State University Robert Trammell Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton

We continue to be deeply grateful to the individuals who have sent us sug- gestions, corrections, criticisms, cartoons, language data, and exercises over the course of many editions. Their influence is still strongly felt in this ninth edition. The list is long and reflects the global, communal collaboration that a book about language—the most global of topics—merits. To each of you, our heartfelt thanks and appreciation. Know that in this ninth edition lives your contribution:1

Adam Albright, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Rebecca Barghorn, University of Oldenburg; Seyed Reza Basiroo, Islamic Azad University; Karol Boguszewski, Poland; Melanie Borchers, Universität Duisburg-Essen; Donna Brinton, Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles; Daniel Bruhn, Uni- versity of California, Berkeley; Ivano Caponigro, University of California, San Diego; Ralph S. Carlson, Azusa Pacific University; Robert Channon, Purdue University; Judy Cheatham, Greensboro College; Leonie Cornips, Meertens Institute; Antonio Damásio, University of Southern California; Hanna Damá- sio, University of Southern California; Julie Damron, Brigham Young Univer- sity; Rosalia Dutra, University of North Texas; Christina Esposito, Macalester College; Susan Fiksdal, Evergreen State College; Beverly Olson Flanigan and her teaching assistants, Ohio University; Jule Gomez de Garcia, California State Uni- versity, San Marcos; Loretta Gray, Central Washington University; Xiangdong Gu, Chong qing University; Helena Halmari, Sam Houston State University; Sharon Hargus, University of Washington; Benjamin H. Hary, Emory Univer- sity; Tometro Hopkins, Florida International University; Eric Hyman, Univer- sity of North Carolina, Fayetteville; Dawn Ellen Jacobs, California Baptist Uni- versity; Seyed Yasser Jebraily, University of Tehran; Kyle Johnson, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Paul Justice, San Diego State University; Simin Karimi, University of Arizona; Robert D. King, University of Texas; Sharon M. Klein, California State University, Northridge; Nathan Klinedinst, Institut

1Some affiliations may have changed or are unknown to us at this time.

xviii PREFACE

Jean Nicod/CNRS, Paris; Otto Krauss, Jr., late, unaffiliated; Elisabeth Kuhn, Virginia Commonwealth University; Peter Ladefoged, Late, University of Cali- fornia, Los Angeles; Mary Ann Larsen-Pusey, Fresno Pacific University; Rabbi Robert Layman, Philadelphia; Byungmin Lee, Korea; Virginia “Ginny” Lewis, Northern State University; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Ingvar Lofstedt, University of California, Los Angeles; Harriet Luria, Hunter College, City University of New York; Tracey McHenry, Eastern Washington University; Carol Neidle, Boston University; Don Nilsen, Arizona State University; Anjali Pandey, Salisbury University; Barbara Hall Partee, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Vincent D. Puma, Flagler College; Ian Roberts, Cambridge University; Tugba Rona, Istanbul International Community School; Natalie Schilling-Estes, Georgetown University; Philippe Schlenker, Institut Jean-Nicod, Paris and New York University; Carson Schütze, University of California, Los Angeles; Bruce Sherwood, North Carolina State University; Koh Shimizu, Beijing; Dwan L. Shipley, Washington University; Muffy Siegel, Temple University; Neil Smith, University College London; Donca Steriade, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology; Nawaf Sulami, University of Northern Iowa; Dalys Vargas, College of Notre Dame; Willis Warren, Saint Edwards University; Donald K. Watkins, University of Kansas; Walt Wolfram, North Carolina State University.

Please forgive us if we have inadvertently omitted any names, and if we have spelled every name correctly, then we shall believe in miracles.

Finally, we wish to thank the editorial and production team at Cengage Learning. They have been superb and supportive in every way: Michael Rosen- berg, publisher; Joan M. Flaherty, development editor; Michael Lepera, content project manager; Jennifer Bonnar, project manager, Lachina Publishing Services; Christy Goldfinch, copy editor; Diane Miller, proofreader; Bob Kauser, permis- sions editor; Joan Shapiro, indexer; and Brian Salisbury, text designer.

Last but certainly not least, we acknowledge our debt to those we love and who love us and who inspire our work when nothing else will: Nina’s son, Michael; Robert’s wife, Helen; our parents; and our dearly beloved and still deeply missed colleagues, Vicki Fromkin and Peter Ladefoged.

The responsibility for errors in fact or judgment is, of course, ours alone. We continue to be indebted to the instructors who have used the earlier editions and to their students, without whom there would be no ninth edition.

Robert Rodman Nina Hyams

xix

VICTORIA FROMKIN received her bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1944 and her M.A. and Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1963 and 1965, respectively. She was a member of the faculty of the UCLA Department of Linguistics from 1966 until her death in 2000, and served as its chair from 1972 to 1976. From 1979 to 1989 she served as the UCLA Graduate Dean and Vice Chancellor of Graduate Programs. She was a visiting professor at the Universities of Stock- holm, Cambridge, and Oxford. Professor Fromkin served as president of the Linguistics Society of America in 1985, president of the Association of Graduate Schools in 1988, and chair of the Board of Governors of the Academy of Apha- sia. She received the UCLA Distinguished Teaching Award and the Professional Achievement Award, and served as the U.S. Delegate and a member of the Execu- tive Committee of the International Permanent Committee of Linguistics (CIPL). She was an elected Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the New York Academy of Science, the American Psychological Society, and the Acoustical Society of America, and in 1996 was elected to membership in the National Academy of Sciences. She published more than one hundred books, monographs, and papers on topics concerned with phonetics, phonology, tone languages, African lan- guages, speech errors, processing models, aphasia, and the brain/mind/language interface—all research areas in which she worked. Professor Fromkin passed away on January 19, 2000, at the age of 76.

ROBERT RODMAN received his bachelor’s degree in mathematics from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1961, a master’s degree in mathemat- ics in 1965, a master’s degree in linguistics in 1971, and his Ph.D. in linguistics in 1973. He has been on the faculties of the University of California at Santa Cruz, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Kyoto Industrial College in Japan, and North Carolina State University, where he is currently a professor of computer science. His research areas are forensic linguistics and computer speech processing. Robert resides in Raleigh, North Carolina, with his wife, Helen, Blue the Labrador, and Gracie, a rescued greyhound.

NINA HYAMS received her bachelor’s degree in journalism from Boston Uni- versity in 1973 and her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in linguistics from the Graduate Center of the City University of New York in 1981 and 1983, respectively. She joined the faculty of the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1983, where she is currently a professor of linguistics. Her main areas of research are childhood language development and syntax. She is author of the book Language Acquisi- tion and the Theory of Parameters (D. Reidel Publishers, 1986), a milestone in language acquisition research. She has also published numerous articles on the

About the Authors

xx ABOUT THE AUTHORS

development of syntax, morphology, and semantics in children. She has been a visiting scholar at the University of Utrecht and the University of Leiden in the Netherlands and has given numerous lectures throughout Europe and Japan. Nina lives in Los Angeles with her pal Spot, a rescued border collie mutt.

1

Reflecting on Noam Chomsky’s ideas on the innateness of the fundamentals

of grammar in the human mind, I saw that any innate features of the language

capacity must be a set of biological structures, selected in the course of the

evolution of the human brain.

S . E . L U R I A , A Slot Machine, a Broken Test Tube, an Autobiography, 1984

The Nature of Human Language

2 PART 1 The Nature of Human Language

The nervous systems of all animals have a number of basic functions in common,

most notably the control of movement and the analysis of sensation. What

distinguishes the human brain is the variety of more specialized activities it is

capable of learning. The preeminent example is language.

N O R M A N G E S C H W I N D , 1979

Linguistics shares with other sciences a concern to be objective, systematic,

consistent, and explicit in its account of language. Like other sciences, it aims to

collect data, test hypotheses, devise models, and construct theories. Its subject

matter, however, is unique: at one extreme it overlaps with such “hard” sciences

as physics and anatomy; at the other, it involves such traditional “arts” subjects as

philosophy and literary criticism. The field of linguistics includes both science and

the humanities, and offers a breadth of coverage that, for many aspiring students

of the subject, is the primary source of its appeal.

D A V I D C R Y S TA L , The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 1987

3

Attempts to understand the complexities of human cognitive abilities and espe- cially the acquisition and use of language are as old and as continuous as history itself. What is the nature of the brain? What is the nature of human language? And what is the relationship between the two? Philosophers and scientists have grappled with these questions and others over the centuries. The idea that the brain is the source of human language and cognition goes back more than two thousand years. The philosophers of ancient Greece speculated about the brain/ mind relationship, but neither Plato nor Aristotle recognized the brain’s crucial function in cognition or language. However, others of the same period showed great insight, as illustrated in the following quote from the Hippocratic Treatises on the Sacred Disease, written c. 377 b.c.e.:

[The brain is] the messenger of the understanding [and the organ whereby] in an especial manner we acquire wisdom and knowledge.

The study of language has been crucial to understanding the brain/mind relationship. Conversely, research on the brain in humans and other primates is helping to answer questions concerning the neurological basis for language. The study of the biological and neural foundations of language is called neu- rolinguistics. Neurolinguistic research is often based on data from atypical or impaired language and uses such data to understand properties of human lan- guage in general.

The functional asymmetry of the human brain is unequivocal, and so is its anatomical asymmetry. The structural differences between the left and the right hemispheres are visible not only under the microscope but to the naked eye. The most striking asymmetries occur in language-related cortices. It is tempting to assume that such anatomical differences are an index of the neurobiological underpinnings of language.

ANTONIO AND HANNA DAMÁSIO, University of Southern California, Brain and Creativity Institute and Department of Neuroscience

Brain and Language

Introduction

4 INTRODUCTION Brain and Language

The Human Brain “Rabbit’s clever,” said Pooh thoughtfully. “Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit’s clever.” “And he has Brain.” “Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit has Brain.” There was a long silence. “I suppose,” said Pooh, “that that’s why he never understands anything.”

A. A. MILNE, The House at Pooh Corner, 1928

The brain is the most complex organ of the body. It lies under the skull and consists of approximately 100 billion nerve cells (neurons) and billions of fibers that interconnect them. The surface of the brain is the cortex, often called “gray matter,” consisting of billions of neurons. The cortex is the decision-making organ of the body. It receives messages from all of the sensory organs, initiates all voluntary and involuntary actions, and is the storehouse of our memories. Somewhere in this gray matter resides the grammar that represents our knowl- edge of language.

The brain is composed of cerebral hemispheres, one on the right and one on the left, joined by the corpus callosum, a network of more than 200 million fibers (see Figure I.1). The corpus callosum allows the two hemispheres of the brain to communicate with each other. Without this system of connections, the

Front

Back

Cortex White Matter

Corpus Callosum

Right Hemisphere

Left Hemisphere

FIGURE I.1 | Three-dimensional reconstruction of the normal living human brain. The images were obtained from magnetic resonance data using the Brainvox technique. Left panel = view from top. Right panel = view from the front following virtual coronal section at the level of the dashed line. Courtesy of Hanna Damásio.

The Human Brain 5

two hemispheres would operate independently. In general, the left hemisphere controls the right side of the body, and the right hemisphere controls the left side. If you point with your right hand, the left hemisphere is responsible for your action. Similarly, sensory information from the right side of the body (e.g., right ear, right hand, right visual field) is received by the left hemisphere of the brain, and sensory input to the left side of the body is received by the right hemi- sphere. This is referred to as contralateral brain function.

The Localization of Language in the Brain

“Peanuts” copyright . 1984 United Feature Syndicate, Inc. Reprinted by permission.

An issue of central concern has been to determine which parts of the brain are responsible for human linguistic abilities. In the early nineteenth century, Franz Joseph Gall proposed the theory of localization, which is the idea that different human cognitive abilities and behaviors are localized in specific parts of the brain. In light of our current knowledge about the brain, some of Gall’s particu- lar views are amusing. For example, he proposed that language is located in the frontal lobes of the brain because as a young man he had noticed that the most articulate and intelligent of his fellow students had protruding eyes, which he believed reflected overdeveloped brain material. He also put forth a pseudosci- entific theory called “organology” that later came to be known as phrenology, which is the practice of determining personality traits, intellectual capacities, and other matters by examining the “bumps” on the skull. A disciple of Gall’s, Johann Spurzheim, introduced phrenology to America, constructing elaborate maps and skull models such as the one shown in Figure I.2, in which language is located directly under the eye.

Gall was a pioneer and a courageous scientist in arguing against the prevailing view that the brain was an unstructured organ. Although phrenology has long been discarded as a scientific theory, Gall’s view that the brain is not a uniform mass, and that linguistic and other cognitive capacities are functions of localized

6 INTRODUCTION Brain and Language

brain areas, has been upheld by scientific investigation of brain disorders, and, over the past two decades, by numerous studies using sophisticated technologies.

Aphasia

FIGURE I.2 | Phrenology skull model.

For Better Or For Worse © 2007 Lynn Johnston Prod. Reprinted by permission of Universal Press Syndicate. All rights reserved.

The study of aphasia has been an important area of research in understanding the relationship between brain and language. Aphasia is the neurological term for any language disorder that results from brain damage caused by disease or trauma. In the second half of the nineteenth century, significant scientific advances were

The Human Brain 7

made in localizing language in the brain based on the study of people with apha- sia. In the 1860s the French surgeon Paul Broca proposed that language is local- ized to the left hemisphere of the brain, and more specifically to the front part of the left hemisphere (now called Broca’s area). At a scientific meeting in Paris, he claimed that we speak with the left hemisphere. Broca’s finding was based on a study of his patients who suffered language deficits after brain injury to the left frontal lobe. A decade later Carl Wernicke, a German neurologist, described another variety of aphasia that occurred in patients with lesions in areas of the left hemisphere temporal lobe, now known as Wernicke’s area. Language, then, is lateralized to the left hemisphere, and the left hemisphere appears to be the language hemisphere from infancy on. Lateralization is the term used to refer to the localization of function to one hemisphere of the brain. Figure I.3 is a view of the left side of the brain that shows Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas.

The Linguistic Characterization of Aphasic Syndromes

Most aphasics do not show total language loss. Rather, different aspects of lan- guage are selectively impaired, and the kind of impairment is generally related to the location of the brain damage. Because of this damage-deficit correlation, research on patients with aphasia has provided a great deal of information about how language is organized in the brain.

Patients with injuries to Broca’s area may have Broca’s aphasia, as it is often called today. Broca’s aphasia is characterized by labored speech and certain kinds of word-finding difficulties, but it is primarily a disorder that affects a person’s ability to form sentences with the rules of syntax. One of the most

FIGURE I.3 | Lateral (external) view of the left hemisphere of the human brain, showing the position of Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas—two key areas of the cortex related to language processing.

8 INTRODUCTION Brain and Language

notable characteristics of Broca’s aphasia is that the language produced is often agrammatic, meaning that it frequently lacks articles, prepositions, pronouns, auxiliary verbs, and other grammatical elements that we will call “function words” for now. Broca’s aphasics also typically omit inflections such as the past tense suffix -ed or the third person singular verb ending -s. Here is an excerpt of a conversation between a patient with Broca’s aphasia and a doctor:

doctor: Could you tell me what you have been doing in the hospital? patient: Yes, sure. Me go, er, uh, P.T. [physical therapy] none o’cot,

speech . . . two times . . . read . . . r . . . ripe . . . rike . . . uh write . . . practice . . . get . . . ting . . . better.

doctor: And have you been going home on weekends? patient: Why, yes . . . Thursday uh . . . uh . . . uh . . . no . . . Friday . . .

Bar . . . ba . . . ra . . . wife . . . and oh car . . . drive . . . purpike . . . you know . . . rest . . . and TV.

Broca’s aphasics (also often called agrammatic aphasics) may also have dif- ficulty understanding complex sentences in which comprehension depends exclusively on syntactic structure and where they cannot rely on their real-world knowledge. For example, an agrammatic aphasic may have difficulty knowing who kissed whom in questions like:

Which girl did the boy kiss?

where it is equally plausible for the boy or the girl to have done the kissing; or might be confused as to who is chasing whom in passive sentences such as:

The cat was chased by the dog.

where it is plausible for either animal to chase the other. But they have less dif- ficulty with:

Which book did the boy read?

or

The car was chased by the dog.

where the meaning can be determined by nonlinguistic knowledge. It is implau- sible for books to read boys or for cars to chase dogs, and aphasic people can use that knowledge to interpret the sentence.

Unlike Broca’s patients, people with Wernicke’s aphasia produce fluent speech with good intonation, and they may largely adhere to the rules of syntax. How- ever, their language is often semantically incoherent. For example, one patient replied to a question about his health with:

I felt worse because I can no longer keep in mind from the mind of the minds to keep me from mind and up to the ear which can be to find among ourselves.

Another patient described a fork as “a need for a schedule” and another, when asked about his poor vision, replied, “My wires don’t hire right.”

The Human Brain 9

People with damage to Wernicke’s area have difficulty naming objects pre- sented to them and also in choosing words in spontaneous speech. They may make numerous lexical errors (word substitutions), often producing jargon and nonsense words, as in the following example:

The only thing that I can say again is madder or modder fish sudden fishing sewed into the accident to miss in the purdles.

Another example is from a patient who was a physician before his aphasia. When asked if he was a doctor, he replied:

Me? Yes sir. I’m a male demaploze on my own. I still know my tubaboys what for I have that’s gone hell and some of them go.

Severe Wernicke’s aphasia is often referred to as jargon aphasia. The linguis- tic deficits exhibited by people with Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia point to a modular organization of language in the brain. We find that damage to different parts of the brain results in different kinds of linguistic impairment (e.g., syntac- tic versus semantic). This supports the hypothesis that the mental grammar, like the brain itself, is not an undifferentiated system, but rather consists of distinct components or modules with different functions.

The kind of word substitutions that aphasic patients produce also tell us about how words are organized in the mental lexicon. Sometimes the substi- tuted words are similar to the intended words in their sounds. For example, pool might be substituted for tool, sable for table, or crucial for crucible. Sometimes they are similar in meaning (e.g., table for chair or boy for girl). These errors resemble the speech errors that anyone might make, but they occur far more fre- quently in people with aphasia. The substitution of semantically or phonetically related words tells us that neural connections exist among semantically related words and among words that sound alike. Words are not mentally represented in a simple list but rather in an organized network of connections.

Similar observations pertain to reading. The term dyslexia refers to reading disorders. Many word substitutions are made by people who become dyslexic after brain damage. They are called acquired dyslexics because before their brain lesions they were normal readers (unlike developmental dyslexics, who have difficulty learning to read). One group of these patients, when reading words printed on cards aloud, produced the kinds of substitutions shown in the following examples.

Stimulus Response 1 Response 2

act play play applaud laugh cheers example answer sum heal pain medicine south west east

The omission of function words in the speech of agrammatic aphasics shows that this class of words is mentally distinct from content words like nouns. A similar phenomenon has been observed in acquired dyslexia. The patient who produced the semantic substitutions cited previously was also agrammatic and

10 INTRODUCTION Brain and Language

was not able to read function words at all. When presented with words like which or would, he just said, “No” or “I hate those little words.” However, he could read homophonous nouns and verbs, though with many semantic mis- takes, as shown in the following:

Stimulus Response Stimulus Response

witch witch which no! hour time our no! eye eyes I no! hymn bible him no! wood wood would no!

All these errors provide evidence that the mental dictionary has content words and function words in different compartments, and that these two classes of words are processed in different brain areas or by different neural mechanisms, further supporting the view that both the brain and language are structured in a complex, modular fashion.

Additional evidence regarding hemispheric specialization is drawn from Japa- nese readers. The Japanese language has two main writing systems. One system, kana, is based on the sound system of the language; each symbol corresponds to a syllable. The other system, kanji, is ideographic; each symbol corresponds to a word. (More about this in chapter 11 on writing systems.) Kanji is not based on the sounds of the language. Japanese people with left-hemisphere damage are impaired in their ability to read kana, whereas people with right-hemisphere damage are impaired in their ability to read kanji. Also, experiments with unim- paired Japanese readers show that the right hemisphere is better and faster than the left hemisphere at reading kanji, and vice versa.

Most of us have experienced word-finding difficulties in speaking if not in reading, as Alice did in “Wonderland” when she said:

“And now, who am I? I will remember, if I can. I’m determined to do it!” But being determined didn’t help her much, and all she could say, after a great deal of puzzling, was “L, I know it begins with L.”

This tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon (often referred to as TOT) is not uncom- mon. But if you could rarely find the word you wanted, imagine how frustrated you would be. This is the fate of many aphasics whose impairment involves severe anomia—the inability to find the word you wish to speak.

It is important to note that the language difficulties suffered by aphasics are not caused by any general cognitive or intellectual impairment or loss of motor or sensory controls of the nerves and muscles of the speech organs or hearing apparatus. Aphasics can produce and hear sounds. Whatever loss they suffer has to do only with the language faculty (or specific parts of it).

Deaf signers with damage to the left hemisphere show aphasia for sign lan- guage similar to the language breakdown in hearing aphasics, even though sign language is a visual-spatial language. Deaf patients with lesions in Broca’s area show language deficits like those found in hearing patients, namely severely dysfluent, agrammatic sign production. Likewise, those with damage to Wer-

The Human Brain 11

nicke’s area have fluent but often semantically incoherent sign language, filled with made-up signs. Although deaf aphasic patients show marked sign language deficits, they have no difficulty producing nonlinguistic gestures or sequences of nonlinguistic gestures, even though both nonlinguistic gestures and linguis- tic signs are produced by the same “articulators”—the hands and arms. Deaf aphasics also have no difficulty in processing nonlinguistic visual-spatial rela- tionships, just as hearing aphasics have no problem with processing nonlinguis- tic auditory stimuli. These findings are important because they show that the left hemisphere is lateralized for language—an abstract system of symbols and rules—and not simply for hearing or speech. Language can be realized in differ- ent modalities, spoken or signed, but will be lateralized to the left hemisphere regardless of modality.

The kind of selective impairments that we find in people with aphasia has provided important information about the organization of different language and cognitive abilities, especially grammar and the lexicon. It tells us that lan- guage is a separate cognitive module—so aphasics can be otherwise cognitively normal—and also that within language, separate components can be differen- tially affected by damage to different regions of the brain.

Historical Descriptions of Aphasia

Interest in aphasia has a long history. Greek Hippocratic physicians reported that loss of speech often occurred simultaneously with paralysis of the right side of the body. Psalm 137 states: “If I forget thee, Oh Jerusalem, may my right hand lose its cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.” This pas- sage also shows that a link between loss of speech and paralysis of the right side was recognized.

Pliny the Elder (c.e. 23–79) refers to an Athenian who “with the stroke of a stone fell presently to forget his letters only, and could read no more; otherwise, his memory served him well enough.” Numerous clinical descriptions of patients like the Athenian with language deficits, but intact nonlinguistic cognitive sys- tems, were published between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries. The lan- guage difficulties were not attributed to either general intellectual deficits or loss of memory, but to a specific impairment of language.

Carl Linnaeus in 1745 published a case study of a man suffering from jargon aphasia, who spoke “as if it were a foreign language, having his own names for all words.” Another physician of that century reported on a patient’s word sub- stitution errors:

After an illness, she was suddenly afflicted with a forgetting, or, rather, an incapacity or confusion of speech. . . . If she desired a chair, she would ask for a table. . . . Sometimes she herself perceived that she misnamed objects; at other times, she was annoyed when a fan, which she had asked for, was brought to her, instead of the bonnet, which she thought she had requested.

Physicians of the day described other kinds of linguistic breakdown in detail, such as a priest who, following brain damage, retained his ability to read Latin but lost the ability to read German.

12 INTRODUCTION Brain and Language

The historical descriptions of language loss following brain damage fore- shadow the later controlled scientific studies of aphasia that have provided substantial evidence that language is predominantly and most frequently a left- hemisphere function. In most cases lesions to the left hemisphere result in apha- sia, but injuries to the right do not (although such lesions result in deficits in facial recognition, pattern recognition, and other cognitive abilities). Still, cau- tion must be taken. The ability to understand intonation connected with various emotional states and also to understand metaphors (e.g., The walls have ears), jokes, puns, double entendres, and the like can be affected in patients with right hemisphere damage. If such understanding has a linguistic component, then we may have to attribute some language cognition to the right hemisphere.

Studies of aphasia have provided not only important information regard- ing where and how language is localized in the brain, but also data bearing on the properties and principles of grammar that have been hypothesized for non- brain-damaged adults. For example, the study of aphasia has provided empirical evidence concerning theories of word structure (chapter 1), sentence formation (chapter 2), meaning (chapter 3), and sound systems (chapters 4 and 5).

Brain Imaging Technology The historical descriptions of aphasia illustrate that people have long been fasci- nated by the brain-language connection. Today we no longer need to rely on sur- gery or autopsy to locate brain lesions or to identify the language regions of the brain. Noninvasive brain recording technologies such as computer tomography (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reveal lesions in the liv- ing brain shortly after the damage occurs. In addition, positron emission tomog- raphy (PET) scans, functional MRI (fMRI) scans, and single photon emission CT (SPECT) scans provide images of the brain in action. It is now possible to detect changes in brain activity and to relate these changes to localized brain damage and specific linguistic and nonlinguistic cognitive tasks.

Figures I.4 and I.5 show MRI scans of the brains of a Broca’s aphasic patient and a Wernicke’s aphasic patient. The black areas show the sites of the lesions. Each diagram represents a slice of the left side of the brain.

A variety of scanning techniques permit us to measure metabolic activity in particular areas of the brain. Areas of greater activity are those most involved in the mental processes at the moment of the scan. Supplemented by magnetic encephalography (MEG), which measures magnetic fields in the living brain, these techniques can show us how the healthy brain reacts to particular linguis- tic stimuli. For example, the brains of normal adults are observed when they are asked to listen to two or more sounds and determine if they are the same. Or they may be asked to listen to strings of sounds or read a string of letters and determine if they are real or possible words, or listen to or read sequences of words and say whether they form grammatical or ungrammatical sentences. The results of these studies reaffirm the earlier findings that language resides in specific areas of the left hemisphere.

Dramatic evidence for a differentiated and structured brain is also provided by studies of both normal individuals and patients with lesions in regions of the brain other than Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas. Some patients have difficulty speaking a person’s name; others have problems naming animals; and still oth-

The Human Brain 13

ers cannot name tools. fMRI studies have revealed the shape and location of the brain lesions in each of these types of patients. The patients in each group had brain lesions in distinct, nonoverlapping regions of the left temporal lobe. In a follow-up PET scan study, normal subjects were asked to name persons, animals, or tools. Experimenters found that there was differential activation in the normal brains in just those sites that were damaged in the aphasics who were unable to name persons, animals, or tools.

Further evidence for the separation of cognitive systems is provided by the neurological and behavioral findings that follow brain damage. Some patients

FIGURE I.4 | Three-dimensional reconstruction of the brain of a living patient with Broca’s aphasia. Note area of damage in left frontal region (dark gray), which was caused by a stroke. Courtesy of Hanna Damásio.

FIGURE I.5 | Three-dimensional reconstruction of the brain of a living patient with Wernicke’s aphasia. Note area of damage in left posterior temporal and lower parietal region (dark gray), which was caused by a stroke. Courtesy of Hanna Damásio.

14 INTRODUCTION Brain and Language

lose the ability to recognize sounds or colors or familiar faces while retaining all other functions. A patient may not be able to recognize his wife when she walks into the room until she starts to talk. This suggests the differentiation of many aspects of visual and auditory processing.

Brain Plasticity and Lateralization in Early Life It takes only one hemisphere to have a mind.

A. L. WIGAN, The Duality of the Mind, 1844

Lateralization of language to the left hemisphere is a process that begins very early in life. Wernicke’s area is visibly distinctive in the left hemisphere of the fetus by the twenty-sixth gestational week. Infants as young as one week old show a greater electrical response in the left hemisphere to language and in the right hemisphere to music. A recent study videotaped the mouths of babies between the ages of five and twelve months when they were smiling and when they were babbling in syllables (producing sequences like mamama or gugugu). The study found that during smiling, the babies had a greater opening of the left side of the mouth (the side controlled by the right hemisphere), whereas dur- ing babbling, they had a greater opening of the right side (controlled by the left hemisphere). This indicates more left hemisphere involvement even at this very early stage of productive language development (see chapter 7).

While the left hemisphere is innately predisposed to specialize for language, there is also evidence of considerable plasticity (i.e., flexibility) in the system during the early stages of language development. This means that under cer- tain circumstances, the right hemisphere can take over many of the language functions that would normally reside in the left hemisphere. An impressive illus- tration of plasticity is provided by children who have undergone a procedure known as hemispherectomy, in which one hemisphere of the brain is surgically removed. This procedure is used to treat otherwise intractable cases of epilepsy. In cases of left hemispherectomy after language acquisition has begun, children experience an initial period of aphasia and then reacquire a linguistic system that is virtually indistinguishable from that of normal children. They also show many of the developmental patterns of normal language acquisition. UCLA pro- fessor Susan Curtiss and colleagues have studied many of these children. They hypothesize that the latent linguistic ability of the right hemisphere is “freed” by the removal of the diseased left hemisphere, which may have had a strong inhibi- tory effect before the surgery.

In adults, however, surgical removal of the left hemisphere inevitably results in severe loss of language function (and so is done only in life-threatening cir- cumstances), whereas adults (and children who have already acquired language) who have had their right hemispheres removed retain their language abilities. Other cognitive losses may result, such as those typically lateralized to the right hemisphere. The plasticity of the brain decreases with age and with the increas- ing specialization of the different hemispheres and regions of the brain.

Despite strong evidence that the left hemisphere is predetermined to be the language hemisphere in most humans, some evidence suggests that the right

The Human Brain 15

hemisphere also plays a role in the earliest stages of language acquisition. Chil- dren with prenatal, perinatal, or childhood brain lesions in the right hemisphere can show delays and impairments in babbling and vocabulary learning, whereas children with early left hemisphere lesions demonstrate impairments in their ability to form phrases and sentences. Also, many children who undergo right hemispherectomy before two years of age do not develop language, even though they still have a left hemisphere.

Various findings converge to show that the human brain is essentially designed to specialize for language in the left hemisphere but that the right hemisphere is involved in early language development. They also show that, under the right circumstances, the brain is remarkably resilient and that if brain damage or sur- gery occurs early in life, normal left hemisphere functions can be taken over by the right hemisphere.

Split Brains

© Scott Adams/Dist. by United Feature Syndicate, Inc.

People suffering from intractable epilepsy may be treated by severing commu- nication between their two hemispheres. Surgeons cut through the corpus cal- losum (see Figure I.1), the fibrous network that connects the two halves. When this pathway is severed, there is no communication between the “two brains.” Such split-brain patients also provide evidence for language lateralization and for understanding contralateral brain functions.

The psychologist Michael Gazzaniga states:

With [the corpus callosum] intact, the two halves of the body have no secrets from one another. With it sectioned, the two halves become two different conscious mental spheres, each with its own experience base and

16 INTRODUCTION Brain and Language

control system for behavioral operations. . . . Unbelievable as this may seem, this is the flavor of a long series of experimental studies first carried out in the cat and monkey.1

When the brain is surgically split, certain information from the left side of the body is received only by the right side of the brain, and vice versa. To illus- trate, suppose that a monkey is trained to respond with both its hands to a cer- tain visual stimulus, such as a flashing light. After the training is complete, the brain is surgically split. The stimulus is then shown only to the left visual field (the right hemisphere). Because the right hemisphere controls the left side of the body, the monkey will perform only with the left hand.

In humans who have undergone split-brain operations, the two hemispheres appear to be independent, and messages sent to the brain result in different responses, depending on which side receives the message. For example if a pen- cil is placed in the left hand of a split-brain person whose eyes are closed, the person can use the pencil appropriately but cannot name it because only the left hemisphere can speak. The right brain senses the pencil but the information cannot be relayed to the left brain for linguistic naming because the connections between the two halves have been severed. By contrast, if the pencil is placed in the right hand, the subject is immediately able to name it as well as to describe it because the sensory information from the right hand goes directly to the left hemisphere, where the language areas are located.

Various experiments of this sort have provided information on the different capabilities of the two hemispheres. The right brain does better than the left in pattern-matching tasks, in recognizing faces, and in spatial tasks. The left hemi- sphere is superior for language, rhythmic perception, temporal-order judgments, and arithmetic calculations. According to Gazzaniga, “the right hemisphere as well as the left hemisphere can emote and while the left can tell you why, the right cannot.”

Studies of human split-brain patients have also shown that when the inter- hemispheric visual connections are severed, visual information from the right and left visual fields becomes confined to the left and right hemispheres, respec- tively. Because of the crucial endowment of the left hemisphere for language, written material delivered to the right hemisphere cannot be read aloud if the brain is split, because the information cannot be transferred to the left hemi- sphere. An image or picture that is flashed to the right visual field of a split-brain patient (and therefore processed by the left hemisphere) can be named. However, when the picture is flashed in the left visual field and therefore “lands” in the right hemisphere, it cannot be named.

Other Experimental Evidence of Brain Organization Dichotic listening is an experimental technique that uses auditory signals to observe the behavior of the individual hemispheres of the human brain. Subjects hear two different sound signals simultaneously through earphones. They may hear curl in one ear and girl in the other, or a cough in one ear and a laugh in the other. When asked to state what they heard in each ear, subjects are more fre-

1Gazzaniga, M. S. 1970. The bisected brain. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

The Human Brain 17

quently correct in reporting linguistic stimuli (words, nonsense syllables, and so on) delivered directly to the right ear, but are more frequently correct in report- ing nonverbal stimuli (musical chords, environmental sounds, and so on) deliv- ered to the left ear. Such experiments provide strong evidence of lateralization.

Both hemispheres receive signals from both ears, but the contralateral stimuli prevail over the ipsilateral (same-side) stimuli because they are processed more robustly. The contralateral pathways are anatomically thicker (think of a four- lane highway versus a two-lane road) and are not delayed by the need to cross the corpus callosum. The accuracy with which subjects report what they hear is evidence that the left hemisphere is superior for linguistic processing, and the right hemisphere is superior for nonverbal information.

These experiments are important because they show not only that language is lateralized, but also that the left hemisphere is not superior for processing all sounds; it is only better for those sounds that are linguistic. The left side of the brain is specialized for language, not sound, as we also noted in connection with sign language research discussed earlier.

Other experimental techniques are also being used to map the brain and to investigate the independence of different aspects of language and the extent of the independence of language from other cognitive systems. Even before the advances in imaging technology of the 1980s and more recently, researchers were taping electrodes to different areas of the skull and investigating the electri- cal activity of the brain related to perceptual and cognitive information. In such experiments scientists measure event-related brain potentials (ERPs), which are the electrical signals emitted from the brain in response to different stimuli.

For example, ERP differences result when the subject hears speech sounds versus nonspeech sounds, with a greater response from the left hemisphere to speech. ERP experiments also show variations in timing, pattern, amplitude, and hemisphere of response when subjects hear sentences that are meaningless, such as

The man admired Don’s headache of the landscape.

as opposed to meaningful sentences such as

The man admired Don’s sketch of the landscape.

Such experiments show that neuronal activity varies in location within the brain according to whether the stimulus is language or nonlanguage, with a left hemisphere preference for language. Even jabberwocky sentences—sentences that are grammatical but contain nonsense words, such as Lewis Carroll’s ’Twas bril- lig, and the slithy toves—elicit an asymmetrical left hemisphere ERP response, demonstrating that the left hemisphere is sensitive to grammatical structure even in the absence of meaning. Moreover, because ERPs also show the timing of neuronal activity as the brain processes language, they can provide insight into the mechanisms that allow the brain to process language quickly and efficiently, on the scale of milliseconds.

ERP and imaging studies of newborns and very young infants show that from birth onward, the left hemisphere differentiates between nonlinguistic acoustic processing and linguistic processing of sounds, and does so via the same neural

18 INTRODUCTION Brain and Language

pathways that adults use. These results indicate that at birth the left hemisphere is primed to process language, and to do so in terms of the specific localization of language functions we find in the adult brain.

What is more, these studies have shown that early stages of phonological and syntactic processing do not require attentional resources but are automatic, very much like reflexes. For example, even sleeping infants show the asymmetrical and distinct processing of phonological versus equally different but nonlinguis- tic acoustic signals; and adults are able to perform a completely unrelated task, one that takes up considerable attentional resources, at the same time they are listening to sentences, without affecting the nature or degree of the brain activ- ity that is the neural reflex of automatic, mandatory early syntactic processing.

Experimental evidence from these various neurolinguistic techniques has pro- vided empirical confirmation for theories of language structure. For example, ERP, fMRI, PET, and MEG studies provide measurable confirmation of discrete speech sounds and their phonetic properties. These studies also substantiate lin- guistic evidence that words have an internal structure consisting of morphemes (chapter 1) and belong to categories such as nouns and verbs. Neurolinguistic experiments also support the mental reality of many of the syntactic structures proposed by linguists. Thus neurolinguistic experimentation provides data for both aspects of neurolinguistics: for helping to determine where and how lan- guage is represented and processed in the brain, and for providing empirical sup- port for concepts and hypotheses in linguistic theory.

The results of neurolinguistic studies, which use different techniques and dif- ferent subject populations, both normal and brain damaged, are converging to provide the information we seek on the relationship between the brain and vari- ous language and nonlanguage cognitive systems. However, as pointed out by Professors Colin Phillips and Kuniyoshi Sakai,

. . . knowing where language is supported in the human brain is just one step on the path to finding what are the special properties of those brain regions that make language possible. . . . An important challenge for coming years will be to find whether the brain areas implicated in language studies turn out to have distinctive properties at the neuronal level that allow them to explain the special properties of human language.2

The Autonomy of Language In addition to brain-damaged individuals who have lost their language ability, there are children without brain lesions who nevertheless have difficulties in acquiring language or are much slower than the average child. They show no other cognitive deficits, they are not autistic or retarded, and they have no per- ceptual problems. Such children are suffering from specific language impairment

2Phillips, C., and K. L. Sakai. 2005. Language and the brain. Yearbook of science and tech- nology 2005. Boston: McGraw-Hill Publishers.

The Autonomy of Language 19

(SLI). Only their linguistic ability is affected, and often only specific aspects of grammar are impaired.

Children with SLI have problems with the use of function words such as arti- cles, prepositions, and auxiliary verbs. They also have difficulties with inflec- tional suffixes on nouns and verbs such as markers of tense and agreement. Sev- eral examples from a four-year-old boy with SLI illustrate this:

Meowmeow chase mice. Show me knife. It not long one.

An experimental study of several SLI children showed that they produced the past tense marker on the verb (as in danced) about 27 percent of the time, com- pared with 95 percent by the normal control group. Similarly, the SLI children produced the plural marker -s (as in boys) only 9 percent of the time, compared with 95 percent by the normal children.

Other studies of children with SLI reveal broader grammatical impairments, involving difficulties with many grammatical structures and operations. How- ever, most investigations of SLI children show that they have particular problems with verbal inflection, especially with producing tensed verbs (walks, walked), and also with syntactic structures involving certain kinds of word reorderings such as Mother is hard to please, a rearrangement of It is hard to please Mother. In many respects these difficulties resemble the impairments demonstrated by aphasics. Recent work on SLI children also shows that the different components of language (phonology, syntax, lexicon) can be selectively impaired or spared. As is the case with aphasia, these studies of SLI provide important informa- tion about the nature of language and help linguists develop theories about the underlying properties of language and its development in children.

SLI children show that language may be impaired while general intelligence stays intact, supporting the view of a grammatical faculty that is separate from other cognitive systems. But is it possible for language to develop normally when general intelligence is impaired? If such individuals can be found, it argues strongly for the view that language does not derive from some general cognitive ability.

Other Dissociations of Language and Cognition

[T]he human mind is not an unstructured entity but consists of components which can be distinguished by their functional properties.

NEIL SMITH AND IANTHI-MARIA TSIMPLI, The Mind of a Savant: Language, Learning, and Modularity, 1995

There are numerous cases of intellectually handicapped individuals who, despite their disabilities in certain spheres, show remarkable talents in others. There are superb musicians and artists who lack the simple abilities required to take care of themselves. Such people are referred to as savants. Some of the most famous savants are human calculators who can perform arithmetic computations at phe- nomenal speed, or calendrical calculators who can tell you without pause on which day of the week any date in the last or next century falls.

20 INTRODUCTION Brain and Language

Until recently, most such savants have been reported to be linguistically hand- icapped. They may be good mimics who can repeat speech like parrots, but they show meager creative language ability. Nevertheless, the literature reports cases of language savants who have acquired the highly complex grammar of their language (as well as other languages in some cases) but who lack nonlinguistic abilities of equal complexity. Laura and Christopher are two such cases.

Laura Laura was a retarded young woman with a nonverbal IQ of 41 to 44. She lacked almost all number concepts, including basic counting principles, and could draw only at a preschool level. She had an auditory memory span limited to three units. Yet, when at the age of sixteen she was asked to name some fruits, she responded with pears, apples, and pomegranates. In this same period she produced syntactically complex sentences like He was saying that I lost my battery-powered watch that I loved, and She does paintings, this really good friend of the kids who I went to school with and really loved, and I was like 15 or 19 when I started moving out of home . . .

Laura could not add 2 + 2. She didn’t know how old she was or how old she was when she moved away from home, nor whether 15 is before or after 19. Nevertheless, Laura produced complex sentences with multiple phrases and sentences with other sentences inside them. She used and understood passive sentences, and she was able to inflect verbs for number and person to agree with the subject of the sentence. She formed past tenses in accord with adverbs that referred to past time. She could do all this and more, but she could neither read nor write nor tell time. She did not know who the president of the United States was or what country she lived in. Her drawings of humans resembled potatoes with stick arms and legs. Yet, in a sentence imitation task, she both detected and corrected grammatical errors.

Laura is but one of many examples of children who display well-developed grammatical abilities, less-developed abilities to associate linguistic expressions with the objects they refer to, and severe deficits in nonlinguistic cognition.

In addition, any notion that linguistic competence results simply from com- municative abilities, or develops to serve communicative functions, is belied by studies of children with good linguistic skills, but nearly no or severely limited communicative skills. The acquisition and use of language seem to depend on cognitive skills different from the ability to communicate in a social setting.

Christopher Christopher has a nonverbal IQ between 60 and 70 and must live in an institution because he is unable to take care of himself. The tasks of buttoning a shirt, cutting his fingernails, or vacuuming the carpet are too difficult for him. However, his linguistic competence is as rich and as sophisticated as that of any native speaker. Furthermore, when given written texts in some fifteen to twenty languages, he translates them quickly, with few errors, into English. The languages include Ger- manic languages such as Danish, Dutch, and German; Romance languages such as French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish; as well as Polish, Finnish, Greek,

The Autonomy of Language 21

Hindi, Turkish, and Welsh. He learned these languages from speakers who used them in his presence, or from grammar books. Christopher loves to study and learn languages. Little else is of interest to him. His situation strongly suggests that his linguistic ability is independent of his general intellectual ability.

The question as to whether the language faculty is a separate cognitive system or whether it is derivative of more general cognitive mechanisms is controver- sial and has received much attention and debate among linguists, psychologists, neuro psychologists, and cognitive scientists. Cases such as Laura and Christo- pher argue against the view that linguistic ability derives from general intelli- gence because these two individuals (and others like them) developed language despite other pervasive intellectual deficits. A growing body of evidence sup- ports the view that the human animal is biologically equipped from birth with an autonomous language faculty that is highly specific and that does not derive from general human intellectual ability.

Genetic Basis of Language

Studies of genetic disorders also reveal that one cognitive domain can develop normally along with abnormal development in other domains, and they also underscore the strong biological basis of language. Children with Turner syn- drome (a chromosomal anomaly) have normal language and advanced reading skills along with serious nonlinguistic (visual and spatial) cognitive deficits. Similarly, studies of the language of children and adolescents with Williams syndrome reveal a unique behavioral profile in which certain linguistic func- tions seem to be relatively preserved in the face of visual and spatial cognitive deficits and moderate retardation. In addition, developmental dyslexia and SLI also appear to have a genetic basis. And recent studies of Klinefelter syndrome (another chromosomal anomaly) show quite selective syntactic and semantic deficits alongside intact intelligence.

Epidemiological and familial aggregation studies show that SLI runs in fami- lies. One such study is of a large multigenerational family, half of whom are lan- guage impaired. The impaired members of this family have a very specific gram- matical problem: They do not reliably use word-endings or “irregular” verbs correctly. In particular, they often fail to indicate the tense of the verb. They routinely produce sentences such as the following:

She remembered when she hurts herself the other day. He did it then he fall. The boy climb up the tree and frightened the bird away.

These and similar results show that a large proportion of SLI children have language-impaired family members, pointing to SLI as a heritable disorder. Studies also show that monozygotic (identical) twins are more likely to both suf- fer from SLI than dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Thus evidence from SLI and other genetic disorders, along with the asymmetry of abilities in linguistic savants, strongly supports the view that the language faculty is an autonomous, geneti- cally determined module of the brain.

22 INTRODUCTION Brain and Language

Language and Brain Development

“Jump Start” copyright . United Feature Syndicate. Reprinted with permission.

Language and the brain are intimately connected. Specific areas of the brain are devoted to language, and injury to these areas disrupts language. In the young child, injury to or removal of the left hemisphere has severe consequences for language development. Conversely, increasing evidence shows that normal brain development depends on early and regular exposure to language. (See chapter 7.)

The Critical Period

Under normal circumstances, a child is introduced to language virtually at the moment of birth. Adults talk to him and to each other in his presence. Chil- dren do not require explicit language instruction, but they do need exposure to language in order to develop normally. Children who do not receive linguistic input during their formative years do not achieve nativelike grammatical compe- tence. Moreover, behavioral tests and brain imaging studies show that late expo- sure to language alters the fundamental organization of the brain for language.

The critical-age hypothesis assumes that language is biologically based and that the ability to learn a native language develops within a fixed period, from birth to middle childhood. During this critical period, language acquisition proceeds easily, swiftly, and without external intervention. After this period, the acquisition of grammar is difficult and, for most individuals, never fully achieved. Children deprived of language during this critical period show atypi- cal patterns of brain lateralization.

The notion of a critical period is true of many species and seems to pertain to species-specific, biologically triggered behaviors. Ducklings, for example, dur- ing the period from nine to twenty-one hours after hatching, will follow the first moving object they see, whether or not it looks or waddles like a duck. Such behavior is not the result of conscious decision, external teaching, or intensive practice. It unfolds according to what appears to be a maturationally determined schedule that is universal across the species. Similarly, as discussed in a later sec- tion, certain species of birds develop their bird song during a biologically deter- mined window of time.

Instances of children reared in environments of extreme social isolation con- stitute “experiments in nature” for testing the critical-age hypothesis. The most

Language and Brain Development 23

dramatic cases are those described as “wild” or “feral” children. A celebrated case, documented in François Truffaut’s film The Wild Child, is that of Victor, “the wild boy of Aveyron,” who was found in 1798. It was ascertained that he had been left in the woods when very young and had somehow survived. In 1920 two children, Amala and Kamala, were found in India, supposedly having been reared by wolves.

Other children have been isolated because of deliberate efforts to keep them from normal social intercourse. In 1970, a child called Genie in the scientific reports was discovered. She had been confined to a small room under conditions of physical restraint and had received only minimal human contact from the age of eighteen months until nearly fourteen years.

None of these children, regardless of the cause of isolation, was able to speak or knew any language at the time they were reintroduced into society. This lin- guistic inability could simply be caused by the fact that these children received no linguistic input, showing that language acquisition, though an innate, neuro- logically based ability, must be triggered by input from the environment. In the documented cases of Victor and Genie, however, these children were unable to acquire grammar even after years of exposure, and despite the ability to learn many words.

Genie was able to learn a large vocabulary, including colors, shapes, objects, natural categories, and abstract as well as concrete terms, but her grammatical skills never fully developed. The UCLA linguist Susan Curtiss, who worked with Genie for several years, reported that Genie’s utterances were, for the most part, “the stringing together of content words, often with rich and clear meaning, but with little grammatical structure.” Many utterances produced by Genie at the age of fifteen and older, several years after her emergence from isolation, are like those of two-year-old children, and not unlike utterances of Broca’s aphasia patients and people with SLI, such as the following:

Man motorcycle have. Genie full stomach. Genie bad cold live father house. Want Curtiss play piano. Open door key.

Genie’s utterances lacked articles, auxiliary verbs like will or can, the third- person singular agreement marker -s, the past-tense marker -ed, question words like who, what, and where, and pronouns. She had no ability to form more com- plex types of sentences such as questions (e.g., Are you feeling hungry?). Genie started learning language after the critical period and was therefore never able to fully acquire the grammatical rules of English.

Tests of lateralization (dichotic listening and ERP experiments) showed that Genie’s language was lateralized to the right hemisphere. Her test performance was similar to that found in split-brain and left hemispherectomy patients, yet Genie was not brain damaged. Curtiss speculates that after the critical period, the usual language areas functionally atrophy because of inadequate linguistic stimulation. Genie’s case also demonstrates that language is not the same as com- munication, because Genie was a powerful nonverbal communicator, despite her limited ability to acquire language.

24 INTRODUCTION Brain and Language

Chelsea, another case of linguistic isolation, is a woman whose situation also supports the critical-age hypothesis. She was born deaf but was wrongly diag- nosed as retarded. When she was thirty-one, her deafness was finally diagnosed, and she was fitted with hearing aids. For years she has received extensive lan- guage training and therapy and has acquired a large vocabulary. However, like Genie, Chelsea has not been able to develop a grammar. ERP studies of the localization of language in Chelsea’s brain have revealed an equal response to language in both hemispheres. In other words, Chelsea also does not show the normal asymmetric organization for language.

More than 90 percent of children who are born deaf or become deaf before they have acquired language are born to hearing parents. These children have also provided information about the critical age for language acquisition. Because most of their parents do not know sign language at the time these children are born, most receive delayed language exposure. Several studies have investigated the acquisition of American Sign Language (ASL) among deaf signers exposed to the language at different ages. Early learners who received ASL input from birth and up to six years of age did much better in the production and comprehension of complex signs and sign sentences than late learners who were not exposed to ASL until after the age of twelve, even though all of the subjects in these studies had used sign for more than twenty years. There was little difference, however, in vocabulary or knowledge of word order.

Another study compared patterns of lateralization in the brains of adult native speakers of English, adult native signers, and deaf adults who had not been exposed to sign language. The nonsigning deaf adults did not show the same cerebral asymmetries as either the hearing adults or the deaf signers. In recent years there have been numerous studies of late learners of sign language, all with similar results.

The cases of Genie and other isolated children, as well as deaf late learners of ASL, show that children cannot fully acquire language unless they are exposed to it within the critical period—a biologically determined window of opportu- nity during which time the brain is prepared to develop language. Moreover, the critical period is linked to brain lateralization. The human brain is primed to develop language in specific areas of the left hemisphere, but the normal process of brain specialization depends on early and systematic experience with lan- guage. Language acquisition plays a critical role in, and may even be the trigger for, the realization of normal cerebral lateralization for higher cognitive func- tions in general, not just for language.

Beyond the critical period, the human brain seems unable to acquire the grammatical aspects of language, even with substantial linguistic training or many years of exposure. However, it is possible to acquire words and various conversational skills after this point. This evidence suggests that the critical period holds for the acquisition of grammatical abilities, but not necessarily for all aspects of language.

The selective acquisition of certain components of language that occurs beyond the critical period is reminiscent of the selective impairment that occurs in various language disorders, where specific linguistic abilities are disrupted. This selectivity in both acquisition and impairment points to a strongly modu- larized language faculty. Language is separate from other cognitive systems and

Language and Brain Development 25

autonomous, and is itself a complex system with various components. In the chapters that follow, we will explore these different language components.

A Critical Period for Bird Song

That’s the wise thrush; he sings each song twice over Lest you should think he never could recapture The first fine careless rapture!

ROBERT BROWNING, “Home-thoughts, from Abroad,” 1845

Mutts © Patrick McDonnell, King Features Syndicate

Bird song lacks certain fundamental characteristics of human language, such as discrete sounds and creativity. However, certain species of birds show a critical period for acquiring their “language” similar to the critical period for human language acquisition.

Calls and songs of the chaffinch vary depending on the geographic area that the bird inhabits. The message is the same, but the form or “pronunciation” is different. Usually, a young bird sings a simplified version of the song shortly after hatching. Later, it undergoes further learning in acquiring the fully com- plex version. Because birds from the same brood acquire different chaffinch songs depending on the area in which they finally settle, part of the song must be learned. On the other hand, because the fledging chaffinch sings the song of its species in a simple degraded form, even if it has never heard it sung, some aspect of it is biologically determined, that is, innate.

The chaffinch acquires its fully developed song in several stages, just as human children acquire language. There is also a critical period in the song learning of chaffinches as well as white-crowned sparrows, zebra finches, and many other species. If these birds are not exposed to the songs of their species during certain fixed periods after their birth—the period differs from species to species—song acquisition does not occur. The chaffinch is unable to learn new song elements after ten months of age. If it is isolated from other birds before attaining the full complexity of its song and is then exposed again after ten months, its song will not develop further. If white-crowned sparrows lose their hearing during a critical period after they have learned to sing, they produce a song that differs from other white crowns. They need to hear themselves sing in order to produce

26 INTRODUCTION Brain and Language

particular whistles and other song features. If, however, the deafness occurs after the critical period, their songs are normal. Similarly, baby nightingales in captivity may be trained to sing melodiously by another nightingale, a “teaching bird,” but only before their tail feathers are grown. After that period, they know only the less melodious calls of their parents, and nothing more can be done to further their musical development.

On the other hand, some bird species show no critical period. The cuckoo sings a fully developed song even if it never hears another cuckoo sing. These communicative messages are entirely innate. For other species, songs appear to be at least partially learned, and the learning may occur throughout the bird’s lifetime. The bullfinch, for example, will learn elements of songs it is exposed to, even those of another species, and incorporate those elements into its own quiet warble. In a more recent example of unconstrained song learning, Danish orni- thologists report that birds have begun to copy the ring tones of cellular phones.

From the point of view of human language research, the relationship between the innate and learned aspects of bird song is significant. Apparently, the basic nature of the songs of some species is present from birth, which means that it is biologically and genetically determined. The same holds true for human lan- guage: Its basic nature is innate. The details of bird song and of human language are both acquired through experience that must occur within a critical period.

The Development of Language in the Species

As the voice was used more and more, the vocal organs would have been strengthened and perfected through the principle of the inherited effects of use; and this would have reacted on the power of speech. But the relation between the continued use of language and the development of the brain has no doubt been far more important. The mental powers in some early progenitor of man must have been more highly developed than in any existing ape, before even the most imperfect form of speech could have come into use.

CHARLES DARWIN, The Descent of Man, 1871

There is much interest today among biologists as well as linguists in the relation- ship between the development of language and the evolutionary development of the human species. Some view language as species specific; some do not. Some view language ability as a difference in degree between humans and other pri- mates—a continuity view; others see the onset of language ability as a qualita- tive leap—the discontinuity view.

In trying to understand the development of language, scholars past and pres- ent have debated the role played by the vocal tract and the ear. For example, it has been suggested that speech could not have developed in nonhuman primates because their vocal tracts were anatomically incapable of producing a large enough inventory of speech sounds. According to this hypothesis, the develop- ment of language is linked to the evolutionary development of the speech pro- duction and perception apparatus. This, of course, would be accompanied by changes in the brain and the nervous system toward greater complexity. Such a view implies that the languages of our human ancestors of millions of years ago may have been syntactically and phonologically simpler than any language

Language and Brain Development 27

known to us today. The notion “simpler” is left undefined, although it has been suggested that this primeval language had a smaller inventory of sounds.

One evolutionary step must have resulted in the development of a vocal tract capable of producing the wide variety of sounds of human language, as well as the mechanism for perceiving and distinguishing them. However, the existence of mynah birds and parrots is evidence that this step is insufficient to explain the origin of language, because these creatures have the ability to imitate human speech, but not the ability to acquire language.

More important, we know from the study of humans who are born deaf and learn sign languages that are used around them that the ability to hear speech sounds is not a necessary condition for the acquisition and use of language. In addition, the lateralization evidence from ERP and imaging studies of people using sign language, as well as evidence from sign language aphasia, show that sign language is organized in the brain like spoken language. Certain auditory locations within the cortex are activated during signing even though no sound is involved, supporting the contention that the brain is neurologically equipped for language rather than speech. The ability to produce and hear a wide variety of sounds therefore appears to be neither necessary nor sufficient for the develop- ment of language in the human species.

A major step in the development of language most probably relates to evolu- tionary changes in the brain. The linguist Noam Chomsky expresses this view:

It could be that when the brain reached a certain level of complexity it simply automatically had certain properties because that’s what happens when you pack 1010 neurons into something the size of a basketball.3