LB33-34
I. INTRODUCTION
Although anatomy is a fascinating subject and its inclusion in a book such as the present one does not require any apologies, there is at the same time the danger of misunderstanding its role here. The anatomical description of man’s speech organs does not lead to insight into the origin of language (see Chapter Six) nor does it provide an explanation of man’s capacity for language. As biologists we cannot discern meaning or purpose of specific anatomical developments. Survival of the species, increase of efficiency in various respects, or group cohesiveness may very well be among the biasing principles of natural selection. However, any one of these “ends” might conceivably be achieved by an infinity of means. Why a given phylogeny went one particular way instead of any one of the multitude of theoretically possible other ways is in most instances unknown and speculation on this topic is frequently futile.
雖然解剖學是一個引人入勝的課題，而且將其納入像是眼前這樣的一本書中無須任何辯解，然而，誤解其在此角色的風險也同時存在。對人類說話器官的解剖學描述並不通往語言起源的洞見(見第六章)，也不提供對人類語言能力的解釋。作為生物學家，我們無法察覺出特定的解剖學上發展所具有的意義或用途。物種的存續，許多方面上效率的提升，或是群體的團結都很可能在天擇的偏好原則之中。然而，可以理解的是，這些”目的”中的任一項都可以經由無數的途徑達成。為何一個特定的種屬發生是朝某個特別的道路上發展而非走向其它理論上可能的眾多道路之一，這在多數的個案上是未知的，而且對此議題的思索往往是徒勞的。
Anatomy is a descriptive science. The sounds of language are certainly intimately related to the morphology of the vocal tract. Thus, a description of man’s vocal tract may account for certain peculiarities of universal features of speech. A discussion of these relationships does not imply knowledge of causality in the course of evolution.
解剖學是一門描述性的科學。語言中的聲音的確和聲道的形態學密切相關。因此，對人類聲道的描述或許可以說明言語的普遍特徵所具有的一些特性。討論這些關係並不暗示演化的過程中有因果性。
Our approach will be based on comparative studies. We should like to demonstrate morphological peculiarities of man by comparing all speech-relevant structures to homologous ones in Pongidae (that is, the great apes: chimpanzee and gorilla, which are our closest of kin, and orangutan). Whenever available, we shall also make reference to the gibbons, rounding out the picture of the Hominoidea.
我們的方法將基於比較性的研究。我們應當藉著比較所有攸關言語的結構和其在猿科(Pongidae)動物上的同構體來呈現人類在形態學上的特點。如有資料，我們也將提及長臂猿，以完成人猿總科(Hominoidea)的全貌。
A review of the pertinent literature brings to light rather unexpected gaps in our knowledge of primate anatomy. In many instances, a complete comparison is not possible because of lack of data; in other instances, the facts reported are based on dissections of a single specimen so that artifacts of fixation, age, sex, and individual variations are uncontrolled variables. The presentation, however, has been confined to the most outstanding and generally agreed upon facts.
回顧相關的文獻，對靈長類解剖學知識預料外的空白浮現出來。在很多個案上，因為資料缺乏而不可能作出完整的比較；在其它個案中，提出的結果是基於對單一標本的解剖，因此對標本的固定方式、年齡、以及個體變異是非控制變項。然而，以下的介紹限於最顯著且廣為認可的結果。
The anatomical discussions lay no claim to completeness and cannot substitute as a text for instruction on the anatomy of speech organs.(Kaplan, 1960 may be used for the purpose.)
此處解剖學的討論不具完整性，而且不能作為介紹語言器官解剖學的教材(Kaplan, 1960或可作此用途)。
2008年10月29日 星期三
LB021-022T
LB21-22
IV. GENETIC FOUNDATIONS OF BEHAVIOR
We have constructed a picture of behavior consisting of a fixed matrix (that is, species-specificities delimited by characteristic anatomical and physiological processes), which an individual can never learn to transcend, coupled with varying degrees of freedom for combining existing, built-in skills and traits. If these skills and traits are, indeed, programmed into the individual as is implied here, then we ought to be able to adduce evidence for inheritance of such traits. Moreover, the history of evolution should give us some clues regarding phylogenetic emergence of behavior. Such evidence and clues do exist.
我們已建造了一幅圖像，當中行為是由一組固定的矩陣來構成的 (亦即物種的特性是由其獨特的解剖學和生理學過程來界定的)，個體從來都不能藉由學習來超越這幅圖象，即便具有多樣的自由度以結合既有的內建技能和特徵。如果這些技能和特徵的確如此處所意指的，係設計至個體當中，那麼我們應該能夠為這類特徵的遺傳來舉證。此外，演化史應能提供我們一些有關行為在種屬發生上的線索。這樣的證據是存在的。
Genetics of behavior were first summarized by Hall (1951) and more recently treated in greater detail by Fuller and Thompson (1960). Genetic influences upon various aspects of behavior have been demonstrated for many species. Several studies were made on the fruitfly. Erlenmeyer-Kimling et al. (1962) bred Drosophila melanogaster selectively to produce strains with vastly different geotactic responses (going against or toward the pull of gravity in an appropriate maze). Selective breeding experiments on rats were reported by Rundquist (1933), varying the amount of spontaneous activities in the strains developed; by Tryon (1940), producing maze-bright and maze-dull strains, and by Hall (1951), varying emotionality (as measured by frequency of urination and defecation). It is true that in these experiments it is often not clear exactly what is transmitted genetically. Searle (1949), for instance, pointed out that the behavioral difference demonstrated by Tryon may be a result of a factor of congenital timidity, the dull rats actually being upset about the experimental arrangement, whereas the bright ones are undaunted by the maze. Searle’s interpretation may very well be correct, but it does not alter the basic fact that genes do make a difference in the execution of behavior (Fuller and Thompson, 1960). In some instances, the breeds resulting from artificial selection of mates may behave differently from each other because of morphological differentiations (James, 1941). In other instances, morphological changes that are usually inevitable in breeding experiments may be irrelevant to the behavioral changes observed. In this case, physiological processes are altered, thus raising or lowering thresholds of responsiveness.
行為的遺傳學由Hall(1951)首度概述，後來Fuller和Thompson(1960)作了更詳盡的探討。遺傳對行為眾多方面的影響可見於許多物種。對於果蠅已有很多研究。Erlenmeyer-Kimling et al. (1962)對 Drosophila melanogaster育種，以產生趨地性反應有很大差異的品種(在一適當的迷宮裡飛向或飛離重力的牽引 )。Rundquist (1933)報告了對老鼠的育種實驗，自發性活動的總額在培養出的不同品種中表現出差異；Tryon (1940)的實驗培養出擅長和不擅走迷宮的品種，Hall(1951)的實驗呈現出有差別的情緒性(以排泄的頻率來衡量)。的確，在這些實驗中，何者係經由遺傳傳遞並不確切。例如，Searle (1949)指出，Tryon呈現出的行為差異可能是天生膽怯的結果，不擅走迷宮的老鼠實際是被實驗的安排嚇到了，而擅長迷宮的老鼠卻不畏懼。Searle的解讀
極有可能是正確的，但那並不改變基本的事實，也就是基因對於行為的實行的確有影響(Fuller and Thompson, 1960)。在一些個案中，人工配對產生的品種可能因為形態的區分而在行為上彼此不同(James, 1941)。在其它個案中，在育種實驗中通常免不了的形態改變，可能和觀察到的行為改變沒有關係。在這種情況下，生理學的過程改變了，因此提高或降低了起反應的閾值。
This was most directly demonstrated by Herter (1936) who showed different thermotactic optima in gray and white mice (where the color of the coat is apparently irrelevant) and by Setterfield et al. (1396), who showed that the inability to taste phenylthiocarbamide is inherited in man as a recessive Mendelian trait. Scott and Charles (1954) make a similar point, extending it generally to the interaction between the genetically given and the environmentally modified. In summarizing their work on dogs, they state: ”…different thresholds of response to minimal…stimulation tend to produce all-or-none responses, and the process of habit formation tends to cause individuals to react one way or the other, producing increasingly clear-cut differences.
此一現象最直接的展示可見於以下研究，Herter(1936)呈現了灰毛和白毛老鼠具有不同的趨溫最適條件(在此，毛色顯然不相關)，以及Setterfield et al. (1396)，他指明了無法嚐出苯基硫代尿素PTC （phenylthiocarbamide）是一項在男性中隱性遺傳的孟德爾式遺傳特徵。Scott and Charles (1954)提出相似的論點，並普遍地延伸到遺傳給定事項和環境調整事項間的互動。在摘要他們對狗的研究時，說明”…對於最小…刺激起反應的不同的閾值，傾向產出全有或全無的反應，而習慣形成的過程，傾向使得個體有這樣或那樣的反應，於是產生了愈來愈多明確的差異。
This point is very well taken. It seems unlikely that genes actually transmit behavior as we observe it in the living animal because the course that an individual takes in its peregrinations through life must necessarily depend on environmental contingencies which could not have been “programmed and prepared for” in advance. Inheritance must confine itself to propensities, to dormant potentialities that await actualization by extra-organic stimuli, but it is possible that innate facilitatory or inhibitory factors are genetically transmitted which heighten the likelihood of one course of events over another. When put into these terms, it becomes quite clear that nature-nurture cannot be a dichotomy of factors but only and interaction of factors. To think of these terms as incompatible opposites only obscures the interesting aspects of the origin of behavior.
此論點備受肯定。我們所觀察到行為在動物中的傳遞，看來似乎不可能真的是藉由基因辦到的，這是因為，一個個體在其一生中經歷的過程必定是取決於環境的或有情況，而這些情況不能事先”計畫或預備”。遺傳必然只於限於傾向、休眠的潛在性，這些都有待生物體外的刺激才能實現，但情況可能是內在的促進或抑制因子係經遺傳來傳遞，而這些因子使得某一事件路徑(course of events)的可能性高於其它。用這些說法來陳述時，天性-教養就顯得很清楚地不可能是因子間的二分法，而是因子間的互動。把這些說法當作不相容的對立項，只會讓我們看不清行為起源有趣的面向。
IV. GENETIC FOUNDATIONS OF BEHAVIOR
We have constructed a picture of behavior consisting of a fixed matrix (that is, species-specificities delimited by characteristic anatomical and physiological processes), which an individual can never learn to transcend, coupled with varying degrees of freedom for combining existing, built-in skills and traits. If these skills and traits are, indeed, programmed into the individual as is implied here, then we ought to be able to adduce evidence for inheritance of such traits. Moreover, the history of evolution should give us some clues regarding phylogenetic emergence of behavior. Such evidence and clues do exist.
我們已建造了一幅圖像，當中行為是由一組固定的矩陣來構成的 (亦即物種的特性是由其獨特的解剖學和生理學過程來界定的)，個體從來都不能藉由學習來超越這幅圖象，即便具有多樣的自由度以結合既有的內建技能和特徵。如果這些技能和特徵的確如此處所意指的，係設計至個體當中，那麼我們應該能夠為這類特徵的遺傳來舉證。此外，演化史應能提供我們一些有關行為在種屬發生上的線索。這樣的證據是存在的。
Genetics of behavior were first summarized by Hall (1951) and more recently treated in greater detail by Fuller and Thompson (1960). Genetic influences upon various aspects of behavior have been demonstrated for many species. Several studies were made on the fruitfly. Erlenmeyer-Kimling et al. (1962) bred Drosophila melanogaster selectively to produce strains with vastly different geotactic responses (going against or toward the pull of gravity in an appropriate maze). Selective breeding experiments on rats were reported by Rundquist (1933), varying the amount of spontaneous activities in the strains developed; by Tryon (1940), producing maze-bright and maze-dull strains, and by Hall (1951), varying emotionality (as measured by frequency of urination and defecation). It is true that in these experiments it is often not clear exactly what is transmitted genetically. Searle (1949), for instance, pointed out that the behavioral difference demonstrated by Tryon may be a result of a factor of congenital timidity, the dull rats actually being upset about the experimental arrangement, whereas the bright ones are undaunted by the maze. Searle’s interpretation may very well be correct, but it does not alter the basic fact that genes do make a difference in the execution of behavior (Fuller and Thompson, 1960). In some instances, the breeds resulting from artificial selection of mates may behave differently from each other because of morphological differentiations (James, 1941). In other instances, morphological changes that are usually inevitable in breeding experiments may be irrelevant to the behavioral changes observed. In this case, physiological processes are altered, thus raising or lowering thresholds of responsiveness.
行為的遺傳學由Hall(1951)首度概述，後來Fuller和Thompson(1960)作了更詳盡的探討。遺傳對行為眾多方面的影響可見於許多物種。對於果蠅已有很多研究。Erlenmeyer-Kimling et al. (1962)對 Drosophila melanogaster育種，以產生趨地性反應有很大差異的品種(在一適當的迷宮裡飛向或飛離重力的牽引 )。Rundquist (1933)報告了對老鼠的育種實驗，自發性活動的總額在培養出的不同品種中表現出差異；Tryon (1940)的實驗培養出擅長和不擅走迷宮的品種，Hall(1951)的實驗呈現出有差別的情緒性(以排泄的頻率來衡量)。的確，在這些實驗中，何者係經由遺傳傳遞並不確切。例如，Searle (1949)指出，Tryon呈現出的行為差異可能是天生膽怯的結果，不擅走迷宮的老鼠實際是被實驗的安排嚇到了，而擅長迷宮的老鼠卻不畏懼。Searle的解讀
極有可能是正確的，但那並不改變基本的事實，也就是基因對於行為的實行的確有影響(Fuller and Thompson, 1960)。在一些個案中，人工配對產生的品種可能因為形態的區分而在行為上彼此不同(James, 1941)。在其它個案中，在育種實驗中通常免不了的形態改變，可能和觀察到的行為改變沒有關係。在這種情況下，生理學的過程改變了，因此提高或降低了起反應的閾值。
This was most directly demonstrated by Herter (1936) who showed different thermotactic optima in gray and white mice (where the color of the coat is apparently irrelevant) and by Setterfield et al. (1396), who showed that the inability to taste phenylthiocarbamide is inherited in man as a recessive Mendelian trait. Scott and Charles (1954) make a similar point, extending it generally to the interaction between the genetically given and the environmentally modified. In summarizing their work on dogs, they state: ”…different thresholds of response to minimal…stimulation tend to produce all-or-none responses, and the process of habit formation tends to cause individuals to react one way or the other, producing increasingly clear-cut differences.
此一現象最直接的展示可見於以下研究，Herter(1936)呈現了灰毛和白毛老鼠具有不同的趨溫最適條件(在此，毛色顯然不相關)，以及Setterfield et al. (1396)，他指明了無法嚐出苯基硫代尿素PTC （phenylthiocarbamide）是一項在男性中隱性遺傳的孟德爾式遺傳特徵。Scott and Charles (1954)提出相似的論點，並普遍地延伸到遺傳給定事項和環境調整事項間的互動。在摘要他們對狗的研究時，說明”…對於最小…刺激起反應的不同的閾值，傾向產出全有或全無的反應，而習慣形成的過程，傾向使得個體有這樣或那樣的反應，於是產生了愈來愈多明確的差異。
This point is very well taken. It seems unlikely that genes actually transmit behavior as we observe it in the living animal because the course that an individual takes in its peregrinations through life must necessarily depend on environmental contingencies which could not have been “programmed and prepared for” in advance. Inheritance must confine itself to propensities, to dormant potentialities that await actualization by extra-organic stimuli, but it is possible that innate facilitatory or inhibitory factors are genetically transmitted which heighten the likelihood of one course of events over another. When put into these terms, it becomes quite clear that nature-nurture cannot be a dichotomy of factors but only and interaction of factors. To think of these terms as incompatible opposites only obscures the interesting aspects of the origin of behavior.
此論點備受肯定。我們所觀察到行為在動物中的傳遞，看來似乎不可能真的是藉由基因辦到的，這是因為，一個個體在其一生中經歷的過程必定是取決於環境的或有情況，而這些情況不能事先”計畫或預備”。遺傳必然只於限於傾向、休眠的潛在性，這些都有待生物體外的刺激才能實現，但情況可能是內在的促進或抑制因子係經遺傳來傳遞，而這些因子使得某一事件路徑(course of events)的可能性高於其它。用這些說法來陳述時，天性-教養就顯得很清楚地不可能是因子間的二分法，而是因子間的互動。把這些說法當作不相容的對立項，只會讓我們看不清行為起源有趣的面向。
2008年10月27日 星期一
LB085-089
LB85-89
(3) Other Motor Changes Indirectly Related to Respiratory Adaptations
The principal adaptations are summarized in Table 3.3 In Chapter two we have pointed out that the geometry of the naso-velo-pharyngeal space has a unique configuration in man and that this deviation from the rest of the primate order may be related to man’s unique posture. A consequence of the morphological peculiarity is that parting of the lips lets air stream simultaneously through oral and nasal cavities. However, during speech air is intermittently shunted either through the mouth, the nose, or both simultaneously, and muscular mechanisms exist to effect these movements quickly and efficiently. The nature of these movements is shown in Figs. 3.4 and 3.5. They have been thoroughly investigated by Björk (1961). Figure 3.5 is a demonstration of the relative speed, accuracy, and timing which integrates palatal movements into the speech event as a whole. Whether there are homologous mechanisms in lower primates is not clear (Müller, 1955). At any rate, the physiology of their movements in deglutition and phonation has apparently not been investigated.
When the vocal folds are spread apart during quiet breathing, the larynx constitutes a tubular air tunnel with somewhat irregularly shaped walls. The shape of the walls is altered during phonation and, as Fink and Kirschner (1959) have noted, some regularities are introduced in the subglottal space that favor the aerodynamics of sound production by reducing subglottal turbulence and thus increasing the efficiency in utilization of air flow. When the cords are brought together for phonation, their medial edge becomes sharpened, their superior surface flattens and forms a shelf, whereas the inferior surface is arched exponentially as shown in Fig. 15 of Chapter 2. Pressman and Kelemen (1955) state that “the advantage of such a curve inferiorly is twofold: (1) it thins out the medial mass of the cord without narrowing it or depriving it of a wide lateral attachment, thereby improving its vibratory characteristics; (2) because it is dome-shaped, the pressure of air converges from below to a point in the midline where the cords are thinnest. Under these circumstances, the free margins of the cords can, during phonation, be more easily blown apart by the pressure of expired air.”*
Kainz (vol. III, 1954) who summarized all respiratory and motor changes accompanying speech, also cites a difference between the position of the vocal folds during inhalation while the individual is quiet and during phonation. In the former, the muscles are relatively relaxed, forming a roughly triangular opening in cross section; whereas during speech, further retraction of the cords takes place to increase the available space, thereby facilitating rapid inspiration. During exhalation the cords are thought to assume a similar position as during inhalation as long as breathing is quiet and under relaxed conditions (which is not the case during laryngoscopy), whereas they are subjected to a rapid succession of adduction (during phonation) abduction (during unvoiced sounds), and tight adduction (during the production of glottal stops—which are lacking in some languages).
Throughout phonation, the cords are brought together but not so tightly as to prevent them from vibrating when air is blown through them from below. The individual vibrations themselves are not the result of neurogenic muscular twitches as proposed by Hussonand his followers, but, as is generally agreed now, depend on simple maintenance of muscle tonus, tissue elasticity of the vocal folds, and air pressure.
(3) Other Motor Changes Indirectly Related to Respiratory Adaptations
The principal adaptations are summarized in Table 3.3 In Chapter two we have pointed out that the geometry of the naso-velo-pharyngeal space has a unique configuration in man and that this deviation from the rest of the primate order may be related to man’s unique posture. A consequence of the morphological peculiarity is that parting of the lips lets air stream simultaneously through oral and nasal cavities. However, during speech air is intermittently shunted either through the mouth, the nose, or both simultaneously, and muscular mechanisms exist to effect these movements quickly and efficiently. The nature of these movements is shown in Figs. 3.4 and 3.5. They have been thoroughly investigated by Björk (1961). Figure 3.5 is a demonstration of the relative speed, accuracy, and timing which integrates palatal movements into the speech event as a whole. Whether there are homologous mechanisms in lower primates is not clear (Müller, 1955). At any rate, the physiology of their movements in deglutition and phonation has apparently not been investigated.
When the vocal folds are spread apart during quiet breathing, the larynx constitutes a tubular air tunnel with somewhat irregularly shaped walls. The shape of the walls is altered during phonation and, as Fink and Kirschner (1959) have noted, some regularities are introduced in the subglottal space that favor the aerodynamics of sound production by reducing subglottal turbulence and thus increasing the efficiency in utilization of air flow. When the cords are brought together for phonation, their medial edge becomes sharpened, their superior surface flattens and forms a shelf, whereas the inferior surface is arched exponentially as shown in Fig. 15 of Chapter 2. Pressman and Kelemen (1955) state that “the advantage of such a curve inferiorly is twofold: (1) it thins out the medial mass of the cord without narrowing it or depriving it of a wide lateral attachment, thereby improving its vibratory characteristics; (2) because it is dome-shaped, the pressure of air converges from below to a point in the midline where the cords are thinnest. Under these circumstances, the free margins of the cords can, during phonation, be more easily blown apart by the pressure of expired air.”*
Kainz (vol. III, 1954) who summarized all respiratory and motor changes accompanying speech, also cites a difference between the position of the vocal folds during inhalation while the individual is quiet and during phonation. In the former, the muscles are relatively relaxed, forming a roughly triangular opening in cross section; whereas during speech, further retraction of the cords takes place to increase the available space, thereby facilitating rapid inspiration. During exhalation the cords are thought to assume a similar position as during inhalation as long as breathing is quiet and under relaxed conditions (which is not the case during laryngoscopy), whereas they are subjected to a rapid succession of adduction (during phonation) abduction (during unvoiced sounds), and tight adduction (during the production of glottal stops—which are lacking in some languages).
Throughout phonation, the cords are brought together but not so tightly as to prevent them from vibrating when air is blown through them from below. The individual vibrations themselves are not the result of neurogenic muscular twitches as proposed by Hussonand his followers, but, as is generally agreed now, depend on simple maintenance of muscle tonus, tissue elasticity of the vocal folds, and air pressure.
LB033-034
LB33-34
I. INTRODUCTION
Although anatomy is a fascinating subject and its inclusion in a book such as the present one does not require any apologies, there is at the same time the danger of misunderstanding its role here. The anatomical description of man’s speech organs does not lead to insight into the origin of language (see Chapter Six) nor does it provide an explanation of man’s capacity for language. As biologists we cannot discern meaning or purpose of specific anatomical developments. Survival of the species, increase of efficiency in various respects, or group cohesiveness may very well be among the biasing principles of natural selection. However, any one of these “ends” might conceivably be achieved by an infinity of means. Why a given phylogeny went one particular way instead of any one of the multitude of theoretically possible other ways is in most instances unknown and speculation on this topic is frequently futile.
Anatomy is a descriptive science. The sounds of language are certainly intimately related to the morphology of the vocal tract. Thus, a description of man’s vocal tract may account for certain peculiarities of universal features of speech. A discussion of these relationships does not imply knowledge of causality in the course of evolution.
Our approach will be based on comparative studies. We should like to demonstrate morphological peculiarities of man by comparing all speech-relevant structures to homologous ones in Pongidae (that is, the great apes: chimpanzee and gorilla, which are our closest of kin, and orangutan). Whenever available, we shall also make reference to the gibbons, rounding out the picture of the Hominoidea.
A review of the pertinent literature brings to light rather unexpected gaps in our knowledge of primate anatomy. In many instances, a complete comparison is not possible because of lack of data; in other instances, the facts reported are based on dissections of a single specimen so that artifacts of fixation, age, sex, and individual variations are uncontrolled variables. The presentation, however, has been confined to the most outstanding and generally agreed upon facts.
The anatomical discussions lay no claim to completeness and cannot substitute as a text for instruction on the anatomy of speech organs.(Kaplan, 1960 may be used for the purpose.)
I. INTRODUCTION
Although anatomy is a fascinating subject and its inclusion in a book such as the present one does not require any apologies, there is at the same time the danger of misunderstanding its role here. The anatomical description of man’s speech organs does not lead to insight into the origin of language (see Chapter Six) nor does it provide an explanation of man’s capacity for language. As biologists we cannot discern meaning or purpose of specific anatomical developments. Survival of the species, increase of efficiency in various respects, or group cohesiveness may very well be among the biasing principles of natural selection. However, any one of these “ends” might conceivably be achieved by an infinity of means. Why a given phylogeny went one particular way instead of any one of the multitude of theoretically possible other ways is in most instances unknown and speculation on this topic is frequently futile.
Anatomy is a descriptive science. The sounds of language are certainly intimately related to the morphology of the vocal tract. Thus, a description of man’s vocal tract may account for certain peculiarities of universal features of speech. A discussion of these relationships does not imply knowledge of causality in the course of evolution.
Our approach will be based on comparative studies. We should like to demonstrate morphological peculiarities of man by comparing all speech-relevant structures to homologous ones in Pongidae (that is, the great apes: chimpanzee and gorilla, which are our closest of kin, and orangutan). Whenever available, we shall also make reference to the gibbons, rounding out the picture of the Hominoidea.
A review of the pertinent literature brings to light rather unexpected gaps in our knowledge of primate anatomy. In many instances, a complete comparison is not possible because of lack of data; in other instances, the facts reported are based on dissections of a single specimen so that artifacts of fixation, age, sex, and individual variations are uncontrolled variables. The presentation, however, has been confined to the most outstanding and generally agreed upon facts.
The anatomical discussions lay no claim to completeness and cannot substitute as a text for instruction on the anatomy of speech organs.(Kaplan, 1960 may be used for the purpose.)
LB021-022
LB21-22
IV. GENETIC FOUNDATIONS OF BEHAVIOR
We have constructed a picture of behavior consisting of a fixed matrix (that is, species-specificities delimited by characteristic anatomical and physiological processes), which an individual can never learn to transcend, coupled with varying degrees of freedom for combining existing, built-in skills and traits. If thess skills and traits are, indeed, programmed into the individual as is implied here, then we ought to be able to adduce evidence for inheritance of such traits. Moreover, the history of evolution should give us some clues regarding phylogenetic emergence of behavior. Such evidence and clues do exist.
Genetics of behavior were first summarized by Hall (1951) and more recently treated in greater detail by Fuller and Thompson (1960). Genetic influences upon various aspects of behavior have been demonstrated for many species. Several studies were made on the fruitfly. Erlenmeyer-Kimling et al. (1962) bred Drosophila melanogaster selectively to produce strains with vastly different geotactic responses (going against or toward the pull of gravity in an appropriate maze). Selective breeding experiments on rats were reported by Rundquist (1933), varying the amount of spontaneous activities in the strains developed; by Tryon (1940), producing maze-bright and maze-dull strains, and by Hall (1951), varying emotionality (as measured by frequency of urination and defecation). It is true that in these experiments it is often not clear exactly what is transmitted genetically. Searle (1949), for instance, poined out that the behavioral difference demonstrated by Tryon may be a result of a factor of congenital timidity, the dull rats actually being upset about the experimental arrangement, whereas the bright ones are undaunted by the maze. Searle’s interpretation may very well be correct, but it does not alter the basic fact that genes do make a difference in the execution of behavior (Fuller and Thompson, 1960). In some instances, the breeds resulting from artificial selection of mates may behave differently from each other because of morphological differentiations (James, 1941). In other instances, morphological changes that are usually inevitable in breeding experiments may be irrelevant to the behavioral changes observed. In this case, physiological processes are altered, thus raising or lowering thresholds of responsiveness.
This was most directly demonstrated by Herter (1936) who showed different thermotactic optima in gray and white mice (where the color of the coat is apparently irrelevant) and by Setterfield et al. (1396), who shoew that the inablility totaste phenylthiocarbamide is inherited in man as a recessive Mendelian trait. Scott and Charles (1954) make a similar point, extending it generally to the interaction between the genetically given and the environmentally modified. In summarizing their work on dogs, they state: ”…different thresholds of response to minimal…stimulation tend to produce all-or-none responses, and the process of habit formation tends to cause individuals to react one way or the other, producing increasingly clear-cut differences.
This point is very well taken. It seems unlikely that genes actually transmit behavior as we observe it in the living animal because the course that an individual takes in its peregrinations through life must necessarily depend on environmental contingencies which could not have been “programmed and prepared for” in advance. Inheritance must confine itself to propensities, to dormant potentialities that await actualization by extra-organic stimuli, but it is possible that innate facilitatory or inhibitory factors are genetically transmitted which heighten the likelihood of one course of events over another. When put into these terms, it becomes quite clear that nature-nuture cannot be a dichotomy of factors but only and interaction of factors. To think of these terms as incompatible opposites only obscures the interesting aspects of the origin of behavior.
IV. GENETIC FOUNDATIONS OF BEHAVIOR
We have constructed a picture of behavior consisting of a fixed matrix (that is, species-specificities delimited by characteristic anatomical and physiological processes), which an individual can never learn to transcend, coupled with varying degrees of freedom for combining existing, built-in skills and traits. If thess skills and traits are, indeed, programmed into the individual as is implied here, then we ought to be able to adduce evidence for inheritance of such traits. Moreover, the history of evolution should give us some clues regarding phylogenetic emergence of behavior. Such evidence and clues do exist.
Genetics of behavior were first summarized by Hall (1951) and more recently treated in greater detail by Fuller and Thompson (1960). Genetic influences upon various aspects of behavior have been demonstrated for many species. Several studies were made on the fruitfly. Erlenmeyer-Kimling et al. (1962) bred Drosophila melanogaster selectively to produce strains with vastly different geotactic responses (going against or toward the pull of gravity in an appropriate maze). Selective breeding experiments on rats were reported by Rundquist (1933), varying the amount of spontaneous activities in the strains developed; by Tryon (1940), producing maze-bright and maze-dull strains, and by Hall (1951), varying emotionality (as measured by frequency of urination and defecation). It is true that in these experiments it is often not clear exactly what is transmitted genetically. Searle (1949), for instance, poined out that the behavioral difference demonstrated by Tryon may be a result of a factor of congenital timidity, the dull rats actually being upset about the experimental arrangement, whereas the bright ones are undaunted by the maze. Searle’s interpretation may very well be correct, but it does not alter the basic fact that genes do make a difference in the execution of behavior (Fuller and Thompson, 1960). In some instances, the breeds resulting from artificial selection of mates may behave differently from each other because of morphological differentiations (James, 1941). In other instances, morphological changes that are usually inevitable in breeding experiments may be irrelevant to the behavioral changes observed. In this case, physiological processes are altered, thus raising or lowering thresholds of responsiveness.
This was most directly demonstrated by Herter (1936) who showed different thermotactic optima in gray and white mice (where the color of the coat is apparently irrelevant) and by Setterfield et al. (1396), who shoew that the inablility totaste phenylthiocarbamide is inherited in man as a recessive Mendelian trait. Scott and Charles (1954) make a similar point, extending it generally to the interaction between the genetically given and the environmentally modified. In summarizing their work on dogs, they state: ”…different thresholds of response to minimal…stimulation tend to produce all-or-none responses, and the process of habit formation tends to cause individuals to react one way or the other, producing increasingly clear-cut differences.
This point is very well taken. It seems unlikely that genes actually transmit behavior as we observe it in the living animal because the course that an individual takes in its peregrinations through life must necessarily depend on environmental contingencies which could not have been “programmed and prepared for” in advance. Inheritance must confine itself to propensities, to dormant potentialities that await actualization by extra-organic stimuli, but it is possible that innate facilitatory or inhibitory factors are genetically transmitted which heighten the likelihood of one course of events over another. When put into these terms, it becomes quite clear that nature-nuture cannot be a dichotomy of factors but only and interaction of factors. To think of these terms as incompatible opposites only obscures the interesting aspects of the origin of behavior.
2008年10月8日 星期三
LB390-393
LB390-393
Language geography is further complicated by the fact that the territories of peoples speaking languages of entirely different stock abut. Roman Jakobson noted that it is common for entirely different but adjacent languages to be contaminated by each other in terms of certain phonological features. For instance, clicks are found in many African languages which by their grammar and lexicon cannot be considered as cognate. The distribution of the interdental spirant (th) in Europe is not restricted to cognate languages but is apparently the result of diffusion in the recent past across boundaries of languages of different origin. Some American Indian languages along the pacific and around the Gulf of Mexico have a characteristic sound-cluster, usually transcribed as /tl/, even though the languages are of very different types.
The crazy-quilt pattern of language – and dialect-maps can be accounted for quite well by the resonance theory. The language-acquiring child does not merely resonate to his own family but to the social group at large. This is best seen in immigrant children in America whose parents speak English with a heavy accent but whose own language is standard American. The child’s language is patterned after that of the individuals with whom he comes in contact. Face to face contact in human populations is regulated by certain social institutions and mechanisms. There is no true randomization in individual contact, not even among those individuals who occupy the same territory. This is due to such factors as national and ethnic affiliations and even social class distinctions. Because of these political and social boundaries, language differences do not become gradually more and more accentuated in direct proportion to geographic distance, but instead we find sudden, discontinuous changes; that is isoglosses are sharp boundaries clearly marking dialectal differences. The discontinuities are, of course, much more dramatic in regions where languages from entirely different stock make contact.
The sharing of phonological features across language boundaries may result from children’s resonating to large numbers of individuals in their vicinity who speak with the same foreign accent. This may occur, for instance, along language or national borders. The feature can then penetrate into the language territories through further and further resonance.
(4) A note on Adaptive Value
If the fundamentals of language have evolved in response to natural selection pressures, would it be fair to assume that the present nature of language constitutes in some sense an optimal solution? Such claims have been made, particularly in connection with measurements of the redundancy and information-transmission capacity of natural languages. But the explanations are always post hoc; languages are optimal, given the nature of man. But if the nature of language is partly the nature of man, as is suggested in the present thesis, these assertions become tautological. Is the nature of man, including his language, in any sense optimal? This becomes a question of religion rather than science. Our present era is not the final goal toward which evolution has striven, and we are merely at one stage in the continuity of life. Evolution of man has not stopped, and we cannot say whether the past, present, or future is in any way optimal.
There is a more interesting question, however. What might be the adaptive value of the resonance phenomenon? Resonance is not unique to man as pointed out previously in (v). it is a feature of a specific type of social mechanism out of a collection of many other types in the animal kingdom that are also linked to critical period evolved independently many times over. The physiological and behavioral details that make resonance possible need not be the same in different species. Perhaps man is unique only in the particular way in which he has achieved resonance and the peculiar behavior to which it is relevant.
The evolutionary recurrence of resonance leaves little doubt that it must harbor some selective advantages. What could they be? An examination of acoustic signaling systems among mammals gives us some scanty clues. The noises that most other mammals make can develop ontogenetically in the absence of social contact. Even though communicative behavior may not yet be present at birth, it will develop inexorably according to the species’ immanent laws of maturation (given an adequate physical and social environment), and the adult animal will have a species-specific signal repertoire available to it. The development of communication in man (as well as in some bird species) has a different ontogeny. Here the propensity matures as inexorably, but the actualization is linked to an adaptive feature towards environmental circumstances. It is a two-stage developmental course: at the first stage there is little tolerance for replicative variance, but at second stage there is very high tolerance. It is this splitting of the tolerance levels that may have important consequences for the evolution of behavior.
Tolerance for variance is probably inversely related to the complexity of the communication system and, consequently, to the repertoire of the messages available to the species. If the communication system is very complex but there is no adaptive feature and the whole behavior pattern emerges in the course of a single-stage rigid development, any small biological deviation from the mean is likely to alter the receptive and productive capacities for patterns, thus rendering individuals that are not perfectly replicated incommunicado, and this difficulty in communication might bar them from interacting with the group. Therefore, perfect maintenance of a very complex system demands very low tolerance bringing with it waste due to exclusion of individuals. The waste can only be reduced if tolerance is raised, but since this will admit individuals with lower capacities, the general level or standard of complexity of behavior would be reduced and leveled out until a stage is reached in which communication can be accomplished by any rough approximation to a given sound pattern. Thus, communication systems that mature in a single stage process have their level of complexity balanced against risk of waste and loss of individuals to the reproductive community.
The two-stage development, through introduction of the resonance phenomenon, circumvents the problem to a certain extent. Latent structure is merely a propensity (still lacking form). Language readiness is a primitive stage with final differentiation yet to com. Perhaps accurate replication at this stage is more easily attained because of this primitivity, and, therefore, tolerance for variance, although low, is not yet a critical problem. As the individual matures, the last stages of differentiation approach, and the process of actualization transforms latent to realized structure. But tolerance for variance in this secondary process is very high; through resonance the individual can adapt to a great variety of situations, and shape the realized form after the forms surrounding him. Through this increase of tolerance, the risk of losing individuals is lowered, whereas, at the same, there are fewer limits to the complexity of the system. A wider range of variance is allowed to remain, and out of this communication systems may evolve with special mechanisms that generate virtually unlimited repertoires of messages to the great advantage of social cohesiveness and organization of the group structure.
Notice that the resonance phenomenon in man is actually an aspect of his peculiar and species-specific ontogenetic history. Resonance is linked to a postnatal state of relative immaturity and a concomitant lengthening of infancy and childhood, so that environmental influences (the molding after patterns available in the environment) can actually enter into the formative processes. In Chapter Four we have pointed out how man is unique is this respect. Here, then, we have a highly suggestive chain of reactions. Genetic alterations may lead to a peculiar developmental history in which the communication readiness becomes separated from the actualization process, so that latent structure comes to be distinct from realized structure, each with its own level of tolerance for replicative variance. Although the tolerance for the first level is lowered, that for the second level is heightened, thus opening up new possibilities for the development of zoologically unprecedented complexities in the system of communication.
Language geography is further complicated by the fact that the territories of peoples speaking languages of entirely different stock abut. Roman Jakobson noted that it is common for entirely different but adjacent languages to be contaminated by each other in terms of certain phonological features. For instance, clicks are found in many African languages which by their grammar and lexicon cannot be considered as cognate. The distribution of the interdental spirant (th) in Europe is not restricted to cognate languages but is apparently the result of diffusion in the recent past across boundaries of languages of different origin. Some American Indian languages along the pacific and around the Gulf of Mexico have a characteristic sound-cluster, usually transcribed as /tl/, even though the languages are of very different types.
The crazy-quilt pattern of language – and dialect-maps can be accounted for quite well by the resonance theory. The language-acquiring child does not merely resonate to his own family but to the social group at large. This is best seen in immigrant children in America whose parents speak English with a heavy accent but whose own language is standard American. The child’s language is patterned after that of the individuals with whom he comes in contact. Face to face contact in human populations is regulated by certain social institutions and mechanisms. There is no true randomization in individual contact, not even among those individuals who occupy the same territory. This is due to such factors as national and ethnic affiliations and even social class distinctions. Because of these political and social boundaries, language differences do not become gradually more and more accentuated in direct proportion to geographic distance, but instead we find sudden, discontinuous changes; that is isoglosses are sharp boundaries clearly marking dialectal differences. The discontinuities are, of course, much more dramatic in regions where languages from entirely different stock make contact.
The sharing of phonological features across language boundaries may result from children’s resonating to large numbers of individuals in their vicinity who speak with the same foreign accent. This may occur, for instance, along language or national borders. The feature can then penetrate into the language territories through further and further resonance.
(4) A note on Adaptive Value
If the fundamentals of language have evolved in response to natural selection pressures, would it be fair to assume that the present nature of language constitutes in some sense an optimal solution? Such claims have been made, particularly in connection with measurements of the redundancy and information-transmission capacity of natural languages. But the explanations are always post hoc; languages are optimal, given the nature of man. But if the nature of language is partly the nature of man, as is suggested in the present thesis, these assertions become tautological. Is the nature of man, including his language, in any sense optimal? This becomes a question of religion rather than science. Our present era is not the final goal toward which evolution has striven, and we are merely at one stage in the continuity of life. Evolution of man has not stopped, and we cannot say whether the past, present, or future is in any way optimal.
There is a more interesting question, however. What might be the adaptive value of the resonance phenomenon? Resonance is not unique to man as pointed out previously in (v). it is a feature of a specific type of social mechanism out of a collection of many other types in the animal kingdom that are also linked to critical period evolved independently many times over. The physiological and behavioral details that make resonance possible need not be the same in different species. Perhaps man is unique only in the particular way in which he has achieved resonance and the peculiar behavior to which it is relevant.
The evolutionary recurrence of resonance leaves little doubt that it must harbor some selective advantages. What could they be? An examination of acoustic signaling systems among mammals gives us some scanty clues. The noises that most other mammals make can develop ontogenetically in the absence of social contact. Even though communicative behavior may not yet be present at birth, it will develop inexorably according to the species’ immanent laws of maturation (given an adequate physical and social environment), and the adult animal will have a species-specific signal repertoire available to it. The development of communication in man (as well as in some bird species) has a different ontogeny. Here the propensity matures as inexorably, but the actualization is linked to an adaptive feature towards environmental circumstances. It is a two-stage developmental course: at the first stage there is little tolerance for replicative variance, but at second stage there is very high tolerance. It is this splitting of the tolerance levels that may have important consequences for the evolution of behavior.
Tolerance for variance is probably inversely related to the complexity of the communication system and, consequently, to the repertoire of the messages available to the species. If the communication system is very complex but there is no adaptive feature and the whole behavior pattern emerges in the course of a single-stage rigid development, any small biological deviation from the mean is likely to alter the receptive and productive capacities for patterns, thus rendering individuals that are not perfectly replicated incommunicado, and this difficulty in communication might bar them from interacting with the group. Therefore, perfect maintenance of a very complex system demands very low tolerance bringing with it waste due to exclusion of individuals. The waste can only be reduced if tolerance is raised, but since this will admit individuals with lower capacities, the general level or standard of complexity of behavior would be reduced and leveled out until a stage is reached in which communication can be accomplished by any rough approximation to a given sound pattern. Thus, communication systems that mature in a single stage process have their level of complexity balanced against risk of waste and loss of individuals to the reproductive community.
The two-stage development, through introduction of the resonance phenomenon, circumvents the problem to a certain extent. Latent structure is merely a propensity (still lacking form). Language readiness is a primitive stage with final differentiation yet to com. Perhaps accurate replication at this stage is more easily attained because of this primitivity, and, therefore, tolerance for variance, although low, is not yet a critical problem. As the individual matures, the last stages of differentiation approach, and the process of actualization transforms latent to realized structure. But tolerance for variance in this secondary process is very high; through resonance the individual can adapt to a great variety of situations, and shape the realized form after the forms surrounding him. Through this increase of tolerance, the risk of losing individuals is lowered, whereas, at the same, there are fewer limits to the complexity of the system. A wider range of variance is allowed to remain, and out of this communication systems may evolve with special mechanisms that generate virtually unlimited repertoires of messages to the great advantage of social cohesiveness and organization of the group structure.
Notice that the resonance phenomenon in man is actually an aspect of his peculiar and species-specific ontogenetic history. Resonance is linked to a postnatal state of relative immaturity and a concomitant lengthening of infancy and childhood, so that environmental influences (the molding after patterns available in the environment) can actually enter into the formative processes. In Chapter Four we have pointed out how man is unique is this respect. Here, then, we have a highly suggestive chain of reactions. Genetic alterations may lead to a peculiar developmental history in which the communication readiness becomes separated from the actualization process, so that latent structure comes to be distinct from realized structure, each with its own level of tolerance for replicative variance. Although the tolerance for the first level is lowered, that for the second level is heightened, thus opening up new possibilities for the development of zoologically unprecedented complexities in the system of communication.
LB460-462
p460
Very few linguists concurred with Schleicher’s thinking and his commitment to natural science. Surprisingly, Friedrich Max Muller (1823-1900) favored the idea that linguistics was natural science, for fore had Schleicher’s opinion that language evolved from natural sounds. This German born, Oxford professor of linguistics and literature popularized linguistics by his lectures and is still quoted today as an authority by nonlinguists. He considered language an irresistible exclusively human instinct. Known languages had developed out of word roots. These roots, the basic components of language, had originally been used in speech. They were composed of phonetic types, the product of a power inherent in human nature. He considered language and thought inseparable, “… to think is to speak low, to speak is to think aloud” [83].
The public acclaim which Muller received was not based on his erudition, and this irritated the linguists who recognized his fallacies. In 1892, William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894), professor at Yale, opposed Muller’s view on the identity of language and thought, and denied the possibility of a natural science of linguistics. Language was a social product based on a God-given energy. He feared that the inclusion of linguistics in the natural sciences would be used to deny free will which Whitney wanted to preserve at all costs [84].
The view that language was unique to man was not considered contradictory to evolution by Charles Darwin 91809-1882). “The faculty of articulated speech does not in itself offer any insuperable objection to the belief that man has been developed from some lower form” [85].For Darwin articulation, association of ideas, and the ability to connect definite ideas with definite sounds, were not unique characteristics of human language. Man differed from animals solely by his infinitely larger power of associating together the most diversified sounds and ideas. Originally, language had evolved out of man’s imitation of animal noises. Man had shard with the apes their strong tendency to imitate sound. Now, “man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children, whilst no child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake or write. Moreover, no philologist no supposes that any language has been deliberately invented.” He found that “The intimate connection between the brain is well shown by these curious cases of brain disease in which speech is specially affected” [86].
The study of aphasia lead John Hughlings Jackson (1834-1911) to formulations on language which went beyond the simple conceptualizations of his predecessors. In his paper written in 1864, he differentiated between intellectual speech used for propositions, and oaths which, like other interjectional expression, are nonpropositional. Among the workers on aphasia, he was the first to emphasize that “language is not a wordheap” and that meaning is gained by placing words in context [87]. In order to understand the disturbances of language, it would be necessary to have a psychology and a physiology of language. Her drew on Herbert Spencer for his psychological formulations and proceeded to construct a very complicated hypothesis to explain the cerebral processes serving language function [88].
He formulated his findings, derived from the observation of cases of aphasia, in terms of cortical function. Learning language would have to be related to the establishment of sensory motor reflexes. For example:
“we learn the word ball, by hearing it and by the consequent articulatory adjustments… We learn the object ball, by receiving retinal impressions and by the occurrence of consequent ocular adjustment” [89].17
Jackson warned against confusing psychology with physiology and anatomy, but could not always avoid this confusion himself [90]. When he succeeded, it was often by the use of hypothetical construct. “Internal speech” may serve as an example of this. He had derived it from psychological introspection and attributed to it a physiological motor function of less intensity than uttered speech. An “idea” became physiologically speaking “a nervous process of a highly special movement of the articulatory series”… although Jackson had to admit that “ no actual movement occurs” [91] most of his theoretical elaborations were confined to a consideration of words or images, although he knew that language could not be understood or explained in terms of these elements! The interrelationships of words did not receive the attention which he knew they deserved.
Most physicians were content with the simple mechanistic explanations about single words, but Hughlings Jackson’s interest in a language psychology was shared by the most prominent linguist H. Steintal.18
Nearly fifty years after von Humboldt had formulated the aims of linguistics, Heymann Steinthal (1823-1899) undertook the task of providing the discipline with a scientific basis. With the advantage of having voluminous compendiums and detailed grammars at his disposal, Stenthal realized that language could only be fully understood, if it was regarded a part of mind. Its scientific study would have to be based on psychology. Only psychological description would permit the elucidation of man’s language capacity and the conditions under which it can develop. “Language appears of necessity… when mental development has reached a certain point.” It comes about after reflexive body movements had entered man’s consciousness, and after the association of perceptions with sounds. Language had not been adequately understood in the past, because it had been regarded solely as a means of communication. It had been incorrectly assumed that man had images, thoughts and the additional ability to express these in terms of sounds. Images and thoughts were themselves based on language.
Notes 17-18
17. What would he have said about bell, a word used by Wernicke in a similar connection?
18. Jackson was mostly ignored. His use of Herbert Spencer’s nomenclature, his own lack of clarity and consistency may have contributed to this. With an increasing interest in psychology in the first part of the twentieth century, his papers were republished by Head (Brain, 1915).
Reference 83-91
83. Muller, Max, Lectures on the Science of Language. Longman, Green, London, 1862. pp. 22, 32, 349, 356, 386-388.
84. Whitney William D., Max Mueller and the Science of Language. Appleton, New York, 1892, pp. 23, 29, 74.
Jolly, Julius (ed. And Trans.) Die Sprachwissenschaft W. D. Whitneys Vorlesungen, Ackermann, Muenchen, 1874 (1st Eng. Ed., 1867), pp. 73, 553-557, 686.
85. Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Random House, New York (1st ed., 1871), p.467.
86. ------. Pp. 462-467.
87. Jackson, J. Hughlings, Brain, Vol. 38, p. 56 (1915)
88. ------. P. 133.
89. ------. Pp. 94-5.
90. -----. P. 67See also Head, H., op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 138, 194, 244.
91. Jackson, J. H., op. cit., p.85.
Very few linguists concurred with Schleicher’s thinking and his commitment to natural science. Surprisingly, Friedrich Max Muller (1823-1900) favored the idea that linguistics was natural science, for fore had Schleicher’s opinion that language evolved from natural sounds. This German born, Oxford professor of linguistics and literature popularized linguistics by his lectures and is still quoted today as an authority by nonlinguists. He considered language an irresistible exclusively human instinct. Known languages had developed out of word roots. These roots, the basic components of language, had originally been used in speech. They were composed of phonetic types, the product of a power inherent in human nature. He considered language and thought inseparable, “… to think is to speak low, to speak is to think aloud” [83].
The public acclaim which Muller received was not based on his erudition, and this irritated the linguists who recognized his fallacies. In 1892, William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894), professor at Yale, opposed Muller’s view on the identity of language and thought, and denied the possibility of a natural science of linguistics. Language was a social product based on a God-given energy. He feared that the inclusion of linguistics in the natural sciences would be used to deny free will which Whitney wanted to preserve at all costs [84].
The view that language was unique to man was not considered contradictory to evolution by Charles Darwin 91809-1882). “The faculty of articulated speech does not in itself offer any insuperable objection to the belief that man has been developed from some lower form” [85].For Darwin articulation, association of ideas, and the ability to connect definite ideas with definite sounds, were not unique characteristics of human language. Man differed from animals solely by his infinitely larger power of associating together the most diversified sounds and ideas. Originally, language had evolved out of man’s imitation of animal noises. Man had shard with the apes their strong tendency to imitate sound. Now, “man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children, whilst no child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake or write. Moreover, no philologist no supposes that any language has been deliberately invented.” He found that “The intimate connection between the brain is well shown by these curious cases of brain disease in which speech is specially affected” [86].
The study of aphasia lead John Hughlings Jackson (1834-1911) to formulations on language which went beyond the simple conceptualizations of his predecessors. In his paper written in 1864, he differentiated between intellectual speech used for propositions, and oaths which, like other interjectional expression, are nonpropositional. Among the workers on aphasia, he was the first to emphasize that “language is not a wordheap” and that meaning is gained by placing words in context [87]. In order to understand the disturbances of language, it would be necessary to have a psychology and a physiology of language. Her drew on Herbert Spencer for his psychological formulations and proceeded to construct a very complicated hypothesis to explain the cerebral processes serving language function [88].
He formulated his findings, derived from the observation of cases of aphasia, in terms of cortical function. Learning language would have to be related to the establishment of sensory motor reflexes. For example:
“we learn the word ball, by hearing it and by the consequent articulatory adjustments… We learn the object ball, by receiving retinal impressions and by the occurrence of consequent ocular adjustment” [89].17
Jackson warned against confusing psychology with physiology and anatomy, but could not always avoid this confusion himself [90]. When he succeeded, it was often by the use of hypothetical construct. “Internal speech” may serve as an example of this. He had derived it from psychological introspection and attributed to it a physiological motor function of less intensity than uttered speech. An “idea” became physiologically speaking “a nervous process of a highly special movement of the articulatory series”… although Jackson had to admit that “ no actual movement occurs” [91] most of his theoretical elaborations were confined to a consideration of words or images, although he knew that language could not be understood or explained in terms of these elements! The interrelationships of words did not receive the attention which he knew they deserved.
Most physicians were content with the simple mechanistic explanations about single words, but Hughlings Jackson’s interest in a language psychology was shared by the most prominent linguist H. Steintal.18
Nearly fifty years after von Humboldt had formulated the aims of linguistics, Heymann Steinthal (1823-1899) undertook the task of providing the discipline with a scientific basis. With the advantage of having voluminous compendiums and detailed grammars at his disposal, Stenthal realized that language could only be fully understood, if it was regarded a part of mind. Its scientific study would have to be based on psychology. Only psychological description would permit the elucidation of man’s language capacity and the conditions under which it can develop. “Language appears of necessity… when mental development has reached a certain point.” It comes about after reflexive body movements had entered man’s consciousness, and after the association of perceptions with sounds. Language had not been adequately understood in the past, because it had been regarded solely as a means of communication. It had been incorrectly assumed that man had images, thoughts and the additional ability to express these in terms of sounds. Images and thoughts were themselves based on language.
Notes 17-18
17. What would he have said about bell, a word used by Wernicke in a similar connection?
18. Jackson was mostly ignored. His use of Herbert Spencer’s nomenclature, his own lack of clarity and consistency may have contributed to this. With an increasing interest in psychology in the first part of the twentieth century, his papers were republished by Head (Brain, 1915).
Reference 83-91
83. Muller, Max, Lectures on the Science of Language. Longman, Green, London, 1862. pp. 22, 32, 349, 356, 386-388.
84. Whitney William D., Max Mueller and the Science of Language. Appleton, New York, 1892, pp. 23, 29, 74.
Jolly, Julius (ed. And Trans.) Die Sprachwissenschaft W. D. Whitneys Vorlesungen, Ackermann, Muenchen, 1874 (1st Eng. Ed., 1867), pp. 73, 553-557, 686.
85. Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Random House, New York (1st ed., 1871), p.467.
86. ------. Pp. 462-467.
87. Jackson, J. Hughlings, Brain, Vol. 38, p. 56 (1915)
88. ------. P. 133.
89. ------. Pp. 94-5.
90. -----. P. 67See also Head, H., op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 138, 194, 244.
91. Jackson, J. H., op. cit., p.85.
2008年10月1日 星期三
LB460-461T
p460
Very few linguists concurred with Schleicher’s thinking and his commitment to natural science. Surprisingly, Friedrich Max Muller (1823-1900) favored the idea that linguistics was a natural science, for he had rejected Schleicher’s opinion that language evolved from natural sounds. This German born, Oxford professor of linguistics and literature popularized linguistics by his lectures and is still quoted today as an authority by nonlinguists. He considered language an irresistible exclusively human instinct. Known languages had developed out of word roots. These roots, the basic components of language, had originally been used in speech. They were composed of phonetic types, the product of a power inherent in human nature. He considered language and thought inseparable, “… to think is to speak low, to speak is to think aloud” [83].
當時極少語言家贊同Schleicher的想法和他對自然科學的付出。令人意外的是，Muller贊同語言學為一項自然科學的想法，儘管他排斥了Schleicher的主張，亦即：”語言係從自然的聲音演化而來”。這位生於德國的牛津語言學暨文學教授，藉由授課來推廣語言學，而迄今他仍被語言學界外引為權威。他認為語言是一種無法抗拒而為人類獨有的本能。已知的語言都發展自詞根。這些詞根，作為語言的基本成分，原先就已用於言語之中。它們是由語音形式所構成，而這此語音形式係產自於人類天性的一種內在力量。他認為語言和思維密不可分，”…思考即是低聲言語，言語即是高聲思考” [83]。
The public acclaim which Muller received was not based on his erudition, and this irritated the linguists who recognized his fallacies. In 1892, William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894), professor at Yale, opposed Muller’s view on the identity of language and thought, and denied the possibility of a natural science of linguistics. Language was a social product based on a God-given energy. He feared that the inclusion of linguistics in the natural sciences would be used to deny free will which Whitney wanted to preserve at all costs [84].
Muller雖廣受讚賞，但並非基於其學識，這可惹惱了一些看出其謬誤的語言學家。1892年耶魯的Whitney教授反對Muller將語言和思維視為一體的看法，並且否定了語言學作為一門自然科學的可能性。語言是基於神授力量的社會產物。Whitney擔心要是語言學被納入自然科學一事成真，此事會被用來否定他不計代價都要維護的自由意志[84]。
The view that language was unique to man was not considered contradictory to evolution by Charles Darwin (1809-1882). “The faculty of articulated speech does not in itself offer any insuperable objection to the belief that man has been developed from some lower form” [85].For Darwin, articulation, association of ideas, and the ability to connect definite ideas with definite sounds, were not unique characteristics of human language. Man differed from animals solely by his infinitely larger power of associating together the most diversified sounds and ideas. Originally, language had evolved out of man’s imitation of animal noises. Man had shared with the apes their strong tendency to imitate sound. Now, “man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children, whilst no child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake or write. Moreover, no philologist now supposes that any language has been deliberately invented.” He found that “The intimate connection between the brain is well shown by these curious cases of brain disease in which speech is specially affected” [86].
達爾文並不認為語言為人類獨有這樣的看法和演化有矛盾之處。能使用分節語言的官能本身並不能斷然否定人類是由某種低等形式演化而來的信念。對達爾文來說，發聲，概念的聯想，以及連結特定概念和特定聲音的能力並不是人類語言獨有的特徵。人不同動物，只因其連結各式各樣的聲音和概念的能力遠遠勝於動物。起初，語言演化自人類對動物聲音的模仿。人類和猿類都有很強的傾向去模仿聲音。但人類卻有本能的傾向去說話，正如同我們可以在孩童的牙牙學語中看到的，然而卻沒有任何兒童本能地傾向去釀酒、烘焙或寫字。此外，現在沒有語文學家會認為有任何語言是被刻意創造出來的。達爾文發現”一些稀奇的腦部疾病案例已展示了人腦的緊密連結，在這些個案裡，言語明確地受到影響[86]。
The study of aphasia lead John Hughlings Jackson (1834-1911) to formulations on language which went beyond the simple conceptualizations of his predecessors. In his paper written in 1864, he differentiated between intellectual speech used for propositions, and oaths which, like other interjectional expression, are nonpropositional. Among the workers on aphasia, he was the first to emphasize that “language is not a wordheap” and that meaning is gained by placing words in context [87]. In order to understand the disturbances of language, it would be necessary to have a psychology and a physiology of language. He drew on Herbert Spencer for his psychological formulations and proceeded to construct a very complicated hypothesis to explain the cerebral processes serving language function [88].
有關失語症的研究引導Jackson對語言的構想，他的構想超越了前輩們的簡易的概念化。在1864年寫的那篇文章裡，他區分了用於命題的理智言語和誓言，誓言如同其他感嘆的表達，都是非命題的。在研究失語症的人當中，他是第一個強調”語言不是詞堆”以及，並不是把詞置於情境之中即可獲致意義。想要瞭解語言的混亂現象，語言的生理學和生理學是必要的。為了其心理學構想，他汲取Spencer了的思想，並且進而建構一個極為複雜的假設來解釋用於語言功能的腦部處理過程[88]。
He formulated his findings, derived from the observation of cases of aphasia, in terms of cortical function. Learning language would have to be related to the establishment of sensory motor reflexes. For example:
“We learn the word ball, by hearing it and by the consequent articulatory adjustments… We learn the object ball, by receiving retinal impressions and by the occurrence of consequent ocular adjustment” [89].17
他依據大腦皮質的功能來闡明其發現(衍生自對失語症個案的觀察)。語言學習得要聯繫到感覺與運動反射(sensory motor reflexes)的建立。例如：
“我們學習”ball”這個詞，是藉著聽到這個詞，以及接下來的發聲調整…我們認識到ball這個物體，是經由視網膜上的印象以及接下來視覺調整的出現”[89]。17
Jackson warned against confusing psychology with physiology and anatomy, but could not always avoid this confusion himself [90]. When he succeeded, it was often by the use of hypothetical construct. “Internal speech” may serve as an example of this. He had derived it from psychological introspection and attributed to it a physiological motor function of less intensity than uttered speech. An “idea” became physiologically speaking “a nervous process of a highly special movement of the articulatory series”… although Jackson had to admit that “ no actual movement occurs” [91] Most of his theoretical elaborations were confined to a consideration of words or images, although he knew that language could not be understood or explained in terms of these elements! The interrelationships of words did not receive the attention which he knew they deserved.
Jackson提醒我們不要將心理學混同於生理學、解剖學，但他自己也並非總是能避免這樣的混淆。他通常是藉由假設性的建構才得以成功。”內在言語”可以作為一個例子。他從心理學的內省導出”內在言語”，並將其歸因於生理學上的運動機能，此機能的強度低於發出的言語(uttered speech)。就生理學而言，一個觀念變成了一連串發聲中特殊動作的神經過程”…雖然Jackson坦承”實際上沒有動作發生”Jackson在理論上的巧思局限於考量到詞或者影像，儘管他也知道我們不能憑這些成分來理解或解釋語言！詞與詞的相互關係在當時沒有得到重視，而Jackson知道不應如此。
Most physicians were content with the simple mechanistic explanations about single words, but Hughlings Jackson’s interest in a language psychology was shared by the most prominent linguist H. Steintal.18
大部分的醫師滿足於對單詞作簡單、機械式的解釋，但是Jackson在語言的心理學這方面與當時最著名的語言學家Steinthal和有著同樣的興趣。
Nearly fifty years after von Humboldt had formulated the aims of linguistics, Heymann Steinthal (1823-1899) undertook the task of providing the discipline with a scientific basis. With the advantage of having voluminous compendiums and detailed grammars at his disposal, Steinthal realized that language could only be fully understood, if it was regarded a part of mind. Its scientific study would have to be based on psychology. Only psychological description would permit the elucidation of man’s language capacity and the conditions under which it can develop. “Language appears of necessity… when mental development has reached a certain point.” It comes about after reflexive body movements had entered man’s consciousness, and after the association of perceptions with sounds. Language had not been adequately understood in the past, because it had been regarded solely as a means of communication. It had been incorrectly assumed that man had images, thoughts and the additional ability to express these in terms of sounds. Images and thoughts were themselves based on language.
在Humboldt構想出了語言學之目標近五十年後，Steinthal承擔重任，試圖為這個學科提供科學的基礎。擁有大量的手冊和詳盡的語法是Steinthal的優勢，他知道如果把語言視為心智的一部分，那麼我們就不可能完全理解語言。要對語言作科學的研究得靠心理學。只有靠心理學的描述，我們才有可能闡明人類的語言能力以及此能力得以發展的條件。”語言源自需求…當心理發展達到了某一點”一旦人類注意到自己反射性的身體動作、連結了感知和聲音，語言就誕生了。語言在過去未曾被適當的理解，這是因為語言僅被視為溝通的工作。長久以來，人們誤以為人類擁有影像、思維以及另一額外的能力來用聲音表達此二者。影像和思維本身即基於語言。
Very few linguists concurred with Schleicher’s thinking and his commitment to natural science. Surprisingly, Friedrich Max Muller (1823-1900) favored the idea that linguistics was a natural science, for he had rejected Schleicher’s opinion that language evolved from natural sounds. This German born, Oxford professor of linguistics and literature popularized linguistics by his lectures and is still quoted today as an authority by nonlinguists. He considered language an irresistible exclusively human instinct. Known languages had developed out of word roots. These roots, the basic components of language, had originally been used in speech. They were composed of phonetic types, the product of a power inherent in human nature. He considered language and thought inseparable, “… to think is to speak low, to speak is to think aloud” [83].
當時極少語言家贊同Schleicher的想法和他對自然科學的付出。令人意外的是，Muller贊同語言學為一項自然科學的想法，儘管他排斥了Schleicher的主張，亦即：”語言係從自然的聲音演化而來”。這位生於德國的牛津語言學暨文學教授，藉由授課來推廣語言學，而迄今他仍被語言學界外引為權威。他認為語言是一種無法抗拒而為人類獨有的本能。已知的語言都發展自詞根。這些詞根，作為語言的基本成分，原先就已用於言語之中。它們是由語音形式所構成，而這此語音形式係產自於人類天性的一種內在力量。他認為語言和思維密不可分，”…思考即是低聲言語，言語即是高聲思考” [83]。
The public acclaim which Muller received was not based on his erudition, and this irritated the linguists who recognized his fallacies. In 1892, William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894), professor at Yale, opposed Muller’s view on the identity of language and thought, and denied the possibility of a natural science of linguistics. Language was a social product based on a God-given energy. He feared that the inclusion of linguistics in the natural sciences would be used to deny free will which Whitney wanted to preserve at all costs [84].
Muller雖廣受讚賞，但並非基於其學識，這可惹惱了一些看出其謬誤的語言學家。1892年耶魯的Whitney教授反對Muller將語言和思維視為一體的看法，並且否定了語言學作為一門自然科學的可能性。語言是基於神授力量的社會產物。Whitney擔心要是語言學被納入自然科學一事成真，此事會被用來否定他不計代價都要維護的自由意志[84]。
The view that language was unique to man was not considered contradictory to evolution by Charles Darwin (1809-1882). “The faculty of articulated speech does not in itself offer any insuperable objection to the belief that man has been developed from some lower form” [85].For Darwin, articulation, association of ideas, and the ability to connect definite ideas with definite sounds, were not unique characteristics of human language. Man differed from animals solely by his infinitely larger power of associating together the most diversified sounds and ideas. Originally, language had evolved out of man’s imitation of animal noises. Man had shared with the apes their strong tendency to imitate sound. Now, “man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children, whilst no child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake or write. Moreover, no philologist now supposes that any language has been deliberately invented.” He found that “The intimate connection between the brain is well shown by these curious cases of brain disease in which speech is specially affected” [86].
達爾文並不認為語言為人類獨有這樣的看法和演化有矛盾之處。能使用分節語言的官能本身並不能斷然否定人類是由某種低等形式演化而來的信念。對達爾文來說，發聲，概念的聯想，以及連結特定概念和特定聲音的能力並不是人類語言獨有的特徵。人不同動物，只因其連結各式各樣的聲音和概念的能力遠遠勝於動物。起初，語言演化自人類對動物聲音的模仿。人類和猿類都有很強的傾向去模仿聲音。但人類卻有本能的傾向去說話，正如同我們可以在孩童的牙牙學語中看到的，然而卻沒有任何兒童本能地傾向去釀酒、烘焙或寫字。此外，現在沒有語文學家會認為有任何語言是被刻意創造出來的。達爾文發現”一些稀奇的腦部疾病案例已展示了人腦的緊密連結，在這些個案裡，言語明確地受到影響[86]。
The study of aphasia lead John Hughlings Jackson (1834-1911) to formulations on language which went beyond the simple conceptualizations of his predecessors. In his paper written in 1864, he differentiated between intellectual speech used for propositions, and oaths which, like other interjectional expression, are nonpropositional. Among the workers on aphasia, he was the first to emphasize that “language is not a wordheap” and that meaning is gained by placing words in context [87]. In order to understand the disturbances of language, it would be necessary to have a psychology and a physiology of language. He drew on Herbert Spencer for his psychological formulations and proceeded to construct a very complicated hypothesis to explain the cerebral processes serving language function [88].
有關失語症的研究引導Jackson對語言的構想，他的構想超越了前輩們的簡易的概念化。在1864年寫的那篇文章裡，他區分了用於命題的理智言語和誓言，誓言如同其他感嘆的表達，都是非命題的。在研究失語症的人當中，他是第一個強調”語言不是詞堆”以及，並不是把詞置於情境之中即可獲致意義。想要瞭解語言的混亂現象，語言的生理學和生理學是必要的。為了其心理學構想，他汲取Spencer了的思想，並且進而建構一個極為複雜的假設來解釋用於語言功能的腦部處理過程[88]。
He formulated his findings, derived from the observation of cases of aphasia, in terms of cortical function. Learning language would have to be related to the establishment of sensory motor reflexes. For example:
“We learn the word ball, by hearing it and by the consequent articulatory adjustments… We learn the object ball, by receiving retinal impressions and by the occurrence of consequent ocular adjustment” [89].17
他依據大腦皮質的功能來闡明其發現(衍生自對失語症個案的觀察)。語言學習得要聯繫到感覺與運動反射(sensory motor reflexes)的建立。例如：
“我們學習”ball”這個詞，是藉著聽到這個詞，以及接下來的發聲調整…我們認識到ball這個物體，是經由視網膜上的印象以及接下來視覺調整的出現”[89]。17
Jackson warned against confusing psychology with physiology and anatomy, but could not always avoid this confusion himself [90]. When he succeeded, it was often by the use of hypothetical construct. “Internal speech” may serve as an example of this. He had derived it from psychological introspection and attributed to it a physiological motor function of less intensity than uttered speech. An “idea” became physiologically speaking “a nervous process of a highly special movement of the articulatory series”… although Jackson had to admit that “ no actual movement occurs” [91] Most of his theoretical elaborations were confined to a consideration of words or images, although he knew that language could not be understood or explained in terms of these elements! The interrelationships of words did not receive the attention which he knew they deserved.
Jackson提醒我們不要將心理學混同於生理學、解剖學，但他自己也並非總是能避免這樣的混淆。他通常是藉由假設性的建構才得以成功。”內在言語”可以作為一個例子。他從心理學的內省導出”內在言語”，並將其歸因於生理學上的運動機能，此機能的強度低於發出的言語(uttered speech)。就生理學而言，一個觀念變成了一連串發聲中特殊動作的神經過程”…雖然Jackson坦承”實際上沒有動作發生”Jackson在理論上的巧思局限於考量到詞或者影像，儘管他也知道我們不能憑這些成分來理解或解釋語言！詞與詞的相互關係在當時沒有得到重視，而Jackson知道不應如此。
Most physicians were content with the simple mechanistic explanations about single words, but Hughlings Jackson’s interest in a language psychology was shared by the most prominent linguist H. Steintal.18
大部分的醫師滿足於對單詞作簡單、機械式的解釋，但是Jackson在語言的心理學這方面與當時最著名的語言學家Steinthal和有著同樣的興趣。
Nearly fifty years after von Humboldt had formulated the aims of linguistics, Heymann Steinthal (1823-1899) undertook the task of providing the discipline with a scientific basis. With the advantage of having voluminous compendiums and detailed grammars at his disposal, Steinthal realized that language could only be fully understood, if it was regarded a part of mind. Its scientific study would have to be based on psychology. Only psychological description would permit the elucidation of man’s language capacity and the conditions under which it can develop. “Language appears of necessity… when mental development has reached a certain point.” It comes about after reflexive body movements had entered man’s consciousness, and after the association of perceptions with sounds. Language had not been adequately understood in the past, because it had been regarded solely as a means of communication. It had been incorrectly assumed that man had images, thoughts and the additional ability to express these in terms of sounds. Images and thoughts were themselves based on language.
在Humboldt構想出了語言學之目標近五十年後，Steinthal承擔重任，試圖為這個學科提供科學的基礎。擁有大量的手冊和詳盡的語法是Steinthal的優勢，他知道如果把語言視為心智的一部分，那麼我們就不可能完全理解語言。要對語言作科學的研究得靠心理學。只有靠心理學的描述，我們才有可能闡明人類的語言能力以及此能力得以發展的條件。”語言源自需求…當心理發展達到了某一點”一旦人類注意到自己反射性的身體動作、連結了感知和聲音，語言就誕生了。語言在過去未曾被適當的理解，這是因為語言僅被視為溝通的工作。長久以來，人們誤以為人類擁有影像、思維以及另一額外的能力來用聲音表達此二者。影像和思維本身即基於語言。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)