A "Language" Gene?

Clearly, the language we use influences the message we present. In the case of the article I read, the choice of words affects the accuracy of the claim.

The article reported that Neanderthals were capable of speech, shattering the traditional view that they communicated through grunts and gestures. Supposedly, this is supported by the discovery of a gene in Neanderthal DNA called FOXP2. The problem is, the journalist (and many others) labeled the gene “the language gene.” Yet to give it this name suggests that a) it is the gene that determines whether we can use language or not and b) the gene is involved in far more complex processes than is the case.

The gene’s role was determined by studying a family with an abnormal copy of the gene. The family members with this abnormal gene suffered from a severe speech disorder which left them unable to select and produce the fine movements with the tongue and lips necessary for articulation. Further studies of affected individuals reveal that a defective allele of the gene causes oro-facial problems.

The gene, then, seems to control external factors involved in the production of speech; it is the physical, motor part of speaking that is affected, rather than the ability to formulate ideas into language. Or in any case, we can infer that the gene affects only the external; we cannot yet make any claims as to its effect on the workings of our mind and on our ability to go from the semantic level to the lexical levels and beyond [see previous blog]. To call it the language gene is misleading; with our knowledge, we can only conclude that it affects the most basic part of our speech, which doesn’t involve language so much as it involves simple physical movement. Furthermore, calling it the language gene restricts all of the complex workings of language to a mutation in one gene, when we know that language must involve many more genes that influence cognitive skills. Reading about aphasia a few weeks ago made me realize how many different parts of our brain are involved in producing speech; it is the combination of all our faculties and cognitive abilities that allows us to put abstract thoughts into language.

However—to get back to the article—the discovery of this gene in Neanderthals does allow us to theorize on the evolution of language. It is possible that the fine oro-facial movements regulated by the gene actually triggered the development of language; perhaps with the ability to make distinct clear sounds, Neanderthals were more likely to attribute specific meanings to each sound, gaining mental skills in the process (of remembering the meanings of each one and choosing which one to use for a specific situation). The discussions over this so-called “language gene” reveal how interconnected the fields of linguistics and biology are; gaining a greater understanding of the evolution and development of language requires close collaboration between the two!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/20/nbrute120.xml

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303282,00.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1004_TVlanguagegene.html

http://human-brain.org/language-gene.html

http://www.evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm