=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1419/paper0052
|storemode=property
|title=What Genes and Brain Can Tell Us of How Symbolic Cognition Appeared in the Human Mind
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0052.pdf
|volume=Vol-1419
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eapcogsci/ChernigovskayaV15
}}
==What Genes and Brain Can Tell Us of How Symbolic Cognition Appeared in the Human Mind==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0052.pdf
What Genes and Brain Can Tell Us history are considered in the paper: nativism vs.
connectionism, modular vs. network neurophysiologic
of How Symbolic Cognition Appeared in organization of language and cognition, the idea of a macro-
the Human Mind mutation vs. a series of micro-mutations that have resulted
in the appearance of human language and cognition and
consecutively given rise to quick cultural development.
Tatiana Chernigovskaya
(tatiana.chernigovskaya@gmail.com) As distinct from biology, evolutionary ideas in
Laboratory for Cognitive Studies, linguistics were not well recognized until recently. Despite
St. Petersburg State University, earlier attempts to apply evolutionary approach to study of
190000, 58-60 Galernaya St., St.Petersburg, Russia languages been taken by such prominent linguists as Sapir
(1921) and Jespersen (1964), they were not initially taken
Olga Vasileva seriously. This is because in the 20th century, through the
(ovasilev@sfu.ca) influence of Saussure (1916), Jakobson (1966), and others
Psychological Foundations Laboratory, up to Chomsky, language came to be viewed as a static
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada system with a set of rules for the combination and
substitution of elements, regardless of how it may have
Abstract evolved from protolanguages to modern languages. Thus,
In this article we provide a brief overview of some of the the central idea in the study of language from an
forefront research topics in human language evolution. We begin evolutionary perspective – that human languages evolve and
by briefly reviewing the bio-evolutionary framework usage in become more effective –is traditionally quite paradoxical
linguistics, then analyze central theoretical premises with regard to within linguistics, although it is generally accepted in
language organization in the brain and examine modern
understanding of the importance of the specific brain structural
biology.
features such as cerebral asymmetry and mirror systems for Nevertheless, since the beginning of comparative
language evolution. We further discuss the contribution of some linguistics and throughout its subsequent extensive
recent findings in genetics and anthropology to the field of bio- development in the 20th century, there has been much
evolutionary linguistics and conclude by highlighting the discussion on the issue of language typology – comparing
importance of collaborative efforts of various scientific fields for both related and widely separated languages, their possibly
understanding an accurate picture of such an interdisciplinary shared features and changes through time. Studies on the
subject as language evolution. reconstruction of protolanguages are progressing rapidly (cf.
Gamkrelidze 1985). Some general patterns of language
Keywords: language origin and evolution, genetic basis for
cognition and communication, cerebral mechanisms for higher
evolution can be clearly seen in the family of Indo-European
functions, symbolic cognition languages, possibly because these languages are best studied
and can be traced back for the longest period of time (6-7
Darwin in his Origin of Species … [1; p. 187] writes: “... thousand years). Regularities revealed in Indo-European
not one author posed the question as to why in some same languages have turned out to be applicable to the
animals the cognitive capabilities are developed more than evolution of other language groups as well: Hamito-Semitic,
in others, whereas such development should have been Altaic, Uralic, and others. Thus, there appears to be
useful for all? Why monkeys did not acquire human regularities of evolution which are widely shared among
intellectual capabilities? This can be ascribed to various different languages, and which can be traced at different
reasons, but since all of them are assumptive and their layers, from that of phonology up to the sentence level.
relative probability cannot be evaluated, it is useless to It is important to bear in mind that these regularities are
dwell upon this”. expressed differently, according to the type of language
The problem of emergence of language in human being considered. For example, in tone languages changes
evolution, as well as its cognitive foundation, is extremely can take place almost only in tones. In languages of other
complex and truly interdisciplinary in nature. Consequently, phonological types changes may occur in the segmental
its successful solution requires integrated approaches and sounds or phonemes. Furthermore, linguistic features are
collaborative efforts of various fields, such as linguistics, 'scattered' over different languages and are not necessarily
psychology, genetics, physiology, etc. In this paper we present in each of them.
provide an overview of several forefront topics of research The contribution of paleo-anthropological research to the
at the confluence of the language evolution problem. investigation of language evolution is well-acknowledged.
Particularly, the paper is focusing on current views on Most relevant for the purposes of this paper are studies that
genetic basis and cerebral mechanisms of the human further support the possibility of establishing a relationship
language, its specificity and the difference with between linguistic typology or differentiation and
communication systems of other animals. evolutionary affinities (Wind et al. 1992; Wallace 1994;
Various points of view on cerebral basis for cognitive Cavalli-Sforca et al. 1994; Read, 2008; Sia et al.2013).
and linguistic competence in respect to human evolutionary Demonstrating the congruence of genetic and linguistic
335
evolution, Cavalli-Storza et al. conclude that linguistic and and mental processing (Allott 2001). Therefore, it is
genetic evolution are closely related and that associations expected to see evidence of evolutionary changes in
between linguistic families and the genetic history of peripheral–articulatory, auditory, and integrative systems of
humans is far from random. Reformulating Darwin’s the brain. The latter, however, are a subject of constant
prediction (ch. 14 in ‘Origin of Species’, 1872) that controversy compared to the former two. While behaviorists
information on the genealogical arrangement of man would and some artificial intelligence researchers treat the brain as
enable to classify languages currently spoken., they indicate a general purpose processor, Chomsky’s followers describe
that when general principles of correlation between the it as a bundle of highly specialized ‘instincts’(‘universal
genetic tree and linguistic families and super-families are grammar’ among them) designed by evolution to learn
established, predictions could be made on the time course – certain things (Donald 1993; Sia et al. 2013). Discussions
and even locations – of the origins of linguistic families. over this dichotomy are never ending.
A growing interest of researchers using a bio-evolutionary One of the key questions is the problem of independent
framework is focused on the mechanisms underlying the or reciprocal evolution of human linguistic and cognitive
complexity of human behavior and language evolution, and abilities. No specialists object the statement that brain
their specific features (Hauser et al.2002; Dahl 2002; provides the higher psychological and especially language
Cartmill et al.2014). The commonly outlined features are functions to perform some mathematic operations. It is
graduality, structural differentiation, and adaptivity. Mayr obvious that brain deals, on the one hand, with some lists
stresses that ‘the evolutionary changes that result from formed in the process of natural and specialized learning
adaptive shifts…are followed secondarily by a change in and, on the other hand, with sets of various rules, the most
structure’, and that ‘during a succession of functions a universal part of which possibly being innate. By these
structure always passes through a stage when it can rules, specific algorithms are meant, which provide only
simultaneously perform both jobs’ (Mayr 1976, p. 106). language procedures. In this regard, serious and often non-
Givón formulates six general principles that in his view compromise discussions take place on the issue of whether
control both language and biological evolution (Givon the human language capability is a function of neuro-
2009): graduality of change; adaptive-selection motivation; physiology or is even anatomically separated from other
functional change and ambiguity before structural change cognitive functions.
and specialization; terminal addition of new structures to On the point of probability of brain organization
older ones; local causation with global consequences, and complying with the principle of modularity there are
uni-directionality of change. In recent years, attempts have intensively studied manifestations of postulated single
been made to discuss language development in terms of neuronal mechanisms in languages of different types. It is
processes recognized in biological evolution, such as common knowledge that representatives of generative
neoteny, recapitulation, language hybridization, mono- and linguistics insist on the presence of the so-called human
polygenesis, etc “language organ”, or a language acquisition device; it is
only with its help that formation of algorithms in the
It is not for the decades, if not for the century, that it is language ontogenesis is possible. Among generativists
discussed as to by what means the language is organized adhering to the position of innate language mechanisms
in the brain. Neuroscientists discuss several important there is no single opinion about the origin of these
issues: how the brain activity occurs in general — in each of mechanisms: Chomsky and Bickerton consider the
its parts and in the neuronal network as a whole; how the “grammatical explosion” a result of macro-mutation,
activity of neuronal assemblies is redistributed; how and whereas Pinker — a result of natural selection of small
why new functional connections are formed; how this is mutations, i.e., of a much slower process.
affected by information coming from outside and by genetic Adepts of neo-behaviorism in psychology and
factors underlying the human language competence. connectionist direction in linguistics consider learning the
Linguists are increasingly involved in such discussions and main factor of absorption and adequate functioning of
make attempts, using theoretical investigations and specially language procedures. According to behaviorism, the child is
designed experiments inside their science, as well as the known to be tabula rasa that is gradually filled with various
data obtained by neurosciences, to reveal structure of the schemes of behavior, including the verbal one, by the
human language or, to be more precise, its universal, basic “stimulus-reaction” principle, which for understandable
properties that distinguish it from all known communicative reason is by no means consistent with the idea of innate
systems and at the same time are characteristic of all symbolic rules.
national languages. As a result, both neurophysiologists and The organism’s external behavior is determined by a
linguists hope to describe the most complex language facts complex mechanism formed by competent structures, whose
in terms of neuronal activity (in a broad understanding), in functions depend on experience in a given environment.
other words, to relate the language processes to the Even Chomsky himself, the most convinced adept of
physiological ones occurring in the brain. primacy of genetics for language, emphasizes the difference
It is evident that the ‘realization’ of human language is between competence (some innate knowledge of brain about
achieved through a combination of articulation, audition, language in general, not a particular language) and
336
successful verbal activity — Competence vs. Performance. and fine motor control have been proposed to be more
In theories of learning, by competence the sum of “focal,” permitting rapid cortical interactions with shorter
knowledge is understood, which determines limits of conduction delays, whereas right-lateralized visuospatial
success of task performance. If the competence, including attention mechanisms require greater inter-hemispheric
the genetic one, is equal to zero, no incentives are able to integration due to the bilateral representation of visual
cause performance of a given task. space.
The most important characteristics of the human Data on cerebral lateralization are consistent with
language are its productivity (a possibility to create and computational theories that see information processing to be
understand absolutely new messages) and its hierarchic and more efficient when larger functions are decomposed into
even digital structure, i.e., the existence of levels — smaller independent processes, reducing functional
phonological, morphological, syntactical, and discourse. All interference. Hemispheric lateralization can be thought of as
this is permeated with the semantic axis. Such structural a special case of functional specialization. At the same
specificity is commonly accepted as a unique peculiarity of moment, other cases, such as the division of labor in the
a given system. Therefore, the search for both rules visual system between space and form or category
describing the proper linguistic phenomena and for genetic selectivity in occipito-temporal brain regions, may
base of language competence are based first of all on the ultimately be found to be similar. In general the proposed
analysis of these characteristics. preferences of each hemisphere for unilateral vs. bilateral
There is no doubt that the hierarchy of syntax is interaction and how such preferences relate quantitatively to
necessary for such a complex, self-organizing system as particular cognitive abilities have yet to be examined. It is
language, in the same way as the hierarchy and dynamics of worth mentioning that even domain-specific areas are
neuronal patterns are necessary for such a most complex functionally integrated into larger networks. In terms of
system as the brain. In this context, these vectors of natural language lateralization, it is suggested that Broca’s area,
selection are quite correlated. The adept of the idea of responsible for speech production receives its specific
macro-mutation and, therefore, actually an anti-Darwinist function as part of a particular domain-specific network
Chomsky and his opponents Pinker and Bloom who insist which involves the posterior STG for the language domain
on the natural selection that has led to the formation of the the parietal cortex for the action domain. Thus, a particular
language capacity , in our opinion, could have been area’s function should always be considered within a neural
conciliated in the same way as Hebb’s model. It gives a network of which it is a part of.
possibility of conciliation of the modular and holistic Networks involving the left-lateralized temporal and the
paradigms. Is it worth adhering to centrism of syntax, if we inferior frontal cortex were shown to subserve syntactic
live in the world of concepts? Is it worth keeping, as before, processes, and bilateral temporal-frontal networks -
in captivity of the binary way of thinking, with necessity of semantics. However, the brain-imaging linguistic data are
choosing between polar viewpoints: mutation or selection, quite diverse, to say nothing of a genetic basis for brain
modularity or neuronal network? functions supporting fuzzy subjective states and shared
At the same time, functional imaging of the brain cognition (Krings et al 1997; Arbib2011; Lai et al., 2001;
provides an increasing amount of quite controversial data Givón, 2009; Jackendoff, 2003; Edelman, 2004; Tattersal
(Shapiro, Caramazza 2003, Démonet et al 2005). It is 2004; Corballis, 2004 a,b; Rice et al., 2009; Friederici,
evident, that languages differ in the way they code semantic 2011; Deacon, 2004, 2013; Chernigovskaya, 2004, 2007,
or functional relations. What is relatively new is that such 2013; Vallender, 2011; Grodzinsky, Nelken, 2014).
language diversity is now realized by the majority of brain On the other hand, the greater our knowledge of
and language scholars, therefore experimental studies are hemispheric mechanisms providing cognitive processes, the
becoming much more adequate. The same is true for less evident is their lateralization in the left hemisphere.
cultural diversity of mental processes. As M. Donald (1991) Moreover, it becomes increasingly obvious that, especially
puts it, we want to know not only what we are but also what in the case of language, we are not dealing with
we are becoming. lateralization of some “objects” (phonemes, words,
grammar, visual images, etc.) in general. The controversial
Cerebral asymmetry is claimed to be an important facts that perplex many researchers and break the already
factor of human evolution and the basis for human linguistic useful paradigm of the hemispheric organization of the
competence. While the classic approach to cerebral higher cognitive functions become quite understandable as
asymmetry assumes that each hemisphere specializes in soon as we shift to the neuro-semiotic description and talk
particular processes, cerebral specialization for cognition about different sign systems or different ways of
and language based on genetic mutations is currently information processing (the same!) or even about different
interpreted differently from its classical model. cognitive styles. But this means that we are speaking of the
On the one hand, a basic distinction on language, motor, dynamic process organization that is each time new and
and visual-spatial lateralization is that the hemispheres depending on a context. According to the recently proposed
differ qualitatively in their within- and between-hemisphere hypotheses, we are dealing not with binarity, but with a
interactions. Left hemisphere representations of language continuum between the left-hemispheric and right-
337
hemispheric poles, in which the proportion of participation face not only vagueness of language per se but that of the
of lateral assemblies is balancing depending on the task world itself causing ambiguity. There are many layers that
solved by the brain. sub-serve interpretation: anaphoric and deictic factors,
The issue of the role of lateralization in human shared pictures of the world, intonations, various types of
development was put repeatedly and in different aspects: the humor, etc. To cope with it as well as to have the capacity
role of genetic factors and environment (for instance, of the for computing very quick temporal and frequency events all
type of learning or culture), sexual dimorphism, different semiotic species along with humans have apparently
rate of maturation of hemispheric structures, different rate of developed systems that are coded not only behaviorally but
running of nervous processes (which might affect, for also at least to some extend genetically.
instance, the especial role of the left hemisphere in analysis At the same time, studies using comparative approach
of the phonemic procedures requiring a high rate of and investigating language capabilities of other primates,
processing, with all consequences for the language such as monkeys and apes, are a popular and, at the same
dominancy). moment, hotly debated field. Adepts of innate language
symbolic rules and genetically determined specificity of the
Discovery of brain mirror systems by Rizzolatti and human language as a system cannot agree with
Arbib opens a new perspective for analyzing biological interpretation of empirical data in terms of linguistic skills
foundations of cognitive development, language and Theory acquired in the process of special learning by primates. The
of Mind - the ability to attribute mental states to others and most severe critique concerns the anthropomorphism of this
thus possibly forming the basis of social interaction and approach, the attribution of the features of language
communication. As the ability to understand others’ beliefs operations, which are peculiar only to humans, to the
and intentions (or ‘mind reading’) is critical for social primate behavior.
discourse, it is therefore commonly conceived of being a
core aspect of social cognition. Discoveries in genetics become increasingly involved in
Discussions on Theory of Mind in phylogeny and various fields concerned with language evolution, from
ontogeny, in norms and pathology gain evolutionary evolutionary anthropology to studies of abnormal linguistic
perspective based on recent brain-imaging data that show a phenotypes. Genetic data can reveal origins and evolution of
number of cortical regions subserving such ability (Baron- language faculties and connect it to a broader range of
Cohen et al 1994; Levine et al 1999; Gallagher et al 2000; cognitive abilities in other species that led to human higher
Castelli et al 2000; Brunet et al 2002; Vogeley et al 2001, mental functions.
Gusnard et al 2001). Theory of Mind is also discussed as a There is a reason to believe that human gene FOXP2
possible feature discriminating humans from other species. might have altered the balance of cortico-basal ganglia
In this context the debates on the specificity of human circuits and learning depending on those circuits. Such a
higher cognitive functions, unique features of human shift could be important for the evolution of vocal learning
language as opposed to the abilities we share with other in general and for language and speech in particular.
animals are becoming more and more important (Bickerton, However, it was shown that FOXP2 is not a language gene
2003; Pulvermueller, 1999; Falk 2004; Jackendoff, 2003; as it was announced in the beginning, but is a hub that
Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch, 2005). among other features regulates excitatory synapse density
We need neuronal mirror systems for language and social through SRPX2 - it may regulate neurite growth, dendritic
interaction: they code sounds, gestures, movements, face morphology, and synaptic physiology of basal ganglia
and voice qualities to express emotions and to understand neurons that is crucial for speech and language evolution in
intentions of the others. The ability to observe and comment humans. FOXP2 contributed to an increased fine-tuning of
on our own behavior is a reflection – probably the only motor control necessary for articulation - the unique human
feature still considered to be absolutely human specific after capacity to coordinate the muscle movements in lungs,
years of anthropological and ethological studies of cognitive larynx, tongue and lips that are necessary for speech
faculties. (Goodman 2001, Lieberman, 2013). Work on the fossil
Embedding and recursion in syntax, quoting and Theory anthropoid sound-producing apparatus’ simulation and on
of Mind have likely been developing since autonomous the synthesis of sounds that could be articulated by this
vocal language arose in Africa from a genetic mutation apparatus is of considerable importance. It yet again
around 200,000 years ago. The human fossil and suggests that although some of human ancestral or related
archaeological records indicate that symbolic consciousness species were capable of some sort of primitive speech
is not the culmination that natural selection would easily production, it likely did not reach the articulatory
predict. Instead, they show that major change has been complexity we see in humans. It is also significant to
episodic and rare and that the passage from non-symbolic to compare these data both with the cognitive level of
symbolic cognition is relatively recent and unprecedented. hominids and the anthropological evidence on the
Fully syntactical language is an essential requisite to share development of particular cerebral areas. Valuable
and transmit the symbolic meaning. However, while information on this topic is to be found in the studies of
processing complex information in natural surroundings we linguistic functions as related to cerebral mechanisms
338
(Chernigovskaya, 1994; Bichakjian, 2002; Gordon et al., Baron-Cohen S., Ring H., Moriarty J., Schmitz B., Costa
2013; Lieberman, 2013). D., Ell P. Recognition of mental state terms. Clinical
Ever since the discovery of FOXP2 the search for the so findings in children with autism and a functional
called “language gene” or “gene of grammar” continues and neuroimaging study of normal adults. British Joural of
once again sparks the debate of the origin of language and, Psychiatry.165 : 640—649. 1994.
hence, of evolution not only of Homo sapiens, but also of Bichakjian B. (2002) Language in a Darwinian
Homo loquens. Perspective. Peter Lang.
Studies of presumably genetic or language impairments Bickerton, D. Symbol and structure: a comprehensive
running in families are attracting sufficient attention due to framework for language evolution. Language Evolution:
language peculiarities of people with linguistic disturbances The States of the Art. Eds: Christiansen M. H., Kirby S.
(Gopnik, 1999) and are also benefiting tremendously from Oxford. Oxford University Press. 2003.
genetic research. The aforementioned studies include, for Brunet M., Guy F., Pilbeam D. et al. (2002) A new
example, such most interesting objects as, for instance, hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa.
Williams’ syndrome when a rather low intellectual level of Nature. 418: 145—151
patients is in a sharp contrast with a high level of language Bolhius J.J., Everaert M. (eds) (2013) Birdsong, Speech,
procedures. and Language. Exploring the Evolution of Mind and Brain.
In recent years, specialized genetic studies of families MIT press
with often occurring verbal disturbances began to be carried Cartmill E.A., Roberts S., LynY., Cornish H.(Eds.) (2014)
out. Thus, for instance, a family with fixed problems of The Evolution of Language. Proceedings of EVOLANG10.
language acquisition for four generations is carefully studied World Scientific Publ.Co.Pte.Ltd.(2014)
linguistically and genetically. Very interesting are Castelli F., Happé F., Frith U., Frith C. (2000) Movement
investigations of the verbal development in various types of and mind: a functional imaging study of perception and
twins. Specific language impairments are non-acquired interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns.
disturbances characterized by language difficulties without Neuroimage. 12 : 314-325
disturbances of intellect, articulation, hearing, and psycho- Cavalli-Sforza, L.; Menozzi, P.; Piazza, A. (1994). The
emotional sphere. In such individuals there are noticed History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, NJ:
phonological, syntactical, and inflectional difficulties, Princeton Univ.Press.
especially for grammar agreement of a subject and a verb, Chernigovskaya T. (1994). Cerebral Lateralization for
marking of tense, the number in nouns, and comparative Cognitive and Linguistic Abilities: Neuropsychological and
forms of adjectives. Cultural Aspects. In: Studies in Language Origins, pp.55-
76 (Eds. J. Wind, A. Jonker, R. Allot; L. Rolfe). John
In the past decades, there has been increasing progress in Benjamins Publ. Co: Amsterdam/ Philadelphia;
the development of the multidisciplinary domain of Chernigovskaya T. V. (2004) Homo loquens: Evolution
language origins and evolution. This progress has resulted of Cerebral Functions and Language. Journal of
from paradigms and data being shared between researchers Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology, 40, 495-503.
who study such disparate subjects as historical linguistics Chernigovskaya, T. V. (2007) The Mirror Brain,
and archeology, on the one hand, and primatology, Concepts, and Language: The Price for Anthropogenesis.
anthropology, anatomy and neurosciences, on the other Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology, 37, 293-302.
(Fitch, 2000; Bolhius, Everaert, 2013). There is a wealth of Chernigovskaya, T .V. (2013) Cheshire Grin of
findings indicating that not only cross-disciplinary Schrödinger's Cat: Language and Mind. Moscow, LSK .
borrowing of data provides further knowledge, but that Corballis, M. C. (2004a). FOXP2 and the mirror
theoretical implications and analogies are no less valuable system. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 95-96.
and productive. Despite the complexity of the topic of Corballis, M. C. (2004b). The origins of modernity: Was
evolution of language and diversity of theoretical autonomous speech the critical factor? Psychological
frameworks applied in the field, current collaborative efforts Review, 111, 543-552.
lead to promising results and open intriguing perspectives Dahl O. (2002)Two paths of grammatical evolution. In
for the future of language evolution field. Givón T., B.F. Malle (eds.) The Evolution of Language out
. of Pre-Language.TSL, # 53, Amsterdam: Benjamins
Acknowledgments Deacon, T. (2004) Monkey Homologues of Language
Supported by the grant # 14-50-00069 from RSCF Areas: Computing the Ambiguities. Trends in Cognitive
Science, 8, 288-289.
References Deacon, T. (2013) Incomplete Nature: How Mind
Emerged from Matter. W.W. Norton & Co. ,Ltd
Allott R. The Natural Origin of Language. Vision. Action. Demonet, J.F., Thierry, G., & Cardebat, D. (2005).
Language. Able Publ. 2001 Renewal of the neurophysiology of language: Functional
Arbib M. A. (2011). How the Brain got Language: The neuroimaging. Physiological Review, 85(1), 49–95.
Mirror System Hypothesis. Oxford, Oxford Univ. press.
339
Donald, M. (1993). Origins of the Modern Mind. Krings, M., Stone,A., Schmitz, R.W., Krainitzki, H., Ston
Cambridge, Mass.and London: Harvard Univ.Press eking, M., Pääbo, S., (1997). Neandertal DNA Sequences
Edelman, G. M. (2004). Wider than the Sky: A and the origin of modern humans. Cell, 90, 19-30.
Revolutionary View of Consciousness. London, Penguin Lai, C.S.L, Fisher ,S.E., Hurst, J.A., Vargha-Khadem, F.,
Press Science. Monaco, A.P. (2001). A novel forkhead-domain gene is
Fitch, T. (2000)The Evolution of Speech: a Comparative mutated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nature,
Review. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4, 258 – 267 413, 519–523
Friederici, A.D. (2011). The brain basis of language proce Levine B., Freedman M., Dawson D., Black S., Stuss D.
ssing: from structure to function. Physiological Reviews, 91, T. (1999) Ventral frontal contribution to self-regulation:
1357–1392. convergence of episodic memory and inhibition.
Gallagher H. L., Happé F., Brunswick N., Fletcher P. C., Neurocase.5 : 263—275.
Frith U., Frith C. D. (2000) Reading the mind in cartoons Lieberman, P. (2013) Synapses, Language, and Being
and stories: an fMRI study of 'theory of mind' in verbal and Human. Science, 342, 944-945.
nonverbal tasks. Neuropsychologia. 38 : 11—21 Mayr E. (1976) Evolution and the Diversity of Life.
Ganger J., Stromswold K. (1998) Innateness, Evolution, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
and Genetics of Language. Human Biology. 70, 199—213. Pulvermüller F. (1999) Words in the Brain’s Language.
Givón T. (2009).The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.22: 253—279.
Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Read, Dwight W. (2008) Working Memory: A Cognitive
Gamkrelidze,T. (1985) The ancient Near East and the Limit to Non-Human Primate Recursive Thinking Prior to
Indo-European Question: Temporal and Territorial Hominid Evolution. Evolutionary Psychology. (6), 676–714
Characteristics of Proto- Indo- European Based on Sapir A. (1921) Language. An Introduction to the Study
Linguistic and Historico-Cultural Data. The Journal of Indo- of Speech, NewYork: Harcourt Brace and World
-European Studies ,13: 3-48. Saussure F. (1916) Le Course de Linguistique Generale.
Gordon G. Globus, Karl H. Pribram, Giuseppe Vitiello Paris: Payot
(eds.) (2004) Brain and Being: At the Boundary Between Shapiro K., Caramazza A. (2003) The representation of
Science, Philosophy, Language and Arts. John Benjamins grammatical categories in the brain.Trends in Cognitive
Grodzinsky, Y., Nelken, I.(2014). The Neural Code That Sciences. 7 (5) : 201—206.
Makes Us Human. Science 343, 1978-2002. Rice, M.L., Smith, S.D., Gayán, J. (2009). Convergent
Goodman M., Czelusniak J., Page S., Meiereles C. (2001) genetic linkage and associations to language, speech and
Where DNA sequences place Homo sapiens in a reading measures in families of probands with Specific
phylogenetic classification of primates. Humanity from Language Impairment. Journal of Neurodevelopmental
African Naissance to Coming Millennia. Eds: Tobias P. V., Disorders,1, 264–282
Rath M. A., Moggi-Cecchi J., Doyle G. A. Firenze. Sia, G.M., Clem, R. L., Huganir, R.L. (2013). The human
Gopnik M. (1999) Some Evidence for Impaired language-associated gene SRPX2 regulates synapse
Grammars. Language, Logic, and Concepts.EdsJackendoff formation and vocalization in mice. Science, 342, 987-991
R., Bloom P., Wynn K. Cambridge. The MIT Press.263— Tattersall, I. (2004). What happened in
283. the origin of human consciousness? The Anatomical Record
Gusnard D. A., Akbudak E., Shulman G. L., Raichle M. (Part B: New Anat.), 276B, 19–26.
E. (2001). Medial prefrontal cortex and selfreferential Vallender, E. J. (2011). Comparative genetic
mental activity: relation to a default mode of brain function. approaches to the evolution of human brain and behavior.
Proc. of the Nat. Acad. Sci. of the U.S.A. 98 : 4259—4264. American Journal of Human Biology, 23, 53–64.
Jackendoff R., Bloom P., Wynn K. (1999) Cambridge. Vogeley K., Bussfeld P., Newen A., Herrmann S., Happé
The MIT Press .263—283. F., Falkai P., Maier W., ShahN.J., Fink G.R., Zilles K.
Falk D. Prelinguistic evolution in early hominins: Whence (2001) Mind reading: neural mechanisms of theory of mind
motherese? (2004) Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 27 (4) : and selfperspective. Neuroimage.14 : 170—181
491-503. Wallace R. (1994) Spatial Mapping and the Origin of
Hauser M.D., Chomsky N., Fitch W.T. (2002) The Language: a Paleoneurological Model. In: Studies in
Faculty of Language: What Is it, Who has it, and How Did Language origins, (3)Eds. J. Wind; A. Jonker; R. Allot; L.
It Evolve? — “Science”, 298, 1569–1579. Rolfe). John BenjaminsPubl.Co: Amsterdam/ Philadelphia;
Jackendoff, R. (2003). Précis of Foundations of 31-44
Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Wind, J.B.Chiarelli, B.Bichakjian, A.Nocentini, A.Jonker
Behavioral and Brain Science, 26, 651-707. (eds.) (1992) Language Origin: a Multidisciplinary
Jakobson, R. (1966) Implications of Language Universals Approach. NATO ASI Series. Kluwer Acad. Publ.:
forLinguistics,Universalsoflanguage,2nded.,Eds.J.H. Dordrecht, Boston, London
Greenberg, Cambridge,Mass : The MIT Press, 263.
Jespersen, O. (1964) Language. Its Nature, Development
and Origin.New York: Norton
340