Broca's region & speech

Jim Bell (70672.1241@compuserve.com)
01 Dec 95 14:48:20 EST

Hello again, all.

I've been trying to catch up on the latest. Looks like a good time being had
by all. Saw again Glenn placing a lot of reliance on "Broca's region," e.g.:

<<During your absence, Robert, I cited several facts which you need to be
aware of. To me the most important fact is that today, one earth only one
creature speaks--mankind. In order to accomplish this amazing feat of speech,
an area of the brain, called Broca's area is required. Broca's area leaves an
impression on the inside of the skull of you and I. Thus when we die, someone
can look inside our skulls and tell that we were able to speak.

Speech is a most characteristic feature of humankind. So guess what? Broca's
area is also found in Neanderthal, Homo erectus, and Homo habilis.Thus there
is evidence for creatures on earth with the characteristically human potential
for speech for the past 2 million years.>>

Since so much importance has admittedly been ascribed to a brain region, I
thought it would be useful to quote my old friend, Ian Tattersall, on just how
much we can tell about hominid brain function (with my emphasis added):

"The archaeological record shows clearly that the Neanderthals were less
inventive, less innovative, than the modern humans who replaced them. But
there's no denying that, like us, they had large brains. Does this imply that
even if they were rather unimaginative, they possessed other human features
such as language? IT TURNS OUT THAT NEITHER THE SIZE NOR THE EXTERNAL
APPEARANCE OF THE BRAIN IS OF MUCH USE HERE: THERE IS SIMPLY NO WAY OF READING
FUNCTION WITH ADEQUATE PRECISION FROM THE BUMPS AND FISSURES ON THE OUTSIDE OF
THE BRAIN (AND STILL LESS FROM BRAIN CASTS). SO NO HELP IS FORTHCOMING FROM
THAT DIRECTION." ("The Fossil Trail, pg. 211).

If no help, it really can't be given too much weight as evidence. But there is
another, more telling LACK that once again points to the uniqueness, and
qualitative difference, of modern man, and Glenn is right that it centers
around speech capacity:

"Speech, however, is a (somewhat) different matter from language as such. For,
to produce the sounds that are associated with modern articulate speech, you
need specialized anatomical equipment apart from the brain. Notably, you have
to have a larynx (voicebox) that is situated low in the throat, connected to
the oral cavity above by a long section of tubing (the pharynx). This long
pharynx is manipulated by the muscles of the throat to modulate the vibrations
produced at the larynx, and thereby to make the basic sounds on which
articulate language depends. Primitively, the base of the hominoid (indeed,
mammal) skull is flat. This reflects the presence of a high larynx and a short
pharynx, LIMITING THE RANGE OF SOUNDS THAT CAN BE MADE. AMONG MODERN HUMANS IN
CONTRAST, SPACE FOR A HIGH, LOOPING PHARYNX IS CREATED BY BENDING THE BASE OF
THE SKULL DOWNWARD, CREATING A CHARACTERISTIC FLEXION." (Id.).

So the actual anatomical evidence as it stands now is that Neanderthals did
NOT possess the speech capacities of modern man. We moderns are a different
breed, as it were, as seen in so many ways. Without the naturalistic capacity
to explain our appearance, I opt to keep the supernaturalistic option open.

Jim