http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/ Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:00:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5256 Ellie Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:08:51 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5256 Was the finding of the same FOXP2 gene in neanderthals perhaps a contamination of human DNA as it dates back to the time of migration? Was the finding of the same FOXP2 gene in neanderthals perhaps a contamination of human DNA as it dates back to the time of migration?

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5255 Gyles Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:19:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5255 It seems to be a bit of a streach to assume a gene found in Neanderthals and modern man only became widespread recently. Unless I am missing something that is an assumption. What it definately indicates is FOXP2 being part of the Homo genome prior to the population split and subsequent speciation between ancient H. sap and H. neanderthal, caused by the last major ice age which throws the date way back further than the 30-40 kya speculated in this weeks BBC TV Horizon on this subject. It seems there is a reluctance to accept evidence that points to humans having speech for well in excess of 100k years before the post glacial explosion in art and cultural richness we can observe. Perhaps the two are not linked? Not all humans are artistic and not all artists can talk. It seems to be a bit of a streach to assume a gene found in Neanderthals and modern man only became widespread recently. Unless I am missing something that is an assumption. What it definately indicates is FOXP2 being part of the Homo genome prior to the population split and subsequent speciation between ancient H. sap and H. neanderthal, caused by the last major ice age which throws the date way back further than the 30-40 kya speculated in this weeks BBC TV Horizon on this subject. It seems there is a reluctance to accept evidence that points to humans having speech for well in excess of 100k years before the post glacial explosion in art and cultural richness we can observe. Perhaps the two are not linked? Not all humans are artistic and not all artists can talk.

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5254 nick grant Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:08:39 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5254 despite this genodeterminism there must still be a social and historical side to the origins of language as a definitively human characteristic. Russians Vygotsky and Volosinov are a good place to start and one description/summary of these issues is at: <a href="http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssjer/SLC1/SLC1-1_Holborow.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssjer/SLC1/SLC1-1_Holborow.pdf</a> Peace and love despite this genodeterminism there must still be a social and historical side to the origins of language as a definitively human characteristic.
Russians Vygotsky and Volosinov are a good place to start and one description/summary of these issues is at:
http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssjer/SLC1/SLC1-1_Holborow.pdf
Peace and love

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5253 jakc Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:20:42 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5253 I realize that the "out of Africa" hypothesis is dominant over multiregional explanations of human development, but isn't it possible that neanderthals having FOXP2 is evidence of gene flow rather than that FOXP2 must be much older than originally thought? I realize that the “out of Africa” hypothesis is dominant over multiregional explanations of human development, but isn’t it possible that neanderthals having FOXP2 is evidence of gene flow rather than that FOXP2 must be much older than originally thought?

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5252 jb Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:42:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5252 I'd be interested in knowing how the timing of human style FOXP2 was set at 100,000 - 200,000 years, rather than 400,000 (to include the Neanderthals). If we are talking about a molecular clock, the human two mutations are only two ticks of that clock, and that hardly seems enough for that kind of precision. I’d be interested in knowing how the timing of human style FOXP2 was set at 100,000 – 200,000 years, rather than 400,000 (to include the Neanderthals). If we are talking about a molecular clock, the human two mutations are only two ticks of that clock, and that hardly seems enough for that kind of precision.

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5251 Vlad Zarayskiy Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:47:16 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5251 Thank you for the post! I've read bits and pieces about FOXP2 story over the years but never such a wonderful summary of research done. Thank you for the post! I’ve read bits and pieces about FOXP2 story over the years but never such a wonderful summary of research done.

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5250 True_Q Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:49:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5250 I've read a lot about language and FOXP2 but I've never heard of the KE family. It reminds me of Ulas family. In their case probably a mutation in VLDLR gene leads to quadrupedalism I’ve read a lot about language and FOXP2 but I’ve never heard of the KE family. It reminds me of Ulas family. In their case probably a mutation in VLDLR gene leads to quadrupedalism

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5249 Yisrael Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:09:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5249 Excellent write up and summary of the research on FOXP2. The connection to motor sequencing is particularly interesting to me. I'm doing doctoral work in neurolinguistics and the question of how the brain produces and understands language is still under a lot of debate, particularly the topic of syntax. Syntax is the main difficulty in SLI (Specific Language Impairment) which as you mentioned has been linked to FOXP2. Many linguists remain reluctant to view syntax as part of a larger scheme of cognitive processes that involve such things as motor planning. However, there is one opinion, Michael Ullman (Georgetown U) who considers syntax to be a function of procedural memory and as a result is one of the very view who sees the basal ganglia as having an important role in language. This would seem to connect with the picture you painted of FOXP2. Excellent write up and summary of the research on FOXP2. The connection to motor sequencing is particularly interesting to me. I’m doing doctoral work in neurolinguistics and the question of how the brain produces and understands language is still under a lot of debate, particularly the topic of syntax. Syntax is the main difficulty in SLI (Specific Language Impairment) which as you mentioned has been linked to FOXP2. Many linguists remain reluctant to view syntax as part of a larger scheme of cognitive processes that involve such things as motor planning. However, there is one opinion, Michael Ullman (Georgetown U) who considers syntax to be a function of procedural memory and as a result is one of the very view who sees the basal ganglia as having an important role in language. This would seem to connect with the picture you painted of FOXP2.

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5248 Jeff Wise Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:02:58 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5248 A deeply fascinating post. Talk of a 'language gene' is problematic when we know so little about what language is and how it's produced within the brain; but perhaps the increasing elucidation of FOXP's role suggests that the key functionality is the ability to quickly and flexibly order sequences of motor behavior in the striatum/cerebellum, a functionality that would also need to be applied to semantic units, perhaps either by the same machinery or by neural wiring derived from the original. I imagine it's no coincidence that humans are unique not only in their ability to produce language but also to figure out and skillfully master a wide variety of motor skills, from stone throwing to bike riding. A deeply fascinating post. Talk of a ‘language gene’ is problematic when we know so little about what language is and how it’s produced within the brain; but perhaps the increasing elucidation of FOXP’s role suggests that the key functionality is the ability to quickly and flexibly order sequences of motor behavior in the striatum/cerebellum, a functionality that would also need to be applied to semantic units, perhaps either by the same machinery or by neural wiring derived from the original. I imagine it’s no coincidence that humans are unique not only in their ability to produce language but also to figure out and skillfully master a wide variety of motor skills, from stone throwing to bike riding.

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5247 Mike Olson Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:17:08 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/11/revisiting-foxp2-and-the-origins-of-language/#comment-5247 I hadn't realized that bats had greater variation in FOXP2 and was more alarmed to find that dolphins did not have similar variation. I hadn’t realized that bats had greater variation in FOXP2 and was more alarmed to find that dolphins did not have similar variation.

]]>