Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!hpda!hplabs!pyramid!decwrl!yippee.dec.com!glantz
From: glantz@yippee.dec.com (26-Oct-1987 2000)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Why can't my cat talk?
Message-ID: <11967@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Mon, 26-Oct-87 23:00:00 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.11967
Posted: Mon Oct 26 23:00:00 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Oct-87 05:45:57 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 73


  ---------------------------------------------------------------

  What is it in humans which makes language possible? 

  Much discussion about neural networks carries the implication that it
  is a human brain researchers are hoping, ultimately, to simulate, and
  that a successful simulation will exhibit human linguistic capability.
  This is certainly an admirable and worthwhile, if ambitious, goal. But
  current models don't seem to have any features which would distinguish
  a human brain from, say, a cat's brain (I realize this is very early
  days - no criticism intended). This will eventually have to be dealt
  with. 
  
  One possible explanation for why humans have language and cats don't is
  that there may be one or more physiological structures unique to the
  human brain, other than its larger capacity, which make language
  possible. This is the most obvious explanation that comes to mind, and
  is perfectly reasonable, although we haven't yet identified which
  structures these are, or what roles they might play. 
  
  But another possibility is that maybe the larger brain capacity is
  sufficient, but that language is possible only after certain
  ``internal'' or ``symbolic'' structures are built on top of the
  physiological base. This building occurs during infancy and early
  childhood, and the resulting structures can be considered to be part of
  the human brain, every bit as real as the physiologically observable
  features. 

  We continue this line of conjecture by suggesting that:

  o At some point in the past, the human species did not have language,
    even though the brain was physiologically identical (or identical in
    all essential respects) to today's human brain; 

  o It is the socialization process which, today, builds these structures
    in the brain of the human infant, layer upon layer being added until a
    layer at which language can exist is built, and then probably several
    layers beyond that; 
  
  o That this linguistic-structure-formation process is a small component
    of the entire human social system, the whole of which has evolved
    through natural selection, just as any physical characteristic of any
    species evolves. 
  
  The principal hypothesis, here, is that, given sufficient relative
  brain capacity, and the appropriate socialization process, any
  individual of another species (a porpoise, for example) could acquire
  linguistic ability. 
  
  [Aside: It is known that the human brain (and that of other mammals, as
  well) undergoes physiological changes during the period of infancy and
  early childhood. It is possible that the initial acquisition of
  linguistic skills can only occur effectively during this period, during
  which time these physiological changes are significantly ``molded'' by
  the socialization process, where certain ``symbolic'' structures
  actually become ``wired in''. If this were the case, then the period
  during which basic linguistic ability can be acquired would be limited
  to this ``crystallization'' period, which is possibly much longer in
  humans than in other mammals. We would then have to amend the
  hypothesis to read: given sufficient brain capacity and a sufficiently
  long ``crystallization period'' etc. It then remains (among other
  things) to determine the exact nature of this ``crystallization'', and
  incorporate a sufficiently long duration of this in a computer model. 
  
  Does anyone have any concrete information about human brain physiology
  which would favor the completely ``physiological'' hypothesis of
  linguistic capability over the ``sociological/anthropological''
  explanation, or which would shed any other light on the question? 
  
  - mike glantz
  
  Disclaimer: My employer is not aware that I have posted this message.