Download Review, Elman COGS 1 wi 08

Review, Elman Lecture
COGS 1 winter 08
Adrienne Moore
3-12-08
Info about the final exam
• Tuesday March 18, 8:00am-11:00am; 45% of
your final grade
• Approximately 80 scantron questions
– Please bring form X-101864-PAR-L
• Half the questions will cover lecturers since
Midterm 2
– Creel, Deak, Urbach, Elman, Poizner, Chiba
• Half the questions will cover lecturers before
Midterm 2
• Review Session: Friday 3/14, 4:30-6:50, Center
Hall room 214
Do our brains contain a language
dedicated module?
• aka “language organ”
• Argument for the existence of a language organ:
– 1. Only humans possess language
• Other animals communicate, but lack language
bees, moths
Kanzi the bonobo: learned 250-400 words
and could apply them (to cooking),
but what about complex grammar and syntax, nonliteral language (lies, metaphor), thoughts about the
future & contingency (all aspects of human language)
And we have a HUGE vocab, based on CATEGORIES
Argument against the existence of
a language organ:
– 1. You can’t argue by subtraction:
“Only humans possess language, so if you subtract the
parts of the brain that we share with animals, the rest
of the brain must be responsible for language”
NO
“Only humans possess language, so if you subtract out
the 98.2% of our DNA that we share with animals, the
rest of our genes must be responsible for language”
NO
Natural selection produces small modifications of
existing organs
Language module? 2
• Argument for the existence of a language
organ, continued:
• 2. Broca’s area may be a “language
organ”
– “Tan” selectively lost his language ability, and
when his brain was examined post-mortem, a
large hole in the IFG (Broca’s area) was found
Language module? 2
• Argument 2 against the existence of a language
organ:
• Tan didn’t lose all his language ability
– Retained well-practiced language (counting)
• Young patients with Broca’s lesions don’t lose
language ability – plasticity
• Tan’s lesion wasn’t actually to “Broca’s area”
– It was to the white matter pathway beneath Broca’s
area, the superior longitudinal fasciculus
Language module? 3
• Argument 3 for:
• FOXp2 is a “gene for language”
– A familial speech disorder was traced to FOXp2
• Argument 3 against:
– mice have almost identical FOXp2 (and don’t have
language)
– FOXp2 helps create the basal ganglia (Poizner!)
which probably play a role the motor production
aspect of speech
Individual genes do little jobs that contribute to a larger
function – FOXp2 is relevant to language
Conclusion
• The brain opportunistically creates “new
machines from old parts”
– For example, mental rotation involves simulation with
area MT (visual motion detection area),
• Non-linguistic abilities are recruited and
integrated for language
– McGurk effect: visual information about lips affects
the speech sounds you hear
– Words (conceptual labels) activate relevant
sensorimotor brain areas (e.g. action words)
• There is probably no “language organ”!