SciAm.com: A Genetic Basis for Language Tones

hiake · Jun 6, 2007

SciAm.com said:

A Genetic Basis for Language Tones?

Scottish scientists uncover a striking link between genes for brain size and tonality in spoken language

For the most part, the thousands of languages in the world today fall into one of two categories (notable exceptions being Japanese, some Scandinavian dialects and northern Spain's Basque tongue): tonal or nontonal.

Two linguists believe they know the genetic underpinnings for these differences. During a study of linguistic and genetic data from 49 distinct populations, the authors discovered a striking correlation between two genes involved in brain development and language tonality. Populations that speak nontonal languages (where the pitch of a spoken word does not affect its meaning) have newer versions of the genes, with mutations that began to appear roughly 37 thousand years ago.

"You can consider this as the first of the many possible studies that we could do to try to find a genetic basis for language and language typology and the different populations that speak a language," says Patrick Wong, an assistant professor of communication sciences and disorders at Northwestern University, who was not involved in this study.

In English, the pitch at which a word is spoken conveys emotion but usually does not affect its meaning. But in many sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asian and Latin American languages tone changes the meaning of words. For instance, the Chinese word huar said in a high pitch means flower, but in a dipping pitch means picture.

The new research, published this week inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA ties this difference to two genes, ASPM and Microcephalin. The exact functions of both genes are still open to debate, but they are known to affect brain size during embryonic development. "They presumably have something to do with brain structure, because there are deleterious mutations of the genes that lead to microcephaly" (a condition in which a person's brain is much smaller than the average size for his or her age), says senior study author, Robert Ladd, a professor of linguistics at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

Ladd and colleague Dan Dediu, a fellow linguist at the university, focused on one particular variation of each of these two genes. "They're versions of these genes that are not only newer, but also show signatures of strong natural selection in modern humans," Ladd says. In their report, the authors note that previous studies indicate that these popular new mutations do not appear to affect intelligence, brain size or social ability. But based on their strong correlation with language tone, they surmise that they may contribute to slight differences in the cerebral cortex, the outermost layer of the brain, which, among many other functions, plays a role in our ability to understand language.

Ladd and Dediu compared 24 linguistic features—such as subject-verb word order, passive tense, and rounded vowels—with 981 versions of the two genes found in the 49 populations studied. Most of the language contrasts could be explained by geographic or historical differences. But tone seemed to be inextricably tied to the variations of ASPM and Microcephalin observed by the authors. The mutations were absent in populations that speak tonal languages, but abundant in nontonal speakers.

Northwestern's Wong says that in a field in which researchers struggle to determine whether differences arise from experience or genetics, the new study "gives us an idea that there is a genetic side to things." He says the research indicates that small differences in brain organization determined by genetic makeup may be amplified by cultural factors and contact with other languages through war or migration, creating today's dichotomy in language tonality.

"Even remarkable correlations can arise by coincidence—or, in this case, possibly by prehistoric migration factors that are currently unknown to anthropology and archaeology—so we can't rule that out," Ladd says. "The next step is to attempt to correlate individual genotypes with measurably different behaviors on experimental tasks that are plausibly related to language and speech."
Click to expand...

So is Chinese or other tonal language speaking people have the "better" gene or we are the lagging group in evolution?

I always think that one of these days, with the lazy tongue and all, Chinese will be "simplified" into a non-tonal language... And maybe it isn't that bad a change afterall? -huh

I certainly hope to retain this genetic retardation... Non-tonal language is easier to learn, yes, but they are so BOOOORING

無得頂 · Jun 6, 2007

Flower/picture is supposed to be hua, not huar.

nyckeion · Jun 6, 2007

guess ours are more advanced considering they did say when the word and the object dont strike similarity

hiake · Jun 6, 2007

@MDD: Depends on which pingyin you use, flower/picture can be huar.

Taxloss · Jun 6, 2007

Dunno whether the Chinese tonal language is the better or the 'less' one, but one thing we can be sure; it's a more complex language than the non-tonal or modern languages.

gawain187 · Jun 7, 2007

I just want a language that is simple and easy to use. Hopefully they can come up with that.

wind2000 · Jun 7, 2007

Everything is linked to genes, what else will the scientists come up with -ohmy

hiake · Jun 7, 2007

Taxloss said: ↑

Dunno whether the Chinese tonal language is the better or the 'less' one, but one thing we can be sure; it's a more complex language than the non-tonal or modern languages.
Click to expand...

Does our capability to handle a more complex language indicate our superior intelligence? -shock JKS

gawain187 said: ↑

I just want a language that is simple and easy to use. Hopefully they can come up with that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could learn ASL, that's pretty simple and easy to use.

wind2000 said: ↑

Everything is linked to genes, what else will the scientists come up with -ohmy
Click to expand...

LOL, at least they are trying to come up with something -devil

wind2000 · Jun 7, 2007

^ lol, half of which discovery they make now in 50 yrs are going to be wrong?

hiake · Jun 7, 2007

wind2000 said: ↑

^ lol, half of which discovery they make now in 50 yrs are going to be wrong?
Click to expand...

Well, at least they are dignified enough to admit they ARE wrong, not being elusive of the possibility that their understanding of the world and universe is COMPLETE and TRUE. If you know what I mean... -devil

wind2000 · Jun 7, 2007

hiake said: ↑

Well, at least they are dignified enough to admit they ARE wrong, not being elusive of the possibility that their understanding of the world and universe is COMPLETE and TRUE. If you know what I mean... -devil
Click to expand...

U referring to my compadres?

Scientists HAVE to admit if they dont want to lose their credibility because of other scientists discovering their mistakes.

hiake · Jun 7, 2007

wind2000 said: ↑

U referring to my compadres?

Scientists HAVE to admit if they dont want to lose their credibility because of other scientists discovering their mistakes.
Click to expand...

Well, it is what you think I meant -whistle

But then only via mistakes can science grow and strive for more accurate way of explaining life, universe and beyond. So I am not complaining about it being flawful as long as they are frank about "we don't know everything, and it's just an educated, evidence supported guess" on many things.

SciAm.com: A Genetic Basis for Language Tones

hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

無得頂 Well-Known Member

nyckeion ....Boo....

hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

Taxloss Stripper Vicar

gawain187 Well-Known Member

wind2000 Self Schemata

hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

wind2000 Self Schemata

hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

wind2000 Self Schemata

hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin