Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:56:01.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physical mechanisms may be as important as brain mechanisms in evolution of speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2014

Bart de Boer  and
Marcus Perlman
Bart de Boer
Affiliation:
Artificial Intelligence Lab, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. [email protected]://ai.vub.ac.be/members/bart
Marcus Perlman
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California–Merced, Merced, CA 95343. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present two arguments why physical adaptations for vocalization may be as important as neural adaptations. First, fine control over vocalization is not easy for physical reasons, and modern humans may be exceptional. Second, we present an example of a gorilla that shows rudimentary voluntary control over vocalization, indicating that some neural control is already shared with great apes.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 6 , December 2014 , pp. 552 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

de Boer, B. (2008) The acoustic role of supralaryngeal air sacs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123(5 Pt 2):3732–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boer, B. (2012) Air sacs and vocal fold vibrations: Implications for evolution of speech. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum 9:13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demolin, D. & Delvaux, V. (2006) A comparison of the articulatory parameters involved in the production of sounds of bonobos and modern humans. In: The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference (Evolang6), ed. Cangelosi, A., Smith, A. D. M. & Smith, K.. pp. 67–74. World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fant, G. (1960) Acoustic theory of speech production. Mouton.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T. (2000a) The evolution of speech: A comparative review. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(7):258–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, N. H. (1993) Autonomous vibration of simple pressure-controlled valves in gas flows. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93(4, Pt. 1):2172–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, G. P., MacLarnon, A. & Jones, K. E. (2002) The functions of laryngeal air sacs in primates: A new hypothesis. Folia Primatologica 73:70–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelemen, G. (1969) Anatomy of the larynx and the anatomical basis of vocal performance. In: The chimpanzee, ed. Bourne, G. H., pp. 165–86. Karger.Google Scholar
Patterson, F. G. & Linden, E. (1981) The education of Koko. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Perlman, M., Patterson, F. G. & Cohn, R. H. (2011) The incorporation of learned breathing-related behavior into the multimodal gestures and rituals of an enculturated gorilla. Paper presented at the New College Oxford Conference on Embodied Language, Oxford, United Kingdom, September 2011.Google Scholar
Riede, T., Tokuda, I. T., Munger, J. B. & Thomson, S. L. (2008) Mammalian laryngseal air sacs add variability to the vocal tract impedance: Physical and computational modeling. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124(1):634–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titze, I. R. (2008) Nonlinear source–filter coupling in phonation: Theory. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123(5):2733–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed