聚焦FOXP2基因—语言起源与习得的结构基因组学诠释
|
摘要
标准社会科学模式和整体互动主义的哲学观分别将语言习得诠释为“因教而会”的刺激——反应过程和为实现有效社会交际而完成的婴儿牙牙学语与母式儿童指导语之间的对抗过程。现在,这两种观点越来越受到结构基因组学有关“语言/言语基因”(FOXP2)最新研究成果的挑战。笔者认为,语言学与分子生物学(尤其是结构基因组学)、哲学、人类学、考古学、神经科学和认知科学广泛而深入的跨学科交叉研究有助于彻底理解语言起源和习得问题。在此前提下,本文所采用的研究方法是现代哲学的分析与现代科学的标准相结合的路向。通过将现代哲学严谨的思辨分析(即对标准社会科学模式和整体互动主义的反思)和现代科学交叉研究的最新成果(即FOXP2基因的发现之旅和进化历程)相结合,笔者提出整合模型以解释语言起源与习得问题的本质。在此基础上,笔者论证了语言起源和语言习得都是环境进化性和基因环境性共同作用的产物,而非标准社会科学模式所倡导的环境单因素作用模式和整体互动主义所提倡的先、后天综合作用模式。本文的结论是语言/言语的本质既非对环境的模仿,亦非对社会的妥协。语言作为人类区别于其它动物的能力,是人类在漫长进化过程中单一基因的偶然突变和人类在自然选择压力下为实现优胜劣汰并将族群内部交流错误最小化的动机综合作用的产物。因此,语言能力可能在人类的生存和进化过程中始终发挥着不可或缺的重要作用。
Language acquisition is interpreted as an acquired Stimulus-Response processunder the philosophical framework of Standard Social Science Model. It is alsosuggested by Relativistic Holism as babble vs. child-directed speech process so as toachieve effective social communication. However, the above views are challenged bythe recent research work of structural genomics on FOXP2, a so-called“gene forlanguage/speech”. In this paper, I argue that an understanding of language origin andacquisition requires substantial interdisciplinary cooperation. I will suggest how workin linguistics can be profitably wedded to current developments in molecular biology(especially structural genomics), philosophy, anthropology, archaeology, neuroscienceand cognitive science. Based on the logical thinking on human behaviors (specificallyreview of Standard Social Science Model and reanalysis of Relativistic Holism) andthe scientific facts from interdisciplinary cooperation (specifically the localization,function and molecular evolution of FOXP2), a hypothesized integrated model issubmitted to interpret the nature of language origin and acquisition. And it is provedthat both language origin and acquisition are motivated by the net force ofenvironmental evolution plus genetic environment instead of the monofactor of theenvironment (as Standard Social Science Model suggested) or the net force ofinnateness plus posteriority (as Relativistic Holism proposed). My conclusion is thatthe nature of language/speech is neither an imitation to the environment (as StandardSocial Science Model suggested) nor a compromise to the society (as RelativisticHolism proposed). It is a human-specific faculty which was provided by an accidentalmutation of a single gene as well as evolving against selective pressure to survive ofthe fittest and minimize communication errors. Therefore it is very possible thathuman language faculty has always been playing an indispensable role for thesurvival and evolution of human beings.
Language acquisition is interpreted as an acquired Stimulus-Response processunder the philosophical framework of Standard Social Science Model. It is alsosuggested by Relativistic Holism as babble vs. child-directed speech process so as toachieve effective social communication. However, the above views are challenged bythe recent research work of structural genomics on FOXP2, a so-called“gene forlanguage/speech”. In this paper, I argue that an understanding of language origin andacquisition requires substantial interdisciplinary cooperation. I will suggest how workin linguistics can be profitably wedded to current developments in molecular biology(especially structural genomics), philosophy, anthropology, archaeology, neuroscienceand cognitive science. Based on the logical thinking on human behaviors (specificallyreview of Standard Social Science Model and reanalysis of Relativistic Holism) andthe scientific facts from interdisciplinary cooperation (specifically the localization,function and molecular evolution of FOXP2), a hypothesized integrated model issubmitted to interpret the nature of language origin and acquisition. And it is provedthat both language origin and acquisition are motivated by the net force ofenvironmental evolution plus genetic environment instead of the monofactor of theenvironment (as Standard Social Science Model suggested) or the net force ofinnateness plus posteriority (as Relativistic Holism proposed). My conclusion is thatthe nature of language/speech is neither an imitation to the environment (as StandardSocial Science Model suggested) nor a compromise to the society (as RelativisticHolism proposed). It is a human-specific faculty which was provided by an accidentalmutation of a single gene as well as evolving against selective pressure to survive ofthe fittest and minimize communication errors. Therefore it is very possible thathuman language faculty has always been playing an indispensable role for thesurvival and evolution of human beings.
引文
[1] Aitchison, J. The Seeds of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
[2] Bellugi, U., et al. Neuropsychological, Neurological and Neuroanatomical Profileof William Syndrome [J]. American Journal of Medical Genetics Supplement,1991 (6): 115~125.
[3] Bouchard, T. J. Jr., et al. Source of Human Psychological Differences: TheMinnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart [J]. Science, 1990 (8): 233~250.
[4] Boyd, R. and Silk, J. B. How Humans Evolved [M]. New York: W. W. Norton,2000.
[5] Chomsky, N. A Review of B. F. Skinner’s“Verbal Behavior”[J]. Language, 1959(35): 26~58.
[6] Chomsky, N. An Interview with Noam Chomsky [J]. Linguistic Analysis, 1978(4/4): 301~319.
[7] Chomsky, N. Reflections on Language [M] .New York: Pantheon Books, 1975.
[8] Darwin, C. Descent of Man [M]. London: John Murray, 1871.
[9] Enard, W., et al. Molecular Evolution of FOXP2, a Gene Involved in Speech andLanguage [J]. Nature, 2002 (418): 869~872.
[10] Fisher, S. E., et al. Localization of a Gene Implicated in a Severe Speech andLanguage Disorder [J]. Nature Genetics, 1998 (18): 168~170.
[11] Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D. and Chomsky, N. The Evolution of the LanguageFaculty: Clarifications and Implications [J]. Cognition, 2005 (97): 179~210.
[12] Friedl, E. Colors and Culture Change in Southwest Iran [J]. Language in Society,1979, 8 (1): 51~68.
[13] Gerhart, J. and Kirschner, M. Cells, Embryos and Evolution [M]. Oxford:Blackwell Science, 1997.
[14] Gopnik, M. Genetic Basis of Grammar Defect [J]. Nature, 1990 (347):26.
[15] Gopnik, M. and Crago, M. B. Familial Aggregation of a DevelopmentalLanguage Disorder [J]. Cognition, 1991 (39): 1~50.
[16] Hamar, D. Rethinking Behavior Genetics [J]. Science, 2002 (2): 98~101.
[17] Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, W. T. The Faculty of Language: What is it,Who has it and How did it Evolve [J]. Science, 2002 (298): 1569~1579.
[18] Hurst, J. A., et al. An Extended Family with a Dominantly Inherited SpeechDisorder [J]. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 1990 (26): 57~78.
[19] Jacob, F. Evolution and Tinkering [J]. Science, 1977 (196): 1161~1166.
[20] Jacob, F. The Logic of Life: A History of Heredity [M]. New York: Vintage, 1976.
[21] Jenkins, L. Biolinguistics: Exploring the Biology of Language [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[22] Jerne, N. K. The Generative Grammar of the Immunes System [J]. Science, 1985(229):1057~1059.
[23] King, M. C. and Wilson, A. C. Evolution at Two Levels in Humans andChimpanzees [J]. Science, 1975 (188): 107~116.
[24] Lai, et al. A Forkhead-domain Gene is Mutated in a Severe Speech and LanguageDisorder [J]. Nature, 2001 (413): 519~523.
[25] Lenneberg, E. Biological Foundations of Language [M]. New York: John Wileyand Sons, 1967.
[26] Lenneberg, E. The Capacity for Language Acquisition [A]. In The Structure ofLanguage: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, eds Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J.J. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1964: 579~603.
[27] Lesch, K. P., et al. Association of Anxiety-related Traits with a PolymorphismRegion [J]. Science, 1996 (31): 274.
[28] Lu, M. M., et al. Foxp4: A Novel Member of the Foxp Subfamily ofWinged-helix Genes Co-expressed with Foxp1 and Foxp2 in Pulmonary and GutTissues [J]. Mech. Dev., 2002, 119 (Supplement. 1): 197~202.
[29] Malotki, E. Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of Temporal Concepts in the HopiLanguage [M]. Berlin: Mouton, 1983.
[30] Meader, C. L. and Muyskens, J. H. Handbook of Biolinguistics [M]. HC Weller,1950.
[31] Miller, G. What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness [J]. Science, 2005 (309):79.
[32] Monod, J. Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy ofPsychology [M]. New York: JohnWilley, 1974.
[33] Montagu, A. Man and Aggression [M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1973.
[34] Pinker, S. Survival of the Clearest [J]. Nature, 2000 (404): 441~442.
[35] Pinker, S. Talk of Genetics and Vice Versa [J]. Nature, 2001 (413): 465~466.
[36] Pinker, S. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates language [M]. NewYork: HarperCollins, 1994.
[37] Pinker, S. Why Innate and Acquired Questions Do not Disappear [J]. SeekingTruth, 2005 (4): 6~13.
[38] Pinker, S. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language [M]. New York: BasicBooks, 1999.
[39] Pinker, S and Jackendoff R. The Faculty of Language: What’s Special about it [J].Cognition, 2005 (95): 201~236.
[40] Radford, A. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997.
[41] Ridley, M. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters [M]. NewYork: Big Apple Tuttle-Mori Agency Inc., 1999.
[42] Skinner, B. F. Verbal Behavior [M]. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.
[43] Teramitsu, I., et al. Parallel Foxp1 and Foxp2 Expression in Songbird and HumanBrain Predicts Functional Interaction [J]. Neuroscience, 2004 (24): 3152~3163.
[44] Terrace, H. S., et al. Can an Ape Create a Sentence [J]. Science, 1979 (206):891~902.
[45] Vargha-khadem, F. and Passingham, R. Speech and Language Defects [J]. Nature,1990 (347): 226.
[46] Whorf, B. L. Language, Thought and Reality [M]. Massachusetts: MIT Press,1956.
[47] Wynn, K. Addition and Subtraction in Human Infants [J]. Nature, 1992 (358):749~ 750.
[48]楚行军，语言进化研究一瞥---记第六届语言进化国际研讨会[J]，现代外语，2006，（4）:433~435.
[49]桂诗春，新编心理语言学[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000．
[50]罗忠民，《语言本能》[J]，外语与外语教学,2003（12）：52~53.
[51]唐玉柱，《生物语言学》述评[J]，当代语言学，2004（4）：368~371.
[52]王强，《2007年意大利生物语言学国际研讨会纪要》[J]，语言科学，2007（6）：105~106．
[53]卫志强，生物语言学[J]，语文建设，1987（5）：54~56．
[54]杨彩梅,宁春岩，人类语言的生物遗传属性[J]，现代外语,2002（1）：103~110．
[2] Bellugi, U., et al. Neuropsychological, Neurological and Neuroanatomical Profileof William Syndrome [J]. American Journal of Medical Genetics Supplement,1991 (6): 115~125.
[3] Bouchard, T. J. Jr., et al. Source of Human Psychological Differences: TheMinnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart [J]. Science, 1990 (8): 233~250.
[4] Boyd, R. and Silk, J. B. How Humans Evolved [M]. New York: W. W. Norton,2000.
[5] Chomsky, N. A Review of B. F. Skinner’s“Verbal Behavior”[J]. Language, 1959(35): 26~58.
[6] Chomsky, N. An Interview with Noam Chomsky [J]. Linguistic Analysis, 1978(4/4): 301~319.
[7] Chomsky, N. Reflections on Language [M] .New York: Pantheon Books, 1975.
[8] Darwin, C. Descent of Man [M]. London: John Murray, 1871.
[9] Enard, W., et al. Molecular Evolution of FOXP2, a Gene Involved in Speech andLanguage [J]. Nature, 2002 (418): 869~872.
[10] Fisher, S. E., et al. Localization of a Gene Implicated in a Severe Speech andLanguage Disorder [J]. Nature Genetics, 1998 (18): 168~170.
[11] Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D. and Chomsky, N. The Evolution of the LanguageFaculty: Clarifications and Implications [J]. Cognition, 2005 (97): 179~210.
[12] Friedl, E. Colors and Culture Change in Southwest Iran [J]. Language in Society,1979, 8 (1): 51~68.
[13] Gerhart, J. and Kirschner, M. Cells, Embryos and Evolution [M]. Oxford:Blackwell Science, 1997.
[14] Gopnik, M. Genetic Basis of Grammar Defect [J]. Nature, 1990 (347):26.
[15] Gopnik, M. and Crago, M. B. Familial Aggregation of a DevelopmentalLanguage Disorder [J]. Cognition, 1991 (39): 1~50.
[16] Hamar, D. Rethinking Behavior Genetics [J]. Science, 2002 (2): 98~101.
[17] Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, W. T. The Faculty of Language: What is it,Who has it and How did it Evolve [J]. Science, 2002 (298): 1569~1579.
[18] Hurst, J. A., et al. An Extended Family with a Dominantly Inherited SpeechDisorder [J]. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 1990 (26): 57~78.
[19] Jacob, F. Evolution and Tinkering [J]. Science, 1977 (196): 1161~1166.
[20] Jacob, F. The Logic of Life: A History of Heredity [M]. New York: Vintage, 1976.
[21] Jenkins, L. Biolinguistics: Exploring the Biology of Language [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[22] Jerne, N. K. The Generative Grammar of the Immunes System [J]. Science, 1985(229):1057~1059.
[23] King, M. C. and Wilson, A. C. Evolution at Two Levels in Humans andChimpanzees [J]. Science, 1975 (188): 107~116.
[24] Lai, et al. A Forkhead-domain Gene is Mutated in a Severe Speech and LanguageDisorder [J]. Nature, 2001 (413): 519~523.
[25] Lenneberg, E. Biological Foundations of Language [M]. New York: John Wileyand Sons, 1967.
[26] Lenneberg, E. The Capacity for Language Acquisition [A]. In The Structure ofLanguage: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, eds Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J.J. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1964: 579~603.
[27] Lesch, K. P., et al. Association of Anxiety-related Traits with a PolymorphismRegion [J]. Science, 1996 (31): 274.
[28] Lu, M. M., et al. Foxp4: A Novel Member of the Foxp Subfamily ofWinged-helix Genes Co-expressed with Foxp1 and Foxp2 in Pulmonary and GutTissues [J]. Mech. Dev., 2002, 119 (Supplement. 1): 197~202.
[29] Malotki, E. Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of Temporal Concepts in the HopiLanguage [M]. Berlin: Mouton, 1983.
[30] Meader, C. L. and Muyskens, J. H. Handbook of Biolinguistics [M]. HC Weller,1950.
[31] Miller, G. What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness [J]. Science, 2005 (309):79.
[32] Monod, J. Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy ofPsychology [M]. New York: JohnWilley, 1974.
[33] Montagu, A. Man and Aggression [M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1973.
[34] Pinker, S. Survival of the Clearest [J]. Nature, 2000 (404): 441~442.
[35] Pinker, S. Talk of Genetics and Vice Versa [J]. Nature, 2001 (413): 465~466.
[36] Pinker, S. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates language [M]. NewYork: HarperCollins, 1994.
[37] Pinker, S. Why Innate and Acquired Questions Do not Disappear [J]. SeekingTruth, 2005 (4): 6~13.
[38] Pinker, S. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language [M]. New York: BasicBooks, 1999.
[39] Pinker, S and Jackendoff R. The Faculty of Language: What’s Special about it [J].Cognition, 2005 (95): 201~236.
[40] Radford, A. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997.
[41] Ridley, M. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters [M]. NewYork: Big Apple Tuttle-Mori Agency Inc., 1999.
[42] Skinner, B. F. Verbal Behavior [M]. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.
[43] Teramitsu, I., et al. Parallel Foxp1 and Foxp2 Expression in Songbird and HumanBrain Predicts Functional Interaction [J]. Neuroscience, 2004 (24): 3152~3163.
[44] Terrace, H. S., et al. Can an Ape Create a Sentence [J]. Science, 1979 (206):891~902.
[45] Vargha-khadem, F. and Passingham, R. Speech and Language Defects [J]. Nature,1990 (347): 226.
[46] Whorf, B. L. Language, Thought and Reality [M]. Massachusetts: MIT Press,1956.
[47] Wynn, K. Addition and Subtraction in Human Infants [J]. Nature, 1992 (358):749~ 750.
[48]楚行军，语言进化研究一瞥---记第六届语言进化国际研讨会[J]，现代外语，2006，（4）:433~435.
[49]桂诗春，新编心理语言学[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000．
[50]罗忠民，《语言本能》[J]，外语与外语教学,2003（12）：52~53.
[51]唐玉柱，《生物语言学》述评[J]，当代语言学，2004（4）：368~371.
[52]王强，《2007年意大利生物语言学国际研讨会纪要》[J]，语言科学，2007（6）：105~106．
[53]卫志强，生物语言学[J]，语文建设，1987（5）：54~56．
[54]杨彩梅,宁春岩，人类语言的生物遗传属性[J]，现代外语,2002（1）：103~110．