Glenn wrote:
>The only Broca's areas we can examine (ours) are used for motor control of
>the larynx. Wernicke's area has more to do with understanding speech. Both
>these areas are found in habilis and thus the only logical inference is that
>they used these regions for the same thing we do. If dogs had them, and
>didn't speak then you would have a point that there might be a different use
>for the region.
There seems to be some kind of missed communication here. Terry Deacon
writes:
(from the Encyclopedia of Human Evolution)
Brain damage to the primary oral-motor area produces paralysis of
the muscles of sound production. Damage to the adjacent Broca's
area may produce problems in producing the complex sounds
sequences of words, without producing paralysis and may also disrupt
grammar and syntax. Individuals with damage to Broca's area are
often unable to use grammatical information, but can still understand
the meanings of content words, such as nouns and verbs. Their speech
is halting, laboured and telegraphic in style, and often lacks verb
tenses or case markings. (p. 120)
Deacon distinguishes between the primary oral-motor area and the Broca's area
that is adjacent to it. He says that damage to the oral motor area produces
paralysis of "the muscles of sound production". Does this not refer to the
larynx?
In Christ,
robert van de water
associate researcher
UCLA