In one of his last messages, Glenn Morton wrote:
> Robert the issue of what exactly Broca's language performs in speech is less
> important than the fact that it is involved in speech and that mankind are
> the only ones who have it. If there are other functions involved in
> the area so what? Only mankind has it and it is involved in speech.
If the Broca's area is only used for advanced aspects of speech like syntax and
grammar and not for motor control (as suggested by Deacon), then the hypothesis
that these hominids used language is a trifle difficult to swallow. (Because
it is not that difficult to believe they spoke a crude language but it is
fairly difficult to believe they spoke a language with syntax and grammar.)
One alternative is that they did not use the Broca's area for the same thing
that we do. If this is true, however, then it is also true that we cannot
extrapolate language function in the first place. So what am I saying?
The exact purpose of the Broca's area is EXTREMELY important in determining
its value as evidence for language in early hominids.
As a final note, Glenn's encyclopedia quote is 13 years old whereas the
citation of Deacon comes from 1992.
In Christ,
robert van de water