Lenneberg (1967) Resources

Lenneberg -- Biological Foundations of Language -- 1967

Google Web Search :: Google Scholar HOME

Google Scholar HOME

http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/langev/cited2/lennebergbiologicalfoundationsoflanguage.html

2008-Cost and complexity: Selection for speech and language - Locke Lenneberg, E.H., 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. Wiley, New York.

2006-Language and Morality: Evolution, Altruism and Linguistic Moral Mechanisms - Poulshock Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley.

2005-The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications - Fitch,Hauser,Chomsky Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York, NY: Wiley.

2005-Regularizing Unpredictable Variation: The Roles of Adult and Child Learners in Language Formation and Change - Hudson-Kam,Newport Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.

2005-Language Change in Modified Language Dynamics Equation by Memoryless Learners - Nakamura,Hashimoto,Tojo E. H. Lenneberg. Biological Foundations of Language. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1967.

2005-Language Acquisition and Brain Development - Sakai 10. E. H. Lenneberg, Biological Foundations of Language (Wiley, New York, 1967).

2005-How Phonological Structures Can Be Culturally Selected for Learnability - Oudeyer Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.

2004-Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code - Kuhl 134. Lenneberg, E. H. Biological Foundations of Language (Wiley, New York, 1967).

2004-Children Creating Core Properties of Language: Evidence from an Emerging Sign Language in Nicaragua - Senghas,Kita,Ozyurek 21. E. Lenneberg, Biological Foundations of Language ( Wiley, New York, 1967).

2002-The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve? - Hauser,Chomsky,Fitch 6. E. H. Lenneberg, Biological Foundations of Language (Wiley, New York, 1967).

2002-Simulated Evolution of Language: a Review of the Field - Perfors LENNEBERG, E. (1967) Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.

2002-On the nature and evolution of the neural bases of human language - Lieberman Lenneberg EH. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.

2002-Natural Language from Artificial Life - Kirby Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. Wiley.

2001-Origins and Learnability of Syllable Systems: a Cultural Evolutionary Model - Oudeyer 13. Lenneberg, E. Biological foundations of language, New-york: Wiley (1967).

2001-Natural selection of the critical period for language acquisition - Komarova,Nowak Lenneberg, E. H. 1967 Biological foundations of language. NewYork: Wiley.

2000-Simulated Evolution of Communication: The Emergence of Meaning - Perfors Lenneberg, E. (1967) Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley

1999-Syntax as an emergent characteristic of the evolution of semantic complexity - Schoenemann Lenneberg, E. H. (1967), Biological Foundations of Language, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

1997-The evolution of incremental learning: language, development and critical periods - Kirby,Hurford LENNEBERG, ERIC H. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.

1997-Learning, culture and evolution in the origin of linguistic constraints - Kirby,Hurford [27] Eric H. Lenneberg. Biological Foundations of Language. Wiley, New York, 1967.

1991-The Evolution of the Critical Period for Language Acquisition - Hurford Lenneberg, E.H., 1967. Biological foundations of language. Wiley, New York.

1990-Natural language and natural selection - Pinker,Bloom Lenneberg, E. H. (1967) Biological foundations of language. Wiley.

The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers.BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF LANGUAGE.

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED015480&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED015480

Title:

Authors:

Personal author, compiler, or editor name(s); click on any author to run a new search on that name.LENNEBERG, ERIC H.

Abstract:

A brief narrative description of the journal article, document, or resource.THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIOLOGY AND LANGUAGE IS EXPLORED IN THIS VOLUME. THE AUTHOR BELIEVES THAT "LANGUAGE IS THE MANIFESTATION OF SPECIES-SPECIFIC COGNITIVE PROPENSITIES. IT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE BIOLOGICAL PECULIARITIES THAT MAKE A HUMAN TYPE OF COGNITION POSSIBLE." IN ATTEMPTING TO "REINSTATE THE CONCEPT OF THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF LANGUAGE CAPACITIES" THE AUTHOR FORMULATES SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS WHICH CAN BE SUBJECTED TO EMPIRICAL TESTS. CHAPTER TITLES ARE—

(1) THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK,

(2) MORPHOLOGICAL CORRELATES,

(3) SOME PHYSIOLOGICAL CORRELATES,

(4) LANGUAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF GROWTH AND MATURATION,

(5) NEUROLOGICAL ASPECTS OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE,

(6) LANGUAGE IN THE LIGHT OF EVOLUTION AND GENETICS,

(7) PRIMITIVE STAGES IN LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT,

(8) LANGUAGE AND COGNITION, AND

(9) TOWARD A BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT.

NOAM CHOMSKY IS THE AUTHOR OF APPENDIX A, "THE FORMAL NATURE OF LANGUAGE," AND

O. MARX HAS WRITTEN APPENDIX B, "THE HISTORY OF THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF LANGUAGE." EXTENSIVE REFERENCES ARE LISTED AFTER EACH CHAPTER.

THIS BOOK IS PUBLISHED BY JOHN WILEY AND SONS, INC., 605 THIRD AVENUE, N.Y., N.Y. 10016 ($14.95). (JD)

Descriptors:

Terms from the Thesaurus of ERIC Descriptors; used to tag materials by subject to aid information search and retrieval. Click on a Descriptor to initiate any new search using that term.Anatomy; Aphasia; Behavioral Science Research; Biology; Cognitive Development; Deafness; History; Language; Language Acquisition; Language Handicaps; Language Learning Levels; Language Patterns; Language Research; Linguistics; Medical Case Histories; Psycholinguistics; Research; Research Reviews (Publications); Semantics; Speech; Speech Evaluation; Speech Pathology; Transformational Generative Grammar; Verbal Communication

Lenneberg 1967

Lenneberg 1967

Chapter One The Conceptual Framework

I. Thesis: Biological Considerations are Necessary for an Understanding of Behavior

II. Form and Function in Ontogeny

(1) Mutual Influence in the Development of Nervous and Other Tissue

(2) The Embryology of Behavior

III. Behavioral Specificity and the Problem of Plasticity

(1) The Problem

(2) Central Regulatory Mechanisms of Motor Coordination

(3) Developmental History of the Central Regulatory Mechanism

IV. Genetic Foundations of Bahavior

V. Relationship between Form and Behavior

VI. Conclusion

References

Chapter Two Morphological Correlates

I. Introduction

II. Periphery

(1) Face, Lips and Mouth

(2) Topographical Anatomy of Oral Cavity, Pharynx, and Hypopharynx

(3) Intrinsic Anatomy of the Larynx

(4) Relationship between Peripheral Anatomy and Speech Sounds

III. The Central Nervous System

(1) Functional Significance of Form in the Central Nervous System

(2) The Cortex

(3) Subcortical Structures

(4) Lateralization

(5) Relative Size of the Brain

IV. Conclusion

References

Chapter Three Some Physiological Correlates

I. Aim of Physiological Discussions in this Monograph

II. Respiration

(1) Respiratory Adaptations in General

(2) Respiratory Adaptations to Speech

(3) Other Motor Changes Indirectly Related to Respiratory Adaptations

III. Speech Production

(1) Discrete Articulatory Events

(2) Rate of Articulatory Events

(3) Ordering of Articulatory Events

IV. Problems arising from Rate and Ordering

V. The Problem of the Organizing Principle: Rhythm

(1) The Rhythmic Nature of Articulation

(a) Delayed Feedback

(b) Signal-Switching between Right and Left Ear

(c) Rate of Interruption

(d) Rate of Syllable Production

(e) Psychological Correlates

(f) Neurological Correlates: EEG

(g) Neurological Correlates: Pacing of Speech During Thalamic Stimulation

(2) Final Comments on Speech Rhythmicity (Cultural, Individual and Biological Variations)

VI. Summary

References

LBT315~318祖君

LBT315~318祖君

It is exactly the opposite of what we might expect from at least one theoretical point of view. If the development of speech were the consequence of the child’s hearing, his own utterances, and noticing the similarities between his own and his parent’s sounds, and if the pleasure in speaking derived from his ability to reproduce, for example, his mother’s sounds, then his first “aim” should be to replicate as a accurately as possible the mature sounds he hears. The mental defect should be no obstacle here, or perhaps even an advantage much the way talking birds say sentences without the benefit of a human mentality.

我們的預期中至少一項理論以上的觀點，是相對的。如果學說的發展是由於孩子的聽力、他自己的語調及注意父母與自己聲音的相似處，且對於自己反覆的說話能力感到愉悅。例如，他的母親發出聲音，然後他的第一個 ”目標” 便是重覆相同的音，並且儘可能準確純熟的發出他所聽到的聲音。心智上的缺陷不會有妨礙，甚至可能會成為他的優勢，好比有些鳥雖然會說話，但是他們卻不向人一樣是用心智來說話的。

The poor articulation of the mongoloid child may actually be related to a lack of motivation. Usually these children can articulate better than they do, but apparently exact acoustic rendering of utterance is not important to them. The children in our mongoloid sample words in which the most common phonemes of English were embedded in vocalic or consonantal surroundings for consonants and vowels respectively. The child was asked to repeat one word at a time. The performance of a selected sample of children (N = 25) on this articulation test was compared with their articulation of spontaneously produced words and phrases. The analysis was performed by two linguistics. * In all cases studied, performance on the test was considerably better than during spontaneous speech, thus demonstrating that the child is organically capable of accurate articulation.

Mongoloid孩子的構音缺失通常關係到他的動作上的缺損，這些孩子通常可以構音的更好，但是顯然精確的發音表現對他們而言，是不重要的。mongoloid的孩子，在我們普遍的英文文字因素樣本中的表現，。孩子們被要求重複一個字一次，其中樣本中的孩子(N = 25)，在構音測驗中的表現是可以與自發性的字詞片語相比的。這個分析是由兩種語言而來。*在所有的個案研究中，測驗的表現是比自發性的言語表現好的，因此這證明了這些孩子是有正確發音的組織能力。

An expedient way for testing understanding is to have subjects repeat sentences. Most of us have attempted at one time or another to repeat something in a totally foreign language. In the absence of understanding, even the reproduction of a single word may be difficult, whereas short sentences are an impossibility.

Consider the following transcribed attempts at sentence reception. This is a twelve-year-old mongoloid girl whose language development is comparable to that of a normal two-and-a-half year old.

瞭解測驗最恰當的方式，就是試著重複句子。大部分的人一度嚐試過，而其他人則將用另外一種語言重複。在缺乏認知的情況下，即使是一個字的複製也可能感到困難，而短短的句子也就更不可能了。

企圖考慮下面謄寫重複的句子。這是一個12歲的mongoloid女孩，他的語言發展可以跟一個正常的兩歲半孩子相比。

*Jacqueline Wei Mintz and Peter Rosenbaum. Throughout the observation period the child wore a condenser microphone in a bib around his chest. Recording equipment was of high fidelity. The examination room was sound proofed.

* Jacqueline Wei Mintz 和Peter Rosenbaum, 在觀察的期間，孩子穿著胸部的圍裙，上頭戴著電容器麥克風，儀器記錄為最高準確度。檢查室為隔音的空間。

範例句子 mongoloid孩子的重複

(1) Johnny是個好男孩 Johnny是個好男孩

(2) Johnny是個好男孩 Johnny是個男孩

(3) 他有兩隻狗 他有兩隻狗

(4) 他帶牠們去散步 他帶牠們去散步

(5) 他帶牠們去散步 他帶牠們去散步

(6) Lassie不喜歡水 他不喜歡水

(7) Lassie不喜歡水 Lassie不喜歡水

(8) 那Johnny想要一隻貓嗎? Johnny想要貓嗎?(問題以音調模 式標記)

(9) “假裝你正在問你媽媽”

Johnny想要一隻貓嗎? Johnny想要一隻貓，媽媽?

(10) 那隻貓被狗追 被狗追

(11) 那隻貓被狗追 貓追狗

(12) Johnny餵那隻狗 被Johnny餵

(13) “告訴我，Johnny餵誰?” 那隻狗

(14) “非常好；那麼說： 狗被Johnny餵

Johnny餵那隻狗”

The first nine sentences seem to have been essentially understood, but in all sentences except three the repeated sentence is slightly different from the model sentence. The alterations in several instances are not grammatical English, so that the child could not have heard them before. This patient is still deficient in some of the more refined rules of English, but the basic sentence type is present. The “do-constructions” are understood but the rules do not function well enough yet to enable this patient to apply them to sentence. Consequently, sentences (6), (8), and (9) are changed back into grammatically simpler but incorrect forms. Sentence (7) is the only attempt, only partially successful, to use the “dose-not-form.” The passive construction in sentences (10) to (14) is not well understood, although question (13) is answered correctly. However, all attempts at reception of the sentences are failures.

九分之ㄧ的句子似乎本來是已經了解的，但是其中三項重複語句與範例句子有些不同。有些句子的改變並不符合英文的文法，所以表示孩子之前並沒有聽過這樣的說法。這位患者仍然缺乏一些更精確的英文規則，但可表現基本的句子形式。了解”do結構”，但這些規則無法好好運用，以至於不能使患者運用在句子上。結果，句子(6)，(8)和(9)的文法被轉換為簡單但是錯誤的文法形式。句子(7)則只有嘗試，只有部分成功，使用”does-not形式”。句子(10)中的被動形式並沒有很了解，雖然句子(13)的回答是正確的。然而，所有的句子重複嘗試是失敗的。

In sentences (10) and (12) reception is attempted by apparently taking recourse to a different strategy. Instead of trying to understand the meaning of the sentence and to reproduce the sentence in its essentials. the meaning of the sentence is ignored entirely and repetition is attempted as in a rote memory task. When we are asked to repeat a string of random digits, we are only able to repeat the last ones, and the number of digits remembered is a function of memory span. When grammatical connections between words is not understood, the subject behaves as if a string of randomly concatenated words had been presented. This blind repetition may be called parroting.

在句子(10)和(12)中的重複，明顯的使用不同的策略嘗試。並非試著了解句子的意義或複製句子中的要點，句子的意義是完全被忽略，而且重複是企圖背誦記憶的工作。當我們被要求重複一串隨機的數字，我們可能只能重複後面幾個，數字順序的背誦是記憶的的架設運用。不了解文字間的文法連結的時候，主語行為就像一連串隨機顯現的連鎖字。這樣盲目的重複就稱為”鸚鵡式訪說”。

In our study of language-understanding among the mongoloid, we were interested to know at what stage of development a child would take recourse to parroting. A child was said to be simply parroting if he only repeated the last word or words of the sentence spoken to him instead of picking out some functionally important words such as the subject-noun and the verb. We classified the responses of a selected group of children (N = 25) into: (1) correct repetitions of the original sentence; (2) sentences that are grammatically correct but different from the original; (3) recognizable sentences that are grammatically incorrect; (4) two-word phrases that are not parroting; and (5) parroting. This subsample of our patients was divided into five groups according to their grammatical ability. Figure 7.11 shows the result. Parroting dose not seem to be the way to begin language. This was also clearly brought out in a recent study by Ervin (1964). Parroting is resorted to when the grammar of the original sentence is simply not understood. It is comparable to a panic-response elicited by the pressure of the examiner to get the subject to “try his best.”

在我們的mongoloid語言認知研究中，我們很想知道孩子的哪一個發展階段會依賴鸚鵡式仿說。一個孩子會被說是單純的鸚鵡式仿說，如果他只有重複最後一個字，或是句中的字詞而非選出一些功能上重要的字，像是主要名詞和動詞。我們將選出的群組孩子(N = 25)的反應分類為：(1)原始句子的正確複製；(2)文法正確但與原始句子不同的句子；(3)不合文法的可辨識句子；(4)非鸚鵡式仿說的雙字詞；(5)鸚鵡式仿說。下面這些我們患者的樣本根據他們的文法能力被分為五組，圖7.11顯示出結果。鸚鵡式仿說並非開始學習語言的方法，這清楚的在最近Ervin(1964)的研究中可以看出來。鸚鵡式仿說是指原始句子的文法並無被了解的重複，它可以說是引發壓迫測試者將測驗做到最好的”驚慌反應。

FIG.7.11 Distribution of “parroting responses” with respect to stages of development in 25 mongoloid children.

FIG.7.11. 圖為25個預期發展不同的mongoloid小孩的”鸚鵡式仿說”分部區域。

表格7.8轉變連接詞結構和潛在句子的關係

潛在句子 完成下列成操作 結果：

初始形式 最終形式

Peter喜歡小餅乾 在此句中加上連接詞and peter喜歡小餅乾

Peter喜歡紅色棒棒糖 刪除第一個句子中有重 和紅色棒棒糖

複到的字詞。

加上最初的形式 Peter喜歡小餅乾和

紅色棒棒糖

Peter想要那東西 加上連接詞and so Peter wants one and so.

Johnny想要那東西 將句子轉為強調形式 Johnny does want one.

刪除第二句中與第一句 Johnny dose

字詞最初形式的重複的字詞

將主語換位，保留述語 dose Johnny

將最初形式的後面加上前者 Peter wants one and

so does Johnny.

*近來已顯現此句子形式可用更簡單的方式敘述，更加強化兩範例間的不同結構點

LBT245-248思婷

LBT245-248思婷

撰寫人：9580047 王思婷

The pages：245 ~ 248

(3) Transformations of Form and Function

Closely related to Huxley’s method of studying allometric growth is D’Arcy Thompson’s (1917) famous method of transformations in which he compares related forms such as shown in Fig. 6.6 by the superimposition of Cartesian coordinates. A rectangular system is drawn over a two-dimensional representation of one form so that the distortions of the coordinates may be studied that result from drawing lines through the homologous points on the second form. This method is purely descriptive and difficult to quantify. But it illustrates the topological relationships between certain forms and how certain differences in structure may be accounted for by a single principle, usually changes in growth gradients during ontogeny. In cases where specific dimensions can be compared allometrically, we would find different values for the parameters a and b (compare Needham, 1964.on allomorphosis), of the allometric formula. In an important discussion of D’Arcy Thompson’s transformation, Woodger (1945) pointed out that the phenomenon demonstrated here must be understood in the light of genetics and embryology because no mature form can change, by a process of transformation, into any other.

However, there mat be intracellular genetic alterations such that ontogenetic histories are altered resulting in two different mature forms. The situation is diagrammed in Fig. 6.7. There are two molecular structures, Σ₁ and Σ₂, that are at the basis of two developmental histories H₁ and H₂. Σ₁ and Σ₂ are related to one another by the specification of a molecular transformation called T_m. The developmental histories H₁ and H₂, result in mature structures S₁ and S₂. In the case described by D’Arcy Thompson, an apparent transformation relation, T_α, persists that is characterized through the distorted coordinate systems. Notice, however, that the biological connection rests entirely in the molecular and “invisible” transformation T_m and that the apparent transformation T_α is more or less incidental—certainly not essential—for it is obvious that some or even most molecular transformations will alter the developmental histories in such a way that the corresponding two mature structure either lose their isomorphism (as in the isolated case of two-headed monsters or other deformities) or remain the same to the eyes of the unaided observer as in the case of certain inherited diseases such as hemophilia. Thus, D’Arcy Thompson transformations are probably special cases of a much more universal phenomenon.

FIG. 6.6 Morphological relations between selected species shown here as geometric transformations. (a) Argyropelecus olfersi and Sternoptyx diaphana; middle: Scarus sp. and Pomacanthus; (b) Diodon and Orthagoriscus. (From Thompson, 1917.)

A discussion of these transformations has some unsuspected relevance to the biological study of language, particularly the comparison of human language with animal forms of communication. We have said before that what is true of ontogeny and transformations of molecular structures is also relevant to the biological foundations of behavior because of the dependence of the latter upon the former. Thus, the emergence of a species-specific form of behavior has, essentially, a molecular transformational history. Just as in the case of mature structure, mature forms of behavior are the result of species-specific developmental histories H₁ and H₂, and the biological connections between any two forms of behavior must be sought for on the level of the molecular transformations T_m. What we have said of the apparent transformation T_α, holds a fortiori for the comparison of behavior.

Correspondences on this surface level will be special cases: in many more instances, all isomorphism will be lost to our eyes. We would expect mature behavior forms (that is, the homologues to S₁ and S₂) to vary with much greater freedom and into many more directions than gross structure, because the selection biases upon skeletal form are likely to be much more restraining than on behavioral modality, and it is also possible that epigenetic canalization (Waddington, 1956 and 1957) allows of fewer directional alternatives in the case of structural alterations than behavioral ones. Although these are speculations, it is a fact that there is greater variety in behavior among animals than in their types of Bauplan or structural pattern. In the light of this, the present thesis on the biological origins of language becomes very clear.

FIG. 6.7. Species are related to each other by transformations in molecular structure of genic material. These transformations affect the developmental histories of the animals in the course of which the original relationship may become obscured: the resulting mature structure may or may not bear resemblance to one another.

We assume that our potential for language has a biological history that is written in terms and on the level of molecular transformations T_m; but this belief commits us in no way to expect the occurrence of apparent transformations T_α. If human language be S₂, we cannot even be sure, in fact, what may be token of S₁. Similarly, if a superficial resemblance is pointed out to us between language and some behavioral aspect of another species, we cannot be certain how close or distant the underlying relationship T_m actually is, or for that matter, if there is any such relationship whatever. Because modifications of behavior may be freer and go into many more directions than modifications of structures, molecular transformations T_m may leave in many fewer cases apparent transformations T_α than is the case for skeletal structure and thus there is the danger of being misled by similarities that are in fact not objective but that are entirely due to anthropomorphic interpretation of animal’s activities. (Examples of this are not restricted to animal “language” but may be found in statements about animal “play”, or animal “families”, or animal “pleasures.”)

The transformational picture leads us to expect that molecular alterations indirectly caused changes in the temporal and spatial dimensions of the species’ developmental history and that the resulting alterations in structure and function brought with them prolonged and changed periods during which one function could be influenced by others, thus creating critical periods of special sensitivities and opening up new potentials and capacities. This is just the framework within which we would like to see our thoughts move; it is too vague to be a theory. Let us look at it as the direction for possible explanations that are yet to come.

Ⅲ. EVIDENCE FOR INHERITANCE OF LANGUAGE POTENTIAL

The inheritance of behavioral traits in man can never be definitively demonstrated because of our inability to do breeding experiments. Also, absolute control of the environment is difficult to achieve. If we are staunch believers in the sole determination of behavior by the social environment was held constant. It is always possible to argue that there might have been subtle differences in human relations so that even two individuals who are raised in the same home might have experienced different treatment, invisible to the observer, and that all differences in behavior might be due to these variations. Similar but converse arguments are also possible in the case of identical behavior in apparently different environments.

【翻譯】

(3) 形式和功能的轉變

與赫克斯利的學習方法異速生長發展有關的是D'Arcy湯普森的 ( 1917 )著名的轉換方法，他比較相關的形式在圖片6.6中。藉由扭曲的座標能被研究出結果從化線通過同種的指向在第二種型態。這種方法純粹描寫並且難定量。但是它說明拓撲學的關係在某些形式之間和藉由單一的原則某些在結構上不同能計算出來，通常在個體發生期間成長的坡度會改變，在這個事件中，特定的尺寸被異速生長來比較，我們可以發現不同的參數值a和b(比較尼德姆，1964。在異速生長的公式上)。在一個D'Arcy湯普森的轉變的重要討論裡，Woodger ( 1945 )指出此現象證明這個必須被了解在基因的觀點和胚胎學上，因為沒有成熟的外型可以改變，藉由一個轉換的過程成為其他外型。

圖6-6形態聯繫在選擇的種類之間被顯示這裡作為幾何學變革。(a) Argyropelecus olfersi 和Sternoptyx diaphana; 中部: Scarus sp. 和Pomacanthus; (b) Diodon 和Orthagoriscus 。(從湯普森1917 年。)

然而，可能有細胞內的遺傳學的改變，因此個體發生的歷程被改變成兩種不同的成熟的形式。此位置在圖6.7中表示出。有兩種分子的構造Σ1 和 Σ2，是建立在兩種發展歷程基礎上H1 和H2。Σ1 和 Σ2是藉由分子轉換的說明，稱為Tm，來和另一個相關。H1 和H2的發展歷程，起因於成熟的架構S1 和S2。在D'Arcy湯普森的描述中，一個明顯的轉變關係，Ta，堅持那是被透過扭曲的坐標系統表現特性。注意，然而，生物學的連結完全地基於分子和無形的轉換Tm和表面的轉換Ta式或多或少附帶的─無疑地不是必要的─對於這個是明確的，一些或甚至更多的分子轉換將改變此發展歷程，在相同的兩種成熟構造中任一個失去他們的異種同形(當在兩隻手的怪物或其他畸形的分離事件中) 或者例如像血友症那樣特定的遺傳病對未受幫助的觀察者保持相同的眼睛。關於這些變革的討論有與語言的生物研究的一些未預料到的相關性，特別是比較在溝通上人的語言以動物形式呈現。我們以前說什麼是真實的分子結構的個體發生學和變革與行為的生物基礎是還相關的這是由於後者依賴在前。因此，行為有一個特定種類的形式，根本上，分子變革歷史。正在成熟結構情況下，行為的成熟形式是特定種類的發展歷史H₁和H₂的結果，並且生物連接在任何行為之間的二個形式必須被尋找為在分子變革上T_m的水平。我們說明顯變革T_α的控制更不必說為行為比較。

書信在這個表面水平上將是特殊情況：在許多事例，所有同構(同種異形)將丟失對我們的眼睛。我們比總結構會盼望成熟行為形式(那是同源染色體對S1 和S2) 變化隨更加偉大的自由和入許多方向，因為選擇偏向於骨骼形式可能是克制在關於行為的形式，並且它還可能的外成疏導(Waddington, 1956 年和1957) 比關於行為那些允許少的定向選擇在結構改變情況下。雖然這些是猜想，這是事實有更加巨大的品種在行為在動物之中比在他們的類型Bauplan 或結構樣式。根據此，當前論文在語言的生物起源變得非常清楚。

圖6-7種類由變革關係互相在遺傳因子的材料裡分子結構。這些變革影響其間原始的關係也許成為遮暗動物的發展歷史: 收效的成熟結構也許或不能具有相似對互相。

我們假設，我們的在語言的潛力有被寫用術語和在分子變革上T_m的水平的生物歷史；但這信仰使我們絕不期待明顯的變革T_α發生。如果人的語言是S2，我們無法甚而是肯定的，實際上，什麼可以是S1 象徵。同樣，如果表面相似被指出對我們在語言和某一其它種類之間的關於行為的方面，我們無法肯定多麼接近或潛在的關係T_m的距離，實際上是或就此而言。由於行為的修改和進入許多方向比結構的修改也許是更加自由的，分子變革T_m可以離開在許多少量案件明顯的變革T_α比骨骼結構和那裡因而由不是實際上客觀的而是整個地歸結於動物的活動的似人解釋的相似性危險(這種例子不被限於動物〝語言〞 而是也許被發現在聲明關於動物〝戲劇〞，或動物〝家庭〞，或動物〝樂趣〞)。

變形圖片帶領我們期望分子改變間接地導致了變化在種類的發展歷史的世俗和空間維度上並且收效的改變在結構和作用被帶來以他們延長了和改變了期間一個作用能被其他人影響，如此創造特別敏感性的重要期間和開放新潛力和容量的期間。這是在架構之內我們會想看我們的想法移動的框架在；它太隱晦以至於不能是理論。讓我們看它作為為將來的可能解釋方向。

Ⅲ.語言潛力繼承的證據

由於我們的無能做繁殖育養的實驗，所以關於人可能明確地行為的特徵繼承從未被展示，並且，環境的絕對控制難達到。如果我們是堅定相信在行為的單一決心由社會環境恆定，它總是可能爭辯說，那裡也許已經是在人際關係上的微妙的區別以便甚而被扶養在同樣家的二個體也許已經體驗了另外治療，無形對觀察員，和在行為上的所有區別也許歸結於這些變異。相似但相反的論據還是可能在相同行為情況下存在於明顯不同的環境裡。