#7 speech theory

The recent finding of the FOXP2 gene in Neanderthals have prompted a scientific upheval in terms of how scientists viewed these earliest beings.

Brief Background

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071018-neandertal-gene.html

According to the new discovery, scientiest found that unlike previously assumed, Neanderthals could've very much been able to speak and talk (using language) like modern humans, as evidenced by the discovery of the FOXP2 gene, which is commonly known as the "speech and language gene." It is dubbed as such because when a mutation occurs on this gene, only language and speech capabilities are affected. Past research has shown that those with the mutation have a difficult time talking, due to "problems with making the quick and complex movements of the mouth and tongue needed to talk intelligibly," and comprehending the spoken word.
Such research, then, refutes previous notions that Neanderthals were truly primitive in all respects, and had only vocal grunts and gesticultion as means of communication. These views are presented in an earlier National Geographic article that cites language as the deciding factor of victory in a hypothetical confrontation between humans and Neanderthals.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1124_041124_neanderthals_language_2.html
Even though this article presents a disproved idea, it does make an interesting connection between language and cultural arts. It says that "neandertals were skillful toolmakers and hunters, they don't appear to have produced any art or personal ornaments," suggesting that with the advent of language, beings were able to concoct art and other more individualistic characteristics (tangent: so does language the propelling force that defines us as individuals?)

Though I've only cited the National Geographic piece, many other articles reported on this finding, always ending in a note that suggests this discovery provides a new link between the evolutionary lapses betwen Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens.


Response

After reading about such findings, I immediately wondered what makes the difference between language and speech. Especially in modern day society, these two words are frequently used interchangeably, thus making distinction difficult. I felt like this distinction must be made in order to understand what it is about language that mere vocalization and gesitcultion couldn't convey. A little research:

http://www.peacehealth.org/kbase/topic/special/hw265266/sec1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language#Scenarios_for_language_evolution

lead me to this answer: while speech indicates the physical act of talking and making sounds with our vocal chords, language is "our system of using words to communicate." Interestingly enough, the first site also defined language as including gestures.

That being said, is speaking a language really a tell-tale sign of genetic advancement and subsequent species promotion? There are many languages in the world where the language is not composed of words, but rather, by entitities that more resemble gutteral sounds than spoken word (one specific example comes to mind: the Sho people in the Kalahari desert in the film ,"The Gods Must Be Crazy" spoke a language comprised of "clicks" rather than words). How then, is this explained in terms of the claim that language is far more advanced and "chosen" by the Darwinian theory when compared to gestures and speech (as defined above)?

Another interesting point the wikipedia article brings up:
"Research found strong support for the idea that verbal language and sign language depend on similar neural structures. Patients who used sign language, and who suffered from a left-hemisphere lesion, showed the same disorders with their sign language as vocal patients did with their spoken language. Other researchers found that the same left-hemisphere brain regions were active during sign language as during the use of vocal or written language." This implies that gesturing and spoken word are processed through the same hemisphere/region of the brain. Again, this challenges our preconceived notion of language being associated with words (prime example: sign language)

Another argument can be made for the universality of gestures and basic "speech." We all know from empirical experience that when finding ourselves in a foreign environment in where we know not the language, we tend to resort to gesticulating rather than speaking a language. Thus, in terms of pragmatism and universality, and with the increasing flow between cultures, is then, gesticulating making a comeback in the world of communication?