01 Jankovic Sojer

7/25/2019 01 Jankovic Sojer

1/48

I

O P V S C V L A

A R C H O L O G I C A


2/48

II

OPVSC. ARCHOL. VOL. 37/38 STR. / PAGES 1434 ZAGREB 2013/2014.

ISSN 0473-0992UDK 902-904

IZDAVA / PUBLISHERARHEOLOKI ZAVOD FILOZOFSKOG FAKULTETA SVEUILITA U ZAGREBU

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB

IZDAVAKI SAVJET / EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARDRajko BRATO (Ljubljana), Andreas LIPPERT (Wien), Juraj PAVUK (Nitra),

Guido ROSADA (Padova), Elisabeth WALDE (Innsbruck), Nives MAJNARI-PANDI (Zagreb),Tihomila TEAK-GREGL (Zagreb), Marin ZANINOVI (Zagreb)

UREDNITVO / EDITORIAL BOARDIna MILOGLAV, Domagoj TONINI, Rajna OI KLINDI, Dino DEMICHELI, Iva KAI

svi iz Zagreba / all from Zagreb

GRAFIKO OBLIKOVANJE / GRAPHIC DESIGNMiljenko GREGL

ADRESA IZDAVAA / ADDRESS OF THE PUBLISHERArheoloki zavod Filozofskog fakulteta

Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences10000 ZAGREB CROATIAI. LUIA 3 P.O. BOX 171

RAUNALNI PRIJELOM / COMPUTER LAYOUTIvanka COKOL for FF-press

GODINJAK / ANNUAL

Izdavanje asopisa novano podupire

ODSJEK ZA ARHEOLOGIJU FILOZOFSKOGA FAKULTETA SVEUILITA U ZAGREBU

Publishing of the journal nancially supported by

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB

Slubena kratica ovoga asopisa je Opusc.archaeol. (Zagreb)/ Ofcial abbreviation of this journals title is Opusc.archaeol. (Zagreb)

URL: www.ffzg.hr/arheo/opuscula

Dostupno na / Available at Ebsco Publishing (www.ebscohost.com)

Tiskano 2015. / Printed in 2015

PRIJEVOD NA ENGLESKI / TRANSLATION TO ENGLISHAssia BARI, Ana UKI, Luka REP

GLAVNI I ODGOVORNI UREDNICI / EDITORSRajna OI KLINDI & Domagoj TONINI


3/48

III

O P V S C V L A

ARCHOLOGICA2013/2014



4/48

IV

FILOZOFSKI FAKULTETSVEUILITA U ZAGREBU

FACULTY OF HUMANITIESAND SOCIAL SCIENCES,UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB

RADOVI ARHEOLOKOG ZAVODA

PAPERS OF THE DEPARTMENTO F A R C H A E O L O G Y

UDK 902-904 ISSN 0473-0992


5/48

V

SADRAJCONTENTS

Glavni i odgovorni urednici PROSLOV

Editors PROLOGUE _______________________________________________________9

Ivor JANKOVI & EVOLUCIJA GOVORA I JEZIKAena OJER THE EVOLUTION OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE Pregledni rad / Review paper ____________________________________________11

Filomena SIROVICA POD KOD BRUKE ANALIZA NALAZITA S OSVRTOM NAPROBLEMATIKU PRETPOVIJESNE SUHOZIDNE ARHITEKTURE

POD NEAR BRUKA SITE ANALYSIS WITH A VIEW ONPREHISTORIC DRYWALL ARCHITECTUREIzvorni znanstveni rad / Original scientific paper _____________________________49

Stao FORENBAHER, PET GROBOVA S PALAGRUEPetra RAJI IKANJI & FIVE BURIALS FROM PALAGRUA

Zrinka PREMUI Struni rad / Professional paper __________________________________________95

Ivana MILEI AKIRAN KERAMIKA TANKIH STIJENKI S LOKALITETASV. KVIRIN U SISKU

THINWALLED POTTERY FROM THE SITESV. KVIRIN IN SISAK

Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scientific paper ____________________________111

Martina MAIJAKO MARTIJANECGAMULICA. ANALIZA NALAZA PRIKUPLJENIH

1950. GODINE

MARTIJANECGAMULICA ANALYSIS OF FINDS FROM 1950 Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scientific paper ____________________________161

Ivana ARUKOVI RIMSKODOBNE FIBULE IZ FUNDUSA MUZEJABRODSKOG POSAVLJA

ROMANERA FIBULAE FROM THE COLLECTION OF THEBRODSKO POSAVLJE MUSEUM


Anamarija KURILI & NATPIS GAJA KORNELIJA S ILOVIKA I CORNELIIZrinka SERVENI U LIBURNIJI

THE INSCRIPTION OF GAIUS CORNELIUS FROM ILOVIKAND THE CORNELII IN LIBURNIA


Ana MIKOVI U POTRAZI ZA VEZAMA IZMEU SOLUNA I ZADRAU KASNOJ ANTICI

EXPLORING THE TIES BETWEEN THESSALONIKI ANDZADAR IN LATE ANTIQUITY



6/48

VI


Marinko OMASOVI KATEDRALA SV. TRIPUNA U KOTORU I BENEDIKTINSKACRKVA SV. MIHOVILA NA PREVLACI KOD TIVTA PRIMJEDBEUZ PORIJEKLO OBLIKA I DATIRANJE

THE CATHEDRAL OF ST. TRYPHON IN KOTOR AND THE

BENEDICTINE CHURCH OF ST. MICHAEL ON PREVLAKANEAR TIVAT COMMENTS ON THE DATE AND THEORIGIN OF DESIGN

Pregledni rad / Review paper ___________________________________________267

Ana AZINOVI BEBEK & BREVARI IZ LOBORA I DRUGIH NOVOVJEKOVNIHKreimir FILIPEC GROBALJA SJEVEROZAPADNE HRVATSKE

THE BREVERLS FROM LOBOR AND OTHER EARLYMODERN CEMETERIES IN NORTHWESTERN CROATIA


Marija IAVIVEK & KERAMIKE LULE S LOKALITETA ZOLJANI EMEAC I Kreimir FILIPEC CLAY PIPES FROM THE SITE ZOLJANI EMEAC I Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scientific paper ____________________________301

ihomila EAKGREGL STOJANU DIMITRIJEVIU U SPOMEN IN HONOUR OF STOJAN DIMITRIJEVI Uvodnik / Introduction ________________________________________________335

Ivor KAR AVANI STOJAN DIMITRIJEVI ISTRAIVANJA I NASTAVAPALEOLITIKA U HRVATSKOJ

STOJAN DIMITRIJEVI RESEARCH AND TEACHINGPALEOLITHIC IN CROATIA Pregledni rad / Review paper ___________________________________________343

Kornelija MINICHREIER PROF. DR. STOJAN DIMITRIJEVI UTEMELJITELJ KRONOLOKE PODJELESTAREVAKE KULTURE ZA SJEVERNU REGIJU

PROF. DR. STOJAN DIMITRIJEVI THE FOUNDER OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF THESTAREVO CULTURE IN THE NORTHERN REGION


Bine KRA MBERGER EVALUATION OF DIMITRIJEVIS DEFINITION OF THESOPOT CULTURE IN THE LIGHT OF RADIOCARBON DATES


Maja KRZNARIKRIVANKO REZULTATI DIMITRIJEVIEVIH ISTRAIVANJA SOPOTAU SVJETLU NOVIH ISTRAIVANJA

THE RESULTS OF DIMITRIJEVIS EXCAVATIONS



7/48

VII

AT SOPOT IN LIGHT OF RECENT RESEARCH Pregledni rad / Review paper ___________________________________________371

Lana OKROA ROI BREZOVLJANI

BREZOVLJANI Pregledni rad / Review paper ___________________________________________397

Marcel BURI KOMADII I FRAGMENTI: BAPSKA NAKONSTOJANA DIMITRIJEVIA

PIECES AND FRAGMENTS: BAPSKA AFTERSTOJAN DIMITRIJEVI


Zorko MARKOVI STOJAN DIMITRIJEVI I ISTRAIVANJA ENEOLITIKAU SJEVERNOJ HRVATSKOJ

STOJAN DIMITRIJEVI AND STUDIES ON THE COPPERAGE OF NORTHERN CROATIA



8/48


9/48

IX

PROSLOV

S velikim zadovoljstvom i u ime cijelog urednitva pred-stavljamo dvobroj 37/38 asopisa Opuscula Archaeologicakoji je utemeljen 1956. godine, te s vie ili manje potekoaizlazi vie od pet desetljea. Usprkos trenutnim financij-skim potekoama pred nama je asopis koji i ovoga puta,i to sa 19 lanaka od 25 autora, na preko etiri stotine stra-nica, objavljuje znanstvene, pregledne i strune tekstove vi-soke kvalitete.

No, ovaj dvobroj asopisa Opuscula archaeologica se razli-kuje od prethodnih izdanja jer se sastoji od dva tematskapoglavlja. U prvom poglavlju je jedanaest radova koji su,

u skladu s tradicijom naeg asopisa, posveeni razliitimarheolokim problemima koji e kako znanstvenicima, takoi drugima, dati mogunost dobivanja uvida, ne samo u ne-poznatu arheoloku grau, nego i mogunost upoznava-nja s najnovijim razmiljanjima o odreenim problemimakao i njihovim moguim rjeenjima. Drugi dio broja 37/38asopisa Opuscula archaeologica nas posebno raduje jerse sastoji od osam radova posveenih 30-godinjici smrtiuglednog hrvatskog profesora prapovijesne arheologije Sto-jana Dimitrijevia. Radovi su prezentirani na skupu po-sveenom Stojanu Dimitrijeviu na Filozofskom fakultetuu Zagrebu 13.12.2011.

Napor koji je urednitvo asopisa uloilo u izlazak ovogabroja nije nas obeshrabrio nego potaknuo da i dalje inimosve potrebno da bi autori i dalje imali priliku objavljivatilanke za koje smatraju da doprinose arheolokoj znano-sti. Za kvalitetu objavljenih priloga brinuo se cijeli tim re-cenzenata, ije je miljenje i omoguilo da svaki prilog imaonu kvalitetu kakvu na asopis i zasluuje. Stoga na krajusvim autorima i suradnicima najsrdanije zahvaljujemona prilozima tiskanim u ovome broju asopisa Opusculaarchaeologica.

Glavni i odgovorni urednici

PROLOGUE

We are proud to present a double volume 37/38 of Opuscu-la archaeologica on behalf of the Editorial board. Since its

first volume in 1956, journal Opuscula archaeologica hasbeen publishing scientific articles in the field of archaeologyand other historical disciplines. Despite current financialchallenges we were able to publish 19 articles by 25 authorson more than 400 pages containing high quality originalscientific articles and professional papers.

Te structure of this double volume differs from previousones because it is divided into two sections. Te first sec-tion consisting of 11 articles that are, in the tradition of

this journal, facing specific archaeological issues. We hopethat these articles will provide information to readers onnew, unpublished material and current debates. Te sec-ond section contains 8 papers dedicated to the 30th anni-versary of death of Professor Stojan Dimitrijevi, a distin-guished professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at the Uni-versity of Zagreb. Tese papers were originally presentedat the conference organized by the Faculty of Humanitiesand Social Sciences, University of Zagreb on December13th 2011.

Various challenges presented to us during the preparation

of this volume were not discouraging, but, on the contrary,gave us the additional motivation to secure the future ofthis journal as a platform for publication of quality scien-tific and professional papers by fellow scholars. Extensiveteam of domestic and international reviewers is the qual-ity assurance of the published articles, and the journal asa whole.

We would like to express our gratitude to all contributorswhose articles are published in this double volume.

Editors


10/48


11/48

11

Te paper deals with the topic of the evolution of speechand language and aims to, through a multidisciplinaryapproach and based on different material and availabledata and results, answer the question of the appearance ofmodern language and speech. Especially interesting is thequestion of whether modern language appeared throughthe process of saltation or in combination with some otherelements of modernity (the so called Human revolu-tion model or Cognitive revolution model) or if it is

a result of a longer evolutionary development in whichcertain conditions and elements necessary for the develop-ment of speech and language appeared before others did.Te authors attempted to answer these questions throughthe results of comparative research done on our closestevolutionary cousins, apes, through comparative anat-omy, fossil material and archaeological materialsensustricto, that is, through remains of material culture. Basedon available material, we conclude that modern languageis a result of a long evolutionary development and thatdifferent elements appeared at different times during theevolutionary history of the tribe hominini.

Key words: evolution of speech, evolution of language,

paleoanthropology, Paleolithic, prehistory, symbol-ism, art

Rad se bavi tematikom evolucije govora i jezika i pokuavaputem multidisciplinarog pristupa i na temelju razliitegrae i dostupnih podataka i rezultata istraivanja pro-niknuti u pitanja vezana uz pojavu modernog jezika i go-vora. Od posebnog je interesa pitanje javlja li se moderanjezik saltacijski i zajedno s nekim od ostalih elemenatamoderniteta (tzv. Human revolution model ili Co-gnitive revolution model) ili je rezultat dueg evolucij-skog razvoja u kojem se odreeni preduvjeti i elementi za

razvoj govora i jezika javljaju ranije od drugih. Navedenapitanja pokualo se razmotriti kroz rezultate kompara-tivnih istraivanja naih najbliih evolucijskih roaka,ovjekolikih majmuna, putem komparativne anatomije,

fosilne grae te arheoloke graesensu stricto, odnosnoostataka materijalne kulture. Na temelju dostupne graezakljueno je da je suvremeni jezik rezultat dugog evolu-cijskog razvoja i da se odreeni elementi javljaju u razlii-to vrijeme tijekom evolucijske povijesti plemena hominini.

Kljune rijei: evolucija govora, evolucija jezika, pa-leoantropologija, paleolitik, prapovijest, simbolika,umjetnost

Ivor JANKOVI & ena OJER

EVOLUCIJA GOVORA I JEZIKA

THE EVOLUTION OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE

doi: 10.17234/OA.37.1Pregledni rad / Review paper

UDK / UDC: 81232:903632 572:903632Primljeno/Received: 28.01.2013.Prihvaeno/Accepted: 18.06.2013.

Ivor JankoviInstitut za antropologiju

Gajeva 32HR-10000 Zagreb

[email protected]

ena ojerSv. Mateja 118

HR-10000 [email protected]


12/48

12

Ivor JANKOVI & Tena OJER EVOLUCIJA GOVORA I JEZIKA Opusc.archaeol. 37/38, 11-48,2013/2014 [2015.

Uvod

Jezik je jedna od temeljnih odrednica ovjeka i ut-kan je u sve domene ljudskosti. Nemogue je zami-sliti ijedno suvremeno ljudsko drutvo (kao ni mno-ge civilizacije, drutva i zajednice u prolosti) a da

se ne dotaknemo pitanja vezanih uz jezik. Stoga neudi da se pitanjima o pojavi i razvoju komunika-cije, govora i jezika bave mnoge struke. Primjerice,Aristotel je kao jednu od osnovnih razlika izmeuovjeka i ivotinjskog svijeta pronalazio u jeziku inaoj sposobnosti prenoenja misli putem ovog me-dija (vidi Barner 1984). Cilj ovog rada je na temeljuodabrane grae (komparativne studije ovjekolikihmajmuna, anatomije, fosilne grae, ostataka mate-rijalne kulture, kao i suvremenih genetikih istrai-

vanja) pokuati proniknuti u pitanje kada se javlja-ju odreeni aspekti onoga to obiavamo nazivatimodernim jezikom. Znanstvenici se uglavnom urazmiljanjima o evoluciji jezika priklanjaju ili mo-delu prema kojem jezik ima dugu evolucijsku pro-lost i prema kojem se odreeni aspekti (komunika-cijski, govorni i jezini) javljaju u razliito vrijeme,te modelu prema kojem se moderan jezik javljasaltacijski, u sklopu evolucijskog paketa moder-niteta (koji ukljuuje i druge aspekte modernogponaanja, modernu anatomsku grau, te nerijetkou raspravama ima i taksonomski znaaj). Stoga jeosnovno pitanje kojim emo se baviti u radu za-pravo suprotstavljanje ovih dvaju pristupa, koje bi,koristei se rjenikom evolucijske biologije moglinazvati postupnim, darvinistikim modelom s jed-ne strane, te saltacijskim modelom, s druge strane.Namjera nam nije bila nije donijeti detaljan pregledsvih razmiljanja i teorija o pojavi jezika, niti o po-

javi pojedinih jezinih skupina, kao ni detaljno ra-spravljati o nainu komunikacije koji je prethodiopojavi vokalne komunikacije kao osnovnog naina

jezine komunikacije ovjeka (iako emo se nakrat-ko dotaknuti i tih pitanja).

Materijali i metode

U radu polazimo od hipoteze da su se svi, ili gotovosvi, aspekti modernog jezika (i govora kao osnovnogmodaliteta jezika) javili otprilike u isto vrijeme (uskladu sa saltacijskim modelom). U provjeri nave-dene hipoteze sluit emo se prvenstveno objavlje-nim rezultatima istraivanja komunikacije i jezinihsposobnosti naih najbliih evolucijskih roaka, o-

vjekolikih majmuna, komparativnom anatomijommorfolokih kompleksa vezanih uz govor i jezik

(posebice mozak i vokalni trakt), raspoloivom fo-silnom graom plemena hominini (rodovi Austra-lopithecus i Homo), materijalnom ostavtinom kao

Introduction

Language is one of the basic human features and isincluded into all domains of humanity. It is impossi-ble to imagine a contemporary human society (andmany civilizations, societies and communities in the

past), without discussing language-related issues. Itis not surprising, therefore, that the questions on theappearance and development of communication,speech and language are discussed in many profes-sions. For example, Aristotle, saw language and ourability to transfer thought through this medium asone of the characteristics differentiating us from theanimal kingdom (see Barner 1984). Te aim of thispaper is to, based on selected reading (comparativestudies of apes, anatomy, fossil remains, remainsof material culture and contemporary genetic re-search), try and answer the question of when certainaspects of what we tend to call modern languageappeared. Scientists, discussing the evolution oflanguage, generally lean towards either the modelwhich states that language has a long evolutionaryhistory where certain aspects (communicational,speech-related and linguistic) appear at differenttimes, or the model which states that modern lan-guage appeared through the process of saltation aspart of evolutionary modernity (including otheraspects of modern behavior, modern anatomicalbuilt, often of taxonomical significance). Te basicquestion, therefore, is the juxtaposition of these twoapproaches which could be, using the vocabulary ofevolutionary biology, called the Darwinian on theone, and saltation on the other hand. Te authorsdid not mean to write a thorough overview of allthoughts and theories on the emergence of lan-guage, nor on the appearance of certain languagegroups, nor to go into detail about the ways of com-munication which preceded the appearance of ver-bal communication as the basic mode of linguisticcommunication of man (although we will brieflyalso discuss these issues).

Materials and methods

Te paper starts from the hypothesis that all, or al-most all, aspects of moderns language (and speechas the basic mode of language) appeared approxi-mately at the same time (in accordance with thesaltation model). esting this hypothesis, we willprimarily use published results of communicationand language skill research of our closest evolution-ary cousins, apes, comparative anatomy of morpho-

logical complexes relating to language and speech(especially the brain and the speech apparatus), theavailable fossil fund of the tribe hominini (genera


13/48

13

Ivor JANKOVI & Tena OJER THE EVOLUTION OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE Opusc.archaeol. 37/38, 11-48,2013/2014 [2015.

temeljem razumijevanja ponaanja u prolosti (ar-tefakti, nain ivota, simbolike pojave i sl.) te no-

vijim rezultatima genetikih istraivanja (primjericeFOXP2 gena) vezanim uz pitanja od interesa za narad.

Jezik u evolucijskoj perspektivi

Svaka mitologija ima svoju priu o postanku jezika,a razliita objanjenja nalaze se i u svetim pismimarazliitih religija. Darwinova je publikacija O podri-

jetlu vrstanapravila potpuni preokret u promilja-nju ljudskih poetaka te istovremeno pruila novpristup ovom problemu, koji je utemeljen na znan-stvenom pristupu. Unutar evolucijske perspektiverazlikuje se niz teza o razvoju i pojavi jezika, nai-nu na koji se razvio te modalitetu koji je u poetkuprevladavao. ako se s jedne strane pretpostavlja da

je jezik rezultat postupne promjene iz ivotinjskogkomunikacijskog sustava u moderni ljudski jezik(vidi npr. Pinker & Bloom 1990; Lieberman 1984;Corballis 2009 i tamo citiranu literaturu), dok dru-gi autori pojavu modernog jezika vide kao naglupromjenu koja se dogodila tek nedavno u ljudskojevoluciji i esto je veu uz anatomski moderne ljudei pojavu simbolike i modernijeg ponaanja u vri-

jeme gornjeg paleolitika (vidi npr. Bickerton 1995;Mithen 1996; Noble & Davidson 1996; Wadley

2001; Mellars 1973; 2005; Klein 1973; 1995 i tamocitiranu literaturu).

Darwin (1871.) je u djelu O podrijetlu ovjekapred-loio kako je jezik nastao iz imitacije i modifikacijerazliitih zvukova iz prirode te posebnih ljudskihpovika, potpomognut znakovima i gestama i favori-ziran prirodnim (spolnim) odabirom. Mnogi se sla-u s tom pretpostavkom te istiu prednosti zvuno-ga govorenoga jezika kao dokaze vokalnih jezinihpoetaka (omasello 2008; Riede et al. 2005; Zu-berbhler 2005; Hewes 1973), dok se komparativnaistraivanja primata koriste kao temelj gestikularneteorije (Corballis 2009, Armstrong et al.1995; Arm-strong i Wilcox 2007; Goldin-Meadow & McNeill1999).

Prvi i osnovni korak u prouavanju jezika u prapo-vijesti je definiranje samog pojma jezik. Mnogo seznanstvenih disciplina bavi prouavanjem jezika isvaka od njih imati e svoju definiciju ve prema vla-stitim potrebama. Zajedniki je nazivnik svima, me-utim, injenica da je jezik univerzalan i jedinstvenoljudski fenomen. Radi lakeg snalaenja, u tekstu ko-ristimo radne definicije osnovnih pojmova vezanih

uz tematiku rada. Pod pojmom komunikacijasma-tramo svaku interakciju kojoj je svrha prenoenjeodreene informacije, bez obzira na medij kojim se

AustralopithecusandHomo), and material remainsas the basis for understanding past behavior (arti-facts, way of life, symbolic occurrences and thelike) and newer results of genetic research (e.g. theFOXP2 gene) connected to questions we discuss inthis paper

Language from an evolutionaryperspective

Every mythology has its own story on the emergenceof language, and holy scriptures of different religionsalso offer different explanations. Darwins publicationOn the origin of species marked a complete change ofperspective on thinking about human origins and,at the same time, created a new approach to solvingthis problem, one based on science. Te evolutionaryperspective consists of several assumptions about thedevelopment and emergence of language, the way inwhich it developed and the modality which was dom-inant at first. On one hand, language is supposed tobe a result of a gradual change from the animal com-munication system to modern human language (e.g.,see Pinker & Bloom 1990; Lieberman 1984; Corbal-lis 2009 and therein cited bibliography), while otherauthors saw the emergence of modern language as asudden change which occurred very recently in hu-man evolution and is often connected to anatomical-

ly modern humans and the appearance of symbolismand modern behavior in the upper Paleolithic (e.g.,see Bickerton 1995; Mithen 1996; Noble & Davidson1996; Wadley 2001; Mellars 1973, 2005, Klein 1973;1995 and therein cited bibliography).

Darwin (1871), in his book Te Descent of Man,proposed the idea that language appeared by imi-tation and modification of different sounds fromnature and special human sounds, and that it wassupported by gestures and favored natural (sexual)selection. Many agree with his idea and emphasizethe advantage of sounded spoken language as proof

of vocalized beginnings of language (omasello2008; Riede et al.2005; Zuberbhler 2005; Hewes1973), while comparative studies of primates serveas a basis for the gestural theory (Corballis 2009,Armstrong et al.1995; Armstrong & Wilcox 2007;Goldin-Meadow & McNeill 1999).

Te first and basic step in studying language in pre-history is to define the term language itself. Manyscientific disciplines study language and each ofthem has its own way of defining it based on its re-quirements. However, the common denominator ofall of them is the fact that language is universal anduniquely a human phenomenon. o avoid confusion,in this paper we will use loose definitions of the ba-


14/48

14


ta informacija prenosi. Primjerice, u jednoj od prvihevolucijskih analiza komunikacije Otte (1974.) stav-lja naglasak na signalekao fizioloke, morfoloke ilikarakteristike ponaanja favorizirane prirodnom se-lekcijom u svrhu prenoenja informacije drugim or-ganizmima. No, takva definicija je iroka i ukljuuje

ne samo ljudsku, ve i komunikaciju kod ivotinja.Pod pojmomgovor podrazumijevamo jedan od me-dija prenoenja informacija putem zvuka. Govor jemedij specifian za ovjeka, a ekvivalent je (iako neu potpunosti, kao to emo kasnije vidjeti) ivotinj-skoj vokalnoj komunikaciji (oba sustava se koristezvukom). No ljudski je govor mnogo sloeniji od vo-kalne komunikacije kod ostalih ivotinja (barem kodsuvremenih ljudi) jer u njegovoj podlozi lei jezik.Pod pojmomjezikpodrazumijevamo sustav komu-nikacije koji se koristi zvukom. No ni ova definicija

nije dovoljna da opie neke od najvanijih znaajkiljudskog jezika, budui da uz komunikacijsku funk-ciju ljudski jezik ima i simboliku stoga je ljudski

jezik i sloen simboliki sustav. Nadalje, za razlikuod ivotinjske komunikacije ljudski je jezik otvorensustav (Bickerton 1990; Dessalles 2007). Suvremenljudski jezik sastoji se od odreenog broja znakova(simbola) koji omoguavaju bezbrojne kombinacije,kao i izraavanje prolosti, budunosti, apstraktnihpojmova i ideja i sl. Iako ogranieni naim vokabu-larom, svatko od nas uz malo truda moe izgovoriti(ili napisati) sasvim novu reenicu, reenicu koji nit-

ko nikada jo nije izrekao. ivotinjska komunikacijauglavnom se koristi ogranienim repertoarom kojise u prirodi veinom prenosi genetski, a ne kulturno(uenjem) i kao odgovor na trenutnu situaciju (upo-zorenje, ritual parenja i sl.). Komunikacijski signalikod ivotinja nemaju znaenje (niti simboliki as-pekt), ve funkciju (Li 2002).

Vanu ulogu u prouavanju razvoja jezika imala jeideja koju je razvio lingvist Noam Chomsky (1957.,1965., 1986.). Njegova teorija univerzalne gramati-ke (universal grammar) pretpostavlja da sve ljud-

ske populacije posjeduju uroen sustav za usvajanjejezika, odnosno zajedniku strukturalnu bazu kojaprua gramatike preduvjete, a koja je zajedni-ka svim suvremenim jezicima. Na ovu osnovnuideju kasnije se nadovezuju znanstvenici koji pret-postavljaju da je osnovna sintaktika sposobnostnastala saltacijski, mutacijom koja je rekonstruiralaneuralnu anatomiju unutar mozga (Piatelli-Palma-rini 1989; Bickerton 1990; Newmeyer 1991; Burling1993). Drugi autori pokuavaju sagledati razlii-te aspekte jezika, govora i komunikacije kroz duievolucijski razvoj i proniknuti u njihove pleziomor-

fne i apomorfne elemente (Lieberman 1984, 2000).Za komunikacijski sustav koji prethodi pojavi mo-dernog jezika, a od njega se razlikuje nedostatkom

sic terminology connected to the subject matter. Teterm communication encompasses every interactionconducted in order to transfer certain information,regardless of medium by which the information istransferred. For example, in one of the first evolu-tionary analyses of communication, Otte (1974) put

emphasis on signals as physiological, morphologicalor behavioral characteristics favored through naturalselection with the aim of transferring informationto other organisms. However, such a definition iswide and includes not only human, but also animalcommunication. Te term speech encompasses oneof the media of transferring information by sound.Speech is an exclusively human medium and is theequivalent (although not entirely, as we explain lateron) of animal vocal communication (both systemsuse sound). Human speech is a lot more complex

than vocal communication between other animals(at least in modern humans), because language is itsbasis. Te term language is defined as a system ofcommunication by sound. However, this definitionalso insufficiently describes some of the most impor-tant features of human language, since apart fromthe communicative function, human language has asymbolic one therefore, human language is also acomplex system of symbols. Furthermore, unlike ani-mal communication, the human language is an opensystem (Bickerton 1990; Dessalles 2007). Contempo-rary human language contains a specific number of

signs (symbols) which allows for countless combina-tions, as well as expressing the past, future, abstractterms and ideas, and the like. Although limited byour vocabulary, each of us, with a little effort, cansay (or write) a completely new sentence, a sentenceno one had ever said before. Animal communica-tion mostly uses a limited repertoire which is, in na-ture, mostly transferred genetically, and not cultur-ally (through learning), and is a response to a certainsituation (warning, mating ritual, and so on). Animalcommunicative signals do not have meaning (nor thesymbolic aspect), but serve a function (Li 2002).

An important part in the study of language was lin-guist Noam Chomskys idea (1957, 1965, 1986). Histheory of universal grammar was based on the as-sumption that all human populations have an in-herent system for language acquirement, which isa common structural basis which sets grammaticalpreconditions and is common to all modern lan-guages. Tis basic idea was later developed by scien-tists who supposed that the basic syntactic abilitiesdeveloped through saltation, i.e. through a mutationwhich reconstructed the neural anatomy within the

brain (Piatelli-Palmarini 1989; Bickerton 1990; New-meyer 1991; Burling 1993). Other authors tried tostudy different aspects of language, speech and com-


15/48

15


gramatike, razliiti autori koriste razliite termine.Primjerice Salzmann (1998.) koristi termin predje-zik (prelanguage), dok ga ostali autori nazivajupro-tojezikom(Hewes 1973; Bickerton 1990), iako ovajtermin moe dovesti do zabune, budui da je isto-

vjetan onom koji lingvisti koriste za jezik iz kojeg

se razvijaju ostali suvremeni jezici, odnosno jezi-ne skupine (npr. proto-indo-europski). Pokuamoli proniknuti u razliite aspekte i svojstva jezika injegovog evolucijskog razvoja, potrebno je baremukratko obratiti pozornost i na mogue razlogezbog kojih je ovaj nov nain komunikacije mogaoimati selektivnu prednost nad neverbalnim. Miller(1999.) i posebice Deacon (1997.) naglaavaju va-nost koju je jezik mogao imati u sve sloenijim od-nosima unutar zajednice, posebice izmeu spolova.Deacon (1997.) smatra da je takav oblik komuni-kacije mogao favorizirati i razvoj monogamnih od-nosa jer su partneri mogli stvarati jae veze putemsocijalne interakcije (vidi i Lovejoy 1981). Dunbar(1993., 1996.) takoer naglaava vanost jezika u ja-anju socijalne strukture i odnosa unutar zajednicei smatra ga ekvivalentom i zamjenom za timarenje,

vrlo estu i socijalno vrlo vanu radnju kod prima-ta (Dunbar 1991; Lehmann et al. 2007). Jezik kaozamjena za tjelesni kontakt (timarenje) omoguavabre i efikasnije stvaranje odnosa unutar veih gru-pa. No iako su navedeni razlozi vrlo vjerojatno imali

vanu ulogu u razvoju odreenih etapa ili elemena-ta razvoja jezika i govora, najvjerojatnije su samodio zagonetke. Vjerojatno, barem u prvim fazamarazvoja, govor i jezik zapoinju kao efikasnija vari-

janta naina koji slui onoj prvoj i osnovnoj funk-ciji, komunikaciji. Naravno, sve sloenija socijalnaorganizacija hominina favorizirala je ovakav oblikkomunikacije, pogotovo nakon to nai preci zapo-inju svoj sve sloeniji kulturni razvoj (proizvodnjaorua, organizirani lov, irenje u nove geografskeprostore s drugaijim okolinim imbenicima, poja-

va neutilitarnih predmeta, izgradnja nastambi, po-jave simbolikog razmiljanja, ukapanja pokojnika,

razvoj umjetnosti i sl.).

Komparativne studije: jezinesposobnosti ovjekolikih majmuna

Budui da je ovjek nastao evolucijom te da pripadaredu primata, logino je da je u razvoju ljudske ko-munikacije, govora i jezika odreenu ulogu imao ikomunikacijski sustav naih predaka. Stoga e kom-parativne studije ivuih primata imati vanu uloguu rasvjetljavanju nekih pitanja vezanih uz evoluciju

jezika. No, isto tako valja imati na umu da komuni-kacija kod ivuih primata ne predstavlja a prioriistovjetno stanje u naeg zadnjeg zajednikog pret-

munication through a longer evolutionary develop-ment and to define their plesiomorphic and apomor-phic elements (Lieberman 1984, 2000). Te commu-nication system which preceded the appearance ofmodern language, and differs from it due to lack ofgrammar, is differently defined by different authors.

For example, Salzmann (1998) uses the term prel-anguage, while other authors call it protolanguage(Hewes 1973; Bickerton 1990), although the termmight be misleading since it is the same term used bylinguists to define language from which other mod-ern languages, or language groups, developed (e.g.proto Indo-European). If we try to understand differ-ent aspects and properties of language and its evolu-tionary development, it is necessary to at least brieflydiscuss the possible reasons why this new mode ofcommunication could have had selective advantagesover nonverbal communication. Miller (1999) andespecially Deacon (1997) highlight the importancelanguage could have had in the increasingly complexrelations within the community, especially betweenthe sexes. Deacon (1997) considers that this modeof communication could favor the development ofmonogamist relations because partners could makestronger connections through social interaction (alsosee Lovejoy 1981). Dunbar (1993, 1996) also stressesthe importance of language for the strengthening ofsocial structures and relations within the commu-nity, and sees it as an equivalent and replacementfor grooming, a very common and socially impor-tant act in primates (Dunbar 1991; Lehmann et al.2007). Language as a replacement for physical con-tact (grooming) allows for a faster and more efficientcreation of relations within larger groups. However,as the listed reason probably had an important role inthe development of certain stages or elements of lan-guage and speech development, they are most prob-ably only part of the riddle. Most likely, at least inthe first developmental stages, speech and languageappeared as a more efficient variant of a mode serv-ing the first and basic function of communication.

Naturally, an increasingly complex social structureof hominins favored this type of communication, es-pecially because our ancestors went into an increas-ingly complex cultural development (making tools,organized hunting, appearance of non-utilitarian ob-

jects, dwellings, symbolic thinking, art, and the like).

Comparative studies: linguisticabilities of apes

Since humans developed through evolution and be-

longs to the order of Primates, it is logical that thecommunication system of our ancestors played apart in the development of human communication,


16/48

16


ka te da se evolucijska linija ovjeka i impanzi od-vojila prije 5-7 milijuna godina (vidi npr. Jankovi &Karavani 2009 i tamo citiranu literaturu).

Jednim dijelom, komunikacija ovjeka vrlo je nalikonoj ostalih primata. Komunikacijski sustav pri-mata iznimno je razvijen i sloen te se podjednakotemelji na vokalizaciji, gestikulaciji, izrazima lica,tjelesnim kretnjama i mirisu pri emu svaki od ovihmodaliteta ima odreenu funkciju i prenosi odre-ene informacije (Doty 1981; Macedonia i Stanger1994; Kirchof i Hammerschmid 2006; DiBetti 1993;Slocombe i Zberbuhler 2006; Pfefferle et al. 2008;Slocombe 2010; Corballis 2009). Svi su ovi aspek-ti komunikacije prisutni i kod ljudi i oznaavaju sepojmom neverbalna komunikacija. Neovisno okulturi iz koje potjeu ili jeziku kojeg govore, ljudimogu na licima drugih prepoznati ljutnju, tugu, pri-

jetnju, znatielju ili uivanje. Isti izrazi lica, meu-tim, svojstveni su i impanzama (Burling 2005), kaoi poloaj tijela koji odaje, primjerice, naklonost, za-titniku nastrojenost, prijetnju ili oputenost (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1967). Sve vie studija pokazuje da je uljudskoj komunikaciji izuzetno znaajna interakcijaosjeta i razliitih regija u mozgu, pri emu je jedanod kljunih osjeta vid, kako u komunikaciji, tako i uakviziciji jezinih i govornih sposobnosti (vidi Ro-senblum 2008, 2010 i tamo citiranu literaturu). ajfenomen naziva se vieosjetna percepcija govora(multisensory speech perception).

Ako elimo proniknuti u prolost odreenih ele-menata razvoja ljudskog govora i jezika, jedan od

vanih pokazatelja bit e slinosti i razlike od naihnajbliih roaka, ovjekolikih majmuna. Prva istra-ivanja jezinih mogunosti primata krenula su odpogrenih pretpostavki i naglasak stavila na govor(Furness 1916; Hayes 1951), to je dovelo do krivogzakljuka da ostali primati nemaju kognitivne spo-sobnosti za usvajanje kompleksnijeg sustava komu-nikacije poput jezika. Usporedbe anatomskih odlikaovjeka i ovjekolikih majmuna (o emu e detalj-

nije biti rijei kasnije u tekstu) jasno pokazuju dapostoje razlozi zbog kojih nije za oekivati da e ne-ljudski primati usvojiti govor kao osnovni mod ko-munikacije, no to nam nita ne govori o ostalim ele-mentima jezika. No, za razliku od ogranienja kojapostavljaju razlike u vokalnom traktu, gotovo sviprimati imaju vrlo pokretljive ake koje omoguuju

vrlo preciznu kontrolu i velik raspon pokreta. Zna-kovni jezik gluhih u potpunosti ima sve elemente

jezika (otvoren je i simbolian sustav), iako je medijkojim se prenosi drugaiji (ne prenosi se zvukom,

ve gestikulacijom) (vidi npr. Emmorey 2002; Nei-

dle et al. 2000). Prouavanja komunikacije primatau prirodi pokazala su vei naglasak na gestikulacijunego na komunikaciju vokalnim putem (Pollick i de

speech and language. Hence, comparative studies ofliving primates will have an important role in shed-ding light on some questions regarding the evolu-tion of language. However, we must have in mindthe fact that he communication of living primatesis not a priori equal to our common ancestors and

that the evolutionary line of million years ago andchimpanzees got separated between 5 and 7 million

years ago (see Jankovi & Karavani 2009 and therecited bibliography).

In part, human communication is very similar tothat of other primates. Te communication sys-tem of primates is very diverse and complex andis almost equally based on vocalization, gesticula-tion, facial expressions, body movement and smell,whereby each of these modalities has a specificfunction and transfers certain information (Doty

1981; Macedonia & Stanger 1994; Kirchof & Ham-merschmid 2006; DiBetti 1993; Slocombe & Zber-buhler 2006; Pfefferle et al. 2008; Slocombe 2010;Corballis 2009). All of these aspects of communica-tion are present in humans and go under the termnon-verbal communication. Regardless of culturethey come from or language they speak, humans canrecognize anger, sadness, threat, curiosity or enjoy-ment on the faces of other humans. Te same facialexpressions, however, are also typical of chimpan-zees (Burling 2005), as is the position of the bodywhich shows, for example, affection, protective at-

titudes, threat or relaxation (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1967).More and more studies show that the interactionbetween different regions of the brain is extremelyimportant for human communication, where eye-sight is one of the key senses for communication,but also for the acquisition of linguistic and speak-ing abilities (see Rosenblum 2008, 2010 and there-in cited bibliography). Tis phenomenon is calledmultisensory speech perception.

If we want to study the past of certain elements ofhuman speech and language, the similarities and

differences from our closest cousins, apes will beone of the main indicators. Te first research in pri-mate linguistic abilities were based on the incorrectassumption and put emphasis on speech (Furness1916; Hayes 1951), which led to the incorrect con-clusion that other primates do not have the cogni-tive abilities necessary to acquire a complex com-munication system like language. Comparisons ofanatomical features of humans and apes (whichwill be discussed later in the text) clearly show thatthere are reasons why non-human primates wouldnot accept speech as the basic mode of communi-

cation, but it does not say anything about other as-pects of language. However, unlike the limitationsset by differences in the speech apparatus, almost


17/48

17


Waal 2007). tovie, komunikacija gestikulacijama,poput jezika, nije instinktivna i univerzalna, ve seui kulturnom predajom i razlikuje se od populacijedo populacije. ako e skupine iste vrste impanzina razliitim podrujima razviti vlastiti dijalektal-ni sustav gestikulacije, razliit od sustava drugih

skupina (McGrew i utin 1978.).Prekretnicu u istraivanju jezinih sposobnosti ne-ljudskih primata oznaila su istraivanja branogpara Beatrix i Alan Gadner sa impanzom Was-hoe. Washoe je odgajana u njihovoj obitelji kakobi u drutvenom okruenju prola prirodan procesusvajanja amerikog znakovnog jezika (ASL) na-lik onome koji prolaze gluha djeca. U razdoblju oddvije godine Washoe je nauila stotinjak znakovakoje je ubrzo poela kombinirati u smislene fra-ze i imenovati nove stvari kombinirajui poznate

pojmove (vidi Gardner et al. 1989). Kasnija istra-ivanja pokazala su da je tempo usvajanja jezikakod impanzi i ljudi otprilike isti sve do oko dvijegodine starosti, nakon ega impanze stagniraju,dok ljudska djeca poinju ubrzan razvoj jezinihsposobnosti (vidi Lieberman 2000 i tamo citiranuliteraturu). Jo je vanija injenica da je Washoe umeuvremenu znakovnom jeziku nauila i usvo-

jenog sina Lolisa (Dunbar 1996), dok je impanzaLucy uspjeno svoja znanja jezika gluhih prenijeladrugim impanzama (1989). Nadalje, usvajanje ova-kvog naina komunikacije nije dokazano samo na

impanzama. Gorila Koko pokazala je jo zavidnijerezultate i uspjeno je koristila gotovo 700 znakova,nerijetko ih upotrebljavajui u kontekstu prolih ibuduih radnji, te izraavanja emocija (Fouts 1997;Patterson 1978).

Drugi veliki pomak u suvremenim jezinim istrai-vanjima primata uinila je psihologinja Sue Savage-Rumbaugh s bonobom Kanzijem, s kojim je razvilaelaboriran sustav komunikacije temeljen na susta-

vu leksigrama (Savage-Rumbaugh & Lewin 1996).Kanzi, koji je svoje prve pojmove nauio promatra-

jui istraivae koji su pokuavali uiti njegovu maj-

ku, do svoje je este godine nauio oko 200 rijei. Uzto, iznenadio je znanstvenu zajednicu kada je po-kazao mogunost da shvati vrlo specifine naredbekoje dotad nije uo.

Navedeni rezultati potaknuli su val istraivanja je-zinih mogunosti ovjekolikih majmuna te poka-zali kako njihova komunikacija uistinu moe sadr-avati sva odredbena obiljeja ljudskog jezika. osamo po sebi ne znai da ostali primati imaju jezikniti da je njihova jezina sposobnost jednaka ljud-skoj. Razlike su i dalje znatne, no istraivanja su do-

kazala kako ovjekoliki majmuni u odreenoj mjeriposjeduju kognitivne sposobnosti nune za razumi-jevanje i produkciju jezika, kao i osnovne elemen-

all primates have very flexible fists which allow forvery much control over the movement and a largearray of movements. Te sign language used by thedeaf has all elements of language (it is an open andsymbolic system), although the medium it uses isdifferent (it is not transferred by sound, but by ges-

ticulation) (e.g. see Emmorey 2002; Neidle et al.2000). Studies of primate communication in naturepointed to more emphasis being put on gesticula-tion than on vocal communication (Pollick and deWaal 2007). Furthermore, gestural communication,like language, is not instinctive and universal, but islearned through cultural transmission and is differ-ent from population to population. Groups of chim-panzees from different areas will develop their owndialectal system of gesticulation, different fromthe system used by other groups (McGrew and u-tin 1978).

Te study the spouses Beatrix and Alan Gard-ner did on chimpanzee named Washoe were aturning point in the study of linguistic abilities ofnon-human primates. Washoe was raised in theirfamily in order to go through the natural processof acquiring American sign language (ASL) in a so-cial environment, just like the one deaf children gothrough. Over two years, Washoe learned around ahundred signs which she soon started to combineinto meaningful phrases and to name new things bycombining known terms (see Gardner et al.1989).

Later research has shown that the pace of languageacquisition in chimpanzees and humans is almostidentical until the age of two, after which point thechimpanzees stagnate and human children start todevelop their linguistic abilities increasingly (seeLieberman 2000 and therein cited bibliography).Te fact that Washoe taught sign language to theadopted son Lolis is even more important (Dunbar1996), while the chimpanzee called Lucy success-fully transferred her knowledge of sign language toother chimpanzees. Moreover, the acquisition ofthis type of communication has not been proven

exclusively on chimpanzees. Te gorilla Koko dis-played even more impressive results and success-fully used almost 700 signs, commonly using themwhen indicating past and future actions and whenshowing emotion (Fouts 1997; Patterson 1978).

Te second great breakthrough in linguistic re-search on primates was reached by psychologistSue Savage-Rumbaugh with Kanzi the bonobo, withwhich she developed an elaborate system of com-munication based on the system of lexigrams (Sav-age-Rumbaugh & Lewin 1996). Kanzi, who learnedhis first concepts by watching researches trying toteach his mother, learned about 200 words by theage of six. Additionally, he surprised the scientific


18/48

18


te otvorenog sustava te osnovne sintaktike spo-sobnosti (Pollick & de Waal 2007; Lieberman 2000,

vidi tab. 1), to govori u prilog tome da se temeljnipreduvjeti za razvoj jezika javljaju relativno rano,prije odvajanja zadnjeg zajednikog pretka ovih o-

vjekolikih majmuna i ovjeka, iako valja naglasiti da

je razlog pojave, ili prvotna funkcija u tih drevnihhominida mogla biti nevezana uz jezik.

No iako su osnovne strukture, ili preduvjeti, koje ka-snije nalazimo utkane u razvoj govora i jezika posto-

jale ve vrlo rano, od svih primata samo ovjek imasve elemente modernog jezika i samo ovjek slui segovorom kao osnovnim oblikom jezine komunika-cije. Razlozi za to oiti su u anatomskim strukturama

vezanim uz produkciju govora i jezika koje su vidljiveu suvremenih ljudi, a nedostaju, ili se razlikuju od,

ovjekolikih majmuna i ostalih primata. Stoga govori u potpunosti moderan jezik valja traiti u vremenu

community when he displayed the ability to under-stand very specific orders he had never heard before.

Te listed results sparked a line of research on thelinguistic abilities of apes in order to show that theircommunication can truly contain all features of hu-man language. Tis in itself does not mean that otherprimates have language or that their linguistic abili-ties match those of humans. Te differences are still

significant, but research has shown that apes, to acertain extent, have the cognitive abilities necessaryfor the understanding and production of language, aswell as basic elements of an open system and syn-tactic abilities (Pollick & de Waal 2007; Lieberman2000, see tab. 1), which supports the assumptionthat the basic preconditions for the developmentof language appeared relatively early, before the last

separation of the last common ancestor of these apesand humans, although the reason for the emergence,

ablica 1: Usporedba odredbenih obiljeja komunikacije kod ljudi i ovjekolikih majmuna prema Hockettu (1996). Podaci prema Fedurek& Slocobe 2011; Dolhinow & Fuentes 1999.

able 1: A comparison of defining features of communication in humans and apes according to Hockett (1996); data taken from Fedurek& Slocobe 2011; Dolhinow & Fuentes 1999

Design feature

Glasanje majmuna iovjekolikih majmuna/Vocal Communication

(Apes & Monkeys)

Znakovni jezik - ovjekolikimajmuni/Sign

Language -Apes

Znakovni jezik - ljudi/Sign Language -

Human

Ljudski govoreniJezik/ Spoken

Language

Glasovno-sluni kana/Vocal auditory channel

Yes No No Yes

Posvudanji prijam iusmjereni prijenos/

Broadcast transmissionYes Yes Yes Yes

Zamiranje/ Rapid fading Yes Yes Yes YesMeurazmjenjivost/Interchangeability Yes Yes Yes YesPotpuna povratna

sprega/ otal feedbackYes No No Yes

Specijaliziranost/Specialization

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Semantinost/Semanticity

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Arbitrarnost/Arbitrariness Yes Limited Mostly yes Yes

Razluivost/Discreteness

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Premoivanjerazdaljine/

Displacement

No Yes Yes, frequently Yes, frequently

Produktivnost/Productivity/Openness

Yes Limited Yes Yes

Kulturni prijenos/Cultural ransmission

Unknown Yes Yes Yes

Dvostruka ralanjenost/Double articulation

Species-dependent Yes Yes Yes

La/ Lie Species dependent, li-mited

Yes Yes Yes

Refleksivnost/Reflexivity

No Unknown Yes Yes

Uljivost/ Learnability No Yes Yes Yes


19/48

19


nakon odvajanja od ostalih ovjekolikih majmuna,unutar evolucijske prolosti plemena hominini (po-evi prije otprilike 5-6 milijuna godina, za detaljnijipregled suvremene taksonomije vidi Jankovi & Ka-ravani 2009) te ga temeljiti na anatomskim struktu-rama vezanim uz kognitivne elemente komunikacije,

govora i jezika (neuralne strukture) i izvedbene ele-mente (prvenstveno anatomija govornog aparata).

Anatomija govora i jezika

Poetkom 19. stoljea bilo je vrlo popularno pove-zivati odreene regije i strukture mozga uz razliiteaspekte ponaanja na emu se temelji (pseudo)znanstvena teorija frenologije. Ekstremni zagovor-nici tog pristupa idu toliko daleko da pokuavajutipizirati moralne i druge karakteristike pojedinaca

na temelju fenotipskih odlika lubanje. Frenologija jeodjek imala i u lingvistikim prouavanjima, pose-bice na temelju istraivanja i medicinskih zapaanjadvojice lijenika: Paula Broce i Carla Wernickea.Godine 1861. Broca je opisao pacijente s otee-njem frontalnog dijela neokorteksa (danas pozna-tom kao Brocina regija) koji su pokazali potekoeu produkciji jezika. Kod anatomski modernih ljudiBrocinim se podrujem nazivaju Brodmanova po-druja 44 i 45 u eonom renju (sl. 1). Ozljeda ovogdijela mozga najee rezultira Brocinom afazijom,govornim poremeajem koji se oituje kroz agrama-tizam i potekoe u produkciji jezika, ali ne i u nje-govoj recepciji. Osobe s Brocinom afazijom tako esavreno dobro razumjeti tui govor ili, primjerice,proitani tekst. U govoru im, meutim, esto nedo-staju eljene rijei, a reenice su kratke, jednostavne,isprekidane te najee bez gramatikih rijei poputpomonih glagola. Ljudi koji pate od ove afazijeimaju potpunu povratnu spregu, to znai da uju iprepoznaju svoje pogreke te su esto frustrirani ra-zlikom izmeu zamiljenog i ostvarenog (Dronkerset al. 2000). Iz tog razloga pretpostavlja se kako je

Brocino podruje zadueno uglavnom za produkci-ju jezika te fonoloko procesuiranje. O tonoj uloziBrocinog podruja kad je rije o jeziku postoji mno-go teorija i jo je uvijek predmet rasprave. Osim lin-gvistike uloge, Brocino podruje, tonije podruje44 u Brocinom podruju, zadueno je i za koordi-naciju ruke pri kompleksnim pokretima, senzori-motorno uenje i integraciju (Binkofski & Buccino2004), a pretpostavlja se da igra odreenu ulogu iu snalaenju u vremenu. Zbog motorikih funkcijakoje obavlja, smatra se da se ovo podruje razvilo izmotorikog asocijativnog korteksa (Wilkins 2009).

Mozak ostalih primata takoer pokazuje odreenuasimetriju u frontalnom renju te se pretpostavljada bi podruje oznaeno kao F5 zbog svoje funkcije

and the primary function of these ancient hominidscould have been unrelated to language.

However, although the basic structures, or precon-ditions, which we later see woven into the develop-ment of speech and language, existed very early, onlyhumans display all elements of modern language andonly humans use speech as the basic mode of linguis-tic communication. Te reasons for it are apparentin the anatomical structures connected to the pro-duction of speech and language visible in modernhumans, and are lacking or differ from those of apesand other primates. Hence, speech and completelymodern language should be sought for in the periodswhen the human lineage separated from other apes,within the evolutionary history of the tribe hominini(beginning approximately 5 and 6 million years ago,for a detailed discussion on contemporary taxonomysee Jankovi & Karavani 2009), and should be basedon anatomical structures connected to the cognitiveelements of communication, speech and language(neural structures) and performativity (primarily theanatomy of the speech apparatus).

The anatomy of speech andlanguage

At the beginning of the 19thcentury it was very pop-ular to connect certain regions and brain structures

to different aspects of behavior the basis of the(pseudo)scientific phrenology. Extreme supportersof this approach go so far as to try and typify moraland other characteristics of individuals based on thephenotypic characteristics of their skulls. Phrenolo-gy also influenced linguistic studies, especially basedon research and medical observations of two doc-tors: Paul Broca and Carl Wernicke. In 1861, Brocadescribed patients with damage on the frontal partof the neocortex (today known as Brocas region)which displayed difficulties with language produc-tion. In anatomically modern humans, Brocas area

covers Brodmans regions 44 and 45 in the frontallobe (fig. 1). An injury to this part of the brain mostoften results in Brocas aphasia, a speech impairmentdisplayed through agrammatism and difficulties inlanguage production, but not reception. Personswith Brocas agrammatism will be able to perfectlyunderstand someone elses speech or, for example,will be able to read a text. In speech, however, theyoften lack key words, and their sentences are short,simple, discontinuous and most often without gram-matical words such as auxiliary verbs. People suffer-ing from this type of aphasia have complete feed-

back, which means that they hear and recognizetheir mistakes and are often frustrated by the dif-ference between what they imagined and what they


20/48

20


i smjetaja moglo biti homologno ili pretea Broci-nog podruja (Rizzolati & Arbib 1998; Binkofski &Buccino 2004). Posljednja istraivanja pokazala sukako se Brocino podruje kod ljudi te podruje F5kod ovjekolikih majmuna posebno aktiviraju priplaniranju pokreta prinoenja ustima (Gentilucci et

al. 2011). Pritom se i otvaranje prstiju i usta simul-tano prilagoava veliini predmeta, to predstavlja

vrlo istananu koordinaciju i motoriku. Iz tog razlo-ga, neki autori smatraju kako je upravo taj neuralnimehanizam stvorio temelj za prenoenje motorikihuzoraka signaliziranja rukama na sustav artikulacijeustima, omoguivi tako funkcionalno prebaciva-nje komunikacije na vokalni modalitet i formiranjemogunosti govora (Gentilucci et al. 2011). 1874.godine Wernicke je na temelju zapaanja ustanovioda oteenja na posteriornom dijelu korteksa (danaspoznatom kao Wernickeova regija, sl. 1) uzrokuju

potekoe u razumijevanju govora. Wernickeovopodruje smjeteno je u temporalnom renju nadijelu Brodmannova podruja 22, neposredno doauditornog korteksa. Glavna mu je funkcija proce-suiranje i recepcija jezika - bilo govora, znakovnog

jezika ili pisma. Ozljeda ovog podruja uzrokujeistoimenu afaziju koja se manifestira besmislenim,ali potpuno tenim, ritminim te sintaktiki tonimreenicama. Za razliku od ljudi pogoenih Broci-nom afazijom, oni koji pate od Wernickeove estone mogu percipirati vlastite pogreke u pismu iligovoru niti razumjeti govor drugih (Dronkers et al.

2000). Komparativna su istraivanja pokazala kakou temporalnom renju ovjekolikih majmuna po-stoji asimetrija koja odgovara lokaciji Wernickeovapodruja u ljudi (Hopkins et al.1998). Na temeljuBrocinih i Wernickeovih zapaanja, postavljen jetzv. Lichtheimov model prema kojem se govor kojiujemo procesuira u Wernickeovom podruju, na-kon ega informacija putuje do Brocina podrujakoje slui kao regija za ekspresivnu produkciju je-zika (expressive language output device). Naravno,ovo je vrlo pojednostavljen model i kasnija istraiva-nja pokazala su da, iako odreene regije mozga ima-

ju vanu ulogu u procesuiranju odreenih stimula,ili motorikoj kontroli, niti jedna regija nije isklju-ivo odgovorna za sloeno ponaanje. Novija istra-ivanja idu u smjeru razumijevanja komunikacijeodreenih regija koje zajedno ine tzv. funkcionalnineuralni sustav (functional neural system, FNS, ili usluaju jezika funkcionalan jezini sustav, functionallanguage system, FLS). Uloga funkcionalnog jezi-nog sustava je brzo prenijeti, razumijeti i pohranitiinformacije, te ih procesuirati kroz medij jezika (go-

vora). Iako je ljudski mozak vrlo prilagodljiv i premapotrebi moe se prilagoditi na drugaij medij jezi-

nog procesuiranja, njegov osnovni medij je govor.U novije vrijeme, istraivanja su pokazala jo jednuregiju koja potencijalno ima vanu ulogu (izmeu

said (Dronkers et al.2000). Tis is why it is thoughtthat Brocaa area is mostly responsible for languageproduction and phonological processing. Te pre-cise role of Brocas area when it comes to languageis the topic of many discussions and theories. Apartfrom the linguistic function, Brocas area, or area 44

in Brocas area, is responsible for hand coordinationin complex movements, sensory-motoric learningand integration (Binkofski and Buccino 2004), andthere is an assumption that it plays a certain part intime management. Due to the motoric functions itdoes, this area is thought to have developed fromthe motoric associative cortex (Wilkins 2009.). Tebrains of other primates also shows certain asymme-try in the frontal cortex and the area noted as F5, dueto its function and placement, could be homologueto or a predecessor of Brocas area (Rizzolati andArbib 1998; Binkofski and Buccino 2004). Latest re-

search has shown that Brocas area in humans and F5in apes are more active when planning movementsbringing something closer to the mouth (Gentilucciet al.2011). Te opening of fingers and the mouthare simultaneously in accordance with the size ofthe object, which requires detailed coordination andmotoric abilities. Tus, some authors state that itwas precisely this neural mechanism which createdthe basis for transferring motoric patterns of handsignalization to the system of mouth articulation, al-lowing for a functional transfer of communication tothe vocal mode and the formation of speech ability

(Gentilucci et al.2011). In 1874, based on his obser-vations, Wernicke established that damage to theposterior part of the cortex (today called Wernickesarea, fig. 1) causes damage in speech understanding.Wernickes area is situated in the temporal lobe onpart of Brodmanns area 22, right next to the audi-tory cortex. Its main function is language, whetherit is speech, sign language or written language, pro-cessing and reception. An injury to this part of thebrain causes Wernickes aphasia, which is manifestedthrough producing meaningless but completely flu-ent, rhythmic and syntactically correct sentences.

Unlike people suffering from Brocas aphasia, thosewho suffer from Wernickes aphasia often cannotperceive their own mistakes in writing or speech andcannot understand the speech of others (Dronkers etal.2000). Comparative research has shown that thetemporal lobe of apes displays an asymmetry in theregion equivalent to Wernickes area in human (Hop-kins et al. 1998). Based on Brocas and Wernickesobservations, the so called Lichtheim model was de-

vised, according to which the speech we hear is pro-cessed in Wernickes area, after which informationtravels to Brocas area which is in fact an expressive

language output device. Naturally, this is a simplifiedmodel and later research has shown that, althoughcertain areas of the brain play an important role in


21/48

21


ostalog) u razvoju jezinih sposobnosti, a nalazi se upodruju parijetalno-okcipitalno temporalnog spo-

jita (PO). Podruje PO najudaljenije je od svihsenzornih podraaja te obuhvaa Brodmannova po-druja 39, 40 te dio podruja 22, na kojem se nalazii Wernickeovo podruje (sl. 1). Kod anatomski mo-dernih ljudi to je najrazvijenije asocijacijsko podru-

je, zadueno za interpretaciju podraaja te usko po-vezano s jezinom kognicijom i ponaanjem, kakoreceptivnim, tako i produktivnim. Mozak ostalihprimata ne pokazuje nikakve naznake proirenja uovom dijelu mozga koji bi mogli odgovarati PO-u (Wilkins 2009). Kako se razvilo posljednje, nakonodvajanja od posljednjeg zajednikog pretka, pret-postavlja se da se razvilo kao odgovor na neke novepotrebe koje u ranijih primata nisu bile prisutne.

Kada je rije o evoluciji jezika, jedna od vanijihtema rasprava vodi se oko pitanja je li pojava ljud-skog jezika u svojim samim poecima bila vokal-ne ili gestikularne prirode (Arbib 2005; omasello2008; Riede et al.2005; Zuberbhler 2005; Hewes1973). Iako komparativna istraivanja djelomino

podravaju oba stajalita, vokalizacija i govorni jezikimaju nekoliko bitnih prednosti. Ponajprije, zvunisignal u sluaju opasnosti mnogo je uinkovitiji iprivlai vie pozornosti na govornika, a vokalna ko-munikacija omoguava istovremenu interakciju s

vie lanova grupe ak i u uvjetima koji su iznimnonepovoljni za komunikaciju gestama, poput mraka,

velike udaljenosti izmeu sugovornika te fizikih ilidrutvenih prepreka (Fedurek & Slocombe 2011).Anatomija koja omoguava govor stoga je iznimnobitna u prouavanju evolucije jezika.

Fizika produkcija govora zapoinje disanjem, to jeglavno pokretako sredstvo vokalizacije. Kod ana-tomski modernih ljudi u procesu disanja glavnu ulo-

processing certain stimuli or motoric control, no sin-gle area is exclusively responsible for complex behav-ior. Recent research focuses on understanding com-munication between certain areas which, together,make up the functional neural system, FNS, or, incase of language, the functional linguistic system,FLS. Te role of the functional linguistic system is toquickly transfer, understand and store informationand process them through the medium of language(speech). Although the human brain is very flexibleand can, if needed, adapt to a different medium oflanguage processing, its basic medium is speech.

Recently, research has shown another area which po-tentially has an important role (among other things)in the development of linguistic abilities, and is situ-ated in the parietal-temporal-occipital association

area (PO). PO is an area furthest from all sensorystimuli and includes Brodmanns areas 39, 40 andpart of area 22, including Wernickes area (fig. 1).In anatomically modern humans, this is the mostdeveloped association area, responsible for stimuliinterpretation and closely related to linguistic cog-

nition and behavior, both receptive and productive.Te brains of other primates do not show traces ofwidening in this part of the brain which would beequivalent to PO (Wilkins 2009). As it developedlast, after the last common ancestor separation, it issupposed to have developed as a reaction to somenew needs earlier primates did not have.

When it comes to language evolution, one of theimportant discussions revolves around the questionof whether the emergence of human language in itsbeginnings was vocal or gestural in nature (Arbib2005; omasello 2008; Riede et al.2005; Zuberbh-ler 2005; Hewes 1973). Although comparative re-search partially supports both standpoints, vocali-

Slika 1: Poloaj Brocine, Wernickeove, PO regije i Brodmanovih podruja koje se spominju u tekstu (modificirano prema MontrealNeurological Institute).

Figure 1: Te positions of Brocas, Wernickes, and PO areas and Brodmanns areas mentioned in the text (modified from the MontrealNeurological Institute).


22/48

22


zation and verbal language have several importantadvantages. Firstly, a sound signal in case of dangeris more efficient and attracts more attention to thespeaker, and vocalized communication enables for acontemporaneous reaction of more group memberseven in conditions which are extremely bad for ges-

tural communication, e.g. darkness, great distancesbetween speakers and physical or social barriers(Fedurek & Slocombe 2011). Te anatomy which al-lows for speech to exist is, therefore, extremely im-portant in the study of language evolution.

Te physical production of speech starts withbreathing, the main motivator of vocalization.In anatomically modern humans, the process ofbreathing is made possible by intercostal muscleswhich, by contracting, help open the chest cavity.Te control of intercostal muscles is also the control

of the subglottic pressure which allows for sayinglonger lines of words or sentences in a single breath,as well as for accentuating certain units of speechand speech intonation, all extremely importantcharacteristics of human spoken language. Inter-costal muscle control is achieved through the brainstem, that is, gray matter where the main projec-tion neurons, motoneurons, are situated. Teir ax-ons reach all striated muscles, including the inter-costal ones (Krmpoti-Nemani &Marui 2004).Te size of the vertebral canal is directly connectedto the thickness of the brain stem (MacLarnon &

Hewitt 1995), and the brain stem thickness is con-nected to the amount of gray matter (MacLarnon1993). Smaller amounts of grey matter, therefore,mean less control over striated muscles.

Te acoustic energy created by breathing first travelsthrough supralaringeal vocal tract which continu-ally changes its shape creating different sound pat-terns. Te supralaringeal vocal tract includes the oraland nasal cavities, the pharynx and the larynx (fig.2). Te oral cavity contains the tongue. Te curvedend of the tongue goes down into the pharynx (Fitch

2000). Te pharynx is perpendicular to the oral cav-ity and is, in anatomically modern humans, equal inlength (Lieberman 2007). Te larynx of anatomicallymodern humans is somewhat lower and stretchesfrom the upper part of the fourth to the lower partof the sixth vertebra. In nonhuman primates, as wellas in human infants, the larynx is placed high in thethroat (see Lieberman & McCarthy 1999), which al-lows for contemporaneous breathing and swallow-ing important for mammals. However, this reducesthe span of sounds which can be produced. Duringgrowth and development in humans, the larynx

moves downwards and reaches its final span betweenthe age of 3 and 4 (Sasaki et al.1977; Fitch 2000; Ni-shimura et al. 2008). In combination with the high

gu imaju interkostalni miii koji svojom kontrak-cijom ire prsnu upljinu. Kontrola interkostalnihmiia ujedno je i kontrola subglotalnog pritiska kojiomoguava izgovor duih nizova rijei ili reenice u

jednom izdisaju kao i naglaavanje pojedinih jedinicagovora te kontrolu intonacije, to su iznimno bitne

karakteristike ljudskog govornog jezika. Upravljanjeinterkostalnim miiima vri se preko kraljeninemodine, tonije, sive tvari u kojoj se nalaze glavniprojekcijski neuroni motoneuroni - iji se aksonipruaju do svih poprenoprugastih miia, meuostalim i interkostalnih (Krmpoti-Nemani & Ma-rui 2004). Veliina vertebralnog kanala izravno jepovezana s debljinom kraljenine modine (Mac-Larnon & Hewitt 1995), a relativna debljina kralje-nine modine s koliinom sive tvari u grai (Mac-Larnon 1993). Manja koliina sive tvari tako znai i

manju kontrolu nad poprenoprugastim miiima.Akustika energija koja se stvara disanjem prvoprolazi kroz supralaringalni vokalni trakt koji kon-tinuirano mijenja svoj oblik stvarajui tako razliiteobrasce zvukova. Supralaringalni vokalni trakt sa-stoji se od usne i nosne upljine, drijela i grkljana(sl. 2). U usnoj upljini nalazi se jezik iji se zaoblje-ni kraj lagano sputa u upljinu drijela (Fitch 2000).drijelo je postavljeno okomito na usnu upljinu ikod anatomski modernih ljudi podjednake je du-ine s njom (Lieberman 2007). Grkljan anatomskimodernih ljudi poneto je sputen te se protee od

gornjeg ruba etvrtog do donjeg ruba estog vrat-nog kraljeka. Kod ne-ljudskih primata, kao i kodljudske novoroenadi larinks je smjeten visoko ugrlu (vidi Lieberman & McCarthy 1999), to omo-guava istovremeno disanje i gutanje to je vanoza sisavce. No to ograniava raspon glasova koji semogu producirati. ijekom rasta i razvoja, kod ljudise larinks pomie prema dolje i dostie svoj konaanpoloaj izmeu 3 i 4 godine starosti (Sasaki et al.1977; Fitch 2000; Nishimura et al. 2008). U kombi-naciji s visokim nepcem tako sputen grkljan omo-

guava produkciju najveeg mogueg broja glasova.Mogunosti artikulacije suglasnika uvelike odreu-je poloaj jezine kosti, spojene na hrskavinu pot-poru grkljana. Na nju se veu tri miia (m. geni-oglossus, m. palatoglossus im. mylohyoideus) ija jeuloga pomicanje jezika u usnoj upljini tijekom va-kanja, gutanja i govora. ijekom odrastanja jezinakost se kod ljudi znatno sputa u odnosu na nepce,dok kod ostalih primata ostaje relativno visoko ugrlu. akav poloaj rezultira drugaijim izgledomnavedenih miia i njihovih hvatita, a samim timei drugaijim mogunostima. Oblik i poloaj jezine

kosti kod ovjekolikih majmuna ograniava fleksi-bilnost jezika te rezultira veom udaljenosti izme-u korijena jezika i prednjeg predjela usne upljine,


23/48

23


palate, such a lowered larynx enables the productionof the largest possible number of sounds. Te abilityto articulate consonants is affected by the position ofthe hyoid bone, connected to the cartilage supportof the larynx. It includes three muscles (m. genioglos-

sus, m. palatoglossus and m. mylohyoideus) whichhelp move the tongue in the oral cavity during chew-ing, swallowing and speaking. As people grow up,the hyoid bone is significantly lowered in relation tothe palate, and in other primates it remains relativelyhigh in the throat. Such a position results in differ-ent appearance of the listed muscles and their bases,which means different abilities. Te shape and posi-tion of the hyoid bone in apes limits tongue flexibil-ity and results in a greater distance between the rootof the tongue and the front part of the oral cavity,which is why the tongue cannot reach all parts of theoral cavity. Tis limitation in tongue movement alsomeans that the tongue cannot reach the places wherecertain consonants are produced (Duchin 1990).

In grownup chimpanzees and other nonhuman pri-mates, the larynx is directly connected to the softpalate, and the pharynx is significantly shorter relat-ed to the oral cavity (Negus 1949, Laitman and Rei-denberg 1993: fig. 2). During maturing, the larynx

is somewhat lowered in relation to the palate andrelatively elongates the pharynx (Flgel & Rohen1991). At the same time, however, face prognathismdevelops, additionally elongating the oral cavity andthe tongue, again resulting in a greater difference inlarynx and oral cavity length (Nishimura et al.200.).Tis anatomical feature disables the crossing of thedigestive path and the airway and eliminates theability to inhale food or liquids (Be et al.2002.), butalso greatly limits sound production and the abilityfor verbal communication. Apes have a significantlynarrower thoracic vertebral canal than anatomical-

ly modern humans. Terefore, it is not surprisingthat the sounds and breathing while making soundsin primates is very different from human speech.

to onemoguava da jezik dopre do svih mjesta uusnoj upljini. Ovo ogranienje u pomicanju jezikaujedno znai i da jezik ne dopire do mjesta na koji-ma se tvore odreeni konsonanti u ljudskom jeziku(Duchin 1990).

Kod odraslih impanza i ostalih neljudskih prima-ta grkljan se nastavlja neposredno na meko nepce,a farinks je mnogo krai u odnosu na usnu upljinu(Negus 1949, Laitman i Reidenberg 1993: sl. 2). ije-kom sazrijevanja grkljan se donekle sputa u odnosuna nepce i tako relativno produuje drijelo (Flgeli Rohen 1991). Istovremeno se, meutim, razvija iprognatizam lica zbog ega se dodatno produuju

usna upljinu i jezik, to ponovno rezultira veomrazlikom u duljini drijela i usne upljine (Nishimu-ra et al.2006). Ovakav anatomski ustroj onemogu-uje krianje probavnog i dinog puta te eliminiramogunost aspiracije hrane ili tekuina (Be et al.2002), ali takoer uvelike ograniava produkciju gla-sova i mogunosti vokalne komunikacije. ovjeko-liki majmuni imaju znatno ui torakalni vertebralnikanal od anatomski modernih ljudi. Ne udi ondato se glasanje i disanje primata pri glasanju uvelikerazlikuju od ljudskoga govora. Pri disanju neljudskiprimati koriste abdominalne miie i dijafragmu

kako bi upravljali disanjem pri glasanju, dok interko-stalni miii uglavnom nemaju aktivnu ulogu. Kakointerkostalni miii ne sudjeluju aktivno u procesu,

vokalizacija je u primata uglavnom kratka i nemo-dulirana (MacLarnon & Hewitt 1999).

Temelji razumijevanja govora ijezika u prolosti

Fosilna graa

Budui da se jezik ne fosilizira te sve do pojave pi-sma ne ostavlja izravan trag, na uvid u ranu evolu-cijsku prolost jezika (i govora) bit e prilino ogra-

Slika 2: Poloaj grkljana kod impanze i ovjeka (preuzeto iz Krmpoti-Nemani & Marui 2004:276).

Figure 2: Te position of the larynx in chimpanzees and humans (taken from Krmpoti-Nemani&Marui 2004: 276).


24/48

24


nien. Kao jedan od najboljih pokazatelja posluite nam fosilna graa. Budui da smo u prethodnompoglavlju odredili dio anatomskih regija vezanih uz

jezine sposobnosti i produkciju govora, ovdje emona temelju dostupnih fosilnih nalaza pokuati vidjetikada se u ljudskoj evolucijskoj prolosti ti elementi

javljaju. Panju emo posebno obratiti na kranijal-ni kapacitet (odnosno poveanje istog), morfolokeodlike Brocinog i Wernickeovog podruja, no i naostale anatomske detalje koje je mogue vezati uzneke od elemenata govora ili jezinih sposobnosti.

Imajui na umu raznolike funkcije Brocinog i Wer-nickeovog podruja te funkcije podruja iz kojih suse specijalizacijom razvila, ne udi to su u odre-enoj mjeri bila prisutna ve prije pojave plemenahominini. Prethodnici anatomski modernih ljudi,ali i ostalih ivuih primata, morali su imati sposob-

nosti poput snalaenja u vremenu i prostoru, dobrukontrolu nad pokretima te mogunost interpreta-cije zvunih signala te poruka i informacija koje suprimali od drugih pripadnika svoje vrste. Evolucija

je tako iskoristila ove postojee djelie anatomije iprilagodila ih produkciji jezika kada se za to ukazalapotreba. Samo postojanje ovih podruja ili njihovihpretea u zadnjeg zajednikog pretka, meutim, nesvjedoi o njihovoj razvijenosti i ulozi u komunika-ciji, niti o njihovom evolucijskom putu. Odgovor nata pitanja treba potraiti u fosilnim ostacima plio-pleistocenskih hominina.

O anatomiji i organizaciji mozga vie se moe sazna-ti iz vrlo rijetkih prirodnih endokasta ili umjetnihodljeva napravljenih pomou ouvanih lubanja (vidiHolloway et al. 2004). Jo 1972. godine Holloway(1972) je analizirao posebno dobro ouvan endokast

vrste Australopithecus robustus u potrazi za ana-tomskim karakteristikama koje bi mogle upuivatina jezine sposobnosti. Njegove su analize pokazalekako se ve kod ovog ranog hominina javlja reorga-nizacija mozga, oitovana u veem i zaobljenijemupredjelu Brocinog podruja te znatnom poveanju utemporalnom renju na mjestu gdje se kod anatom-

ski modernih ljudi nalazi Wernickeovo podruje.Nalazi pripisani vrstiHomo habilis pokazuju reorga-nizaciju mozga u smjeru anatomski modernih ljudi.Prisutna je cerebralna asimetrija te se u manjoj mjeri

javljaju podruja koja odgovaraju Brocinom, Wernic-keovu podruju te PO-u (obias 1998), a kranijalnikapacitet neto je vei u odnosu na ranije hominine(Deacon 1997), to se povezuje s relativnom velii-nom neokorteksa i mogunosti kompleksnih dru-tvenih interakcija te poveanja zajednice (Dunbar2003; Mithen 1999). Wilkins i Wakefield (1995)

proirili su istraivanje Brocinog podruja analizomnjegovih izvanjezinih funkcija, posebice neuralnekontrole palca, vezanom uz uporabu i proizvodnju

While breathing, nonhuman primates use abdomi-nal muscles and the diaphragm to control breathingwhile making sounds, while the intercostal musclesmostly do not play an active part in that. Since theintercostal muscles do not play an active role in theprocess, primate vocalization is mostly short and

non-modulated (MacLarnon & Hewitt 1999).

THE BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDINGOF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE IN THEPASTFOSSIL RECORD

Since language cannot be fossilized and there are nodirect traces of it until the emergence of writing, ourinsight into the early evolutionary past of language(and speech) will be fairly limited. We will use fossilmaterial as one of the best indicators. In the previous

chapter we determined some anatomic areas con-nected to linguistic abilities and speech production,we will move on to try and see, based on availablefossil remains, when these elements appeared in hu-man evolution. We will put special emphasis on cra-nial capacity (i.e. when it increased), the morphologi-cal features of Brocas and Wercnickes areas, but alsoon other anatomical details which can be connectedto elements of speech or linguistic abilities.

With different functions of Brocas and Wernickesareas in mind which developed through speciali-

zation, it is not surprising that they were presentbefore the appearance of the tribe hominini. Tepredecessors of anatomically modern humans andother living primates, had abilities like time andspace orientation, good movement control andthe ability to interpret sound signals, messagesand information they received from members oftheir species. Evolution made use of these exist-ing anatomical particles and adapted them to lan-guage production when it became necessary. Tesole existence of these areas or their predecessorsin the last common ancestor, however, is not proof

of their development and role in communication,or of their evolutionary path. Te answers to thesequestions should be sought in the fossil record ofPlio-Pleistocene hominins.

We can learn more about the anatomy and organi-zation of the brain from extremely rare endocastsor artificial casts made based on preserved skulls(see Holloway et al.2004). Back in 1972, Holloway(1972) analyzed a well-preserved endocast of thespecies Australopithecus robustus, searching foranatomical characteristics which could indicate lin-guistic abilities. His analyses showed that brain re-

organization appeared in early hominins, apparentthrough a bigger and more curved part of Brocasarea and through a significant increase in the tem-


25/48

25


poral lobe in the place where Wernickes area is inanatomically modern humans.

Finds ascribed to Homo habilis display brain reor-ganization in the direction of anatomically mod-ern humans. Cerebral asymmetry is present and,although smaller, areas appear which are similar toBrocas, Wernickes and PO areas (obias 1998),and the cranial capacity is somewhat larger than inearlier hominins (Deacon 1997), which is connectedto the relative size of the neocortex and abilities ofcomplex social interactions and increase in commu-nity size (Dunbar 2003; Mithen 1999). Wilkins andWakefield (1995) widened research on Brocas areaby analyzing his non-linguistic functions, especiallyneural thumb control, connected to using and mak-ing stone tools which requires hand to eye coordina-tion. Wilkins (2009) suggested a model which states

that motoric areas in early human history coevolvedwith the somatosensory area thanks to selectionwhich favored the ability to produce better tools andhunting from a distance. Some areas developed pre-cisely due to this, including Brocas, Wernickes andparts of the PO areas. Although these anatomicalcomponents did not develop in order to support lin-guistic functions, their development was necessaryfor the emergence of language and speech (Wilkins2009). Wilkinss theory on the development of mo-toric areas which later served as a neural basis forlanguage production were widened by contempo-

rary findings on the rehabilitation of children withcerebral paralysis. Although motoric abilities do notappear to be closely related to linguistic abilities,they are thickly intertwined in the brain. Exercisesfor increasing coordination and developing motoricabilities in children with brain damage can simulta-neously affect linguistic abilities.

Based on fossil material, it is possible to concludethat even more significant changes in brain organi-zation, as well as an increase in cranial capacity,appeared inHomo erectus/ergaster.Dunbar (1996)

kamenih alatki, to zahtjeva koordinaciju oka i ruke.Wilkins (2009) predlae model prema kojem je mo-toriko podruje rano u ljudskoj povijesti koevolu-iralo sa somatosenzornim podrujem zahvaljujuiselekciji koja je favorizirala mogunost bolje izradeorua te lova na daljinu. Podruja koja su se posebno

razvila pritom su Brocino i Wernickeovo podruje tedijelovi PO-a. Iako se ove anatomske komponentenisu razvile kako bi podrale lingvistike funkcije,njihov je razvoj bio nuan za pojavu jezika i govora(Wilkins 2009). Wilkinsovu teoriju o razvoju moto-rikog podruja koje je potom posluilo kao neuralnitemelj za jezinu produkciju podupiru i suvremenespoznaje u rehabilitaciji djece s cerebralnim otee-njima. Iako se motorike funkcije na prvi pogled neine usko povezane s jezinom sposobnosti, u mozgusu gusto isprepletene. Vjebe za poticanje koordina-cije i razvoj motorike kod djece s oteenjem mozga

tako simultano utjeu na razvoj jezine sposobnosti.Na temelju fosilne grae mogue je zakljuiti dasu se jo znaajnije promjene u organizaciji moz-ga, kao i poveanje kranijalnog kapaciteta javilekod taksonaHomo erectus/ergaster.Dunbar (1996)smatra da je u to vrijeme vokalizacija preuzela ulo-gu (Dunbar 1996), iako se suvremena inaica jezika

javlja tek mnogo kasnije i prema Dunbaru (1996)vezana je uz anatomski moderne ljude i pojavu sim-bolike, rituala i religije. Osim poveanja kranijalnogkapaciteta, nalazi pripisani vrstiH. erectus/ergaster

pruaju dokaze i o prisustvu Brocine i Wernickeoveregije (Wynn 1998).

Naglaeno poveanje kranijalnog kapaciteta homi-nina mogue je pratiti u razdoblju izmeu 2 i 1.5milijuna godina prije sadanjosti, nakon ega slijedirazdoblje relativne stagnacije, te ponovo u razdo-blju izmeu 600 000 i 250 000 godina prije sada-njosti, kada je dostignuta dananja vrijednost (Ruffet al.1997). S pojavom vrsteHomo ergastertjelesnamasa poveala se za gotovo 50-70% u odnosi na ra-nije hominine, dok se veliina mozga udvostruila(Key & Aiello 1999, vidi tab.2 i sl. 3).

takson srednja vrijednost (u ml) raspon vrijednosti (u ml)Australopithecus afarensis 445.8 387 - 550Australopithecus africanus 461.2 400 - 560Australopithecus aethiopicus 431.7 400 - 490Australopithecus robustus 493.3 450 - 530Australopithecus boisei 508.3 475 - 545Australopithecus garhi 450 -Homo habilis 610.3 510-687Homo rudolfensis 788 752-825Homo ergaster 800 750-848Homo erectus 951.8 727-1222Homo heidelbergensis 1262.8 1150-1450Homo sapiens neanderthalensis 1427.2 1200-1700

ablica 2: Endokranijalni kapacitet za neke vrste hominina (prema Holloway et al. 2004)

able 2: Te endocranial capacity for some species of hominins (according to Holloway et al. 2004)


26/48

26


states that, at the time, vocaliza-tion took over (Dunbar 1996.),although the contemporary

version of language appearedlater and is, according to Dun-bar (1996), connected to ana-

tomically modern humans andthe appearance of symbolism,rituals and religion. Apart froman increase in cranial capac-ity, finds of H. erectus/ergastergive evidence for the existenceof Brocas and Wernickes areas(Wynn 1998).

A marked increase in hominincranial capacity can be followedin the period between 2 and 1.5

million years before present,after which there is a period ofrelative stagnation, and againin the period between 600 000and 250 000 years before pre-sent, when todays values werereached (Ruff et al. 1997). Teappearance of Homo ergastermeant a 50-70% increase inbody mass in relation to earlier

hominins, and the size of the brain doubled (Key &Aiello 1999, see tab. 2 and fig. 3).

Te increase in cranial capacity, especially the neu-rocortex as the region where information is storedand processed in the basis for developing manycomplex behaviors, relations and developing com-plex language systems (Li 2002). Modern brainorganization and the development of the so calledlinguistic areas created a good foundation for themergence and development of language. Speech,however, required significant anatomical changesto the speech apparatus, one of the basic changesincluded a better control of the intercostal musclesand breathing (although the reasons for this change

were probably also connected to emphasizing theimportance of long-distance running and the like)(see MacLarnon 1993; MacLarnon & Hewitt 1999;2004).

Te anatomical area which can give us insight isthe vertebral canal, that is, its dimensions (for ex-ample, contemporary human populations havebigger vertebral canals than apes). Unfortunately,fossil material for studying this anatomical region(especially in early hominins) is very sparse. Basedon limited finds, Mac Larnon and Hewitt (1999;

2004) concluded that australopithecines membershad more resemblance to other primates than hu-mans. Based on find KNM-W 15000 they con-

Poveanje kranijalnog kapaciteta, posebice neuro-korteksa kao regije u kojoj se spremaju i procesui-raju informacije temelj je razvoja mnogih sloenihponaanja, odnosa, te razvoja sloenog jezinog su-stava (Li 2002). Moderna organizacija mozga i ra-zvoj takozvanih jezinih podruja stvorio je dobrupodlogu za pojavu i razvoj jezika, no za razvoj govo-ra bile su potrebne i znaajne anatomske promjeneu govornom aparatu. Jedna od osnovnih promjenabila je bolja kontrola nad interkostalnim miiima idisanjem (iako su razlozi za ovu anatomsku promje-nu vjerojatno bili vezani i uz naglasak na vanosttranja na duge staze i dr.) (vidi MacLarnon 1993;MacLarnon & Hewitt 1999; 2004).

Anatomska regija koja e nam pruiti uvid u to jevertebralni kanal, odnosno njegove dimenzije (pri-mjerice, suvremene ljudske populacije imaju veedimenzije vertebralnog kanala od ovjekolikihmajmuna). Naalost, fosilna graa za prouavanje

ove anatomske regije (posebice ranih hominina)vrlo je oskudna. Na temelju ogranienih nalazaMac Larnon i Hewitt (1999; 2004) zakljuili su da

Slika 3: Volumen mozga u cm3 za neke vrste hominina (premaDunbar 2009:25) (MYA oznaava milijune godina prijesadanjosti).

Figure 3: Brain volume in cm3 for some species of hominins

Date post:	28-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vedran1980
View:	248 times
Download:	0 times

01 Jankovic Sojer

Documents