Nytemuse wrote: > That would depend. What do you mean by "pivotal"? Exactly what role does > the gene play in establishing language? In this case, it is a gene that affects fine voluntary muscular control of the mouth and larynx. It is a difference in this gene that lets humans have language and chimpanzees (and the rest) _not_ have language. In the area of neuropsychology, by the way, there has been a lot of study of the processing of speech in the brain. (I wanted to say "language," but it's a lot harder to demonstrate language in general than it is to demonstrate speech.) It appears that our language ability is, indeed, hardwired, and I am convinced that further study will only confirm that understanding. The interesting thing in this, for me, is that, given that this is the case, there must be an underlying biological logic to language that is shared by all humans. I was amazed to learn in school that as parents we are very much programmed to _teach_ language to infants, and, in fact, "baby talk" is very nearly the same in all cultures and languages. Given that there is an objective basis for language, I find it difficult to accept that very much at all of it can be truly "subjective," at least in a way that cannot be expressed and explained given sufficient understanding of ourselves. As for the Nature article, check out www.nature.com; registration and certain articles and abstracts are free. -- Frank Mayhar frank at exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/