Zofia Sikorska-Piwowska (Warsaw) Hanna Mańkowska-Pliszka (Warsaw) Antoni Leon Dawidowicz (Cracow) Ewa Ungier
Marta Zalewska (Warsaw)
The speech – a specific feature of the evolution of the modern human (Homo sapiens)
Abstract The specific feature of humans, that distinguishes them from the ani- mal world, is the speech. The speech is a form of communication in which we use comprehensive signs to express verbally ourselves and the surrounding reality. This definition imposes the opinion that the origin of the speech can be considered from the appropriately high level of the brain development. In order to trace the evolution of the ability to speak among the Primates, the measurements of the superofacial triangle of the splanchnocranium, according to Martin and Saller [16], were carried out. The triangle characterises the distribution of the organs responsible for ar- ticulation of the sounds. The mathematical analysis concerned i.a. the descriptive statistics of the measurements, illustrated with the bar charts. On this basis, the Mahalanolobis’ distances between the examined taxons of primates were measured and presented graphically in form of the discriminant analysis. The applied model helped to divide entirely the monkey and apes from the Hominidae, and to form two clusters of taxons. The conclusion is that the ability to speak is a sign of a quality change in the evolution of the Primates that led to the Homo sapiens form.
For example both Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis used to speak like Homo sapiens. Animals do not use such a wide spectrum of recognizing the surrounding reality and their interactive communication is based on the experience and instinct.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 00A06.
Key words and phrases: anthropometric examination of the origin of speech con- ditions, evolution of speech in primates, Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis used to speak like Homo sapiens.
1. Introduction
The specific feature of humans, that distinguishes them from the animal world, is the speech. The speech is a form of communication in which we use comprehensive signs to express verbally ourselves and the surrounding reality. From the linguistic point of view, the speech is defined as a system of conventional signs produced by the speech organs of the human and used to communicate about everything [7].
This definition imposes the opinion, that the origin of the speech can be
cosidered from the appropriately high level of the brain development. This
level is designated by the existence of the preadaptive morphological struc- tures of the cortex, which probably form not before than in Hominidae. The structures are: the motor speech area of Broca localised in the inferior gyrus of frontal lobe as well as the sensory speech area, responsible for understand- ing the speech and the visual area responsible for understanding the writing, localized in the inferior parietal lobule and the superior temporal gyrus [7].
These speech areas are responsible for the correlation of thoughts with the signs, what results in assignment a word to the symbol, what can be then said or written. Damages of the brain in the frontoparietal or temporal areas result in aphasias (functional impairments) [7,9].
The anthropological examinations of the internal surface of the neuro- cranium castings confirmed that the motor speech area was present already in Sinantrop (HOMO ERECTUS ). The origin of the speech areas (motor, sensory and visual) can be explained by the tendency to increase the com- plexity of the brain of the delayed myelinization of neurons [5]. For this reason the similar weight of the chimpanzee and human brain does not ex- plain the intellectual differences between them. The miniaturization of the neurons increased the perceptive surface of the brain to such an extent, that the decomposed human cortex can cover the dome of the St. Peter’s Basilic, whereas the chimpanzee’s cortex only the surface of the ordinary table [23].
According to Fijalkowski and Bielicki [5], the brain volume increased expo- nentially from 2 millions to 300 000 years ago, what makes this increase the most rapid evolutional process.
The anatomical and physiological basis of the human speech relates also to the construction of the upper and lower respiratory tract, that specifically developed in the process of becoming a two-legged creature. As it is known, the voice is produced by the column of the expiratory air, causing the trem- bling of the vocal cords of the larynx. The lower position of the larynx allows breathing through mouth as well as speaking at the same time. The mus- cles of the larynx close and open the rima glottidiis to make the air vibrate.
During resonation of voice, the complex system of the air cavities opening into the nasal cavity works. These are frontal sinus as well as maxillary, ethmoidal and sphenoidal sinuses. The teeth also play an important role in articulation of the speech. The first teeth erupt in sixth month, whereas the entire decidual tooth eruption is completed at the age of two years and at this time the child learns to speak.
The voice producing apparatus is situated in agreement with the right
angle between the long axes of the head and the trunk. However, it causes a
possibility to choke as a result of crossing of the respiratory and alimentary
tract, what is a price for the erect position of Hominidae and the ability to
speak. Together with the erect position of human body, during which the
pharynx is placed perpendicularly to the long axis of the nasal cavity and
oral cavity, the epiglottis descends downwards. As a result, the mechanism
that separates the alimentary and the respiratory tract is less excellent than in animals, in which the spaces lie in the horizontal axis. In the ontogenesis of the four-legged position of the animals, the right angle between the long axis of the head and the trunk in fetuses changes into the angle of 180
◦. It demands four points of the trunk support in opposition to the two points in two-legged locomotion in human. Nevertheless, the position of the pharynx at the right angle in relation to the nasal cavity in Hominidae was compensated by gaining the articulated speech. According to Bolk [1], retaining of this angle means the developmental retardation of the modern human and is one of factors of the evolution.
In Hominidae, the superior wall of the oral cavity is formed by the hard palate elongated posteriorly into the soft palate. The position of the soft palate is changeable. During the calm breathing, it hangs downward almost vertically separating the oral cavity from the pharynx. During speaking or swallowing it elevates, touching at the right angle the posterior wall of the pharynx. It separates then the nasopharynx from the oropharynx what makes the oral cavity to communicate broadly with the pharynx. The tensor veli palatini muscle elevates it superiorly and tenses it, do it becomes rigid. This change of the resonation surface influences producing of the sounds – the speech and singing. When food gets to the larynx, it is thrown back away due to the cough reflex, which is caused by the irritation of the vagus nerve.
Although the voice is produced in the larynx, the characters are formed in the additional tube above the larynx. The shape of this tube in human is very variable and gives the appropriate tone to the speech. For example, during saying “e”, the pharynx shortens and widens to the maximum and the expiratory air flow directs to the palate. Also the position of the pharynx, tongue and lips play a huge role in forming the characters. Forming of the most consonants depends on the place in which the tongue touches the walls of the oral cavity. However, the “m” and “n” sounds are formed in the nasal cavity.
The anatomical elements mentioned above are within the dimensions of the superofacial triangle which is a part of the Morant’s and Sergi’s index [16], which characterizes the mutual proportions between the neurocranium and the splanchnocranium (Fig. 1).
It is possible to suppose that the direct measurements of the splanchnocra- nium, which characterize the triangle, are the exponent of the developmental pattern of cranial features, which determines the development of the speech in human.
The human using the speech, uses also the body language to communi- cate. It is particularly visible in the language of primitive nations. It means that the understanding of the other people is multiplanar, including the ar- ticulated speech plane.
In disfunctions such as the deafness, the visual speech develops. It allowes
Figure 1: The examined dimensions that determine the superofacial triangle of the splanchnocranium
Legend: n-ba (5), ba-pr (40), n-pr (48). The descriptions and numeration of these dimensions are explained in Martin’s and Saller’s study (1957).
to learn how to understand words on the basis of the lips motions. At this time, the activated brain regions are the same as in normally hearing people [9]. In monkeys and apes, the way of communication is modulated sounds of variable timbre and intensity, as well as the mimics of the face. Apart from that, howlers, gibbons and orangutans have special resonators of voice such as pneumatic hyoid bone or pharyngeal sacks. The emitted sounds are the reflection of their emotions, so of the subjective states.
The systems of communication are one of the surviving strategy elements in animals, increasing their chance to survive. When developing the ability to speak, a human uses the imitation of sounds, what can not be confirmed in young apes. They follow only the visual stimuli and are able to imitate the activities. Hence the possibility to learn the sign language in e.g. orangutans.
It is supposed that the process of thinking develops independently from
the development of speech [11], [26]. In human, the function of the speech has
stepped over the behavioral strategies, however it still remains as a strategic
weapon. Moreover, the developed human speech allowes a human to live in
three time domains: past, present and future, as it emphasised St. Augustin
[13], broadening the ego with memories, using new conceptions in the present
and theoretical planning in the future. The animal species do not have such a wide range of recognition of the surrounding reality, what is manifested by the interactive ways of communication based mostly on the experience and instinct.
The aim of the study is to present the hominizational tendencies of the cranium features of Primates that lead from the preadaptative structures to the adaptative ones that give the ability to speak. These tendencies are considered starting from baboons, then through gibbons and apes ending at Hominidae.
2. Material and methods The study was performed on 68 skulls of primates. The skulls were assigned to the taxons containing different gen- era and species of primates. They were distinguished by Sikorska-Piwowska, Zalewska, Tomczyk, Dawidowicz and Mańkowska-Pliszka [21]. The taxons are as follows: PAPIO (PAP) – baboons (7 skulls), HYLOBATES (HYL) – gibbons (7 skulls), PAN – chimpanzees (15), PONGO (PON) – orangutans (5 skulls), GORILLA (GOR) – gorillas (13 skulls). Human skulls were as- signed taxons by Sikorska-Piwowska, Zalewska, Tomczyk, Dawidowicz and Mańkowska-Pliszka [21] The taxons are follows. AUMAS (AUM) – massive australophiteci (3 skulls), H. HABILIS (H. HAB) – gracile australophiteci (4 skulls), H. ERECTUS (H. ERE) – pithecanthropus (4 skulls), H. HEI- DELBERGENSIS (H. HEI) – neanderthal men (4 skulls), HOMO SAPIENS (H. SAP) – modern humans (6 skulls). Skulls of monkeys and apes were measured by Sikorska-Piwowska at the Institute of Paleontology and at the Laboratory of Comparative Anatomy in Paris. This set of skulls was collected in the years 1943-60. The skull measurements of hominids were performed by Tomczyk on the collection belonging to the Institute of Anthropology at Cardinal Stephan Wyszynski University. The collection included plastic casts made by the company Bone-Clones.
According to the rules of the numerical taxonomy, because of the rareness of the material [2], every taxon is equivalent with the random probe [22].
The examined dimensions that determine the superofacial triangle of the splanchnocranium are: n-ba (5), ba-pr (40), n-pr (48). The descriptions and numeration of these dimensions are explained in Martin’s and Saller’s study [16]. They are presented in Fig. 1.
All the skulls were assigned to the adult age (adultus) on the basis of the permanent teeth eruption [19]. The statistical calculations were carried out for each measurement separately. In Tab. 1, the average values of n-ba variable are shown.
The tests confirming the significances were performed – Kruskall–Wallis
test [12] for the ranks between taxons (Tab. 2) and median test (Tab. 3),
with the critical level of p = 0, 000003. Both Kruskal-Wallis rank test and
Mood’s median test verify the null hypothesis H
0: all subpopulations have
the same probability distribution versus the alternative hypothesis H
1: at
Table 1: The mean value for the feature n-ba.
taxon Count Mean Homogenous Groups
02- HYL 7 64,2 X
07-H-HAB 4 79,5 X
01-PAP 7 82,3 X
04-PON 5 91,1 X X
10-H-SAP 6 98,5 X
03-PAN 15 99,9 X
08-H-ERE 4 101,5 X
06-AUM 3 102,7 X X
09-H-HEI 4 115,0 X X
05-GOR 13 124,2 X
Legend: Significance: n-ba, method: 95.0 percent LSD
least two among the subpopulations have different probability distributions.
The results of similar computations for n-pr and ba-pr are omitted because of the space limitations.
Table 2: Kruskal-Wallis Test for n-ba by taxon taxon Sample Size Average Rank
01-PAP 7 14,7143
02-HYL 7 4,21429
03-PAN 15 36,5667
04-PON 5 23,4
05-GOR 13 59,8077
06-AUM 3 41,6667
07-H HAB 4 13,125
08-H ERE 4 38,5
09-H HEI 4 55,375
10-H SAP 6 36,25
Legend: Signnificance: Test statistic = 56, 2143 p-value = 7, 14326 · 10
−9Confidence intervals presented in Table 3 are classical nonparametric con- fidence interval for the population median based on order statistics. Binomial probabilities are computed as in the exact Fisher test. They are computed only for PAN and GOR because the sample sizes of other taxons are insuffi- cient.
The analyzed measurements are also illustrated by box and whisker plots
Table 3: Mood’s Median Test for n-ba by taxon
taxon Sample n ≤ n > Median 95,0% lower 95,0% upper
Size CL CL
01-PAP 7 7 0 81,5
02-HYL 7 7 0 63,0
03-PAN 15 6 9 99,0 94,6782 104,5
04-PON 5 5 0 89,5
05-GOR 13 0 13 124,5 109,486 135,5
06-AUM 3 1 2 105,0
07-H HAB 4 4 0 79,5
08-H ERE 4 2 2 98,5
09-H HEI 4 0 4 113,5
10-H SAP 6 2 4 100,5
Legend:
Total n = 68
Grand median = 98,25
Significance: Test statistic = 41,6 p-Value = 0,00000388861
(Fig. 2–4).
Figure 2
Rank correlation coefficients [10] were also applied in our research. Such coefficients only use object ordering in terms of the size of particular features.
Kendall’s tau coefficient based on ranks is a measure of correlation of two
ordinal level variables. Correlation between pairs of direct skull measure-
ments of the primates studied was expressed with the help of this coefficient
Figure 3
Figure 4
(Fig. 5).
Rank correlation coefficient was calculated according to following defini- tion:
Let (x
1, y
1), (x
2, y
2), . . . , (x
n, y
n) be a set of observations of the joint random
variables X and Y respectively, such that all the values of (x
i) and (y
i) are
unique. Any pair of observations (x
i, y
i) and (x
j, y
j) are said to be concor-
dant if the ranks for both elements agree: that is, if both x
i> x
jand y
i> y
jor if oth x
i< x
jand y
i< y
j. They are said to be discordant, if x
i> x
jand
y
i< y
jor if x
<x
jand y
i> y
j. If x
i= x
jor y
i= y
j, the pair is neither
Figure 5: Correlation between examined taxon features.
Legend: Symbol
”1” denotes significant positive correlation;
”-1” – significant negativ correlation
”0” – no significant correlation (at the significance level 0.05).
graf. Witold Nazarkiewicz
concordant nor discordant. The Kendall [10] τ coefficient is defined as:
τ = (number of concordant pairs) − (number of discordant pairs)
1
2
n(n − 1)
In order to unite the informations from the performed calculations, the dis- criminant analysis was carried out [25]. It allowed to find the differences between the taxons on the basis of the Mahalanobis distances [14]. The dis- tances are described in Tab. 4 , and were calculated according to the following formula.
d(x
i, x
j) = q
(x
i− x
j)
TS
−1(x
i− x
j)
Table 4: Mahalanobis’ distanes for taxons.
PAP HYL PAN PON GOR AUM H.HAB H.ERE H.HEI H.SAP
PAP 0.00 7.30 3.76 2.19 5.04 8.47 7.06 8.28 9.32 8.19
HYL 7.30 0.00 5.59 5.92 8.70 12.15 8.82 10.14 10.99 9.33
PAN 3.76 5.59 0.00 1.69 3.17 8.83 7.11 7.55 8.11 7.15
PON 2.19 5.92 1.69 0.00 3.85 8.95 7.25 8.11 8.90 7.82
GOR 5.04 8.70 3.17 3.85 0.00 8.35 8.10 7.67 7.77 7.61
AUM 8.47 12.15 8.83 8.95 8.35 0.00 3.94 2.95 3.67 3.94 H.HAB 7.06 8.82 7.11 7.25 8.10 3.94 0.00 2.67 4.31 2.54 H.ERE 8.28 10.14 7.55 8.11 7.67 2.95 2.67 0.00 1.66 1.03 H.HEI 9.32 10.99 8.11 8.90 7.77 3.67 4.31 1.66 0.00 2.07 H.SAP 8.19 9.33 7.15 7.82 7.61 3.94 2.54 1.03 2.07 0.00
3. Results Formalization of the connections between the distinguished taxons of Primates was performed using the descriptive statistics for every measured feature of the skull that determines the superofacial triangle. These configurations were confirmed in box and whiskers plots (Fig. ??).
The differences in development of particular dimensions of the splanch- nocranium can be explained by the fact that correlations between these fea- tures are different.
The illustration of correlations (Fig. 5) according to the study of Sikorska- Piwowska, Zalewska, Tomczyk, Dawidowicz and Mańkowska-Pliszka [21], al- lows for comparison between all the pairs of analysed features for the exam- ined taxons. Correlations between n-ba and ba-pr, that is between height and length of the cranial base, are positive in PAPIO, HYLOBATES, PAN, PONGO and GORILLA, whereas negative in H. HABILIS. These correla- tions are absent between H. ERECTUS, H. HEIDELBERGENSIS and H.
SAPIENS. This absence is probably related to the brain development. Cor- relations between n-pr and ba-pr, that is between the length of splanchnocra- nium and cranial base are positive in PAPIO, PONGO, H. HEIDELBER- GENSIS and H. SAPIENS, whereas negative in H. HABILIS. There are no these correlations in GORILLA, AUMAS and H. ERECTUS. From mechan- ical point of view, the longer skull is, the stronger base it must have, what is a solution of balancing of the head on the apex of the vertebral column.
The problem is especially emphasised in advanced Hominidae and monkeys having the need of ground locomotion (baboons) or hanging (HYLOBATES, PAN and PONGO ).
Correlations between features n-ba and n-pr (height and length of splanch- nocranium) are positive in HYLOBATES, PAN, PONGO, H. HABILIS and H. ERECTUS, whereas they are negative in AUMAS. No correlation was found in PAPIO, GORILLA, H. HEIDELBERGENSIS and H. SAPIENS.
It can be explained by the decrease of role of mastication apparatus in these
forms.
Due to the results it was necessary to carry out the discriminant anal- ysis [25] that helped to find the differences between the examined taxons taking in the care the three features n-ba, n-pr, ba-pr. In this analysis, the three-dimensional space related to the superofacial triangle and character- ized by the three direct dimensions was changed into the two-dimensional one. It gave a basis for counting the projections of average values of taxons for the two first elements of the linear discriminant function. The discrim- inant analysis was presented graphically in Fig. 6. From the mathematical
Figure 6: Graphical presentation of the discriminant analysis.
point of view, this method uses the change of coordinate system to make
the autocovariance matrix within taxons being the identity matrix. It helps
to reduce to the minimum the influence of variability within the taxons and
to find the most important diversity between them at the same time. The
statistical calculations mentioned above were carried out with use of the R package (Foundation for Statistical Computing 2006) [18].
In order to distinguish the developmental lines of the examined taxons, the squares of Mahalanobis distances shown in Tab. 4, measuring from 1.2 - class 1 [minimum] to 12.9 - class 10 [maximum], were divided into 10 classes of differences according to the key below:
Class 1 includes the distances 0 − 1.2 Class 2 includes the distances 1.3 − 2.5 Class 3 includes the distances 2.6 − 3.8 Class 4 includes the distances 3.9 − 5.1 Class 5 includes the distances 5.2 − 6.4 Class 6 includes the distances 6.5 − 7.7 Class 7 includes the distances 7.8 − 9.0 Class 8 includes the distances 9.1 − 10.3 Class 9 includes the distances 10.4 − 11.6 Class 10 includes the distances 11.7 − 12.9
This standarization of squares of Mahalanobis’ distances gave a base to form the graphs of connections between the examined taxons for each of them individually. Next to each connection these distances were written down (Fig. 7). On the basis of Fig. 7 the analysis of dendrites of connections was carried out. The connections between the taxons were characterized as classes of differences from 1 – 10. It was observed, that the classes of differences 1 – 5 connect the groups between monkeys and apes together.
The exception is HYLOBATES in its distance measuring 6 from PAPIO and 7 from GORILLA. The classes of differences 6 – 10 separate two groups – monkeys and apes from hominids whereas the classes of differences 1 – 4 connect the taxons of hominids.
In the group of monkeys and apes, the most distant connections are re- lated to HYLOBATES, inside this group as well as outside this group and between the all examined taxons of hominids. What results from this is that the gibbons have its own developmental pathway, different from both monkeys as well as apes. PAPIO is in developmental linege of intermedi- ate ancestors of orangutan and chimpanse (PONGO and PAN ) and slightly distant from GORILLA. The PAN taxon is a central group for development of PONGO and GORILLA. It means that apes take their origini from the primitive forms in relation to chimpanse.
In the group of hominids, the AUMAS is in developmental lineage of
ancestors of H. ERECTUS and H. HEIDELBERGENSIS and slightly farther
from H. HABILIS and H. SAPIENS. The separation of the developmental
line of hominids is seen here. H. HABILIS is related mostly by intermediate
forms to H.SAPIENS than to H. ERECTUS, whereas AUMAS, H.ERECTUS
and H. HEIDELBERGENSIS are in the same developmental lineage. These
relations were also confirmed by Dalton [3].
Figure 7: Graphs of connections between the taxons.
graf. Witold Nazarkiewicz
Legend: Significant 1 - 10 means the clases of differences.
H. ERECTUS is in the centre of development of all the hominids being
mostly related to HOMO SAPIENS and slightly farther from H. HEIDEL-
BERGENSIS. H. HEIDELBERGENSIS is equally related to H.ERECTUS
and H.SAPIENS. Finally, H. SAPIENS is mostly related to H. ERECTUS,
slightly farther to H. HEIDELBERGENSIS and H. HABILIS, being distant
from AUMAS. This fact is in accordance with Vallois [24] and Wolpoff [26]
suggestion, that H.sapiens originated as a distinct lineage completely sepa- rate from that which led to the neanderthals. On the basis of the our two last comparisons, it is possible to conclude that the neanderthals and modern humans have also another forms of australopitheci in their prototypes. The modern human is related to gracile australopithecus, whereas neanderthales to massive australopithecus. Convergent relations between the apes and H.
SAPIENS are mostly significant in the taxons PAN and GORILLA (Fig 5.) 4. Conclusions. The applied mathematical model of cause-effect connections of splanchnocranium morphological features, which determine the speech development, allows for the below presumptions:
• The base of the speech and verbalization development is not only the evolution of the particular brain regions but also the shape of supero- facial triangle, which includes the organs of human speech.
• The discriminant analysis allows to divide entirely the monkeys and apes from hominids into two separate groups except gibbons. The developmental line of gibbons is separated from another examined pri- mates. It means that the speech is a result of the quality jump in evolution of hominids, which was not doubled in other line of primates.
• Within the examined skulls of monkeys, apes and hominids it is pos- sible to track the developmental trends giving the evidence of their poliphyletism.
• The direct measurements included in the superofacial triangle, are dif- ferently correlated in the examined taxons, what states for the different developmental directions of their representatives. Convergence phe- nomena also exist between groups that are phylogenetically distant, or developmental parallelism appears among closely related lines.
• The results of discriminant analysis and box plots allow us to presume that both H. ERECTUS and H. HEIDELBERGENSIS used to speak like H. SAPIENS.
• Some relations between apes and H. SAPIENS could be considered only at the level of convergence phenomenon.
References
[1]
L. Bolk, Die Enstehung des Menschenkinness, Verh.K. Akad. Westehensch 23, 5, (1926).[2]
H. Coate, Overview of Great Apes under the Endangered Species Act, 2011.http://www.animallaw.info/articles/great_apes/ovusgafdesa.htm
[3]
R. Dalton, Fossil finger point to New human species, Nature 464,p.472-473, 2010.[4]
J. Dzik, W poszukiwaniu swoisto?ci człowieka, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kardynała Ste- fana Wyszyńskiego,Warszawa 2008.[5]
K. Fijałkowski and T. Bielicki, Homo przypadkiem sapiens, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa, 2009.[6]
R. A. Fisher, The use of Multiple Measurements in Taxonomic Problems, Annals of Eugen- ics, 7,2, p. 179–188, 1936[7]
H. Gray, Anatomy of the human body, American Editor, ed. By CD., Clementes, Lea and Feliger. Philadelphia. pp. 1040-1041, 1096, 1985.[8]
R. Grzegorczykowa, Cechy swoiste naturalnego j¸ezyka ludzkiego. Swoistość człowieka – J¸ezyk, Jachranka 25-26.06.08, 2008.[9]
St. Heim, St. Opitz, and B. Friederici, Broca’s area in the human brain is involvedin the se- lection of grammaticalgender for language production:evidence from event related funcional- magnetic resonance imaging, Neuroscience letters, vol. 328, n.2, Amsterdam pp. 101-104, 2002.[10]
M.G.Kendall. A New Measure of Rank Correlation. Biometrika, 30, 81-89,1938.[11]
W. Kohlei, Zur psychologie des schimPANsen. Psychologische, Forschung, Berlin, Gottin- gen, Heildelberg, pp. 191-192,134,152-153, 1922.[12]
W. Kruskal, and H.W.A.Wallis, Use of ranks in one-criterion variance Analysis, Jour. of the Am. Stat. Ass. 47 (260), pp. 583–621 , 1952.[13]
Z. Kubiak, Świ¸ety Augustyn – Wyznania, Wyd. Znak, Kraków 2006.[14]
P.C. Mahalanobis, On the generalised distance in statistics, ”Proc. of the Nat. Inst. of Sci.of Ind. 2,149–55, 1936.
[15]
M. Makkuchi, Is Broca’s area crucial for imitation? Neu.Scie.Let. vol.15, n.5, Amsterdam pp.563-570, 2005.[16]
R. Martin, and K.Saller, Lehrbuch der Anthropologie, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgard Band, pp.451, 1957.[17]
J.Raloff, Caste – off Orangs: controversy surrounds implications of a hybrid label, Science News, 147: 184-5,189, 1995.[18]
R package (Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2006).[19]
A.H.Schultz, A.Hofer, and D. Stark, . Postembrionic age changes, In Primatologia, Basel, NY: TJS Karger, 1956.[20]
P.T.Schonemann, Syntax as an emergent characteristic of the evolution of semantic com- plexity, Mind and Machines, nr 9, s. 309-346, 1999.[21]
Z.Sikorska-Piwowska, M.Zalewska, J.Tomczyk, A.L.Dawidowicz, H.Mańkowska - Pliszka, Hominization tendencies in the evolution of primates in multidimensional modeling. Math- ematica Applicanda Vol 42(1) p.93-111, 2014.[22]
P. Sneath, A. Hollos, and R.R. Sokal, Numerical taxonomy. The principles and practice of numerical classification, San Francisco, WH Free Mann, 1973.[23]
Thaillard de Chardin, Rozum i wiara, przekł. M. Tazbir, K. Waloszczyk, Inst. Wyd. PAX, Warszawa, 2003.[24]
H.V. Vallois, La Grotte de Fontechevade. Deuxieme partie. Anthropologie, Arch. L’Inst.Paleont. Hum., Memoir 29, 1958.
[25]
W.N. Venables, and B.D. Ripley, Modern applied statistics with S, Cambridge, Fourth edition, 2002.[26]
M.H. Wolpoff, Vertessollos and the Presapiens Theory, Am. J Phys. Anthrop. 35: 209-216, 1972.[27]
R.M.Yerkes, Creating Sikorka chimpanzee community. The Yale J. of Biol. and Med. 73 (1-6) 221-34, 1963.Mowa - jako swoistość ewolucji człowieka współczesnego (Homo Sapiens)
Zofia Sikorska-Piwowska, Marta Zalewska, Jacek Tomczyk, Antoni Leon Dawidowicz, Hanna Mańkowska-Pliszka
Streszczenie Swoistością człowieka odróżniającą go świata zwierzęcego jest mowa.
Mowa jest formą komunikacji, której nośnikiem są znaki systemowe wyrażające sie- bie i otaczającą nas rzeczywistość w sposób werbalny [8]. Ta definicja narzuca z góry pogląd, że powstanie mowy można rozpatrywać od pewnego, odpowiednio wy- sokiego poziomu rozwoju mózgu. W celu prześledzenia ewolucji zdolności mówienia wśród naczelnych wykonano pomiary trójkąta górno-twarzowego trzewioczaszki we- dług Martina i Sallera [16], określającego rozmieszczenie narządów odpowiedzialnych za artykulację dźwięków w formie głosek.
Opracowanie matematyczne dotyczyło m.in. statystyki opisowej pomiarów zilustro- wanej wykresami pudełkowymi. Obliczono odległości Mahanolobisa między bada- nymi taksonami naczelnych i przedstawiono graficznie w postaci analizy dyskry- minacyjnej. Zastosowany model pozwolił na całkowite oddzielenie małp zwierzo- kształtnych i człekokształtnych od człowiekowatych, tworząc dwa zbiory taksonów.
Wynika z tego, że zdolność mówienia jest znakiem skoku jakościowego w ewolucji czaszek naczelnych, prowadzącej do człowieka współczesnego. Przykładem na to będzie nabycie zdolności mówienia przez formy pitekantropa i neandertalczyka.
Zwierzęta w porównaniu z człowiekiem mają inne rozeznanie otaczającej ich rzeczy- wistości, co się przejawia w interakcyjnych sposobach porozumiewania się opartych głównie na doświadczeniu i instynkcie.
2010 Klasyfikacja tematyczna AMS (2010): 00A06.
Słowa kluczowe: antropometryczne badanie uwarunkowań mowy, ewolucja mowy naczelnych, nabycie zdolności mówienia przez pitekantropa i neandertalczyka.
Zofia Sikorska–Piwowska was born in Warsaw (Poland). She
received her Ph. D. degree in natural science (1966) and habil-
itation (1984) from the University of Warsaw, Department of
Biology. From 1990 she was professor at the Medical Univer-
sity of Warsaw, Faculty of Medicine and from 1995 at the Uni-
versity of Podlasie in Siedlce, Faculty of Agriculture, Institute
of Biology. She retired in 2003 and from that time she has co-worked with math-
ematicians in the field of anthropogenesis on topics like: evolution or creationism,
hominization tendencies in the evolution of primates in multidimensional modelling,
developmental parallelism in primates, evolution of human speech and so on. From
1971 to 1976 she cooperated with the Algerian government as associate professor at
the University of Oran. Since 1978 she has been an active member of the Explo-
ration Society of Warsaw visiting and researching in many countries in South Asia
like: India, Malaysia, Thailand, China, Japan, in South America like: Venezuela,
Equador, the Galapagos Islands, Guyana, Chile and Brasil, in Africa like: Kenya,
Tanzania, Ethiopia and so on.
Marta Zalewska was born in Warsaw. She received her MSc degree in Environmental Engineering from Technical Univer- sity of Warsaw, and then she completed Postgraduate Course in Probabilistic Methods at the Mathematical Institute of Pol- ish Academy of Sciences. She obtained her Ph.D. in 1991 from the Academy of Physical Education in Warsaw (applications of multivariate statistical methods to predicting sport results). She has been employed by the Technical University of Warsaw, Warsaw Institute of Sport, Polish Commit- tee of UNICEF and other institutions working on problems in applied statistics in different fields (e.g. sport, kinesiology, biocybernetics, marketing, finance, sociol- ogy). In 2006 she got a position at the Medical University of Warsaw and helped create a group of biostatisticians at the Department of Prevention of Environmental Hazards and Allergology. She is now mostly interested in biostatistics and medical statistics. She loves skiing, kayaking, cycling, hiking in the mountains. She hikes in the Tatras almost every year and in the Himalayas once.
Antoni Leon Dawidowicz, mathematician, professor of the Jagiellonian University. Born 11th September 1952 in Kraków.
In 1976 he graduated in mathematics from the Jagiellonian University. Since graduation,various organizations including:
the Institute of Mathematics of the Jagiellonian University (permanently), 1990-1994 Councilor of city of Kraków, 2001- 2007 president of the Polish Tatra Mountains Society, member of the Polish National Group of the International Society of Clinical Biostatistics, since 2011 he has been the president of Cracow branch of the Polish Mathematical Society.
Ewa Ungier has worked in the Department of Descriptive and Clinical Anatomy Centre of Biostructure Research, Medical University of Warsaw for above 20 years as a teaching assistant. She is interested in clinical anatomy and im- provement of educational technology.
Hanna Mańkowska-Pliszka completed her PhD studies at the Academy of Podlasie in 2006 in Biological science specializing in anthropology. After that, she has mainly worked in the University of Natural Sciences and Humanities in Siedlce and the Medical University in Warsaw. Her research interests are related to anthropological and paleopathological problems.
Zofia Sikorska-Piwowska Medical University of Warsaw
Department of Descriptive and Clinical Anatomy Center of Biostructure Research
ul. Chałubińskiego 5, 02-004 Warszawa, Poland E-mail: zofiasikorska@poczta.onet.pl
Hanna Mańkowska-Pliszka Medical University of Warsaw
Department of Descriptive and Clinical Anatomy Center of Biostructure Research
ul. Chałubińskiego 5, 02-004 Warszawa, Poland.
University of Natural Sciences and Humanities in Siedlce
Center of Dietetics, ul. Prusa 14 08-110 Siedlce, Poland
E-mail: hannahmiriam@wp.pl Antoni Leon Dawidowicz
Jagiellonian University in Cracow
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science ul. Łojasiewicza 6, 30-348 Kraków, Poland E-mail: Antoni.Leon.Dawidowicz@im.uj.edu.pl Ewa Ungier
Medical University of Warsaw
Department of Descriptive and Clinical Anatomy, Center of Biostructure Research ul. Chałubińskiego 5, 02-004 Warszawa, Poland
E-mail: e.b.ungier@gmail.com Marta Zalewska
Medical University of Warsaw
Department of the Prevention of Environmental Hazards and Allergology Faculty of Health Sciences, 02-091 Warszawa, Poland.
E-mail: zalewska.marta@gmail.com Communicated by: Ryszard Rudnicki
(Received: 3rd of February 2015; revised: 29th of June 2015)
