The main part of this thesis treats measurements in the HELIOS experiment of the production of e-mu and mu+mu-pairs in 450 GeV/c p-Be collisions. The mumu measurement covers the kinematical covers the kinematical range of 2Mmu < M < 1.5 GeV, 0.03 < xF < 0.25, and 0 < pT < 2 GeV. Production of the vector mesons rho, omega , and phi is observed. The branching ratio omega to mu+mu- is for the first time experimentally measured. The continuum at masses below the mu mass is studied, and compared with the contributions from known sources, normalized to the vector meson peaks in the mu+mu- mass spectrum, and to measurements in this experiment of the mu cross section. The res ult is compared with that of other experiments, discussed in terms of different background estimates used. A significant signal of unlike-sign e-mu-pairs is observed, forming a continuum peaking at a mass below 500 MeV. Correlations between e-mu and neutrino production are studied. The shape of the e-mu mass and missng-energy spectra indicate significant non-charm contributions. A search for lepton-number-violating decays is made, resulting in upper limits on a number of branching ratios. Also discussed here is the author's work in the DELPHI experiment, contributions that are related to analysis of heavy quark production. Keywords: muon. pair, dimuon, dilepton, lepton, low mass, continuum, eta, rho, omega, branching ratio, emu, e-mu, mue, mu-e, muon-electron, electron-muon, electron, charm, neutrino, missing energy

Noam Chomsky (2005) proposed that a ‘third factor’, consisting of general principles and natural laws, may explain core properties of language in a principled manner, minimizing the need for either genetic endowment or experience. But the focus on third-factor patterns in much recent bio-linguistic work is misguided for several reasons: First, ‘the’ third factor is a vague and disparate collection of unrelated components, useless as an analytical tool. Second, the vagueness of the third factor, together with the desire for principled explanations, too often leads to sweeping claims, such as syntax “coming for free, directly from physics”, that are unwarranted without a case-by-case causal analysis. Third, attention is diverted away from a proper causal analysis of language as a biological feature. The point with biolinguistics is to acknowledge the language faculty as a biological feature. The best way forward towards an understanding of language is to take the biology connection seriously, instead of dabbling with physics.

The precise timing of the emergence of language in human prehistory cannot be resolved. But the available evidence is sufficient to constrain it to some degree. This is a review and synthesis

of the available evidence, leading to the conclusion that the time when speech became important for our ancestors can be constrained to be not less than 500,000 years ago, thus excluding several popular theories involving a late transition to speech.

The precise timing of the emergence of language in human prehistory cannot be resolved. But the available evidence is sufficient to constrain it to some degree. This is a review and synthesis of the available evidence, leading to the conclusion that the time when speech in some form became important for our ancestors can be constrained to be not less than 400,000 years ago, thus excluding several popular theories involving a late transition to speech.

Sverker Johansson has written an unusual book on language origins, with its emphasis on empirical evidence rather than theory-building. This is a book for the student or researcher who prefers solid data and well-supported conclusions, over speculative scenarios. Much that has been written on the origins of language is characterized by hypothesizing largely unconstrained by evidence. But empirical data do exist, and the purpose of this book is to integrate and review the available evidence from all relevant disciplines, not only linguistics but also, e.g., neurology, primatology, paleoanthropology, and evolutionary biology. The evidence is then used to constrain the multitude of scenarios for language origins, demonstrating that many popular hypotheses are untenable. Among the issues covered: (1) Human evolutionary history, (2) Anatomical prerequisites for language, (3) Animal communication and ape "language", (4) Mind and language, (5) The role of gesture, (6) Innateness, (7) Selective advantage of language, (8) Proto-language.

In holistic theories of protolanguage, a vital step is the fractionation process where holistic utterances are broken down into segments, and segments associated with semantic components. One problem for this process may be the occurrence of counterexamples to any segment-meaning connection. The actual abundance of such counterexamples is a contentious issue \cite{smith06,taller07}. Here I present calculations of the prevalence of counterexamples in model languages.  It is found that counterexamples are indeed abundant, much more numerous than positive examples for any plausible holistic language.

Did Neanderthals have language? This issue has been debated back and forth for decades,without resolution. But in recent years new evidence has become available. New fossils andarchaeological finds cast light on relevant Neanderthal anatomy and behaviour. New DNA evidence,both fossil and modern, provides clues both to the relationship between Neanderthals andHomo sapiens, and to the genetics of language. In this paper, I review and evaluate the availableevidence. My conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence supports the presenceof some form of language in Neanderthals.

The origin of language is a problem involving complex interactions between a number

of different evolving systems. Language per se, regarded as a cultural/memetic entity,

is one of the evolving systems, and its evolution is of major importance in the origin

of modern human language.

Possible structural parallels between language evolution and biological evolution are

discussed. Genes, organisms, and species are key concepts in biology, and an understanding

of the corresponding levels in language is needed for any fruitful linguistic application

of theoretical tools from evolutionary biology. I identify candidate linguistic

’genes’, ’organisms’ and ’species’, and discuss implications for language evolution.

Did Neanderthals have language? This issue has been debated back and forth for decades, without resolution. But in recent years new evidence has become available. New fossils and archeological finds cast light on relevant Neanderthal anatomy and behavior. New DNA evidence, both fossil and modern, provides clues both to the relationship between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, and to the genetics of language. In this paper, I review and evaluate the available evidence. My conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence supports the presence of some form of language in Neanderthals.