Rethinking language faculty. Has language evolved for other than language related reasons?
Attempting to give a straightforward answer to the question, I put forward in this paper – Has language evolved for other than language related reasons?, I would emphatically say – No, it has not!, as long as language has still anything to do with symbolic expression of a person’s thoughts – that is, making them public, as well as symbolic exchange, which next to the exchange of goods, and next to the exchange of women, is, according to antropologists, the cornerstone of our culture. But if we understand language as a system of internal computations in a living organism, which are based on recursion and resemble a prototype of general intelligence, and which can be used in the domain of social exchange of goods, perception of kinship, communication, counting livestock, navigation, and setting order in a sentence, then I would have to affirmatively say – Yes, it has! Do these skills have anything to do with language seen as a means of communication or language seen as a paring of sound and meaning? Well, probably no more than the exchange of goods has to do with the exchange of symbols. I draw the general conclusion: in my initial question – Has language evolved for other than language related reasons? – the most important concept is not that of evolution or the faculty of language, but what I call “language related reasons,” as it means anything we may wish it to, depending on what is meant by “language.”
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. (Extended edition).
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky, N. (1982). Noam Chomsky on the generative enterprise: A discussion with Riny Junybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. New York: Oxford University.
Fitch, T., Hauser, M. & Chomsky, N. (2005). The evolution of the language faculty: clarifications and implications. Cognition. 97(2), 179-210.
Gärdenfors, P. (2003) How Homo became sapiens: On the evolution of thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, R. A. & Gardner, B. T. (1969). Teaching sign language to a chimpanzee. Science, 165, 664-672.
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?. Science, 298, 1569-1579.
Jackendoff, R. & Pinker, S. (2005). The Nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, & Chomsky). Cognition 97 (2), 211-225.
Pinker, S. (1994) The language instinct. New York: Morrow.
Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The Faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition 95 (2), 201-236.
Premack, D. & Premack, A. J. (1983). The mind of an ape. New York: Norton.
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. (1991). Language learning in the bonobo: How and why they learn. In N. A. Krasnegor, D. M. Rumbaugh, R. L. Schiefelbusch, R. L., & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.) Biological and behavioral determinants of language development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
How to Cite
Number of views and downloads: 221
Number of citations: 0