|
QUOTE from Pinker (p355)
Chomsky, one might think, would have everything to gain by grounding his controversial theory about a language organ in the firm foundation of evolutionary theory, and in some of his writings he has hinted at a connection. But more often he is skeptical. QUOTE from Chomsky within a quote from Pinker (unidentified reference) It is perfectly safe to attribute this development [of innate mental structure] to "natural selection" so long as we realise that there is no substance to this assertion, that it amounts to nothing more than a belief that there is some naturalistic explanation for these phenomena .... In studying the evolution of mind, we cannot guess to what extent there are physically possible alternatives to, say transformational generative grammar, for an organism meeting certain other physical conditions characteristic of humans. Conceivably there are none - or very few - in which case talk about evolution of language capacity is beside the point. Can the problem [the evolution of language] be addressed today? In fact, little is known about these matters. Evolutionary theory is informative about many things, but has little to say, as of now, about questions of this nature. The answers may well lie not so much in the theory of natural selection as in molecular biology, in conditions of life on earth and why, ultimately because of physical principles. It surely cannot be assumed that every trait is specifically selected. In the case of such systems as language .... it is not easy even to imagine a course of selection that might have given rise to them. END-Quote (from Chomsky) Pinker again ... What could he possibly mean? Could there be a language organ that evolved by a process different from one that we have always been told is responsible for other organs? .... I think Chomsky is wrong .... ... and later (p365) we find this passage ... Pinker ... If language evolved gradually, there must have been a sequence of intermediate forms, each useful to its possessor, and this raises several questions. First, if language involves, for its true expression, another individual, who did the first grammar mutant talk to? One answer might be: the fifty percent of brothers and sisters and sons and daughters who shared the new gene by common inheritance. But a more general answer is that the neighbors could have partly understood what the mutant was saying even if they lacked the new-fangled circuitry, just using overall intelligence. End-QUOTE (from Pinker) My Comment Pinker's "first" answer above, is just wrong. If the individual concerned is indeed the very first "grammar mutant", then fifty percent of his/her siblings would not share that special gene. His/her own children would, but he/she would need to wait several years until their proficiency at handling syntax developed until they were able to deal with a conversation. It is also stretching credulity to imagine that such a complicated mechanism could be produced by the mutation of just a single gene - which is implied by that reference to "fifty percent" of affected offspring. Pinker's second answer above, makes my point for me. There are indeed ways (using what Pinker calls "general intelligence") in which people who are not so-called "grammar mutants" could engage in a conversation and understand one another. We know the meanings of words. We can start knowing some simple parts of their meanings, and we can add to that, as our usage becomes more complex. From that simple early facility, more complex forms and structures of language could develop (without the assistance of syntax at all). They could indeed understand one another and there are then ways in which they could acquire greater skill in using language, including a facility for using syntax, in certain instances, to disambiguate phraseology according to common usage. We do not require an innate knowledge of "deep grammar". Syntax is never an essential facility. It can be acquired gradually, from "baby language", and in a form that is appropriate to the mother tongue. My point is - all this can fit into a development path - from simplicity to complexity, without any artificial disruptions. Our knowledge of the world around us, and our knowledge of the way language can be used to communicate, can evolve gradually. Magical features are not required. [main quotation from Pinker "The Language Instinct" 1994 p355] (with further unidentified quotations from Chomsky) |