Jelle Zuidema's essay "The Origin of Language Debate"
contains a discussion about the theories put forward by Noam Chomsky
and Steven Pinker (who provided the basis for the now widely accepted
classical theory on the origin and development of language skills), and
those provided by Luc Steels and Brian MacWhinney who attempt
to propose an alternative theory.
The Arguments of Steels and MacWhinney
The summary of the arguments provided by Steels and MacWhinney towards
the Origin of Language debate are as follows:
1. there is no universal grammar
<- no universal grammar is found, universals result from cognitive
and physical constraints
2. innateness is not self-evident
<- alternative explanations exist
3. there is no language organ
<- no grammar to be content of organ, language areas are also involved
in other cognitive tasks
4. there are no language genes
<- there's no organ to code for, universal location emerges from selforganization
5. modern languages evolve similarily to their origins
<- language creation can be witnessed everyday
6. language emerged from cultural evolution
<- the same processes produce complexity elsewhere, simulating experiments
show emergence of protolanguage
7. language emerged from embodiment
<- embodied cognitive processes shape language understanding
Some Comments on the Origin of Language debate
I find it hard to agree with many of the points made in the arguments
listed above. There follows a disection of the given arguments:
Point 1 - There is no universal grammar
As a believer that language is the driving force of thought, I can't
see the cognitive constraints as being separable from the notion of universal
grammar. The basic concepts underlying language are unlikely to be the
mere embodiments of concepts shared with non-linguistic animals. Can the
notion of number be equated with what the hunter sees when approaching
prey?
It is very unlikely that a universal grammar will be found and codified
given its complexity, but this does not negate the concept.
Point 3 - There is no language organ
While the location and nature of the LAD (Language Acquisition Device)
remain little understood or even identified, language is cerebral, so
it is contained within one organ, the brain, about which we know very
little.
Ponit 4 - There are no language genes
This is only true if number 3 is, which I find questionable. The fact
that the human genome has been published does not mean that we have grasped
how it all works, especially diachronically.
Point 5 - Modern languages evolve similarily to their origins
Language creation is not synonymous with creating an entire language.
The fact that we can create new words or forms is not the same as the
leap of thought that generated the first concepts.
Point 6 - Language emerged from cultural evolution
The two are so linked as to be simultaneous. Production of 'complexity'
is not the proof that language can be forcibly 'evolved'.
Point 7 - Language emerged from embodiment
There is no consensus on the relationship between language and thought;
I, like many others, believe the opposite of what is being argued here.
This does not sound worked out sufficiently to me.
The Bibliography given in the essay is as follows:
Williams 1951 F.C. Williams, T. Kilburn and
G.C. Tootill, "Universal high-speed digial computers: a small-scale
experimental machine", in: The proceedings of the institution of
electrical engineers, vol. 98, part II, no. 61, February 1951
MacWhinney 1998a Brian MacWhinney, "An
emergentist view on grammatical development" (abstract), in: 1998
AAAS Annual Meeting - Program Book
MacWhinney 1998b Brian MacWhinney, "The
emergence of language", in: B. MacWhinney (ed.), The emergence
of language, forthcoming, New Jersey: Erlbaum
Steels 1996 Luc Steels, "Synthesising the
origins of language and meaning using co-evolution, self-organisation
and level formation", in: J. Hurford (ed.), Evolution of Human
Language, 1997, Edinburgh: E. University Press
Kosso 1995 Peter Kosso, "Reading the book
of nature"
While I believe language is finite, it is also inexhaustible. A Google
search for language produced 33.9 million results. The search English
language reduced it to 3.45 million results. Searching for the words
together (ie: "English language") rather than anywhere
in the text halved this figure and adding the took the score down
to 737,000.
The falloff with such common words shows that finite language doesn't
mean that there is any likelihood of reaching the end of language. The
numbers are astronomical and incalculable, but that does not affect the
theory. A bit like the comments above.
Essay:
Discussions:
Further
Reading: 
