The evolution of the language faculty: clarifications and implications. Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D, & Chomsky, N. Cognition, 97(2):179–210; discussion 211-25, 2005. doi abstract bibtex In this response to Pinker and Jackendoff's critique, we extend our previous framework for discussion of language evolution, clarifying certain distinctions and elaborating on a number of points. In the first half of the paper, we reiterate that profitable research into the biology and evolution of language requires fractionation of "language" into component mechanisms and interfaces, a non-trivial endeavor whose results are unlikely to map onto traditional disciplinary boundaries. Our terminological distinction between FLN and FLB is intended to help clarify misunderstandings and aid interdisciplinary rapprochement. By blurring this distinction, Pinker and Jackendoff mischaracterize our hypothesis 3 which concerns only FLN, not "language" as a whole. Many of their arguments and examples are thus irrelevant to this hypothesis. Their critique of the minimalist program is for the most part equally irrelevant, because very few of the arguments in our original paper were tied to this program; in an online appendix we detail the deep inaccuracies in their characterization of this program. Concerning evolution, we believe that Pinker and Jackendoff's emphasis on the past adaptive history of the language faculty is misplaced. Such questions are unlikely to be resolved empirically due to a lack of relevant data, and invite speculation rather than research. Preoccupation with the issue has retarded progress in the field by diverting research away from empirical questions, many of which can be addressed with comparative data. Moreover, offering an adaptive hypothesis as an alternative to our hypothesis concerning mechanisms is a logical error, as questions of function are independent of those concerning mechanism. The second half of our paper consists of a detailed response to the specific data discussed by Pinker and Jackendoff. Although many of their examples are irrelevant to our original paper and arguments, we find several areas of substantive disagreement that could be resolved by future empirical research. We conclude that progress in understanding the evolution of language will require much more empirical research, grounded in modern comparative biology, more interdisciplinary collaboration, and much less of the adaptive storytelling and phylogenetic speculation that has traditionally characterized the field.
@Article{Fitch2005,
author = {W. Tecumseh Fitch and Marc D Hauser and Noam Chomsky},
journal = {Cognition},
title = {The evolution of the language faculty: clarifications and implications.},
year = {2005},
number = {2},
pages = {179--210; discussion 211-25},
volume = {97},
abstract = {In this response to Pinker and Jackendoff's critique, we extend our
previous framework for discussion of language evolution, clarifying
certain distinctions and elaborating on a number of points. In the
first half of the paper, we reiterate that profitable research into
the biology and evolution of language requires fractionation of "language"
into component mechanisms and interfaces, a non-trivial endeavor
whose results are unlikely to map onto traditional disciplinary boundaries.
Our terminological distinction between FLN and FLB is intended to
help clarify misunderstandings and aid interdisciplinary rapprochement.
By blurring this distinction, Pinker and Jackendoff mischaracterize
our hypothesis 3 which concerns only FLN, not "language" as a whole.
Many of their arguments and examples are thus irrelevant to this
hypothesis. Their critique of the minimalist program is for the most
part equally irrelevant, because very few of the arguments in our
original paper were tied to this program; in an online appendix we
detail the deep inaccuracies in their characterization of this program.
Concerning evolution, we believe that Pinker and Jackendoff's emphasis
on the past adaptive history of the language faculty is misplaced.
Such questions are unlikely to be resolved empirically due to a lack
of relevant data, and invite speculation rather than research. Preoccupation
with the issue has retarded progress in the field by diverting research
away from empirical questions, many of which can be addressed with
comparative data. Moreover, offering an adaptive hypothesis as an
alternative to our hypothesis concerning mechanisms is a logical
error, as questions of function are independent of those concerning
mechanism. The second half of our paper consists of a detailed response
to the specific data discussed by Pinker and Jackendoff. Although
many of their examples are irrelevant to our original paper and arguments,
we find several areas of substantive disagreement that could be resolved
by future empirical research. We conclude that progress in understanding
the evolution of language will require much more empirical research,
grounded in modern comparative biology, more interdisciplinary collaboration,
and much less of the adaptive storytelling and phylogenetic speculation
that has traditionally characterized the field.},
doi = {10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.005},
institution = {University of St Andrews, School of Psychology, St Andrews, KY16 9JP, Scotland, UK. wsf@st-andrews.ac.uk},
keywords = {Biological Evolution; Humans; Language; Linguistics; Speech Perception},
language = {eng},
medline-pst = {ppublish},
pmid = {16112662},
timestamp = {2011.11.09},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"jPMQuqhtScyEHYw2L","bibbaseid":"fitch-hauser-chomsky-theevolutionofthelanguagefacultyclarificationsandimplications-2005","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Fitch, W. T.","Hauser, M. D","Chomsky, N."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"firstnames":["W.","Tecumseh"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Fitch"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Marc","D"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Hauser"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Noam"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Chomsky"],"suffixes":[]}],"journal":"Cognition","title":"The evolution of the language faculty: clarifications and implications.","year":"2005","number":"2","pages":"179–210; discussion 211-25","volume":"97","abstract":"In this response to Pinker and Jackendoff's critique, we extend our previous framework for discussion of language evolution, clarifying certain distinctions and elaborating on a number of points. In the first half of the paper, we reiterate that profitable research into the biology and evolution of language requires fractionation of \"language\" into component mechanisms and interfaces, a non-trivial endeavor whose results are unlikely to map onto traditional disciplinary boundaries. Our terminological distinction between FLN and FLB is intended to help clarify misunderstandings and aid interdisciplinary rapprochement. By blurring this distinction, Pinker and Jackendoff mischaracterize our hypothesis 3 which concerns only FLN, not \"language\" as a whole. Many of their arguments and examples are thus irrelevant to this hypothesis. Their critique of the minimalist program is for the most part equally irrelevant, because very few of the arguments in our original paper were tied to this program; in an online appendix we detail the deep inaccuracies in their characterization of this program. Concerning evolution, we believe that Pinker and Jackendoff's emphasis on the past adaptive history of the language faculty is misplaced. Such questions are unlikely to be resolved empirically due to a lack of relevant data, and invite speculation rather than research. Preoccupation with the issue has retarded progress in the field by diverting research away from empirical questions, many of which can be addressed with comparative data. Moreover, offering an adaptive hypothesis as an alternative to our hypothesis concerning mechanisms is a logical error, as questions of function are independent of those concerning mechanism. The second half of our paper consists of a detailed response to the specific data discussed by Pinker and Jackendoff. Although many of their examples are irrelevant to our original paper and arguments, we find several areas of substantive disagreement that could be resolved by future empirical research. We conclude that progress in understanding the evolution of language will require much more empirical research, grounded in modern comparative biology, more interdisciplinary collaboration, and much less of the adaptive storytelling and phylogenetic speculation that has traditionally characterized the field.","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.005","institution":"University of St Andrews, School of Psychology, St Andrews, KY16 9JP, Scotland, UK. wsf@st-andrews.ac.uk","keywords":"Biological Evolution; Humans; Language; Linguistics; Speech Perception","language":"eng","medline-pst":"ppublish","pmid":"16112662","timestamp":"2011.11.09","bibtex":"@Article{Fitch2005,\n author = {W. Tecumseh Fitch and Marc D Hauser and Noam Chomsky},\n journal = {Cognition},\n title = {The evolution of the language faculty: clarifications and implications.},\n year = {2005},\n number = {2},\n pages = {179--210; discussion 211-25},\n volume = {97},\n abstract = {In this response to Pinker and Jackendoff's critique, we extend our\n\tprevious framework for discussion of language evolution, clarifying\n\tcertain distinctions and elaborating on a number of points. In the\n\tfirst half of the paper, we reiterate that profitable research into\n\tthe biology and evolution of language requires fractionation of \"language\"\n\tinto component mechanisms and interfaces, a non-trivial endeavor\n\twhose results are unlikely to map onto traditional disciplinary boundaries.\n\tOur terminological distinction between FLN and FLB is intended to\n\thelp clarify misunderstandings and aid interdisciplinary rapprochement.\n\tBy blurring this distinction, Pinker and Jackendoff mischaracterize\n\tour hypothesis 3 which concerns only FLN, not \"language\" as a whole.\n\tMany of their arguments and examples are thus irrelevant to this\n\thypothesis. Their critique of the minimalist program is for the most\n\tpart equally irrelevant, because very few of the arguments in our\n\toriginal paper were tied to this program; in an online appendix we\n\tdetail the deep inaccuracies in their characterization of this program.\n\tConcerning evolution, we believe that Pinker and Jackendoff's emphasis\n\ton the past adaptive history of the language faculty is misplaced.\n\tSuch questions are unlikely to be resolved empirically due to a lack\n\tof relevant data, and invite speculation rather than research. Preoccupation\n\twith the issue has retarded progress in the field by diverting research\n\taway from empirical questions, many of which can be addressed with\n\tcomparative data. Moreover, offering an adaptive hypothesis as an\n\talternative to our hypothesis concerning mechanisms is a logical\n\terror, as questions of function are independent of those concerning\n\tmechanism. The second half of our paper consists of a detailed response\n\tto the specific data discussed by Pinker and Jackendoff. Although\n\tmany of their examples are irrelevant to our original paper and arguments,\n\twe find several areas of substantive disagreement that could be resolved\n\tby future empirical research. We conclude that progress in understanding\n\tthe evolution of language will require much more empirical research,\n\tgrounded in modern comparative biology, more interdisciplinary collaboration,\n\tand much less of the adaptive storytelling and phylogenetic speculation\n\tthat has traditionally characterized the field.},\n doi = {10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.005},\n institution = {University of St Andrews, School of Psychology, St Andrews, KY16 9JP, Scotland, UK. wsf@st-andrews.ac.uk},\n keywords = {Biological Evolution; Humans; Language; Linguistics; Speech Perception},\n language = {eng},\n medline-pst = {ppublish},\n pmid = {16112662},\n timestamp = {2011.11.09},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Fitch, W. T.","Hauser, M. D","Chomsky, N."],"key":"Fitch2005","id":"Fitch2005","bibbaseid":"fitch-hauser-chomsky-theevolutionofthelanguagefacultyclarificationsandimplications-2005","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Biological Evolution; Humans; Language; Linguistics; Speech Perception"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://endress.org/publications/ansgar.bib","creationDate":"2020-01-31T01:09:11.737Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["biological evolution; humans; language; linguistics; speech perception"],"search_terms":["evolution","language","faculty","clarifications","implications","fitch","hauser","chomsky"],"title":"The evolution of the language faculty: clarifications and implications.","year":2005,"dataSources":["SzgNB6yMASNi6tysA","xPGxHAeh3vZpx4yyE"]}