This article was downloaded by: [116.45.248.51]On: 06 November 2012, At: 22:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Philosophical PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cphp20

Language UniversalsChristina Behme aa Dalhousie University, Department of Philosophy, 6135 UniversityAvenue, Halifax, NS, B3H 4P9 CanadaVersion of record first published: 09 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Christina Behme (2011): Language Universals, Philosophical Psychology, 24:6,867-871

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.583019

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Philosophical PsychologyVol. 24, No. 6, December 2011, 867871

Book review

Language Universals

Morten H. Christiansen, Christopher Collins & Shimon Edelman (Eds.)New York: Oxford University Press, 2009

312 pages, ISBN: 0195305434 (hbk); $69.95

The evolution of human language has received a considerable amount of interest in

recent years, which is reflected by a wealth of publications (for an overview, see

Behme, 2009). While most experts dealing with language evolution presuppose a

Darwinian process of natural selection and debate details of potential scenarios, some

assume a single step saltationalist mutation that resulted in the human language

faculty (e.g., Berwick & Chomsky, forthcoming; Boeckx, 2009; Chomsky, 2007). As a

result of such debates several widely held assumptions about the nature of language,

such as the invariance of language complexity (Sampson, Gill, & Trudgill, 2009), the

existence of language universals (Evans & Levinson, 2009), generative grammar

(Newmeyer, 2004) have been re-evaluated. In some cases this has led to heated

debates. For example, Evans and Levinson (2009) challenge the widely held

assumption that all languages share the same structure at some abstract level; they

demonstrate how differently languages can be structured at every level: phonetic,

phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic (p. 430) and suggest that not

universals but linguistic diversity is the most remarkable characteristic of human

languages. Many commentators on this target paper vehemently disagree. Thus,

Language universals, the result of a 2004 symposium on language universals, is a

timely contribution to an important debate. In particular, the goal of the editors to

seek areas where discussion between various disciplines and points of view is

possible (p. vi) has the potential to initiate fruitful and clarifying discussions. This is

important because the recently surfaced disagreements about language universals

seem to indicate that possibly not only factual issues but also conceptual issues are

involved. Given the space limitations for this review and the diversity of the views

covered I will focus here only on two of the fourteen chapters. My choice was based

on personal interest and does not reflect on the quality of the remaining chapters.In The components of language: Whats specific to language and whats specific

to humans (chapter 7), Steven Pinker and Ray Jackendoff suggest that the language

universals debate should be informed by knowledge about language acquisition

mechanisms and language evolution. Before we debate language universals we need

ISSN 0951-5089 (print)/ISSN 1465-394X (online)/11/06000867-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.583019

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

16.45

.248.5

1] at

22:07

06 N

ovem

ber 2

012

to distinguish between: (a) the aspects of language that are learned from the

environment and those that are the result of human brain-physiology; (b) the part ofa persons language ability that is specific to language and the part that belongs to

more general cognitive abilities; and (c) the aspects of the language faculty that areuniquely human and those that are shared with other species. The narrow language

faculty, which is universal among all humans, combines the aspects that are the resultof human brain physiology, specific to language and uniquely human. Pinker and

Jackendoff propose that the narrow language faculty is a system of coadapted traitsthat evolved by natural selection . . . for the communication of complex propositions(p. 128; see also Jackendoff & Pinker, 2005; Pinker, 2003; Pinker & Bloom, 1990;

Pinker & Jackendoff, 2005). Because of this, they suggest that language universals arenot likely characteristics that are common to all human languages (as suggested by

Greenberg, 1966), but rather components that are universally available in all humanbrains. From this perspective it becomes possible to argue that some components of

the universal brain capacity may not be universally deployed (p. 126). BecausePinker and Jackendoff see language as a product of natural selection, they argue we

should expect that the narrow language faculty is overlaid on previously existingcapacities which in turn makes it difficult to peel off just those aspects of languagethat are unique to human and unique to language (p. 144). That it is difficult to

discern these aspects, however, does not mean they do not exist. Candidates forlanguage universals are phonetic perception, imitative specialization for speech,

combinatorial phonological structure and the existence of words and certainsyntactic devices. Jackendoff and Pinker spend a considerable part of the chapter

arguing (successfully in my opinion) against one opposing view proposed by Hauser,Chomsky, and Fitch (2002), and defended by Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky (2005),

which essentially denies that language is a product of evolution by natural selectionand holds that the only universal component of the narrow language faculty is

the core computational mechanism of recursion (Hauser et al., 2002, p. 1573).However, this focus makes it appear as if this is the only opposing view Pinker andJackendoff face. Anyone familiar with the ongoing debates knows that this is not the

case; a discussion of other critics (e.g., Christiansen & Chater, 2008) might have beenhelpful.

Barbara Finlay, in Evolution, development, and emerging universals (chapter13), suggests that the debates regarding language universals could profit from paying

attention to recent work in evolutionary biology, because universals in theorganization of the genome, body plan, and basic physiology . . . present some

interesting parallels with language universals (p. 261). The connection to work inbiology is important, because Chomskyan linguists have urged for decades thatlanguages are biological objects and need to be studied with the same methods as

other biological objects (Boeckx, 2009; Chomsky, 1966, 2005, 2007; Lasnik, 2005;McGilvray, 2009). Yet, recently one critic challenged that Chomskys own work in

linguistics . . . nowhere resembles biological research . . . . I am unaware of any reportsby Chomsky of his use of x-ray machines, microscopes, tissue samples, and so on

(Postal, 2009, p. 114). Finlay seems to share this reservation to some extent.

868 Book review

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

16.45

.248.5

1] at

22:07

06 N

ovem

ber 2

012

She points out that, pace Chomskyans who argue that universals betray a genetic

source of a constraint . . . [biological research] does not confirm that the presence of auniversal feature either within or across species betrays a single source (p. 262).

Linguists who have relied mainly on theorizing about the nature of a geneticallyspecified universal grammar are urged to pay attention to recently completed work

on the underlying structure in complex evolved biological circuits and on theinteraction of the genome with epigenetic, environmental and social structure

(p. 263). Instead of focusing on language as a species characteristic, Finlay suggeststhat it might be informative to study in detail the variations of competence indifferent language users. Thus, instead of paying lip service to the biological origin of

language, linguists ought to approach language as another example of a complexbiological system . . . [and understand language specific adaptations] in a much vaster

array of existing mechanisms and evolutionary history (p. 264). It is encouragingthat biologists show interest in linguistic problems and this interest will hopefully

result in fruitful cooperation.The remaining chapters cover a broad variety of areas from descriptive, functional,

and generative linguistics to computational modeling, philosophy, psychology,genetics, and brain anatomy, and the editors provide helpful suggestions about howfindings from these areas could be integrated to gain a better understanding of the

nature of language universals. However, it also becomes clear that integration ofdifferent views is not always possible. For example the usage and performance based

approaches of the authors of chapters 24 conflict with fundamentally differentapproaches that focus on alleged innate properties of Universal Grammar

(minimalist approaches in chapters 56). Incidentally, to resolve this perennialconflict, it will be necessary to include emerging insights from fields outside of

linguistics. In particular, the extensive survey of genetic, anatomical, and brainimaging data provided in chapter 11 highlights the importance of a detailed

understanding of the neurodevelopmental aspects of language universals. At the sametime it reminds the reader that very specific claims regarding innate principles ofuniversal grammar (p. 243) are currently beyond the reach of neuroscientific

research. To make progress here it is required that linguists and neuroscientists workclosely together to identify universal linguistic principles and cellular architecture and

organizational properties of the brain that underwrite those principles.Overall, Language universals will provide valuable information for anyone

interested in the nature of language. Some familiarity with the subject matter iscertainly an asset, but most chapters are written in a non-technical style which should

allow interested lay readers to access the material. This makes it an excellent(supplementary) textbook for courses in linguistics, psychology, cognitive science,philosophy, and computer science. The breadth of areas covered ensures that even

experts in one field will likely find valuable information from areas outside theirscope of expertise. Given the aim of the editors to encourage interdisciplinary

research that actively seek[s] an integrated understanding of the nature of languageuniversals (p. 13), it is encouraging that most contributions provide not only

the view point of the author(s) but also indicate awareness of and respect for

Book review 869

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

16.45

.248.5

1] at

22:07

06 N

ovem

ber 2

012

competing positions. An unfortunate exception to this general tendency is this

unprofessional attack on opposing views: . . . in our view it takes heroic

obtuseness . . . to be blind to these obvious facts. As we are not . . . so perverse, we

will take it to be an irrefragable datum of the natural world (Hornstein & Boeckx,

2009, p. 79). This kind of rhetoric, reminiscent of the bitter linguistic wars (Boden,

2006; Harris, 1993), should have no room in a contribution that aims at

interdisciplinary cooperation. Yet, an inquiry to the editors indicates that we are

reading here a substantially toned down version of the original text (Christiansen

& Edelman, personal communication, August 8, 2009). Given the isolated status of

Hornstein and Boeckxs stab at intellectual opponents, it is my hope that Language

universals will not only contribute to factual information but also to an eradication

of the youre either with us or youre an idiot attitude that still finds refuge in some

corners of the academic world.

References

Behme, C. (2009). Review of the book Cartesian linguistics. Metapsychology, 13, 36. Retrieved

February 14, 2010, from http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/ view_doc.php?typebook&id5110&cn394

Berwick, R., & Chomsky, N. (forthcoming) The biolinguistc program: The current state of its

evolution and development. In A. DiSciullo & C. Aguero (Eds.), Biolinguistic investigations.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Boden, M. (2006). Mind as machine. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Boeckx, C. (2009). Cartesian biolinguistics. Tokyo: Sophia University Press.Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of Rationalist thought. New York:

Harper & Row.Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 122.Chomsky, N. (2007). Biolinguistic explorations: Design, development, evolution. International

Journal of Philosophical Studies, 15, 121.Christiansen, M., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 31, 489509.Evans, N., & Levinson, S. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its

importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429492.Fitch, T., Hauser, M., & Chomsky, N. (2005). The evolution of the language faculty: ClariEcations

and implications. Cognition, 97, 179210.Greenberg, J. (1966). Universals of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Harris, R. (1993). The linguistic wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hauser, M., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and

how does it evolve? Science, 298, 15691579.Hornstein, N., & Beockx, C. (2009). Approaching universals from below: I-universals in light of a

minimalist program for linguistic theory. In M. Christiansen, C. Collins, & S. Edelman (Eds.),

Language universals (pp. 7998). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jackendoff, R., & Pinker, S. (2005). The nature of the language faculty and its implications for

evolution of language (reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition, 97, 211225.Lasnik, H. (2005). Grammar, levels, and biology. In J. McGilvray (Ed.), The Cambridge companion

to Chomsky (pp. 6083). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

870 Book review

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

16.45

.248.5

1] at

22:07

06 N

ovem

ber 2

012

McGilvray, J. (2009). Introduction to the third edition. In J. McGilvray (Ed.), Cartesian linguistics:

A chapter in the history of rationalist thought (pp. 149). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Newmeyer, F. (2004). Possible and probable languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Pinker, S. (2003). Language as an adaptation to the cognitive niche. In M. Christiansen & S. Kirby

(Eds.), Language evolution (pp. 1637). New York: Oxford University Press.Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 13, 707784.Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: Whats special about it? Cognition, 95,

201236.Postal, P. (2009). The incoherence of Chomskys biolinguistic ontology. Biolinguistics, 3, 104123.Sampson, G., Gill, D., & Trudgill, P. (Eds.) (2009). Language complexity as an evolving variable.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Christina BehmeDalhousie University

Department of Philosophy6135 University Avenue

Halifax, NS, B3H 4P9 Canada

Email: kcnb@ns.sympatico.ca 2011, Christina Behme

Book review 871

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

16.45

.248.5

1] at

22:07

06 N

ovem

ber 2

012

Dow

nloa

ded

by [1

16.45

.248.5

1] at

22:07

06 N

ovem

ber 2

012