This article was downloaded by: [116.45.248.

51]
On: 06 November 2012, At: 22:07
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Philosophical Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cphp20
Language Universals
Christina Behme
a
a
Dalhousie University, Department of Philosophy, 6135 University
Avenue, Halifax, NS, B3H 4P9 Canada
Version 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. Any
substantial 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 representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Philosophical Psychology
Vol. 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
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
1
6
.
4
5
.
2
4
8
.
5
1
]

a
t

2
2
:
0
7

0
6

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
2

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 of
a 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 are
uniquely 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 result
of human brain physiology, specific to language and uniquely human. Pinker and
Jackendoff propose that the narrow language faculty is a system of coadapted traits
that 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 are
not likely characteristics that are common to all human languages (as suggested by
Greenberg, 1966), but rather components that are universally available in all human
brains. From this perspective it becomes possible to argue that some components of
the universal brain capacity may not be universally deployed (p. 126). Because
Pinker and Jackendoff see language as a product of natural selection, they argue we
should expect that the narrow language faculty is overlaid on previously existing
capacities which in turn makes it difficult to peel off just those aspects of language
that 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 for
language universals are phonetic perception, imitative specialization for speech,
combinatorial phonological structure and the existence of words and certain
syntactic 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 selection
and 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 and
Jackendoff 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 been
helpful.
Barbara Finlay, in Evolution, development, and emerging universals (chapter
13), suggests that the debates regarding language universals could profit from paying
attention to recent work in evolutionary biology, because universals in the
organization of the genome, body plan, and basic physiology . . . present some
interesting parallels with language universals (p. 261). The connection to work in
biology is important, because Chomskyan linguists have urged for decades that
languages 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 reports
by 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
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
1
6
.
4
5
.
2
4
8
.
5
1
]

a
t

2
2
:
0
7

0
6

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
2

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 a
universal feature either within or across species betrays a single source (p. 262).
Linguists who have relied mainly on theorizing about the nature of a genetically
specified universal grammar are urged to pay attention to recently completed work
on the underlying structure in complex evolved biological circuits and on the
interaction of the genome with epigenetic, environmental and social structure
(p. 263). Instead of focusing on language as a species characteristic, Finlay suggests
that it might be informative to study in detail the variations of competence in
different language users. Thus, instead of paying lip service to the biological origin of
language, linguists ought to approach language as another example of a complex
biological system. . . [and understand language specific adaptations] in a much vaster
array of existing mechanisms and evolutionary history (p. 264). It is encouraging
that 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 how
findings from these areas could be integrated to gain a better understanding of the
nature of language universals. However, it also becomes clear that integration of
different views is not always possible. For example the usage and performance based
approaches of the authors of chapters 24 conflict with fundamentally different
approaches that focus on alleged innate properties of Universal Grammar
(minimalist approaches in chapters 56). Incidentally, to resolve this perennial
conflict, it will be necessary to include emerging insights from fields outside of
linguistics. In particular, the extensive survey of genetic, anatomical, and brain
imaging data provided in chapter 11 highlights the importance of a detailed
understanding of the neurodevelopmental aspects of language universals. At the same
time it reminds the reader that very specific claims regarding innate principles of
universal grammar (p. 243) are currently beyond the reach of neuroscientific
research. To make progress here it is required that linguists and neuroscientists work
closely 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 is
certainly 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 their
scope of expertise. Given the aim of the editors to encourage interdisciplinary
research that actively seek[s] an integrated understanding of the nature of language
universals (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
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
1
6
.
4
5
.
2
4
8
.
5
1
]

a
t

2
2
:
0
7

0
6

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
2

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?type
book&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
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
1
6
.
4
5
.
2
4
8
.
5
1
]

a
t

2
2
:
0
7

0
6

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
2

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 Behme
Dalhousie University
Department of Philosophy
6135 University Avenue
Halifax, NS, B3H 4P9 Canada
Email: kcnb@ns.sympatico.ca
2011, Christina Behme
Book review 871
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
1
6
.
4
5
.
2
4
8
.
5
1
]

a
t

2
2
:
0
7

0
6

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
2

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
1
6
.
4
5
.
2
4
8
.
5
1
]

a
t

2
2
:
0
7

0
6

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
2