This content is archived, it could be outdated.
The myth of language universals
Singing in Yélî Dnye
In the target article Evans & Levinson summarise decades of cross-linguistic work by typologists and descriptive linguists. They show just how few and unprofound the universal characteristics of language are. Instead, languages vary radically in sound, meaning, and syntactic organisation. Humans are the only species with a communication system that is fundamentally variable at all levels. Evans & Levinson argue that the claims of a Universal Grammar are either empirically false, or misleading in that they refer to tendencies rather than strict universals. Chomskyan theories for example assume the universality of constituency, but many languages do not use this to organise their sentence structure).
Structural differences should be accepted for what they are, and integrated into a new, broadly evolutionary approach to language and cognition that places diversity at centre stage.
Diversity in human language opens up exciting new research directions for cognitive scientists, and confronts us with the extraordinary plasticity of the highest human skills.
The 23 responses to the controversial article vary from Tomasello's 'Universal grammar is dead' to the charge (by Pesetsky and others) that Evans & Levinson have failed to abstract sufficiently away from surface differences. Pinker & Jackendoff argue that the design space for languages is indeed restricted, requiring explanation in terms of universals - Evans & Levinson respond that the restricted design space is partly explained by the mere 100,000 years of cultural diversification that has taken place since modern humans left Africa.
Further commentary on the paper will appear by special arrangement in the journal Lingua.