The Rhetoric of the Evolution of Language

Dr. Craig A. Hamilton

Lecturer in the School of English Studies and
Institute for the Study of Genetics and Society
University of Nottingham
Nottingham NG7 2RD UNITED KINGDOM

craig.hamilton@nottingham.ac.uk

The "rhetoric of science" is a well-developed field of inquiry (Gross
1996), but it has failed to focus in detail on the rhetoric behind
current evolution of language debates.  To address this lack, my paper
analyses the rhetorical arguments of two stories making the rounds in
contemporary cognitive science.  First, there is the origin of language
story told by Fauconnier and Turner in chapter nine of their recent
book, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden
Complexities (2002).  Pinker, Bloom, Chomsky, Klein, Mithen, Deacon,
Calvin, and Bickerton, among others, are all mentioned by Fauconnier and
Turner (some are referred to favourably, most are not).  In my analysis
of this argument, my focus will be on what does or does not count as
evidence for Fauconnier and Turner as they try to muster support for
their hypothesis that the rise of our capacity for conceptual
integration accounts for the origin of language.  The second story I
analyse is the one about language and the FOXP2 gene reviewed by Marcus
and Fisher (2003) in Trends in Cognitive Sciences in June 2003.  In my
analysis of this argument, I focus on the analogical reasoning that
underpins the view that language and genes are necessarily related. 
While Marcus and Fisher hold that FOXP2 cannot fairly be called the
"gene for speech" or the "gene for language," this was not at all how
the FOXP2 story was first reported to the public.  The press coverage
hailing "the discovery of the language gene" in 2001, after the article
on FOXP2 by Lai et al.  (2001) appeared in Nature on 4 October 2001,
reveals both a belief in genetic determinism and the interdependence of
science and rhetoric.  My overall goal in the paper is to recognize that
one of the things that may make the evolution of language a contentious
research topic is the nature of the evidence called on to justify
competing hypotheses.  How the evidence is reasoned with is also a
concern of mine.  For those at this conference who are engaged directly
with research into the evolution of language, it might be useful to
recall that the science studies community in general, and the history of
science community in particular, will no doubt analyse the evolution of
language debate in depth in the future.  This paper, therefore, simply
offers an initial look at what that examination might entail. 

References

Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner.  The Way We Think: Conceptual
Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities.  New York: Basic Books,
2002. 

Gross, Allan. The Rhetoric of Science. 1990. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1996.

Marcus, Gary and Simon Fisher.  "FOXP2 in focus: what can genes tell us
about speech and language?" Trends in Cognitive Sciences (June 2003):
257-262.