As promised, we’ll make the first tutorial fairly straightforward: read Pinker (2003), and turn up prepared to ask questions about it and discuss it. This is a fairly easy-reading and non-technical summary of (an older instantiation of) Pinker’s take on language, what it’s for, and how it evolved.
I have suggested some issues you could consider when you are reading it and discussing it in your groups, but don’t feel constrained by these. And if there is a basic issue from readings or lectures that your tutor can help clear up, this is a good opportunity to raise it.
Possible points to consider
- Pinker argues that language is an adaptation. What does that mean? What does he think it’s an adaptation for?
- What kinds of arguments and evidence does he use to support his case?
- What kinds of alternative hypotheses does he consider? Are you satisfied with his grounds for dismissing them?
- How does what he is saying fit into the FLN vs FLB distinction employed by Fitch? What use does he make of the kind of comparative data that Fitch emphasises?
- Why does he briefly touch on altruism? Why might that be relevant to thinking about language evolution? How does he deal with that problem?
- Why does he make a big deal about the idea that language involves many genes?
- Do you buy his argument? What are the convincing points? What are the weaknesses?
References
[NB. the link above goes to a copy of the chapter that Pinker has put online - you can also access the whole book, including the references, via the library website, by finding the Christiansen & Kirby volume it appears in]
Pinker, S. (2003). Language as an adaptation to the cognitive niche. In M. Christiansen & S. Kirby (Eds.), Language Evolution (pp. 16-37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.