Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
Reading the reviews of the new The Blank Slate by S. Pinker, the author of The Language Instinct, I was struck by the sheer momentum of this presumption that the evolution of language has been explained by the theory of random mutation and natural selection. The material on Chomsky, after all these years, omits the fact that Chomsky is/was a critic of Darwinism. For a debriefing of Darwin's views on the descent of man, with linguistic aspects built in, consider the eonic model at http://eonix.8m.com/enx_theory1.htm and subsequent pages. The demonstration of a non-random pattern visible in world history includes the data for some very high level phenomena, and we find, for example, the transformation of the Greek 'in stream' corpus transformed in the Greek Archaic an aspect of historical evolutionary emergentism. This inclues the Homeric corpus, the data of the Lyric Age, Greek Tragedy, etc... The remarkable aspect of this flowering is its 'timing', both in its onset, and passing away. The question is, then, if evolutionary transformations can seed in tempo and place, according to a complex frequency system, the highest manifestations of culture, what is our confidence that random genetic evolution accounts for the rapid linguistic-cultural transformations in the descent of man? Does Pinker on language hold up? Can we feel confidence there? John Landon Website on the eonic effect http://eonix.8m.com nemoneminiMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueeonix.8m.com