vinced, as I am, that man is descended from some lower animal, is almost forced to believe a priori that articulate language has developed from inarticulate cries" (196). In response, Muller and his followers were successful in banning all presentation on language evolution from the Linguistic Society of Paris (196). This was the first time a line had been drawn between linguists and evolutionists, and it determined their interaction for decades to come (196).
No discussion on the theory of language evolution is complete without at least a brief discussion of Chomsky's theory of how language is an innate part of being human. When Chomsky first announced his theory, a hundred years after Darwin's Origin had been published, the consensus was that the human brain was a clean slate at birth, and children learned language by imitation (Calvin and Bickerton 197). Chomsky (1979), however, asserted that there was a faculty within the human brain, not to be broken down any further or explained, but which was where language originated from (Chomsky 86). Chomsky compared this faculty to the heart. Although science knows what the heart does and how it does it, asking how the heart got where it is, is not considered a functional question (86). Further, he asserted that this faculty is the sole property of the species Homo Sapien (86). Although he meant to attack the theories of behaviorists, such as B.F. Skinner, it was also an attack on evolutionists, and so continued the conflict between linguists and evolutionists (Calvin and Bickerton 197).
Later on, Chomsky (2000) backed down slightly from his stance, however, he continued to assert that linguists do not understand why evolutionists seek the separation, or pure state of being, of language from the language faculty (77-8). In his opinion, the concept of "human" as a psychic whole will never be part of the study of the natural sciences or evolution (139). Yet, Chomsky (2000) admitt...