Adam's Tongue [Paperback]

I must first of all say that I found his style overly combatative, beyond the necessary in pointing out flaws in rival theories, at least in the beginning of the book. I found my back being put up and they weren't my theories! Not being familiar with all the approaches I felt I was at times being presented with caricatures with objectionable elements being exaggerated. That said, he makes substantive points, particularly as to necessary conditions that other approaches either ignore or have very unsatisfactory explanations for. And it is entertaining!

When the positive message starts around chapter 5 (with some groundwork earlier) I found it really exciting and hardly put the book down until the end! Whilst there is speculation which Bickerton acknowledges, and probably any theory in this area is bound to have some, he does provide a plausible and at times probable path towards complex language from non-combinatorial signals with the necessary aspects addressed.

Bickerton has two main points. Firstly, what the first steps towards language away from normal animal communication systems must logically have been.
Secondly, that there must have been some fairly unique evolutionary niche that proto-humans found themselves in, or created for themselves, that meant that some steps in language beyond here-and-now manipulation or warning were advantageous. Afer all, only one evolutionary line with language has survived to the present day. Apes, in particular, have done it once. Why not other times unless any were in direct competition with the homo sapiens line?

I am tempted to layout the whole theory and various asides but that is not my place and, if interested, you really should read this book!

In this fascinating book, Derek Bickerton puts forward a possible, nay probable, explanation for how human language got started, out there on the scrubland of prehistoric Africa, where we all originated. I'm not going to spoil it by telling you what his theory is, but I can say that it's a thoroughly believable scenario. If it didn't happen the way he says, then it must have been something very similar. This book concentrates on what happened right at he very beginning - it doesn't say much about how the original very simple protolanguage would then have evolved, along with its speakers. Bickerton mentions niche construction theory, but doesn't really spell it out for us... maybe that's been reserved for the sequel? I hope so! If you are at all interested in the mystery of how human language got started, then you need to read this book.

I really enjoyed reading this stimulating book. Bickerton provides an interesting and original view on language evolution, but in many ways it is also a revealing book about the author.

His style is entertaining, erudite and aggressive. He is bold in suggesting what the actual first words might have been. He takes no prisoners - Pinker is wrong and Dawkins is dogmatic - but surprisingly he keeps most of his powder dry for Chomsky, of whom he is (or was) a known admirer. He not only believes that Chomsky's view on the evolution of language is wrong, but also that Chomsky himself has proven without realizing it that the thing which he maintains is central to human language, recursion, does not exist.

There are times when some of these broadsides seem unnecessary. His criticism of the author of the Selfish Gene borders on caricature at times ("genes are everything") and it is surprising, given that in his earlier book, Language and Species, Bickerton censured Dawkins for his "overly acerbic comments on rival views". There is quite a lot of biting commentary to be found here.

Bickerton likes to portray himself as something of an outsider, the one who sees the truth that others cannot reach and this is a problem. He is a persuasive writer and he forcefully presents his take on language evolution. But this isn't his first book on the subject and his 1990 effort, Language and Species, contained an equally persuasively argued theory - which was very different.

In that book, Bickerton's argument was all about humans developing a secondary representation system which a handy mutation transformed into language. To support his theory, he drew on a work which he claimed had been unfairly ignored (The Nature of Explanation by Kenneth Craik). In this new book, he eschews that perspective, claiming that humans created their own niche (I won't spoil Bickerton's surprise by telling you what it is) in which linguistic skills were an advantage. His new proposal draws on niche construction theory, which he claims has been unfairly maligned. Spot a pattern?

Despite the fact that Bickerton's new theory seems plausible, as well as being original and provocative, it's hard not to take his view with a large pinch of salt. He's convinced he's right now, but he was before, and now says he had it all wrong. Perhaps if he were to live another 10-15 years (he's in his eighties, but you wouldn't know it), he would have another very different theory. Maybe that's unfair - too many scientists blindly stick to their guns on a particular viewpoint just to avoid having to say "I was wrong" - but there is a credibility issue arising from the way in which he argues his case.

Overall, if the evolution of language interests you, you will enjoy this book, although it is a rather partisan view. For a more balanced, if less entertaining, read try Christine Kenneally's The First Word.

As a postscript, it would be interesting to know if Bickerton would change anything about his book in the light of the recent doubts cast on Marc Hauser's research.