who asked the first question? - International Research Center For ...

326functions remained valid for the rest of our history, albeit graduallydeclining and becoming a field for professional musicians.Therefore, when we try to find a “survival value” of music today, tens ofthousands of years after the pitch language lost its direct communicational function, weare left with only a few functions that were not replaced by articulated speech.Let us imagine we lost all the historical records about the crucial importance ofhorses in human history as one of the central means of transportation and an element ofmilitary power and we are only left with facts of the use of horses in contemporarywestern society. We could have come to the conclusion that horses were domesticated forthe purposes of the enjoyment of outdoor life and weekend races. Luckily, there areplenty of records in human history about the revolutionary importance of thedomestication of horses, such as mass migrations, the spread of Indo-Europeanlanguages, human military history, etc. Anyway, horses were widely replaced by carsonly about one century ago, and in some parts of our planet horses still play the leadingrole as a means of transportation (I remember this myself from the mountains ofGeorgia). Unlike horses, pitch language lost its function at least four hundred centuriesago, and no direct records survive from this period. In this situation it is not wise todisregard such important facts of human communication as the existence of tonelanguages where pitch plays an important role in the lexical and grammatical categories,or the existence of whistle and drum languages, where the complex messages aretransmitted by means of pitch only. If we disregard these important facts, we will bedoomed to regard music as an enigma only.Small Question for Noam ChomskyConsidering the origins of the human language, Chomsky (1957, 1986) suggestedthat language appeared suddenly, as a result of a monstrous genetic mutation, and after itappeared, the very first true human with the human abilities of intelligence and reasoninghad a tremendous advantage compared to his hominid family and friends. Chomsky hasbeen criticized for his almost creationist views on the origins of language and intelligenceby fellow linguists (Pinker, 1997). His idea of a monstrous random genetic mutation wascompared to a storm assembling a Boeing in the backyard. However, as genetic mutationis a random force, you cannot exclude (theoretically) the possibility that such a mutationcould occur. I suggest a different approach to Chomsky’s suggestion. I believe that evenif we accept the idea of a monstrous genetic mutation, Chomsky’s idea still cannot beevolutionarily correct.So here is a question to Dr Chomsky and the linguists who consider Chomsky’ssuggestion of a monstrous genetic mutation a plausible idea:Would a neurologically human child, born in a family of non-languageprimates (or hominids), be able to develop language faculties just from her/hisgenetic abilities, without any language speakers around in the early years ofinfancy?I am not a child developmental psychologist, or a linguist, but according to what Ihave learned from published discourses on this subject, it seemsto me that child