Review:
Kingdom of Speech by Tom Wolfe
Little Brown & Co, 2016
ISBN: 978-0-316-40462-4
When getting my Master’s degree in English, I discovered the fascinating world of linguistics. With my emphasis in English as a Second Language, I took classes in Psycholinguistics (which is the physical and neurological aspects of language acquisition). I was especially intrigued by how language functions similarly to the genetic code, and I loved Modern Grammar which can be used with any language using the principles of Universal Grammar. Universal Grammar, postulates Noam Chomsky (the founder and king of modern linguistic theory), is innate in all human beings - moreover all languages are similarly constructed of verbs, adjectives, and nouns. What I didn’t realize, until I read Tom Wolfe’s superb book, The Kingdom of Speech, was that Chomsky had been toppled from his position of linguistic demi-Godhood by a relative newcomer, Daniel Everett.
In The Kingdom of Speech, Tom Wolfe not only takes down Chomsky in his usual sharp yet languid manner, but Charles Darwin and his “Just-so” stories on the evolution of man also undergo a, much needed, examination. What ties Darwin, Chomsky, Everett, and this book together is the quest to solve mystery of the origin of language. Darwin guessed that language evolved from humans imitating bird speech. Chomsky believed that language ability evolved within (an as yet unknown) brain/nervous system “organ.” However, a relative newcomer in the world of linguistics, Daniel Everett, Moody Bible College graduate and former missionary to a remote Amazonian tribe called the Piraha, throws a monkey wrench into “established” Chomskyan linguistics.
What Everett discovers in this Amazonian tribe is a people who do not have all of the Universal Grammar elements in their language. Furthermore, they have no words for colors or numbers, and they have no language for the past or future as they live in a state of eternal now. Everett says that the uniqueness of the Piraha language - because it does not prescribe to Chomsky’s Universal Grammar - proves that language ability is not innate but actually an artifact created by humans to live in community. In other words, language is a tool, a sophisticated tool, somehow devised by humans over time.
I have a number of problems with Everett’s ideas - which Tom Wolfe, by the way, seems to totally embrace. Everett see the Piraha as an example of the earliest humans. They have embraced very little from other cultures (in the Amazon rainforest) because of their belief that anything outside of their culture is inferior and should be dismissed. The Piraha’s language - although extremely difficult to learn - is a very limited language in complexity, sociological constructs, and vocabulary. This tribe can not even be counted as stone age in their technological development since they don’t have stone tools. Their only tools are very rudimentary bows and arrows. They live in lean to’s that are easily disposed of. Having no concept for the future, limits their desire (or need perhaps) to prepare for it.
Obviously such a people will leave few traces of their existence; however, I see no reason to view them as something from which stone age and present day humans have evolved. Of course, I am not a (macro) evolutionists, and what I am about to say is terribly politically incorrect, but could it not be equally true that this tribe is an example of devolution? Cannot change (change and evolution are synonyms) happen in both directions? For example, present day humans have smaller brains and weaker physiques than Cro Magnon people.
I would be very interested to see a DNA analysis of this 300 or so person tribe. I would not be surprised if they all have a common ancestor that broke off a few hundred or so years ago from another Amazonian tribe. Are they really a separate and distinct people as their language seems to imply.
I could speculate as to why their progenitors were not using a native language. Could they have been feral children who have little experience of human language. What kind of language would such a pair or more of ferals create? And although the extreme conditions of the Amazon rainforest make it seem unlikely for a child to survive without adults, perhaps this is the case for the origins of the Pirahas. Perhaps the progenitors were deaf/mutes? Or perhaps the Piraha language is not as different from the surrounding tribes as Everett believes. I assume the tribe has no legends of their beginnings since they have little concept of the past, so why or how they came to be will remain a mystery. However, the magnitude of Everett’s claim has not been thoroughly examined, it seems to me.
He is saying the Piraha’s language is akin to a prima lingua. If this is true, it should be easily proven by the Piraha tribe having a separate and distinct DNA lineage because, as we have seen throughout history, when different people groups intermingle, their languages also intermingle. Everett is claiming (by using them as an example of a prima indigenous people) that this tiny tribe has somehow stayed intact, separate, an unchanged - for what? 10,000 - 100,000 - 1 million years? It is hard to say because evolutionists throw out dates for humanity’s beginnings as easily as gamblers throw out dice at the craps table. All that is needed is a simple DNA test to prove if the Piraha are truly a separate indigenous people group. In other words, to make a whole new case for the origins of language based on one tiny tribe of people seems ludicrous.
He is saying the Piraha’s language is akin to a prima lingua. If this is true, it should be easily proven by the Piraha tribe having a separate and distinct DNA lineage because, as we have seen throughout history, when different people groups intermingle, their languages also intermingle. Everett is claiming (by using them as an example of a prima indigenous people) that this tiny tribe has somehow stayed intact, separate, an unchanged - for what? 10,000 - 100,000 - 1 million years? It is hard to say because evolutionists throw out dates for humanity’s beginnings as easily as gamblers throw out dice at the craps table. All that is needed is a simple DNA test to prove if the Piraha are truly a separate indigenous people group. In other words, to make a whole new case for the origins of language based on one tiny tribe of people seems ludicrous.
I suppose my true colors as a Chomskyite are being exposed. I do believe in an innate language ability that is wired into our brains/nervous system. I only disagree with the evolutionary (as in macro-evolutionary) origin of speech. I would say that we are endowed by our creator with the ability to use speech and to understand language. In Genesis, the very first task that Adam was given was to name the animals. And in the Gospel of John in the New Testament, it states that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Language is divine.
It was especially interesting to me that Everett the former missionary turned away from Christ to follow the God of Anthropology and Evolution. Interesting but hardly surprising. There is no quicker way to derail and ruin a career in academia than to be a Christian. Any theory (of anything) that is based on Intelligent Design rather than evolution is dismissed out of hand in this very small and narrow world. Unfortunately the evolutionary worldview limits scholars to new hypotheses and possibilities as to the origin and development of language.
If you are interested in language or in understanding the philosophical trendsetters in the last 150 years, I highly recommend The Kingdom of Speech. Wolfe makes the journey in this 185 page book not only educational but enjoyable.
