One of the major shifts in thinking about language came in 1990, when Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom published their groundbreaking paper: Natural language and natural selection. In it, they argue natural selection was the central process in shaping the biological structures underpinning language. Since then, the field of language evolution has blossomed into a truly multidisciplinary subject. Yet now, I believe we are in the process of undergoing another paradigm shift: incorporating cultural evolution.
For some features, particularly the physical capacity to produce and receive multiple vocalizations, there is ample evidence for specialisation: a descended larynx, thoracic breathing, and several distinct hearing organs. Given that these features are firmly in the domain of biology, it makes intuitive sense to apply the theory of natural selection to solve the problem: humans are specially adapted to the production and reception of multiple vocalizations. Yet Pinker and Bloom’s argument is found somewhat wanting when extended to incorporate the notion that natural selection shaped specialised mental organs, or modules, for acquiring language. First and foremost, the notion of a putative language acquisition device (commonly referred to as LAD) is not an established fact: rather, it’s derived from Noam Chomsky’s arguments from the poverty of the stimulus (POTS) and assumptions that all languages are essentially the same in structure, but differ in their sound systems and vocabularies.
As such, under the stewardship of Pinker, Chomsky and others, the origin, evolution and acquisition of language is primarily seen as a biological question to be answered. Whilst it is certain that biology plays a role in the evolution of language, its exact purpose is still contentious in light of new research emerging from theories into cultural evolution. A notable instance came at the 2009 CogSci conference, where some of the leading researchers into the cultural evolution of language met up at a symposium, namely: Nick Chater (philosophy), Thomas L. Griffiths (Bayesian analyses), Simon Kirby (evolutionary psycholinguistics) and Morten H. Christiansen (molecular genetics). Each of these individuals are key influences on my own thinking in regards to language evolution (Simon Kirby was formerly my course supervisor at Edinburgh), and I think it is worthwhile to dedicate a few paragraphs discussing their ideas.



