Earticle

Everett (2005) and Wolfe (2016a, b) claim, against Chomsky’s, that culture constrains language, and language is not innate, but a man- made artifact. Their claim is strikingly false in contrast with uniformity, rapidity, critical period, and degenerated data as proposed by Chomsky (1965; 1968; 1972) for explaining language acquisition (growth). However, Chomsky’s (1996; 2010; 2012) claim, which proposes that language faculty is a result of mutation(s), “a great leap forward,” also has many fallacies. First, it is against information theories like the one proposed by Gitt (1996; 2007) that information is a mental and not a material quantity. It is also observed by scientists like Yang (2010) and Gitt (1996; 2007) that mutation(s) do not add new, complex, and specified information. Chomsky’s assumption of language faculty by mutation(s) cannot account for this observation. Chomsky’s language faculty by arbitrary mutation(s) also cannot explain the working together of speech anatomy and the built-in brain for the framework of intelligence of language use and for language faculty itself. I propose that the innate language faculty claimed by Chomsky can be accounted for without difficulty by irreducible complexity and specified complexity claimed by Behe (1996) and Dembsky (1999), respectively.