If language is an instinct as Chomsky suggests, what does that imply about its evolution?

If language is an instinct as Chomsky suggests, what does that imply about its evolution?

• A. It evolved recently
• B. It probably evolved longer than humans have existed
• C. It evolved after writing
• D. It did not evolve

Answer: (B)

Language as an instinct means it is an innate, biologically based capacity shaped by natural selection. If the brain is wired for language from birth, its roots would have formed over a long span of evolutionary time within the human lineage, long before modern humans appeared or before written language existed. That makes it plausible that language originated earlier in our evolutionary history, well before recorded humanity. So, the idea implies it probably evolved longer than humans have existed. In contrast, writing is a cultural invention that comes much later, so language being an instinct wouldn’t have to wait for writing to emerge. An instinctive trait doesn’t imply it appeared only recently, and denying that it evolved would conflict with the idea of a biologically anchored capacity.

Language as an instinct means it is an innate, biologically based capacity shaped by natural selection. If the brain is wired for language from birth, its roots would have formed over a long span of evolutionary time within the human lineage, long before modern humans appeared or before written language existed. That makes it plausible that language originated earlier in our evolutionary history, well before recorded humanity. So, the idea implies it probably evolved longer than humans have existed.

In contrast, writing is a cultural invention that comes much later, so language being an instinct wouldn’t have to wait for writing to emerge. An instinctive trait doesn’t imply it appeared only recently, and denying that it evolved would conflict with the idea of a biologically anchored capacity.