1 Anti-Anti-Cartesianism: A reply to Shanker

There have been many criticisms of “nativism ” in “Cartesian linguistics, ” attacking positions that neither Chomsky nor any well-known generative grammarian has ever thought to defend. Shanker’s polemic is no exception. It involves two spurious claims: (1) Cartesian linguistics (hypothesizing universal, grammar-specific principles that structure any language acquired through usual interaction with the learner’s community) vitiates understanding language structure and use; (2) nativism permits linguistic anthropology only to “validate ” and “apply” (wrong-headed) generative principles. Briefly, Chomsky’s (2000) outlines a language system, LS, of the human brain. LS reflexively discriminates and categorizes parts of the flux of human experience as “language, ” and develops complex abilities to infer and interpret this highly structured, and structurally peculiar, type of human production. There is nothing intrinsically different about LS – concerning innateness, evolution or universality – than the visual system (VS), immune system (IS), respiratory system (RS), or any other complex biological system. Much polemic is driven by distaste for “innateness, ” “genes, ” and “evolution. ” Historical and ideological reasons explain this aversion- some well-justified. None bear on universal grammar. Regarding (1), nothing of substance in Shanker’s claim pertains to the truth or falsehoo