Nikos has brought up a few questions, about “human nature” and “universals” across cultures, along with a question regarding a “language instinct.”

I think it is fairly obvious – meaning that we would all agree, across cultures – that there is something that we refer to as “human nature.”  The basis for this agreement is the common experience of the capacities, potentialities, dispositions present in newborns across cultures (hence the possibility of adoptions across cultures), as well as our ability, even in adult life, to join a different culture.  We are all born with “something,” which then develops and crystallizes through our interaction with our environment, as we have discussed before .  It is important to keep in mind that the shaping of our potentialities (our central nervous system if you like) through interaction with the environment begins very soon after birth.  In addition, the first few years of life are a critical period for providing the basis for the continuing development of abilities that are important in later life (like language skills) – if the environment does not provide sufficient resources during this early period, it is very difficult to “catch up” later.  The importance of this early period for our development suggests that when we look at someone’s abilities in later life we cannot readily attribute them to what the person was born with or what their environment provided.  Even in cases where we can identify a problem with the infant at birth, their future development may well reflect inadequacies of their environment (for example, vision or hearing problems that though treatable were not addressed).

It is difficult to stress enough that “nature” develops discernible features through “nurture.”  I find the nature/nurture dichotomy deeply misleading, as there is a dynamic interplay between the two.  An example I find helpful for highlighting this point is imprinting in ducks: ducklings will follow as their mother the first object they see after hatching.  Their brain circuitry is primed to be shaped through the experience of the first moving object provided by their environment – and if this object happens to be Konrad Lorenz, that’s who they follow.  A related example is provided by reed warbler mothers that feed cuckoo bird chicks whose eggs hatched in their nest.  Their brain circuitry is looking for something to feed – and if this object happens to be a cuckoo bird chick, that’s who they will feed.

In terms of “universals” across human cultures, we would all agree I think about the existence of similarities.  Humans share a common biology (fairly evident as we can reproduce across cultures), and this common biology involves a long period of postnatal development and maturation and living in communities in the same material world.  Cultures will likely encounter similar challenges and may well develop similar tools to tackle them.  Of course we will find similarities across cultures!  At the same time, the challenges and solutions may well reflect the specifics of the particular environment of a culture, as well as the specifics of the particular population.  But I am not sure what “universals” in the abstract might be referring to.

Along the same lines, we may well agree that language is found across human cultures.  Communication is necessary for living in a community and we have several combinations of sensory and motor channels we could and do use: auditory, visual, haptic (touch) for example for sensory; vocal chords and mouth, hands and fingers for motor, etc.  Becoming and being part of a community is vital for the survival of a human being, hence the presence of a strong drive for communication and the priming of our nervous system to be shaped through communication (someone might call this “language instinct” I guess) – shaped through the receiving of sensory inputs and the providing of corresponding motor outputs.  The communication tools are of course refined, developed, and standardized over time, depending on needs, challenges, or newly available technologies.  It is also important to keep in mind that we use plenty of sensorimotor information during communication (body posture, facial expressions, tone of voice, and so on), and not only what we may strictly refer to as language.

Some final thoughts that I feel are important for maintaining perspective when talking about “human nature,” “universals” and “language instinct.”  One is that plenty of animals live in groups and we may well find several interesting similarities with them – see for example Frans de Waal’s work about other primates.  Another is that animals that live in groups engage in communication, providing interesting examples to consider when thinking about language, the dissemination of whale songs across pods coming to mind.  And last but not least, Alex, the African Grey parrot who learned how to talk, reaching the level of a human toddler.