The Kingdom of Speech
| Company type | Book |
|---|---|
| Industry | Publishing |
| Founded | 2016 |
| Founder | Tom Wolfe |
| Products | Non-fiction book |
The Kingdom of Speech presents Tom Wolfe's examination and critique of Charles Darwin and Noam Chomsky. Wolfe contests the common attribution of evolution theory primarily to Darwin, highlighting the neglected role of Alfred Wallace. Additionally, he challenges Chomsky’s rejection of linguist Daniel Everett, who disputes Chomsky’s assertion that all languages stem from an inherent language acquisition device (LAD). Wolfe contends that it is speech—not evolutionary processes—that fundamentally sets humans apart and forms the basis for the intricacy of civilization.
Critical response
In The Guardian, Steven Poole disputes Wolfe’s portrayal of Darwin, arguing against the claim that Darwin’s natural selection lacked evidentiary support, emphasizing Darwin’s comprehensive use of geographic, anatomical, and fossil evidence. Jerry Coyne, writing for The Washington Post, accuses Wolfe of significantly misrepresenting evolutionary theory and points out that Everett’s findings did not disprove Chomsky’s universal grammar; subsequent studies have validated features such as recursion in the Pirahã language. Coyne further speculates that Wolfe’s conservative social views might influence his skepticism toward contemporary scientific consensus.
Oliver Kamm, in The Times, underscores Wolfe’s misinterpretation of Chomsky’s doubts about natural selection as the origin of the "language organ," noting that some academics believe Chomsky underappreciates evolutionary theory’s explanatory capacity. Harry Ritchie, writing for The Spectator, commends Wolfe’s depiction of Chomsky's impact but critiques his representation of Chomsky's waning influence as inaccurate. David Z. Morris from the Washington Independent recognizes Wolfe’s relevant focus on language and human nature but remarks on the book’s lack of rigor and various shortcomings.
Offering a differing perspective, Peter York in The Sunday Times reports that geneticist Steve Jones values Wolfe’s understanding of Darwinian scholarship and his critique of Chomsky’s linguistic theories. Daniel Everett acknowledges Wolfe’s thorough research but attributes some inaccuracies to both his own contributions and broader communication issues within the field; Everett also tweeted that Chomsky's stance on language origins resembles Wolfe's oversimplified view of evolution.
In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Tom Bartlett contrasts Wolfe's narrative with anthropologist Chris Knight's more comprehensive analysis, quoting Chomsky who remarks that Wolfe’s mistakes are too numerous to summarize succinctly. John McWhorter at Vox argues that Wolfe fundamentally misconstrues the debate between Chomsky and Everett by misrepresenting its core focus on cognitive mechanisms rather than language origins and by incorrectly portraying Everett as having decisively defeated Chomskyan linguists.
See also
Further reading
- Noam Chomsky, The Science of Language.
- Tom Bartlett, Colourful Chomsky biographers write furiously.
- Tom Bartlett, Angry words.
- Chris Knight, Decoding Chomsky - Science and Revolutionary Politics.
- Neil Smith, Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals.
- Vyvyan Evans, There is No Language Instinct.