Leaving the myth behind: A reply to Adger (2015)

•Correction of serious misrepresentations in Adger (2015).•Clarification of the term ‘language instinct’.•Clarification of Chomsky's position on ‘language organs’.•Clarification of ‘linguistic recursion’.•Clarification of the aim of “The Language Myth”.

In this article we address some of the criticism of Vyvyan Evans’ work by David Adger. We argue that Adger (i) fails to evaluate Evans’ work appropriately, (ii) narrowly focuses on alleged misunderstandings but provides no thorough clarification of the Chomskyan framework, (iii) reveals an inadequate understanding of issues he claims expertise in, (iv) ignores work completed outside of the Chomskyan framework that casts legitimate doubt on the appropriateness of this framework, and, in related fashion, (v) fails to address specific challenges to the Chomskyan framework discussed by Evans. We suggest that any defender of the Chomskyan framework needs to address the following questions: [i] what are the specific theories Chomskyans are currently committed to, [ii] which concrete findings from developmental psychology and neurobiology support the Chomskyan framework, and [iii] how can the Chomskyan paradigm overcome the familiar, long standing challenges stated in the technical literature.