Daniel Everett's challenge to Universal Grammar

I recommend this article at Edge to anyone interested in linguistics or psychology: link.

Here's my mangling and oversimplification of it: Noam Chomsky's 'Universal Grammar' theory of language says that the differences between different language are superficial; they all follow the same rules, and the differences in syntax and grammar are just the effect of the same rules operating on different, culturally transmitted parameters. Though these parameters are culturally transmitted, they're not a reflection of cultural values; the differences in syntax between languages are arbitrary.

One of the universal features that are supposed to be found in all languages is recursion: the ability to change "he said 'hello'" to "he said she said he said 'hello'".

Daniel Everett is a linguistics field researcher who says the language of the Amazonian Pirahãs tribe doesn't have recursion -- and that the lack of recursion is a reflection of the Pirahãs' cultural values. He also says that 'Universal Grammar' theory has not been tested properly, and even that many of its claims are untestable. If Everett turned out to be right, it would challenge the way linguistics has been studied for decades; it would also have implications for the relationship between environment and thought. Not surprisingly, his research is very controversial.

In the article I've linked to, Everett explains his research, tells his interesting personal story, and describes the culture of the Pirahãs, who sound like an amazing bunch. It's followed by rebuttals by other linguists, including Stephen Pinker. I'm a Pinker fan, but I don't think he properly addresses what Everett says here. I'd be interested to know what other folks think.

(Btw, it's been years since I learnt about this stuff - please let me know if my summary muddled it up too much!)

Via Kottke.