ABSTRACT
The controversy within the field of linguistics about the essential or defining characteristics of language and the relative contributions of biology and environment to its development is examined in relation to the hypothesis of two qualitatively distinctive mental processes each of which expresses itself in a language with similar formal characteristics but radically different meanings. The dominant linguistic hypothesis of universal grammar attributed to the Chomsky group at MIT is inconsistent with the hypothesis of bilingual mind, for it postulates that language is basically bound to its hard-wired or instinctual origins and that there is but a single language template in which recursion is a central and essential feature. This assertion has been challenged by environmentalists who believe that recursion is not an essential feature of language, principle among them Everett, based on his anthropological field study of the Piraha tribe. The language instinct position is based on the erroneous assumption that there is only one fundamental human language, reflective representational thought. The bilingual model of two qualitatively different forms of consciousness each of which uses language differently, clarifies that recursion need not be a central and essential feature of all language, and that there is a qualitatively different and equally important conscious mental activity that does not operate according to the principle of recursion. The bilingual model of language shifts the debate to more complex questions about languages – our mother tongue and second language - and the respective roles of heredity and environment in their development.
