Language; we use it every day. From describing portraits to our family and friends, or recounting plays during a soccer game with our classmates, people use language all the time. But how did this “language” evolve? Daniel Dor, an Israeli linguist, created a theory of language as a communication technology, which is “a new general framework for the description, analysis and explanation of language as a socially constructed communication technology, designed by cultural evolution to enable communication across experiential gaps between its users.” Dor argues that language is related to its function of communicating with others rather than being an “organ” as seen in Chomsky's argument. Dor's view also differs from the functionalist view, albeit slightly; functionalists argue that language developed due to morphological changes such as increased brain size. Dor argues that language developed through cultural evolution, being learned and improved by each generation. Using Dor's theory of language, Eva Jabonka and Marion J. Lamb argue that "the evolution of language [is] the result of continuous interactions between the cultural and genetic inheritance systems, both niche construction and genetic assimilation". (p. 307) Although this argument is forcefully presented by Jablonka and Lamb, it needs to be tested for validity. This argument will only be valid "...if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false." The first premise is that a language develops culturally from incoherent babble to a sophisticated linguistic system. Jablonka and Lamb demonstrate this idea in the introduction of their thought experiment. In this experiment, there is a group of first... middle of paper... language that evolves, causing the conclusion to also be true. Therefore, by the definition of validity, this argument is valid. Although the conclusion is inductively proven valid, this does not mean that the conclusion is valid. This idea of ​​genetic and cultural systems is still relatively new and needs further evidence to become a valid conclusion. In addition to the evidence, there are other ideas that still seem relevant to language development. Chomsky's and functionalist views are still up for debate, so this idea of ​​interaction is not solidified as the “end point” of how language developed. As stated before, the conclusion is valid, based on the inductive reasoning presented by the thought experiment. However, the validity of the conclusion cannot be proven due to the highly questionable ideas presented by the thought experiment.