According to Pinker, language is an innate ability to Homo Sapiens, happily acquired in the process of evolution. Language ability distinguishes humans from other animals. Pinker gives some facts as the proof, discrediting experiments on training of a chimpanzee in language. For each representative of the human race, there is an inherent structure, the so-called mental grammar, which is in the process of learning takes place in the mastery of whatever language. According to the author, this mental grammar is universal to all people, despite the fact that languages may differ (Pinker notes that the differences between the languages are insignificant in terms of structure, the existence in their name, verb groups and so forth.). That is, thinking of all the people is universally, but a way of expression may vary. Pinker criticizes the hypothesis of linguistic relativity Sapir-Whorf and refutes many «anthropological myths» (eg, about the existence of a large number of Eskimos language words for naming snow). (Pinker,1994) The main thesis of Evans` answer: in comparison of language and spider web-spinning, human language just doesn't emerge in this way of spider; language is closely connected with socio-cultural context; "Children of Mowgli"; language is not stereotyped and "invariant" (Evans, 2014:95-131). Of course, there is no new data. Russian Marxists (eg, Vygotsky) knew it 100 years ago. Judging from the argumentation of Evans argues with Pinker, not Chomsky. Of course, it seems Pinker did the physical and biological interpretation of this concept. Evans directly blames Chomsky, he writes indirectly: «the language-as-instinct thesis, the thesis associated with Noam Chomsky and his followers, is wrong. This is my response to that challenge (Evans, 2014:X). We think Evans can say that he would rather argue with the followers of Chomsky than to Chomsky himself. Evans also did not disclose the nature of the logical arguments of Chomsky. He uses well-known figures like Chomsky, to draw attention to his book. Regarding the content of the ideas of Chomsky and Evans, it seems, both prove one thesis: the human brain is (more or less) adapted to the study of language. We can debate the causes of the appearance of this adaptation, but it is one argument, and it seems it is shared by both authors. We do not see any reason in the debate and we do not understand what the alternatives to this theory are
