Chomsky says that language did not evolve for communication, but for internal thought.Lets see how this can be challenged.
To begin with, I can make my own language, from the outset. Suppose we didn’t have the English language the way we have it now. Lets construct an English. Here is how it goes – Take any two things connected by a relation between them. For example, if John went to the store, the 2 things – John and store – are connected by the connection ‘went’. Now, write the 3 things in order – first, the first thing, then the second thing and then the connection (exercised by the first on the second) between the 2 things. So my “sentence” becomes ‘John store went’. This is my legitimate sentence in my English. Similarly, I can write – John pen writing. John ball playing. Cupboard floor standing……etc.
The above shows that I can make any such language of my choice with my own rules, BUT the condition being that there has to be an underlying concept of reality to base it upon. In the above case, the underlying conceptual basis was – 2 entities connected by a relation between them (as is one observed in reality).
Here begins the point of the argument – So now, in the light of this, let’s try to excavate the underlying concept beneath the way our English (the way we have it today, in real), is. It’s quite clear that the obvious 2 aspects in our English i.e. common to any English sentence are – 1) what are you talking about? and 2) what are you talking about what you are talking about? (In other words, ‘subject’ and ‘predicate’). Now, doesn’t it seem obvious that these 2 aspects are directly attuned to the phenomenon of communication (the first drawing the listeners attention to what is being talked about and the second to the actual matter) than internal thought? Thinking doesn’t really proceed in such structured (and definitely not always in such a simply-structured, definite & universal) pattern.