Bringing Science Home
Human language, from BEV to ASL and everything in between, is a genetically endowed by-product of human evolution, that even though it may set us apart from every other organism, it is no more unique to humans than a trunk is to an elephant or wings is to a bird. This is an essential point that Pinker makes, one that throws SSSM and other standard-setting scientists out the window, making way for the public to grasp a general understanding of the science of language.
Pinker makes language, and everything it emcompasses, accessible to the general public; with catchy chapter titles to hilarious examples and rips on "language mavens", this text is the utmost route to linguistics. Honestly, what more can up expect from a master of language? Regardless of that fast, what better way to understand Mentalese than with clear-cut examples and scientific backing? How would one scuff through morphology, phonetics, syntax, and the theory of Universal Grammer without being able to make a connection with examples from bunk-media clippings and hasty scientifically backed theories? Some may critique his wordy and lengthy style, but he/she must consider his audience. What is easier clearly expressed ideas and examples in plane ole' English or Chomsky-short-hand (p.96)?
Its Linguistics 101 with a twist. Not many people want to read dry text unless he/she has to. Pinker lightly peruses the tip of the iceberg, with explanations on Pidgin, Creole, the meaning of Standardized testing, Baby Geniuses, and theories on the origin of language, as well as fine points made by other linguistics that Pinker may not agree with, he satisfies the criteris for an introduction to language syllabus.
Language Instinct shines a bright light on a topic that is more important now and in the future than ever before, especially during a time of extreme globalization, language is the key to understanding many aspects of communication and Pinker targets a huge audience. Above all I would consider Pinker a credible and reliable source of information. And this is important, especially in this day and age, where anyone can write-off anything as fact.
However, I must say that Pinker clearly expresses the downfall of being so well-informed. It is important to draw a mental picture for one that is not so familiar with the concepts found in this book. But the fact of the matter is that tt is easy to get carried away in the nitty-gritty boroque examples that carry on for pages.
Last, perhaps Pinkers main set-back would be his theory on the language gene.
Overall, Pinker has a good grasp on his knowledge and writing style. He brings science down a notch so that the understanding of language can become accessible to those that it matters to most, everyone! This is a great introduction to Chomskian Theory. As a general advocate or good communication, Pinkers efforts to eduacte the public on language as a tool for understanding the owrld, mind, and culture should not go without notice.
The Best
This is by far the best lay account of an ongoing scientific breakthrough: The discovery of the biological underpinnings of language. Steven Pinker writes like a dream, and his wry and lucid descriptions are within the grasp of anyone curious about the phenomenon of language.
The clarity is a breath of fresh air to anyone who's tried (like me) to get through Noam Chomsky's books on language.
Speaking of which, some reviewers apparently believe Pinker is a Chomsky disciple, and they spend their reviews attacking Chomsky's Universal Grammar, rather than this book. Although Pinker acknowledges the deep debt that linguistics owes to Chomsky's ideas, he is clearly skeptical about Universal Grammar, and I think he discusses it for the sake of completeness, and because to do otherwise would seem disrespectful. Actually, most linguists aren't orthodox Chomskyites, because the rules of Universal Grammar get more complex, and murkier, as each new exception is discovered.
Likewise, some reviewers try to shoehorn Pinker into the "Nativist" category, as in the great debate of Nature vs. Nurture. While Pinker is clearly a Nativist at the fundamental level, so is everyone else: You can't teach a cow to speak French. But at the human level, he acknowledges the role played by both nature and nurture. He spends more time with nature because that's where the new stuff is happening.
I heartily recommend this book to anyone who interested in how, and why, we talk.
An instinct to acquire an art
Confounded by the mystery of language, Charles Darwin said that our proclivities to language were an instinct to acquire an art.
As always, Darwin's prescience contibutes mightily to briefly understanding that which is significant concerning an evolutionary field.
Though admittedly Pinker does not have the brief eloquence that characterizes Darwin, his book is nonetheless a serviceable contribution in helping one to understand how humans are programmed to acquire language, the problems that can interfere with that act of acquisition, some of the dynamics of language systems and how they vary and how language works metaphorically consistent with it's use of a brain structure originally designed to cognate about physical structure and orientation.
Fleshing out some of these areas, Pinker discusses how children are born with a proclivity to acquire language. In this way, children can by just hearing language assemble a sense of complicated structure from merely hearing examples of occassional usage. It's kind of like seeing a few minutes of a movie and being able to extrapolate of whole plot. As pointed out by Pinker, it's amazing.
Pinker also discusses impairments of the brain and vocal systems which can affect language acquisition. This is interesting like all brain-mind discussions are interesting for the dramatic effects on behavior that even slight effects on brain architecture can have.
Reading this book one also learns that all language systems use sentences intended to communicate a thing (subject) doing something (verb) to another thing (object). Interestingly enough, Pinker shows that while SOV and SVO sentences are common, OSV are arguably non existent. Why human cognition should ordain such a state of affairs still remains uncertain.
However, human cognitive systems are shown to be highly metaphorical in nature. In other words, when we understand someone we can be said to follow them, accompany them or see eye to eye with them. Likewise, a disagreement can be characterized as not following or not seeing eye to eye with someone. In this area, Pinker merely touches on the very excellent Lackoff and Johnson book "Metaphors we live by" which at length discusses the various ways in which metaphor pervades speech. This is significant because it supports the conclusion that originally language centers served to help in navigating spacial relationships. This contibutes mightily to the experience of irrelevance that accompanies pure philosophical discussion and insurance sales pitches.
As has been pointed out by other reviewers, Pinker can be repetitive and pedantic. However, he does do a serviceable job of explaining what is a fascinating area of human behavior. Even if you read others, read this one as well.
Outstanding!
I've intended to write a review about this book (and the others I've read by him).
While I can't agree with all of his observations (or more accurately ... "points of view") Mr. Pinker is one smart and insightful thinker. He's a good writer, too, but I'll put up with lousy prose if the notion is worth reading about.
If you're new to the topic (c'est moi!), I'd surely recommend reading his books in the order he wrote them along with some Chomsky. My first introduction to his work was The Blank Slate (a very scary book), but after reading that I went back to Pinker's beginning to educate myself in his point of view.
The The Language Instinct provides more than just a peek at who we learn language, but inserts the formulas for learning in general, the commonality of different cultures and even different evolutionary eras. His sometimes touching, sometimes clinical, always vivid recounts that he discovered through his intensive and provocative research about the deaf, the voiceless, the varieties, the cultural barriers that have all been crossed because human beings share this one universal characteristic of "language" which is truly "instinctive" gives a person pause to reconsider WHAT ELSE? about our species is beyond the "nurture" and is mostly "nature"!
I've read all his books through The Blank Slate at least twice. I still can't come to terms with his entire point of view, but I get a little closer each time.
You won't quit thinking about it, once you read his books!
A well-written guide to a theory that's looking more and more doubtful
This book argues that human language is too complex to be something we learn after birth, like swimming or driving a car. Pinker believes that language is innate, the result of complex rules that we are born with and that are generated from a specific part of the brain. It's even suggested that there is a specific "language gene" in our DNA.
After over 3 decades after the popularization of Noam Chomsky's nativist theory that language is innate, someone finally wrote a book that explains it in simple, easy-to-understand terms. The problem is, its beginning to look like this book came at the twilight of the nativist theory's existence.
Language might look like a unique, one-of-a-kind ability. It may seem strange that we can speak our native language so well, yet have so much trouble with foreign languages as adults.
But actually, childhood is a time when we learn a great deal of mind-bogglingly complex mental tasks that are difficult to learn as adults.
Take vision, for example- we often take our ability to see and gauge angles and depth as a given, but rather than being genetic, its actually a complex mental process that we learn after birth. There are cases of blind people that receive their sight in adulthood through breakthrough surgery. But rather than simply gazing at their wife for the first time, they often don't know how to comprehend what they're seeing. They have to conciously learn that objects that enlarge in their field of vision are actually getting closer. And they often have to re-learn, for examples, what their dog looks like from several angles. At first, it appears to be shrinking on either side when it turns to face them. In the book An Anthropologist on Mars, Oliver Sacks reported that one such patient simply gave up on trying to understand what his eyes were telling him and went back to being blind.
By the same token, language could be something we acquire during a critical period in childhood. As amazingly complex as it is mentally, so is learning to see, and the balancing act of walking on two legs. With time these processes look so natural it looks genetic. Of course, our DNA dictates that we have a larnyx to speak with, and we seem instinctively wired to pick out and learn speech (barring a disorder such as autism). But still, there's an acquisition period after birth where our minds hashed out the details. It's called an acquisition period because it's acquired, not because its handed down letter-by-letter and rule-by-rule in the DNA. That's why language differs so drastically in grammar and phonology from language to language, because so much of it -not so little of it- is worked out in the environment beyond the womb.
As far as giving a well-written, entertaining and easy-to-understand breakdown of Chomsky's theories, this book is great. If you want to understand the nativist approach, give it a chance. But take it with a grain of salt. As entertaining as it is, it's basically the infomercial view of how language works, and it's hard for me to give it a good rating when it's beginning to look more and more like this theory is wrong about language.
To learn about the competing theory, check out Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development, by Jeffrey Elman et al. It's heavier going than this book, but much more convincing and worth the read.
