Rating: 
Summary: The Bookselling Instinct
Review: Begin with a title that asserts the conclusion. Start the book by aligning the author with Chomsky in postulating an innate, universal grammar capacity. The language instinct is indeed already a done deal. Be guided carefully through selected cases that either seem to confirm the existence of a language instinct or selected cases to discount arguments to the contary. So do you think we have a language instinct? If so, you are ready for the next sell, the reasoning instinct. And the list of 40 or so other innate capabilities that we all may have. And we might find the very genes that make this possible. These instincts and genes fortunately don't seem to enslave us (as being conditionable would). They make us free and creative beings. Sound like a great payoff, right? See how how the mind creates language? By instinct. Not just any instinct, an instinct based on genes. It's all clear now, isn't it? Too deep? If not, you're ready for the actual conclusion: we all have the same mind. So, Pinker affirms, even if you can't understand a New Guinea tribesperson, you can feel comfortable as you listen to him/her that the universal grammar is at work. We are free and we are all one. Now you don't have to go back to the ancient Greeks or earlier to get that warm message of unity. Skinner and behaviorism get no creditin this book despite some promising steps by behaviorists with language, such as helping autistic children to speak. It seems hard to deny we have some great capacities and it seems hard to deny that we can be conditioned - being able to be conditioned seems one of our great capacities. Pinker says we are have the same mind, but in this book excludes behaviorist contribution, so I wonder what kind of sameness he has in "mind". No one should accept this book as adequate. I expect from his credentials and his excellent writing that the author could do a lot better. A science needs to do a lot more than appeal to "instinct", "mind". "freedom" and "oneness". It certainly may seem good to acknowledge we are amazing beings: you may feel warm and cozy when you finish this book, but ask yourself how you can apply what was presented in this book. Move past feeling wonderful about the structure of language and consider how language functions - as B.F. Skinner did in "Verbal Behavior", a less accessible but more useful and scientific try at understanding what we are doing with language. When we seem not to have many useful answers, it's dangerous to write as if it's all clear. Don't be lulled by Pinker. If you read this book, ask yourself honestly: "Do I understand now how the mind creates language? Can I even see whether the mind creates language?" But first be sure to thank your mother and father for helping you to say "Momma" and "Dada" meaningfully.
Rating: 
Summary: Accessable and fascinating
Review: I'll start by pointing out that much of Pinker's view is controversial in the details but that I generally agree with his approach. Academic linguists will no doubt dispute much of what he claims, but as an overview for non-specialists, I think this book is a great place to start. It will definitely get you interested in linguistics and language, and the debates about it.
As for my background, I teach English in Japan, have a degree in political and logical philosophy, and have studied some basic linguistics. The general approach here seems indisputible to me; that the human brain is hard wired for language and that all human languages share some general structures. In the details, there are a lot of avenues for argument, but does anyone out there really take behaviourism or post-modernism seriously as a linguistic theory? If you do, the underlying concepts you rely on for your frameworks also make any criticism of competing theories inconsistent. I highly recommend this book, but don't take all his claims at face value.
Rating:
Summary: Good intro to where human language comes from
Review: Professor Pinker has written an entertaining and easy-to-read book about how the human race comes to have language, apparently based on Noam Chomsky's not-so-entertaining or easy-to-read books, plus some of Prof. Pinker's own observations. He believes language comes out of people by instinct rather than totally as a learned skill. In this regard, he finds infants to be "geniuses" of language in that, for example, they can produce grammatically correct expressions they haven't heard before. To call them geniuses seems to me misusing the term somewhat. If a genius is someone who far exceeds the norm for his age group in some respect, then babies are not geniuses, since almost all seem to have the instinct for language. This minor quibble over terminology is not to dispute that human infants pick up language with great facility, however. The discussion of how the brain works in the area of language is followed by a discussion of prescriptivist grammar, which Pinker criticizes for being a collection of outmoded and inappropriate rules that in many ways hamper more than help verbal expression. This is like shooting fish in a barrel, of course, since any collection of rules and regulations will eventually be rife with inconsistencies and unnecessary strictures. Taking potshots at grammar rules is like picking on the U.S. tax code or our collection of laws in general. As do many critics of grammar rules, Pinker occasionally employs ridiculous examples that a competent writer or editor would very likely avoid or eliminate entirely with a more efficient phrase or sentence. When I encounter antiprescriptivists, I always wonder what they would substitute for grammar rules, if anything. They often refer to a "natural" grammar, which is apparently the instinctive process that Pinker finds. I wonder how far into the world of complex ideas this instinctive grammar can carry us and whether my version of it would jibe well enough with that of other folks to permit effective communication. Perhaps the antiprescriptivists will settle for updating existing texts with what they consider more suitable guidelines and pruning them of outmoded or senseless rules. If you are interested in the origins of grammar and language, Pinker's book is a good place to start learning about them. It may relieve you of some of the grammar guilt you've carried since grade-school days.
Rating: 
Summary: An important and useful book
Review: This book covers modern linguistics for the general reader. Steven Pinker writes very well, so he's able to unload an enormous amount of facts without boring you in the details. He starts off with basic linguistic theories, describing how our minds construct language. We think in words and images, we derive sentences from a common (raw form of) grammar that's in everyone's brain, and we make constant adjustments in words and syntax to suit our purposes. The key idea is communication --- it's built-in, it's always changing, it has a finite set of fundamental rules, and it has an infinite capacity for expression. Then Pinker goes on to a variety of topics related to language. A few are very important and get a lengthy treatment. The location of the language organ in the brain, for example, is covered in detail. Other topics, such as artificial intelligence, are covered briefly. Pinker is interested in AI only as it relates to human language. AI doesn't tell us much, so he passes over it quickly. The book goes on to cover teaching primates sign language, the evolutionary development of language, "the language mavens" (people who write newspaper columns about proper grammar), and language acquisition by children. This last topic is fascinating because so many of us have been there as we notice our kids are learning how to speak. Pinker offers a lot of interesting information about how and why a child learns to speak clearly and creatively. I highly recommend this book. Steven Pinker knows his audience. He knows just how technical he can get, and how often he needs a personal anecdote or a joke to keep the layman awake and interested. He challenges you, cutting sentences to pieces and discussing dull topics like plurals, but he frames the grammar scientifically. Instead of getting bored by the mechanics of grammar, you feel like you're understanding the human mind. Finally, it's worth noting that Noam Chomsky comes up a lot in this book. Pinker is skeptical but respectful of Chomsky's linguistic work. Many people have read Chomsky's political books but haven't gotten into his linguistics. If you are one of those people, read this and you'll feel a lot more comfortable with linguistics and Chomsky's contribution to the field.
Rating: 
Summary: After reading "The Language Instinct" read "Educating Eve"
Review: A well written a quite readable book. Pinker's (and by extension, Chomsky's) evidence for Universal Grammar has been disputed by professional linguists for decades. Actually, for a thinking individual, coming up with counter-examples - which are sometimes quite easily produced - makes one wonder just how seriously anyone should take the nativist claims. For a short example (since this forum is not meant to be a forum for academic rebutal) on p. 30: Pinker claims a speaker of Standard American English (SAE) would never try the following contractions: Yes he is! -> Yes he's! I don't care what you are -> I don't care what you're. Who is it? -> Who's it? Pinker hints that one does not find these contractions in SAE since they violate rules of Universal Grammar which are part of the bioligical make-up of the mind! How astonishing, since I always thought the much more simple and elegant explanation would be that one does not contract a word which one wants to emphasize - in the first case, "Yes, he is!" is an affirmation of something previously thought not to be the case, and as such the "is" gets re-affirmed and highlighted. But of course, I am a speaker of SAE, and didn't find the third example to sound that odd (Who's it?) Since I say it all the time when someone calls and someone else answers the phone and tells me that the phone is for me. Or if the phone isn't for me, I often ask "Who's that?" I would suggest any reader, who takes the time, can come up with several counter examples on their own. Such as: Where is that? -> Where's that? -- In this case, and so many others presented in "The Language Instinct" Pinker presents only the positive side of the debate, many times leaving out the details, since he knows full well the devil resides there! For a populist account (and a very readable one, I may add, beats Chomsky's, "Language and Problems of Knowledge" in readability by a LONG SHOT!) "The Language Instinct" is a good read. However, if one is going to limit his or herself to reading popular accounts rather than the arguments of profesional linguists, I highly recommend the short and equally readable rebutal by the British scholoar, Geoffrey Sampson, "Educating Eve" In conclusion: The claim that humans have language genes which impose an underlying grammar on all human languages (both present and extinct) is a bold claim. In my opinion, the evidence does not follow from ANYTHING offered by Pinker or any of his nativist colleges, or by the head master himself, Noam Chomsky. Certainly such claims should be taken with the same seriousness and skepticism as claims about intellegence being racially determined. Whereas the former is a rather innocuous belief and the later not- the evalutation of the claims should be equally rigourous. The book is well written and readable, but after you have read it, read "Educating Eve" if you still have reservations or simply want to get another view! Sincerly Kent Slinker
Rating:
Summary: Insightful and packed full of very interesting examples.
Review: For a non-technical and non-orthodox introduction to the origins and characteristics of language this book is excellent. It could be read by anyone who is curious about linguistics as understood by an expert, but whose ideas on the subject are considered somewhat unconventional from the standpoint of modern research in linguistics. Indeed, the very title of this book may raise many an eyebrow from some entrenched schools of modern linguistics. The author though has written a highly interested book here, and after reading it one carries away a deep appreciation of the complexities of language. Some of more interesting and surprising facts that are discussed in the book include: 1. There has never been a tribe or group discovered that does not use language, and there is no evidence that a particular geographical region has acted as source of language that is spread to groups that previously did not use language. These facts do lend credence to the author's thesis that language is instinctual. 2. The level of industrialization or technology of a society apparently is not correlated with the complexity of the language used by that society. Examples of this are given, such as the Bantu language in Tanzania, whose resemblance to English is compared to the difference between chess and checkers. In addition, the author dispels the myth that individuals in the "lower classes" of society do not speak as eloquently or with as much sophistication as the "middle classes". The Black English Vernacular or BEV is cited as an example, and the author quotes studies that indicate higher frequency of grammatical sentences in working-class speech than in middle-class speech. 3. As further evidence to support his thesis that language is instinctual, the author points to the universality of language and language development in children (the latter being his specialty). Interestingly, he states that children reinvent language not because they are "smart" but because "they can't help it." In more than one place in the book he expresses his belief that intelligence is not needed for the acquisition of language. If it indeed it is not, this gives an interesting twist to the current efforts in artificial intelligence to produce machines that are capable of ordinary language. A machine therefore may be designated as "intelligent" even though it does not have ordinary language capabilities. An immediate consequence of this is that one cannot take the absence of the language ability in machines as evidence that they are not intelligent, as is done many times in the literature that is critical of AI. 4. The discussion of 'pidgins' and the 'creole' that results when children make them their native tongue. The author cites the construction of these creoles as further evidence of his thesis, for children can take the simple pidgin word strings and without any coaching develop a highly sophisticated, very expressive language. Another example of a pidgin, also discussed by the author, is the independent development of sign language by deaf Nicaraguan children after the failure of teaching them speech reading. This eventually resulted in the Lenguaje de Signos Nicaraguense or LSN that is used to this day. It remains to be seen whether the author's thesis will eventually be accepted by future linguists. Further research in neuroscience will no doubt shed light on the real origins of language, and once understood natural language capabilities will no doubt be implemented very straightforwardly in the machines, whether or not it is advantageous or not to have machines with these capabilities.
Rating: 
Summary: Where's the Kool-Aid stored?
Review: I waded through a book on modern linguistic theory, scratched my head over the author's apparent misplaced certainty over what seemed awfully flimsy conjecture, and then started on Pinker's book. Is it just me, or has the entire linguistic profession drunk massive amounts of special Kool-Aid? Maybe Chomsky stirred up the first batch, but there's more. One example: after a few paragraphs exhaustively getting to the point about homophones and puns, Pinker says, "if there can be two thoughts corresponding to one word, thoughts can't be words," and he seems satisfied that the case is closed. Huh? Who says words are supposed to behave like memory registers in a computer? Context adds meaning; ain't that the point? and by "point", ain't it obvious that I didn't mean a sharpened pencil? even if it's stored (as it is right now) in my brain? This book is very well written, which is why I gave it two stars. But it's fanciful and unscientific. Yes, I know he's at M.I.T. It happens.
Rating:
Summary: Great book
Review: I loved this book. I gained from it a greater appreciation of both the complexity and beauty of language.
Rating:
Summary: Engaging
Review: This is by far the most entertaining of the several books I've read on this topic. Steven Pinker bursts the bubble on some outdated theories of language retention and creation. His section on irregular verb formations is actually quite entertaining, utilizing poetry and satire to make his points. And he does. You may find yourself reading The Language Instinct for pleasure as much as for information.
Rating:
Summary: Neurolinguistics for Dummies
Review: In the course of this impressively well-written and researched book, Pinker considers the question: How do humans develop language? The answers presented are heavily filtered through the theories of Noam Chomsky, but written in a far more engaging and readable fashion. Read this, and you'll never think of "language" in quite the same way again.
| 
