The Language Instinct : How the Mind Creates Language

Rating:
Summary: An object lesson in brainwashing
Review: People should read this book if only as an object lesson in how a racy style, a sometimes cruel humour, and breadth of learning can lure readers into suspending their critical judgement as well as their rationality. Others have already criticized Pinker for presenting a controversial view as undisputed fact. But there is worse than this. The brilliance of the writing conceals misleading accounts of research, elementary ignorance, and patent nonsense, all in connection with arguments that are central to the author's case.

He tells us, for instance (pp.111-12), that children are born with knowledge of a super rule that if their native language puts the verb before the object, it will use prepositions, but if it puts objects before verbs, it will use postpositions. He does not reveal that there is a fair-sized minority of languages that do not follow this 'rule'.

Another claim Pinker attaches great importance to is that children know 'innately' that we never use regular plurals in compounds such as "rat-eater"; children never say "rats-eater" (pp.146-47). Italian parents' genes must be unaware of this, since their children grow up saying "fruttivendolo", i.e. "fruits-seller", not "fruit-seller".

But perhaps the author's most startling assertion (p.43) is that natural languages do not form questions by flipping the first and last words of a sentence or uttering it in mirror-reversed order. Most European languages, for a start, do precisely this, as in German "Sie Rauchen / Rauchen Sie?" - "You smoke / Do you smoke?"

Readers can find a development of these and other criticisms of the basic flaws in Pinker's account of language in my book LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT (1999, Intellect). They will also find there a demonstration of the impossibility of Pinker's mentalese, which he believes to be the language of thought.

Rating:
Summary: Informative and highly entertaining
Review: I admit I am one of those guys who wants to know how language works. Everybody uses language every day so it must be relatively simple, right? But of course it's not. For instance, I read a lot of what Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote about language and although it does make a lot of sense, it didn't really answer simple questions. As usual, simple questions turn out to be not that simple at all but Steven Pinker manages to give many explanations for not-so-simple things which can be easily understood by linguistic laymen like me. What's more, although the middle section gets a little boring, most of the book is written in a very entertaining fashion. If it's true that many scientists don't seem to have a good sense of humour, Steven Pinker is an exception to this rule (as a former astrophysicist I can tell you the rule is true). He didn't answer some of the questions I had but his most recent book "Words and Rules" dealt with those.

Rating:
Summary: Who's it?
Review: Haven't read the book, but wanted to add to the substantive discussion.

In playing a game of tag as a child, didn't you ever ask, "Who's it?"

Rating:
Summary: An accessible approach to a difficult topic
Review: I've had a long running interest in language acquisition and the study of linguistics, and have read many of the original works by authors like Chomsky. What Pinker does, whether you agree with his conclusions or not, is to provide an excellent general overview of linguistic theories. Many linguistic texts are DULL or tortuously difficult to read. Pinker is very clear and writes quite well. He sometimes goes a bit overboard on his theory, but most of the time he's very convincing. I have not yet read the other book referred to below, but look forward to it.

Rating:
Summary: Against the Relativist Grain
Review: I believe that some of the later reviews of "The Language Instinct" accurately reveal what generally is wrong with the positions taken here by the academic linguists who dismiss the book. Nobody points to the real problem behind these dismissals: not one of these linguists is willing to address the questions that lie at the heart of Chomsky's work in generative grammar and that instigated his work. These questions are (see p. 22, paperback ed.), and they are brilliant questions, never before asked: 1. How can we account for the fact that every human utterance is "is a brand-new combination of words?" 2. How do children, too young for formal instruction, master the essential grammatical structure of their native language? Chomsky's answer came to be generative grammar. The linguists, trapped by the Social Science Model they embrace, do not address these questions because they cannot and have no satisfactory explanation to put in its place. Until they can provide a different theory as powerful as Chomsky's they have no argument, only quibbles.

Yet having said that, I wonder whether Pinker is as successful as the enthusiastic reviews claim. Two kinds of comments, recurrent themes, as it were, suggest this. One criticism is that he presents speculation as fact. I can find not one example in 430 pages. One of the pleasures of reading this book (and it's a rare pleasure these days!) is Pinker's extremely careful use of language and his great care in weighing evidence, pointing out what is fragmentary and inconclusive but suggestive, and in telling us where he is speculating outright (as in chaps. 11 & 13). Why some reviewers misread so badly is related, I believe, to the second kind of objection.

Many complain that Pinker is "dismissive" of other points of view, that he is "unduly slanted," that he has an "agenda." These criticisms are meaningless in this context. Pinker is a scientist, and a scientist who temporizes and makes nothing but conditional statements is not writing science; he is publishing before he is sure of his data and has thought-through his conclusions; he would in fact not be published. Read Darwin's "Origin of Species." It's "slanted"? You bet, and it certainly has an "agenda"! But at the same time these complaints are deeply revealing about our present-day culture. One of Pinker's main points is that an all-pervasive extreme relativism has come to permeate our discourse at all levels. Here it manifests itself , in science, where it is entirely inappropriate: as the usual PC dogmas "Don't confront! Never dismiss! Somebody might be offended!" That way madness lies. That some reviewers failed to see that these kinds of responses were precisely what he is arguing against suggests that he may not have succeeded fully.

Finally, and briefly, one reviewer DOES attempt to confront Pinker on his own grounds, by suggesting that the adequacy of any theory can be tested by posing counterexamples. The problem is that his own examples counter nothing Pinker says. The first is impossible: "Yes, he's." Simply try to SAY that and the impossibility of that contraction is clear. One expects a completer (here; there; guilty, etc.). The second strains credulity: Anyone who is impolite enough to answer my phone call with a rude "Who's it?" produces instant confusion and a slamming hang-up. Unless . . . suppose the answerer is not in his office at the college but at home with an unlisted number. Then the likelihood is that the caller is friend, family, an intimate who recognizes this as a deliberately humorous, idiosyncratic, "in" way of saying "Hello," much as we use the words "whosis" and "whatsis" in informal situations. But these are intelligible ONLY because the standard, uncontracted forms are known in the first place.

Pinker's book is a powerful and important piece of work. Among other things, it argues subtly for the return of reasoned judgment to our everything-goes public discourse.

Rating:
Summary: Stephen Pinker is a scream!
Review: I find it hard to believe sometimes that Stephen Pinker teaches at MIT. You mean some scientists do actually have a sense of humor? Anyone who reads this book had better have a great sense of humor, a love of the absurd, and a desire to really understand language. I'm in Science Education, not linguistics, but because I am deaf and studying how deaf people learn, it ends up with a lot of linguistic study in it. Usually the books from this lot of scientists are mind-boggling hard to get through, but not Mr. Pinker. If he teaches like he writes, then he must be a heck of a teacher! Mr. Pinker is also one of the few linguists who aren't devoted to ASL studies who includes information about American Sign Language that makes it clear that it is a real language in its own right. That alone would endear Dr. Pinker to the Deaf culture. This books takes all those difficult concepts concerning the innateness of language, and conveys them to the layman in an easy-to-understand way. He is never patronizing and always funny. I enjoy reading the book, which I often have to do since I use it in my papers a lot. To say Dr. Pinker's book is brilliant is a statement of fact. It's too bad some scientists in other fields couldn't take a cue from him and get a sense of humor! Karen L. Sadler Science Education, University of Pittsburgh, [e-mail]

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating and entertaining book--convinces you he's right!
Review: I have a strong interest in how language develops, and am fascinated with the debate about whether language is instinctive or learned. When you finish this book, if you are like me, you will feel quite sure it's instinctive, as the author is extremely persuasive. However, I found myself wishing a few times he would be a little less dismissive of other views than his own! This book is very well written and humerous, and unlike many books about language I have read, it doesn't simply dryly tell about a million studies.

Rating:
Summary: Instincts and end-stinks
Review: I must confess that I've found many of these reviews as amusing as Pinker's excellent book. The book is great-- don't doubt that. He has made one of the clearest presentation of Chomsky's original notions of syntactic theory available and done so in a witty, fun and informative way. As an anthropologist and linguist present at the great shift away from the domination of behaviorism and its linguistic counterpart, Bloomfieldism, this book is a welcome synthesis of current thinking in linguistics. No, he won't convince everyone: the behaviorists still insist we "teach" our children grammar and religionists still see purpose/design in the universe. But, to thinking people this book will spark exciting insights-- our banker daughter read it and is discovering the exciting adventure of watching our granddaughter develop her speech. I find Pinker's evolutionary disposition a bit too "gradualist" for my tastes-- his exchange with Stehen J. Gould in the NYRB was very stimulating (two guys whose views I admire talking past each other;it was great!) Hey, buy the book! Read it! Enjoy! LEARN! After all, we were hard-wired to do so...

Rating:
Summary: When a "scientist" refuses to see what he sees
Review: The Language Instinct is really well-written and enjoyable ... particularly if you are interested in linguistics and how people communicate and speak. Earlier reviews (here) have fairly explored many aspects of the book. One thing about the book astounded me:

Prof. Pinker has written over 400 pages to prove that human language is a product of an "instinct," an inborn wiring of the human brain. Time and again he refers to the design of the mind and the commonality of that design as it outcrops in human language everywhere. He extols the incredible language power of the human infant as proof of pre-born hard wiring. He even describes the extreme unlikelihood that such language faculties could occur by accident.

Then he rather furiously re-pledges his allegiance to the dogma of evolution. And to me he sounds desperate and silly in the process.

His evolutionary musings sound half-hearted and are even less well-argued. The scientist is standing on the streets of the capital of an ancient empire, looking around at complex structures still standing on paved roads, and saying, "no, I don't see any evidence of intelligent design here."

Prof. Pinker's book offers loads of evidence of intelligent design == creation == and then tries to ignore the evidence because, well, gee whiz, what would the other scientists say?

Check out pages 354-362 (hardback) to see logical muddling of the worst sort. The theory of evolution found lip service but no evidentiary support in this book.

I liked the book and recommend it to anyone interested in the subject of language -- it's really fun to read. For those interested in the question of human origins, the book is an avowed evolutionist's guide to the breathtaking wonder of creation.

Rating:
Summary: engaging but polemical
Review: This book is a good presentation of basic linguistics, theoretical and empirical, for the general reader. There are some analytical constructs that will be new to many readers but anyone comfortable with toy logic games will have no trouble with them.

The book is always interesting. It is best and most reliable when Pinker sticks to well-established claims. It is engaging and worth reading even when he doesn't -- the issues are interesting, but his presentation is unduly slanted in favor of his view.

Thus the weakest aspect of the book is the one surrounding the title, human language as an instinct. Here the book bags empirics or rigorous theory and turns to exhortation. That's fine if the reader is aware of the type of argument Pinker is making, though it is sometimes a little hard to tell because he shifts somewhat freely. The trouble arises if someone credits the evidence marshaled for basic tenets of linguistics to Pinker's rank speculation.

Overall, definitely worth reading. It will catch you up on the generative grammar you always wanted to learn and go beyond it, at least for the purposes of your next cocktail party.