The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (P.S.) Reviews

• After reading "The Language Instinct" read "Educating Eve"

  
  By on 1999-07-31
  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
  
  

• Stephen Pinker is a scream!

  
  By A23OLHL5RPQKLP on 2000-05-22
  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, klsst23@pitt.edu
  
  

• Read it, but read it critically

  
  By ABTUNH7645QJL on 2005-10-02
  Addressing as it does issues of cognition, language usage and acquisition, evolutionary biology and innate versus learned behavior, this work is relevant to many of the great intellectual debates of our time. It is very readable for the most part, although if some of the topics are new to you then you will find a few sections rather heavy going. More illustrations would have helped here. There are syntax structure diagrams and one very grudging, cursory sketch of the language centers of the brain, but many sections cry out for a diagram among all the verbiage.
  
  Pinker's lively, humorous style is often commented on but I sometimes found it wearing. He will illustrate a point with an amusing newspaper cutting, then list a few more, then add "I could not resist some more..." and so on. I sometimes wished he would just get on with it.
  
  A major problem with his nativist approach, which other reviewers have commented on, is that many examples he lists of usages that English speakers would never employ are nothing of the kind. Most of them are conceivable and since the first publication of this book, linguists have been busy recording them in the field. The thesis also becomes somewhat unraveled in the penultimate chapter, where he argues that 'you and I' and 'you and me' are equally correct in all circumstances, because 'the pronoun is free to have any case it wants'. But if this is so then what has become of the innate awareness of correct usage that the whole theory is about? If 'between you and I' sounds instinctively wrong to me and 'between you and me' sounds instinctively wrong to someone else, does that mean one of us has a mutant grammar gene? I doubt it.
  
  The title itself is problematic. 'Instinct' is not a word much in favor among biologists nowadays and whatever language is, it is certainly not instinctive in the traditional sense. Early in the book, Pinker admits as much, but determines to use the word anyway, a use that owes more to marketing than to science.
  
  Still, this is probably the best introductory linguistics text currently available. If you are new to linguistics, start here rather than with Chomsky, but please go on to read Geoffrey Sampson's work, perhaps starting with his website, to get an alternative view. As with most academic disputes, the answer no doubt lies somewhere in the middle. Since Chomsky's early work, the nativists have toned down their claims considerably, while their opponents have made concessions. On page 34 of this book, Pinker says, "No one has yet located a language organ or a grammar gene, but the search is on." More than a decade later, the search is still on. Good luck with that.
  
  
  
  

• Despite Excellent Arguments, Some Readers Miss the Point

  
  By on 1999-02-17
  This is a superb introduction to generative linguistics (both phonology and syntax). Pinker has successfully simplified most of the complex methodological and notational issues to make these somewhat opaque fields more accessible to lay readers. As such, this is an ideal introductory text and a good reference for linguistic types who have had to forego the Ivory Tower but who want to keep their feet wet. What this text is not is an advanced, graduate-level text--and so don't expect that. If you've read any other book on generative theory (or better yet, minimalist theory), this book is backstepping. (Note that the negative reviewers of this title are also showing off how "advanced" they are--thereby missing the very point to this text!) On the other hand, if you're fascinated by language at all, no matter the reason, you owe it to yourself to try this text out. I have colleagues in non-linguistics fields of study (particularly literature) who don't understand why language isn't static, why the idea of "grammaticality" changes over time--or that Black Vernacular English and Sign Language are as well grammared as "standard" English. If you've been curious about any of these issues or more--buy and read "The Language Instinct."
  
  

• The one book on linguistics for the layperson

  
  By on 1999-10-28
  For the educated layperson, this book is the most fascinating and engaging introduction to linguistics I have come across. I know some college students who had received xeroxed handouts of one chapter from this book, and these were students who were just bored of reading handouts week after week... but after reading just a few paragraphs from The Language Instinct, they were hooked, fascinated, and really wanted to read the whole book (and did). I wish I had come across such a book years ago...

  If you've wished you'd taken linguistics, and never did, get this book. This one book will do it for you! Pinker is intelligent, but more importantly is a master of illustrative examples for the layperson. However, the text is never "dumbed-down" and can be a challenge to any reader.

  I've read some of the other readers' reviews... unfortunately some focus more on applying academic thought-criticisims of his nativist viewpoint. Certainly, if you are coming from an academic bent, yes, I would agree that it would be a gross misrepresentation to say that Pinker presents the definitive state of the art in linguistics, or that all linguists think like he does... in fact, the critical reviewers are right, Pinker is but one linguist in one theoretical camp, the "nativist" camp, i.e. the theory that genes drive language and its acquisition in a task-specific manner. But so what? Pinker's theory is not what drives enjoyment of the book; it's the enthusiasm and skill with which he can introduce any reader to the topic of the study of language! : It's not dry! It's fun!

  His viewpoint is already apparent by the title; the true value of this gem of a book is for introducing to the layperson LINGUISTICS and the depth of the kinds of questions that can be asked about language... these questions can be "beautiful," and certainly most readers would not have thought of these issues themselves, yet after Pinker's examples, it all makes wonderful sense, and is memorable and lucid. Whether or not the reader agrees with Pinker after becoming sophisticated upon further readings is not relevant; without The Language Instinct, Pinker's engaging introduction to the field, many would never wish to become linguistically sophisticated in the first place!

  The sort of reader who should pay attention to the specific thought-criticisms of some of the other reviewers should really be elsewhere, reading and critiquing Pinker's academic works, e.g. journal articles, or his book "Language Learnability and Language Development," not nitpicking a book meant for introducing the masses to the beauty of language! If you aren't a linguist, I would hazard that the majority of potential readers are safe to completely ignore these thought-criticisms when pondering their potential enjoyment of purchasing this book from Amazon.

  These critical reviewers should be reading/writing journal articles in the academic literature! However if you are in the grey area of reading this book for an academic reason not strictly defined as Linguistics, these specific thought-criticisms are valid to take note of and to consider-- I would concede that some niches of academics (e.g. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh of chimpanzee artificial language) may be taking The Language Instinct text, a book for the layperson, as an academic gospel of the entire field of Linguistics, without really considering the underlying technical issues or counterarguments.

  Overall, you likely won't find another book which presents the beauty & complexity of language with the ease of The Language Instinct. If you are to have but one book in your library on language, this should be the one.
  
  

• An object lesson in brainwashing
  By AXL1279UNC6QV on 2000-09-15
  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.
  
  

• wait a sec...
  By on 1999-11-09
  Quick comment: disparagingly calls "academic thought-criticisms," as if they were of a different, inferor, somehow less relevant breed than non-academic muscle-criticisms, or something.

  Pinker does a fine job of being entertaining and of making linguistics sound interesting; I would not dispute that. But his gross exagerrations and ridiculous claims are simply unnecessary, akin to the political ideologue who has a point and then pushes it to the hilt. It's all or nothing with the ideologue, and the same goes for Pinker.

  This book would have been no less entertaining if Pinker had screened out the claims he knows are suspect or false. Some positive reviewers seem to be insinuating that the "thought-criticisms" of us lowly experts and interested laymen should be shunted aside: what's _really_ important is how _interesting_ he makes linguistics!

  Compare this to a book on physics. Suppose, in his famous 1962-63 lectures, Feynman had made a bunch of outrageous and sometimes false claims about the "state of the art" in physics. Physicists would be up in arms as these lectures were eventually made into popular intros to physics. I can imagine people like the below poo-pooing those physicists because the issue isn't accuracy but how _fun_ Feynman had made physics.

  Perhaps this is all postmodernism at work. The text has no value on its own, and facts exist only for the individual. Well, bring on the dark ages, please.

  Read this book... be entertained... learn that a linguist is not "someone who knows many languages," and that there's no such thing as a "primitive" human language... But please, take it all with a grain of salt.

  (From someone who doesn't make a penny from alleged "grants" or anything else remotely involved with linguistics. Not that non-Chomskyans need it, since they're the ones who usually get the grant before the Chomskyans, for better or worse.)

  P.S.: And Pinker is _not_ a linguist! What's wrong with you people? He's a cognitive psychologist with a fetish for his colleague's (Chomsky's) profession. There is a difference. Jeez.
  
  

• Deeply Flawed But Fascinating
  By A255E1L105V4MU on 2002-10-13
  Steven Pinker's best-known book has some wonderful chapters, some so-so chapters, and a few that damage the credibility of the rest. Chapter 6 on how the sounds of spoken languages are formed is itself worth the price of the book. Chapter 2 on the grammatic differences between languages is fascinating. Chapters 4, 5, 7 and 8, which talk about grammar and its role in determining meaning, are well-meaning but become repetitive and obvious. When talking about Artificial Intelligence he is ill-informed and unaccountably pessimistic about future advances in the field. In Chapters 3 and 9 he proposes a "language instinct" and in chapter 10 a "grammar gene," but both hew to discredited Chompskian models and don't even try to establish any mechanism. In chapter 11 he dismisses the whole field of non-human communication in toto, citing such Christian apologists as Herbert Terrace. Instead he sets up a series of straw men, claiming that because that apes cannot master advanced grammar in human languages (undisputed), somehow this makes their mental processes unworthy of study. This contradicts his earlier claim, in chapter 3, that mental processes can exist quite independently of grammar and language. He apparently never even considers that non-human grammar may differ from ours. Worse, he doesn't even mention non-primate language research! 12 is a vitriolic dismissal of all his critics, and 13 falls into the common trap of describing evolution as "wanting to build" this or that, a common convention for which he could be excused if this were his only failing.

  Throughout, Pinker maintains a breezy, readable tone full of pop-culture references - which unfortunately becomes infuriating when it's obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about.
  
  

• Pinker Should Write For Time Magazine
  By on 1999-12-07
  I just finished the book and think it shares a few things in common with weekly newsmagazines: it is fun to read, Pinker spices his subject with numerous references to pop culture; where there are competing explenations the author doesn't weigh their strengths and weaknesses but goes with the theory he likes; the more I knew about a particular subject the less satisfied I was with the author's presentation, he's the journalist who flies to a new country and writes as if he knows the situation after three days.

  I hate Time Magazine. If that's your taste, though, you'll enjoy this book. If you know little about linguistics this book can be a good introduction, the author covers a range of subjects and offers spirited arguments for all of them. Pinker's style, however, is infuriating when it comes to some subjects, he doesn't engage competing theories so much as turns them into straw men so he can knock them down. He comes off as the wunderkind who is trying too hard to impress the teacher.
  
  

• Inspirational
  By A2UDKLF8WBWKDQ on 2001-05-24
  The enlightened Stephen Pinker delivers a masterful compendium on linguistic theory that is truly enjoyable to read. His fine use of wit and literary fluency makes this book very enjoyable and emulates the great Richard Dawkins in the way that it seeks (and succeeds) in reaching the layman, the student, and the academician. To put it bluntly, I had never been interested in Linguistics. It seemed to be a stuffy field of repetition of high school "grammar". When assigned to read this book for a Cognitive Development Psychology course, I approached it with dread. It turned out to be the highlight of my current academic quarter. Pinker, using clean evidence to back his claims, makes some wonderful assertions about Linguistics. This book, couched in the fascinating field of evolutionary psychology, does a good job of explaining the formation and foibles of a Universal Language. He justly attacks the ridiculously ingrained Standard Social Science Model of Language and delivers a cohesive explanation from a Psychologically oriented perspective. Unlike what most critics state, Pinker does NOT say that genes are the only basis of language, but rather supports the fundamental basis of evolutionary psychology. It goes a bit like this: the environment of our hunter-gatherer ancestors selected for certain genes to proliferate. These genes code us to synthesize certain proteins at certain times in our development to form certain physiological mechanisms (arms, lungs, brain, etc). Of these, he argues that the brain is not a general purpose processing tool but rather a domain specific one with an appropriate "Language Center". This causes us to have an innate mechanism for language and, therefore, an innate "Mentalese" and a Universal Grammar. HOWEVER - he also says that culture is necessary!! Without culture, one could never learn the particulars of their own language and, after a certain developmental threshold, would be without any specific language.

  I apologize for the length of this endorsement. It just seemed that some possible, deconstructive critiques could seem compelling without some understanding of what Pinker was really getting at - the inherent beauty of human language and our "instinct" for it. So, if you skimmed this recommendation, know only this: "THIS BOOK IS WONDERFUL AND COVERS A GREAT RANGE AND DEPTH OF LINGUISTICS. A FUN AND INSPIRATIONAL READ".
  
  

• have fun, but beware
  By on 1999-02-26
  Before Pinker's ego spun completely out of control in _How the Mind Works_, we got a slightly less ambitious, and in many ways laudable, book in the form of _The Language Instinct_. Pinker has no scruples: he doesn't care how entertaining he is.

  The highlights of this book are what linguists have been saying ever since Bloomfield: language change is natural, there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong" grammar or pronunciation, only what is conventional, and so on. It's encouraging to see someone, even a non-linguist, writing a book that says that kind of thing.

  As an outline of generative linguistics or, more specifically, Chomskyan linguistics with all its psychological baggage (innateness and all that), it's decent. I must admit seeing the same old stuff rehashed nearly prompted me to give up here and there, but that won't be a problem for neophytes.

  Still, "best introduction to generative grammar out there"? Ugh. God save us. The "hurrahs" and one-sided nature of this book, which bothered reviewers even in pro-Chomsky journals, will, I think, give readers a biased opinion about what linguistics is about and, more important, what linguists think they know. (Pinker has a penchant for claiming we know more than we actually do.) Whatever happened to encouraging skepticism and the tentative nature of scientific claims?

  The last chapter is interesting, as Pinker, all the while admitting that people will think he's nuts, outlines an outrageously nativist theory of the mind, a precursor to _How the Mind Works_. Pinker practically says that genes determine how long you suck your thumb (I wonder what held him back). Well, you were right, Pinker, some of us think you're a little nuts.

  Amusing, informative, yes. In the meantime, some of us are waiting for someone in the Langacker/Lakoff camp who can actually write...

  (To the well-meaning but misinformed reader who accused the "professionals in the field" of being "threatened by his insights": You're about thirty years late. Pinker's "insights" have been orthodox, especially on the East Coast, for a long time.)
  
  

• Needs an editor
  By on 2003-02-22
  Pinker needs a good editor as this book could have easily been cut down to two hundred pages. Pinker doesn't make his points; he jackhammers them a thousand times before moving on to his next topic.
  In addition to his severe chatterbox syndrome, readers should know that there is nothing new in this book. This is third generation Chomsky - and when it comes to Chomsky, people usually embrace his theories without any proof. Saying that we are genetically hard wired for speech is no more startling than saying that we are hard wired to walk on two legs rather than on all fours or to grasp objects with the use of opposable thumbs. So what? It is a big jump from there to claiming that we are hard wired for language and that there is a universal grammar that applies to every language. There isn't. For every grammar rule that the Chomsky camp claims is universal, there is an exception. Does the Chomsky camp give up when presented with this evidence? Nope, they change the rules of the game. Of course, you can win if you keep changing the rules, retreat from positions, dismiss (or ignore) the exceptions. Who couldn't?
  This book will seem fascinating if you have never had any prior exposure to linguistics. To those of us who have, it is nothing but a tiresome anthology of what has been written in the last 50 years. This field has been rightfully marginalized in academia (the professors who teach this are usually relegated to the bottom of the humanities department with Feminist theorists, Marxists, and post-modernist literary theorists).
  
  
• Interested in science? You *must* read this book.
  By on 1997-12-12
  If you like lucid, entertaining, highly informative books on science, written by the scientists themselves, you must read this book. This is one of those books that makes me want to raid its bibliography, to learn so much more in greater detail. Not that Pinker doesn't provide detail. It's just that the subjects are so fascinating, and he surveys so many of them. I all of a sudden want to know more about aphasics, sign languages, hominid evolution, Chomskyan grammars, child development, "creole" languages, patients with Williams syndrome, evolutionary psychology, bonobos, and, believe it or not, the evolution of elephants. I am also eager to find rebuttals to his primary thesis--that language is an instinct of humans--precisely because he makes such a convincing case. A book that both William F. Buckley and Noam Chomsky can praise has got to be exceptional.
  
  
• Linguistics Made Easy...Sort Of
  By A3QEDFTCVNOZEX on 1999-11-30
  Linguistics isn't a topic for everybody. But for those who have at least a curiosity about it, this book provides an excellent base from which to start. Pinker's focus is primarily the cognitive side of linguistics, and provides an enormous amount of data, all written with great wit and style. This particular book was written for the purpose of reaching the masses, so if you are interested in more concrete studies in cognitive linguistics, this book is not for you. Like I said, THE LANGUAGE INSTINCT is a terrific jumping of point, providing many references for further reading in many other areas. It's a fun and informative read.
  
  
• engaging but polemical
  By A21GTIR2IYFHRW on 2000-02-05
  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.
  
  

• We possess language and it possesses us!!
  By A2NQ9D0DAKV0UA on 2001-11-11
  A good friend with whom I was discussing language urged me to read this book. I must say that I was captivated from the first sentence. Other reviewers have mentioned that this is not a book for everyone and I agree - much of the science and terminology of the linguists is beyond me - and I consider myself fairly well educated. When Pinker steers clear from mucking up the story with in-depth explanations of word placements and whatnot - it is a brilliant treatise on this marvelous "instinct" - the ability of human beings to learn and use language.
  Pinker sets out to view language as a characteristic (like the elephant's trunk) that simply happens to be unique to this species (which is why the "sign language using" apes in our society are little more than farces). I think I loved most of all the convincing examples he uses to support his argument. Whether it was about the deaf children of hearing parents who learn a fluent sign language, or the aphasics, or disproving the Eskimo `hoax' (they don't have 100s of words for snow), or the simple support of a language "gene" - and a description of what he calls, "mentalese" - I was hooked. Although I suspect that this book was meant to be used as a college textbook - the fact remains that if you are interested in language and the human abilities to learn it, manipulate it, process it, and communicate with it - then this is a wonderful book.
  
  
• Excellent but wrong
  By APCKSNU03R5I4 on 2002-01-10
  I'm no linguist myself, but Pinker's logical analysis is so weak that an alert reader's conclusion inevitably is: he must be wrong. A common strategy to be convincing is to list all possible theories and to eliminate all but one with supporting facts. Pinker comes up with one single theory, that grammar is genetically determined, and he then lists loads of facts, that happen to be consistent with that theory. However, alternative explanations are hardly discussed, and none is convincingly refuted. At the same time, there are problems with genetically determined grammar, that he doesn't bother to talk about.

  If there had been good arguments for a genetically determined grammar, I'm sure Pinker would have mentioned them, so I consider this book a very good indication that the theory is a wild guess at best.

  Still, Pinker is an excellent stylist, and his collection of facts is extremely interesting taken individually. For these reasons alone the book is well worth reading.
  
  

• The Bookselling Instinct
  By AFLPMS5K3DZL5 on 2004-04-11
  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.
  
  

• A well-written guide to a theory that's looking more and more doubtful
  By A24LOLDN0RK6LR on 2007-01-01
  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.
  
  
• Fascinating stuff, and a fun read!
  By on 1998-02-25
  If you've come this far, I reckon you already know something about _The Language Instinct_. Either that, or you're a linguist, in which case you might want to just skip ahead to the next reveiw. In any event, I'm not going to waste time telling you what this book is about - you probably already know.

  It's hard to imagine anything more boring than a book about linguistics, except possibly a book about linguistics written by an MIT professor. A friend had to literally stick this book in my face to get me to read it. And I'm mighty glad he did!

  From the start, the Pinker makes it clear that he's speaking to a non-technical audience, but he does it without condescension or dumbing down the subject matter. His wonderful use of examples and wit help to cement the ideas. And the depth of the concepts he discusses leaves the reader pondering these matters well after the book's back on the shelf.

  My copy sits on my desk at work as a reference. I've lent it to more people than any other book I own, save _Bored of the Rings_. And best of all, when your friends see you reading this they think you're an intellectual!

  - Bill Thacker
  
  

• Don't believe the hype
  By A1ZVZOXTMXEVZG on 2004-10-29
  This book has received very good reviews in the press; don't believe the hype.
  
  Pinker's writing style is initially engaging, even fun -- it is perhaps best described as clever -- but after 100 pages or so it becomes annoying. The book is about 500 pages. Furthermore, the page count does not reflect the information content of the book. There is much repetition. Plus some questionable science. And perhaps some uncalled for criticism.
  
  The main problem is that Pinker is trying to advance a theory of language (which is probably at least partially true) without having sufficient evidence in hand, and without even suggesting what it would take to prove or disprove it. This leads to argument-by-repetition and poor science. Intriguing ideas, such as the Whorf hypothesis or animal capacity for language, are glibly dismissed by personally attacking their proponents rather than by counterargument.
  
  I found one chapter, "The Language Mavens", particularly bizarre. In it, Pinker shows his ego by skewering (albeit politely) various writers on language (e.g., Safire and Lederer) for not sharing his linguistic views.
  
  "The Language Instinct" is probably best read as Pinker's version of "Linguistics 101". It is informative and features many linguistics factoids and anecdotes, provided you can get past Pinker's conceit.
  
  
• Awesome
  By A3UMG5CFRJ8D9T on 2002-04-13
  Considering I am a junior in high school, I probably do not resemble most of the people who have read this book. I am, however, very interested in foreign languages. I set out to learn something about linguistics, but because I have no background in the area, every book I picked up was incomprehensible to me. I stumbled across "The Language Instinct" a couple of weeks ago and I have yet to put it down. Pinker explains concepts without assuming any previous knowledge, yet he does it without over-simplifying anything. He also manages to make it humorous- I actually laughed out loud a couple of times. I told my French teacher about it, and now she's bugging me to finish it so she can borrow it. I don't know how a linguist would react to the book, but I highly recommend it to anyone interested in linguistics, including those with no formal study on the subject.
  
  
• Where's the Kool-Aid stored?
  By A94ORB4B3MUAF on 2004-02-06
  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.
  
  

• An engagingly erroneous professor
  By on 2003-02-11
  I am a speech-language pathologist who is still waiting for empirical proof that Chomsky is correct. I doubt that I will see it in my lifetime - or ever. You need to know that Pinker is a passionate, obsessional convert to Chomsky and that he has many axes to grind. He is a radical descriptivist and, like most in that school, derides (and even dismisses) standard American English. He does this while building a successful career as a writer who has mastered, very engagingly, Standard American English. In fact, his mastery of SAE is his only appeal, in my view. What we have here is a man who dismisses SAE standards while writing books that are bestsellers because they are written in an excellent SAE style. How many books would he sell if he wrote in BAE (black American English)? I doubt that he could even express the complex ideas he adheres to in BAE, despite his protests that all languages are equally comple.
  Pinker spends hundreds of pages trying to convince us that Chomsky is correct. It remains true, however, that the rules of grammar that would apply to every language known to man would fill a page of text and this slim commonality could be dismissed as being a product of our shared species, not some language device that, so far, only exists as a metaphysical fantasy.
  
  
• Wrong, wrong, wrong
  By on 2003-02-11
  I am a speech-language pathologist who is still waiting for empirical proof that Chomsky is correct. I doubt that I will see it in my lifetime - or ever. You need to know that Pinker is a breathlessly passionate, obsessional convert to Chomsky and that he has many, many liberal axes to grind. He is a radical descriptivist and, like most in that school, derides and dismisses standard American English in favor of supposedly superior dialects. In the typical self-hating liberal caucasian pattern, he starts out by claiming that all languages are equally complex and then goes on to knock his own heritage of Standard American English for its supposed deficiencies and inferiority. He does this while building a successful career as a writer whose mastery of SAE is his only appeal, in my view. What we have here is a man who dismisses SAE standards while writing books that are bestsellers because they are written in an excellent SAE style. Only in academia could we find such nonsense and such self-loathing among educated white men and women. How many books would Pinker sell if he wrote in BAE (black American English)? I doubt that he could express the complex ideas he adheres to in BAE, despite his protests that all languages are equally complex (and if Pinker really thinks that BAE is complex enough to express any thought, I challenge him to explain Chomsky's theories in it).
  Pinker spends hundreds of pages trying to convince us that Chomsky is correct. He fails. This book is not a reasoned argument. It is the ravings of a man who throws out whatever examples he can find to support his religious-like adherence to Chomsky - only he doesn't tell you that he ignores all of the examples that argue against his viewpoint. Where is this supposed language device that, so far, only exists as a metaphysical fantasy in Pinker's mind?
  Oh yeah, and I am sick of hearing how Chomsky is one of the most quoted intellectuals in the twentieth century. It is dishonest of Pinker to make that statement and not carefully add that Chomsky is usually quoted for his radical, virulently anti-American political writings that have absolutely nothing to do with his linguistic work. The fact is, few people actually read his linguistic work. They are nearly unreadable.
  If you read this book, take with a grain of salt. Keep your eyes open for the many inconsistencies.
  
  
• I just have to keep looking�..
  By AJW5FIS5Z8QS4 on 2003-06-21
  Four years now I am on a quest to find a book that will if not answer, then at least properly formulate some of the questions puzzling my mind about language. By now I went through almost a dozen without finding the answers I seek. Although the language instinct is one of the best I read so far, it still left me with more questions than answers.

  The title says it all. Beyond giving us some fascinating tidbits of information and a thoroughly entertaining introduction to modern linguistics, the author set out to prove that our ability to use language is an innate faculty of our brain, our evolutionary advantage, just as the trunk is the evolutionay advantage of the elephant.

  Pinker gives us several great examples to prove the innate nature of language. How else could we explain, for example, that brain-damage can impair specific language functions?
  Where the question becomes a little muddy is where this turns into an implication that if there is any logic in the world it is the one we created through our innate gift for grammar.
  There is clearly a touch of metaphysics in this book. Forget logic, forget intelligence, language is the key to the universe. I would like to think that there is a world outside our mind and that world does have logic. The falling tree DOES make a sound even if we are not there to hear it.
  The way this has a fundamental bearing on the question discussed in the book is by asking the very legitimate question about the primacy of our innate faculties of intelligence and language.
  Chomsky (whom I have no inclination to read so I have to rely on Pinker's interpretation) claims that there is a deep structure of language that is fundamentally similar in any and every language of mankind. Pinker builds most of his argument on this axiom. The question that is not asked though is whether this `deep structure' could simply be: intelligence.
  Language, as a phenomena sits somewhere between intelligence (our ability to understand the way the world functions) and communication (the successful transfer of that understanding.)
  The `deep structure' of language is nothing else but the `deep structure' of the logic of the world around us with objects having attributes and actors performing actions in relation to them. Recognizing this fundamental logic is not even particular to humans. Even rats can understand the foreseeable consequences of performing different actions on objects with different attributes. The fact that we can communicate this logic does not make us its creator. The world has certain logic; our intelligence enables us to recognize it and language is but a tool enabling us to communicate that understanding.
  Marxist theory claims that the key to human evolution is our ability to use tools precipitated by and developed in conjunction with our ability to walk upright. It is the use of tools that created the intelligence which in turn is the thing that differentiates us from the rest of the animals. The whole idea is a lead-on to his theories about tools as the means of production, but that is beside to point now)
  Marx's idea is focusing on our ability to act on the world around us, Pinker's focuses on our ability to communicate our observations and intentions. The whole issue is some sort of `the chicken or the egg' question. I have great difficulties to accept the claim of the book that language (and its `deep structure') just mysteriously appeared somewhere in the process of evolution.
  Without properly placing the `language as an instinct' idea into the context of intelligence and communication, the Marxian idea sounds more ........ well, evolutionary to me.
  The answer is, of course and most likely all of the above, but in its single minded focus The Language Instinct fails to point to our other innate faculties that also may have played a significant role not only in our evolution, but also in the evolution of language.

  Languages differ considerably in the ways we convey understanding. Does this reflect differences in the ways we understand? Do different noun-verb orders create different thinking and different understanding?
  Does more complex language mean more complex thinking? Understanding? What facilitates communication better? Tight or loose languages? Does the difference between French and German cultures have anything to do with the differences in the languages (one rich in shading the other in precision)?
  Does the size of the vocabulary of a language have anything to do with the ability of its speakers to communicate?
  Neither does this book talk about what gets communicated. How do I know what is the image in your mind when I say `dog'? Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. To what extent is truth in the mind of the beholder and what does language have to do with that?

  I could continue asking questions, but the problem is not that these questions are not asked or answered. A book is what it is, what it is not should not be held against it. On the other hand, these issues should have been at least hinted at as they have bearings on the subject discussed, the claims made.
  Having all that said, I also must say that the book is thoroughly enjoyable to read, contains information I am glad to have, dispelling some popular believes I am glad to have no more.
  Should you read this book? Absolutely! My criticism is not about what it is but mostly about what it is not. The claims in it may be a little over-reaching, but one can say that they are so only to make the arguments more compelling. As for my questions, maybe I will get some answers reading his next book, "How the mind works"
  
  

• An interesting and thought provoking read
  By A2MCOKNU34YR5Q on 2003-08-13
  I have a daughter who's just turned two and, therefore, prime material for an informal study of language development. Time and time again I found myself saying, "Yes - yes, of course" and relating it to what my daughter was doing. This was also one of those books that I kept finding interesting snippets I just had to tell my wife - immediately! She was so happy when I finished this book, I can tell you.

  Steven Pinker is firmly on the side of us having in-built facilities for language development (as opposed to us having generic capabilities that have to be completely tuned each time for language). That suits me just fine but obviously if you are a nurturist you may find a lot to disagree with. Some of his more controversial points I did feel were pushing it, but on the overall premise that we have some built-in capabilities for language, I found him to be most persuasive.

  This is definitely a lay-man's book. However, it is not a non-technical book - a previous study of logic, in particular, will probably help when reading. I glazed over a number of the Chomsky equation bits and pieces and I don't think I missed out on much by doing so. You can read it on many levels and find something.
  
  

• A Wonderful Book
  By A37OEKMUX3U658 on 2000-02-04
  I have a ten year old daughter who is struggling to speak and so, when I saw an interview with Dr. Pinker on PBS, I was inspired to pick-up his book. It's been life-changing. It's easy to understand but by no means insultingly simple or, worse, incomplete. I've been able to help my daughter with the knowledge I've gained.

  I've even been able to correspond with Dr. Pinker and he was charming and knowledgeable and recommended several wonderful and helpful people to us, without whom all would have been lost.

  I'll continue to recommend this book to everyone, but especially to teachers, sign language interpreters and teachers & parents of the deaf.
  
  

• When a "scientist" refuses to see what he sees
  By A2O36HKK8QFEAJ on 2000-03-14
  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.
  
  

• Brilliant intro for layman, excellent arguments for experts
  By on 1999-10-27
  You ought to ignore the less-stellar reviews here; they're obviously written by experts dissatisfied with Dr. Pinker's conclusions, people who probably have grants at stake, and are not written by the audience this book speaks best to.

  And it speaks *beautifully*. If you're not professionally involved in the more technical aspects of the debates explored here, if you couldn't care less about ending sentences with prepositions but don't know why others would, and you have a pulse, you're bound to enjoy this brilliant introduction to linguistics, which also illustrates fascinating points about literature, neurology, genetics, evolution, class systems, history, children, baseball and crossword puzzles. (whew.) Rife with pop culture references (who could quote Dorothy Parker, Dan Quayle, Bob Dylan and Shakespeare successfully but this man, who admits to loving the word "diss" and disliking "whom"?), this book will keep you from reading your next few copies of both Reader's Digest and the New Yorker; you could even toss the Bach tapes you play for your 4-year-olds and just read them this at bedtime. And, you know, that's a good thing.

  "I have never met a person who is not interested in language," Dr. Pinker begins. No other instinct more steadily binds us and defines us as human, and no other book has poured so much cool information into such spellbinding writing as this one. Dr. Pinker, take another bow. There are roses waiting in the green room.
  
  

• The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature
• How the Mind Works
• The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
• Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language
• An Introduction to Language