Presenation Post

Steven Pinker’s The Langauge Instinct argues the claim that language is an innate, biological skill that arises in children spontaneously. To argue his claim he mentions research from Noam Chomsky, discusses concepts like creolization, and by sign language. He also discusses his view about thought shaping language. When he began proving to the reader that language is an instinct he mentioned Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. This theory is the belief that we as humans have a built in software that automatically detects none expressive words, or phrases. This theory supports the claim that language is an instinct because this preloaded software that detects errors and iniaties speech is not taught by the parents or in grammar school. Creolozation is the process when a pidgin, created by people of two different language come together and create their own custom lanauge to interact. The product is called a pidgin, when it is exposes and manipulated by children at a young age and they embrace it as their native language is becomes a creole. This also supports language being an instinct because the fact that children are adjusting language without being taught or told to shows that it occurs as instinctive ability. The usage of sign language also supports Pinker’s theory because this displays that even huamns that are able to hear, still develop ways to utilize their ability for language, in this case by using sign language.

Some of the strengths I consider in this book is the syntax examples he used throughout explaining how language works. He demstratousting his point by using word trees, anatomy photos and documented speech tests. These illustrations made his point much more clearer and easier to follow along. It was enjoyable to have a break from reading words and to focus on graphs charts, pictures, etc. Strength in The Language Instinct is the number of outside sources he used to support his claims. This included in quoting Noam Chomsky’s work, other psycholinguistics and research his critics published. This allowed of a more compelling text because it offered interesting new viewpoints not mentioned by Pinker, himself. Lastly, his analysis on the myth of an actual language organ was very circuital and I was able to understand, even though I am not too knowledgeable on human physiology.

Several weaknesses I found was believing that language is an instinct. What is the signifance if it is true that language is innate? Reading Michael Tomasello’s Orgins of Human Communication I found a lot more interesting, in the fact that we can actual feed on of what Tomasello claims. He claims that language arrives from the need of helping others and is passed on culturally with social processes. Believing in we need to help each other I believe can make a greater impact on the world if we realize that life is not easy and sometimes we need help from others.

After reading this book, I am more open to lanague and I am interested in more of Pinker’s and Chomsky’s work of the language acquisition.

Pinker Summary #5

In this recap I will discuss chapter 4 How Language Works. In this chapter Pinker spoke about a few concepts that were also discussed in Yule’s book, “The Study of Language”. First, he mentioned how language can be generated and builds upon its own to create the vast amount of language that it is today. The first rule he spoke about was the arbitrariness of words. For instance, the word “dog” doesn’t look the physical form of a dog. Another example, would be describing a vacation to a friend.

This arbitrariness allows us to convey complex physical forms and transfer them into bite-sized mental shapes that allow us to carry ideas and thoughts in a short amount of time. The second rule is the generative grammar. What Pinker means when he writes about generative grammar is some of the law structures, specifically in the English language can help generate language. He also uses this rule to support his theory of the language instinct. The Generative Grammar was established by a Swedish social scientist; Wilhem Von Humboldt that language makes infinite use of infinite media. The Generative Grammar is similar to what a code is for a lagaugage. The Generative Grammar is the code that translates between orders of words and combination of thoughts.

Pinker investigates the “discrete combination system” of language and the meaning of the words in a sentence and what are the super-rules in arranging these words. What interested me about language as being a discrete combinational system is the vastness of language that can be produced. For example, going into a library and picking a sentence at random and the chances of finding that same sentence somewhere else is impossible. This is also similar to a theory Chomsky proclaims that we have built-in software that allows us to interpret billions of new sentences or phrases each time.

Some similar topics mentioned in this chapter that was also discussed in Yule’s “The Study of Language” are the autonomous from cognition. This means that even though a sentence is written perfectly grammatically, it can still not make sense. For instance, the sentence “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”. This proves that ungrammaticality is simply a consequence of our having a fixed software or code for interpreting sentences and its meaning.

I enjoyed reading Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct. It was a great introduction to linguistics. I am interested in reading more about Noam Chomsky’s Universal Grammar theory and also Michael Thomsello’s Gestures as the Origin of Language.

Pinker Summary #4

In Chapter 10: Language Organs and Grammar Genes, Pinker investigates the myths of various proportions of the brain that have been considered as “language organs”. At the start of the chapter Pinker discusses James J. Kilpatrick’s column: Better Grammar through Genetics. This column claimed that there is a dominant gene controls the ability to learn grammar, and Erma Bombeck’s column Poor Grammar? It Are in the Gene agrees with this claim. Pinker concludes there was no evidence of an existence of a grammar gene and debunks the misunderstood theories of neurobiology and geneticist. Instead, he investigates existence areas of the brain that may contain an actual grammar gene. First, he discusses Broca’s area. Paul Broca, after discovering a lesion in a patient’s left hemisphere this discovery has been confirmed by many scientific evidence. To analyze this assumption that the Broca’s area is where language resides in this are, Pinker illustrated experiments done on the left hemisphere of the brain. For example, neurosurgeons discovered with a dose of sodium amytal can paralyze a particular hemisphere in the brain. Then realized patients with a paralyzed left hemisphere counld not speak, however they were able to if the right was affected. However, Pinker doesn’t believe the Broca’s area is not the center for language because even if this region is damaged the patient can still have grammar abilities. My belief is if language has a reserved shelf or filing cabinet in the brain than if it doesn’t just one specific region where it resides.

Pinker Summary #3

For this Language Instinct update I will review chapter 9: Baby Born Talking-Describes Heaven. At the start of the chapter, he debunks the tabloid style readings of infants born speaking. He takes a developmental approach and investigates what is occurring in the minds of infants when they are first born to the point when they begin speaking. Pinker illustrates infants begin learning sounds throughout their first year. Leading up to this first year, infants begin learning phonemes of their native tongue. During five months to seven months babies begin playing with sounds and articulate the manner of speech. Physiology-wise during this time period before infants each one year, their larynx descends down into the throat and opens the cavity that allows the tongue to move forward and backward, thus creating a wide vary of vowel sounds. By 8 months they begin babbling syllables. After a year the child’s language dooms drastically and builds upon grammatical categories. Moving on, Pinker investigates the types of language obstacles children must overcome. He disagrees with the stereotype that children struggle grammatically and illustrates an study analyzed by psychologist, Karin Stormwold. She wanted to record how many times children would make mistakes that had to do with natural grammatical generalization of sentence patterns. For example, “Does he seem happy?” versus “Does he be smiling?” Astonishingly Karin Stormwold found in grammatical errors in that sense!

Currently, I’m reading chapter 10 Language Organ and Grammar Genes. I hope to get out of this chapter that an in depth look into the brain specially the Broca’s area, where speech has been s[peculated to arise from.

Descriptive vs. Prescriptive

The English language is constantly in a flux of clippings, backformation, and various coinages. In addition to a flow of people immigrating into countries these word formation techniques make the English language difficult to articulate (e.g. we park a car in a Driveway). These new adaptions alter the English language to suit the speakers either negatively or positively for the interpreter. Some agree that it is vital to conform to the standard rules of a language, also known as the prescriptive approach and others would argue language should be studied by how it is today. For example, a prescriptive approach will teach students to say “With whom were you dancing last night?”, because the rule of English indicates a preposition must be followed by an object. A descriptive approach will teach it “With who were you dancing with last night?”, because that’s how it’s pronounced nowadays.

I believe the descriptive approach is more valid then the prescriptive approach. Going back to my story from my intro, language is in a constant flux, vastly altering between its speakers. The descriptive approach allows us to adapt to these changes in our language. For instance, with the flow of people entering the country the dominant language will alter, due to new speakers. If we stay in the old-school tradition of the English language it is more difficult for new speakers to adapt. This is due because majority of people do not speak old-school English, so if we teach how to speak old school this inhibits one of the most effective way to learn a language: through conversation and grammar.

I can relate to this approach because it has helped me comprehend Spanish. For instance, In high school I took two Spanish language courses taught by the same teacher. Reflecting on how the content of the two course I realize that she taught us in the prescriptive approach. This was effective in a classroom, however to take what we learned and use it in the world proved to be difficult. The grammar she taught us was old-school/traditional Spanish and it wasn’t up to date with what Spanish speakers were speaking. In addition to our foreign accent conforming to a Spanish dominant environment was even more difficult!