As for the "contractions violating
universal grammar" in BVE, may I suggest a rereading of the chapter...that's not what he
claimed.

But, I do side with the reviewer that I've cited, that they should read Educating Eve, to
get both sides of the story, but please be careful to get "both sides" correct...

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.

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.