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.

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.

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.

You may find yourself reading The Language Instinct for pleasure as much
as for information.