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.

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"

It's all about
evolution. Pinker uses example after example to prove his point. When you get right down to it, we
are not much different from the Chimps and Bonobos. The only thing that separates us, is our
amazing ability to communicate verbally.

I applied Pinker's thinking to my own linguistic studies.
And I am happy to admit that I've incorporated some of his inspiring
linguistic theories into my
own personal methods for learning languages fast. I own this man big time.

Thanx Stephen for
this wonderful book and for your more recent The Blank Slate.