What body parts do we use to speak? Is language an innate skill? Is grammar universal?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In The Language Instinct<\/em>, <\/em>Steven Pinker aims to inspire readers to appreciate the unique qualities of human language. He describes how language works<\/a>, argues that language is biologically innate, explains why children are linguistic geniuses, and contends that we should embrace language innovation<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keep reading for an overview of this fascinating book.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In The Language Instinct<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Steven Pinker argues that language is an innate, biological ability in humans\u2014not just an element of human culture that gets passed from person to person. Pinker contends that just like the chameleon\u2019s ability to camouflage itself or the falcon\u2019s high-speed flight, the ability to produce and interpret complex language is an evolved human superpower. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker aims to inspire readers to appreciate the unique qualities of human language. He also advocates a functional approach to grammar. Contrary to those who believe that we should maintain language conventions to preserve quality and tradition, Pinker asserts that if a new slang term or speech pattern helps people communicate nuanced ideas, then it enhances<\/em> language rather than diminishes it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker is an experimental psychologist who specializes in psycholinguistics, visual cognition, and social relations. He has written 12 books on topics ranging from human nature to irregular verbs. His books are meant to help laypeople understand the ins and outs of human cognition and its implications for everyday life. The Language Instinct<\/em>, published in 1994, is the first of his books explaining his research to a general audience. Many of the ideas in the book are based on the research of Noam Chomsky, who first proposed the idea of language as a biologically innate ability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We\u2019ll start by explaining the basics of how language works: how we turn a finite number of words into infinite combinations, the mechanics of speaking, and the neurological process that enables us to interpret language. We\u2019ll then explain Pinker’s theory regarding why language is a biological instinct that is uniquely hard-wired into humans. Next, we\u2019ll describe how Pinker uses his language theory to explain why children are linguistic geniuses and why Pinker thinks we should be open to tossing out arbitrary grammar conventions and embracing language innovation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To begin, we\u2019ll describe the elements of human language that make it both complex and precise. Pinker writes about the infinite combinatorial system, the mechanics of language, and information processing in the brain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The infinite combinatorial system\u2014the characteristic that lets us transform a finite number of sounds into infinite sentences based on a set of grammar rules called syntax. It\u2019s ingenious because it enables endless creative expressions based on a relatively small set of basic units.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The elements of this system include phonemes, morphemes, words, and phrases\u2014all of which are universal in human languages.<\/strong> Phonemes are the smallest unit of speech. They\u2019re the individual sounds<\/em> in a language that create differences in meaning. Pinker explains that we combine phonemes into morphemes, which are the smallest meaningful language units\u2014for example, root words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then, we can combine words into phrases, and phrases into highly complex sentences. To tie words and phrases together logically, languages use syntax. Syntax includes the structural rules of language, which determine things like the order of the subject, verb, and object in a sentence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker writes that, for humans to actually speak, six different body parts have to physically coordinate<\/strong>: the larynx, soft palate, tongue body, tongue tip, tongue root, and lips. Each phoneme represents a specific configuration of these body parts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Adding to this complexity, we often drop phonemes and blend them together for convenience when we speak\u2014a process called coarticulation. There\u2019s also no distinct gap between each word when we speak. So, as someone interprets speech, their brain is constantly parsing the audio input, separating it into discrete words, and processing the meaning of words based on memory and context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker explains that, to process speech, humans not only sort out the individual words but also parse the words into noun phrases, verb phrases, and prepositional phrases. We logically link the phrases, use our short-term memory to keep track of multiple phrases, and interpret the most likely meaning of each word as we go along.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Understanding sentences is partly a modular process because we group words into phrases, but we also interpret the most likely meaning of each word as we go along<\/strong>. Sometimes, if we initially interpret the wrong meaning of a word, we have to backtrack and try interpreting the sentence again with a different plausible word meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker points out that, in addition to quickly choosing a word meaning based on the context, people rely on subtext, humor, sarcasm, and metaphor to understand what other people are really saying<\/strong>. This is partly due to our desire to adhere to social norms<\/a>, like being polite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker asserts that the combination of these skills\u2014grouping types of phrases, identifying a word’s meaning based on the context, and incorporating cultural nuance\u2014are what make the human approach to interpreting language highly sophisticated and difficult to replicate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker\u2019s underlying argument is that language is a biologically derived skill<\/strong> and not something that is purely learned from the environment. He elaborates on this theory by asserting that there are universal elements of grammar in all languages and by explaining that language is an evolutionary adaptation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker writes that language is a genetic adaptation that arose from natural selection<\/a><\/strong> in early human communities. He says that language could have started evolving four to seven million years ago, although it\u2019s unclear if Neanderthals<\/a> (an extinct human subspecies) had language. Pinker suggests that random genetic variation might have enabled some humans to express themselves with more nuance than before, and then people with this skill were more likely to survive longer, reproduce, and pass on their language skills.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker argues that language would have increased humans\u2019 chance of survival<\/a> by allowing them to express abstract ideas and complex logic. Pinker also writes that language would have helped people cooperate and rally together to defeat rivals. He claims that it would have enhanced people\u2019s ability to persuade others\u2014possibly increasing political power for those who were skilled orators. Because of these advantages, natural selection continuously favored people who could express and interpret early forms of language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker asserts that commonalities among all human languages support the idea that language is biologically innate. This concept is called the Universal Grammar hypothesis. According to Pinker, these universal components include subjects, objects, verbs, phrase structures, and syntax<\/strong> (which determines the relationships between words and phrase types). He argues that although languages seem<\/em> diverse due to their variation in sounds, words, and sentence structure, the more significant feature of language is its consistent blueprint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker also supports his theory of biological language skills by describing medical case studies where general intelligence and language function are not mutually exclusive<\/strong>. He suggests that, if language was simply a cultural byproduct of human intelligence, then all people who have high cognitive abilities should be able to produce and interpret language. However, there are documented cases of aphasia, where brain damage leaves people unable to communicate via language but still cognitively competent at things like following verbal instructions or solving puzzles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, there are people with genetic conditions such as Williams Syndrome, in which people have difficulty reasoning or forming logical statements, but their language is grammatically impeccable. Based on these examples, Pinker asserts that the ability to learn and execute grammar must be linked to genetics and innate mechanisms <\/strong>housed in the brain that are distinct from intelligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker writes that imaging techniques indicate multiple areas of the brain<\/a>, particularly in the left hemisphere, that contribute to language processing<\/a> and speech. He suggests that many interconnected areas of the brain help us with linguistic skills such as parsing out phrases and types of words. These brain functions result in a kind of neurological program that takes inputs from the environment and enables us to learn the specific vocabulary and rules of individual languages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On this topic of the biological aspects of language, Pinker disagrees with other researchers who claim that people are born as linguistic blank slates and learn everything about language from their environment. Pinker and other proponents of the biologically innate language hypothesis use the gene known as FOXP2 as evidence for the theory. This is based on the study of a family with members who have a mutated FOXP2 gene, and as a result, struggle with basic language skills. Pinker suggests that the mutation of FOXP2\u2014due to natural selection\u2014contributed to language development in Homo<\/em> sapiens <\/em>alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker also points out that language isn\u2019t entirely<\/em> biological: Genes encode the innate brain mechanisms, and then the environment provides inputs to those mechanisms. Together, they produce language skills.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker\u2019s theory of language as biologically innate provides a key insight into the field of linguistics: It explains why children have the ability to rapidly acquire language. Pinker also claims that the ability of children to spontaneously create<\/em> new languages further supports his theory of biological language skills<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By the time children are two or three years old, they can often speak in fully grammatical sentences. Pinker emphasizes the magnitude of this feat\u2014especially children\u2019s ability to memorize the meanings of words and apply them in novel sentence structures according to internalized rules. He asserts that children produce language with the help of innate language skills<\/strong>, like recognizing patterns in syntax, and not just by mimicking exactly what they\u2019ve heard before. Children also expand their vocabulary exponentially, learning an average of one new word every two hours through their adolescence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker also writes that our language acquisition<\/a> skills diminish significantly after puberty<\/strong>. The timeframe before puberty is called the critical period for learning. The general idea of a critical period applies to different scenarios in which an organism must acquire a specific skill within a certain time period. Otherwise, it will never properly develop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker suggests that humans have a critical period for language acquisition because children benefit from learning their community\u2019s language as soon as possible: If they can understand language, they\u2019re more likely to heed warnings of danger, like \u201cdon\u2019t go near that animal.\u201d So for children, it\u2019s important to learn a language quickly, but once they\u2019re competent at it, their body allocates less energy to the parts of the brain responsible for language acquisition. According to Pinker, this explains why children can easily learn multiple languages while adults who try to learn a new language often struggle to overcome an accent or fully master the grammar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pinker writes that children not only acquire <\/em>languages easily, but they also naturally create<\/em> full-blown languages when they\u2019re raised without one. Pinker explains this concept using examples of communities that speak a pidgin<\/a>: a simplified mashup of multiple languages that occurs when adults form a community without a common language<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Pidgins historically formed when groups of immigrants or enslaved people from different places were put together, and they attempted to communicate with each other. Pidgins mix together words from different languages, and they don\u2019t have grammar. Without syntax to dictate sentence order or relationships between words, people struggle to convey nuances like tense or possession when speaking in pidgins.<\/p>\n\n\n\nOverview of The Language Instinct<\/em> by Steven Pinker<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How Language Works<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Infinite Combinatorial System<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Mechanics of Language<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Information Processing in the Brain<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Combining Word-By-Word Interpretation and Cultural Nuance<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Language Is Biologically Innate<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Language Is an Evolved Trait<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Universal Grammar<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Evidence for Hard-Wired Language Skills<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Why Children Are Linguistic Geniuses<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Children Acquire Language Quickly<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Children Create New Languages From Pidgins<\/h4>\n\n\n\n