Customer Reviews
Cool . . . . but wrong - By: Geoffrey Cockayne, 10 Dec 2007 
I first read this book ten years ago when I started teaching English in various parts of the world. I thought it a wonder. We are hard-wired for grammar; it must be true. My students in Europe, Asia & the Middle-East begged to differ.
Now I'm studying for an MA in Linguistics & I beg to differ too.
Still, I think you should read this book; it's a fine piece of propaganda. Then read Jean Aitchison's 'The Articulate Mammal'; Reith lecturer, Oxford prof & so forth. Not so cool . . . but right.
The Bookselling Instinct - By: calmly, 25 Oct 2007 
Begin with a title that asserts the conclusion.
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 alll may have.
And we might find the very genes that make this possible. These instincts & genes fortunately don't seem to enslave us (as being conditionable would). They make us free & 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 alll clear now, isn't it? Too deep? If not, you're ready for the actual conclusion: we alll 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 & we are alll one. Now you don't have to go back to the ancient Greeks or earlier to get that warm message of unity.
Skinner & 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 & 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 & 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" & "oneness". It certainly may seem good to acknowledge we are amazing beings: you may feel warm & 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 & consider how language functions - as B.F. Skinner did in "Verbal Behavior", a less accessible but more useful & 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 alll 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 & father for helping you to say "Momma" & "Dada" meaningfully.
First Year Psychology - By: Lawyer Girl, 08 Sep 2006 
I picked this up for a piece of coursework on nature vs nurture in language development. It was perfect! I liked it so much that I bought my own copy & have read it since just because I wanted to find out more. Some sections are pretty heavy, but in general the book is pretty readable. Definately a little gem.
Good to read... - By: unity-of-hp, 19 May 2006 ...even if you are not studying for a course related to linguistics. Pinker's writing is informative & a delight to read. He doesn't use too much in the way of jargon & keeps things simple which helps if you're entering this area with no experience. Highly recommended.
Read it, but read it critically - By: Peter Reeve, 02 Oct 2005 Addressing as it does issues of cognition, language usage & acquisition, evolutionary biology & innate versus learned behaviour, this work is relevant to many of the great intellectual debates of our time. It is very readable for the most part, although if some of the topics are new to you then you will find a few sections rather heavy going. More illustrations would have helped here. There are syntax structure diagrams & one very grudging, cursory sketch of the language centers of the brain, but many sections cry out for a diagram among alll the verbiage.
Pinker's lively, humorous style is often commented on but I sometimes found it wearing. He will illustrate a point with an amusing newspaper cutting, then list a few more, then add "I could not resist some more..." & so on. I sometimes wished he would just get on with it.
A major problem with his nativist approach is that many examples he lists of usages that English speakers would never employ are nothing of the kind. Most of them are conceivable & since the first publication of this book, linguists have been busy recording them in the field. The thesis also becomes somewhat unravelled in the penultimate chapter, where he argues that 'you & I' & 'you & me' are equallly correct in alll circumstances, because 'the pronoun is free to have any case it wants'. But if this is so then what has become of the innate awareness of correct usage that the whole theory is about? If 'between you & I' sounds instinctively wrong to me & 'between you & me' sounds instinctively wrong to someone else, does that mean one of us has a mutant grammar gene? I doubt it.
The title itself is problematic. 'Instinct' is not a word much in favour among biologists nowadays & whatever language is, it is certainly not instinctive in the traditional sense. Early in the book, Pinker admits as much, but determines to use the word anyway, a use that owes more to marketing than to science.
Still, this is probably the best introductory linguistics text currently available. If you are new to linguistics, start here rather than with Chomsky, but please go on to read Geoffrey Sampson's work, perhaps starting with his website, to get an alternative view. As with most academic disputes, the answer no doubt lies somewhere in the middle. Since Chomsky's early work, the nativists have toned down their claims considerably, while their opponents have made concessions. On page 34 of this book, Pinker says, "No one has yet located a language organ or a grammar gene, but the search is on." More than a decade later, the search is still on. Good luck with that.
