|
Editorial Review Product Description
A must have for all those following the debate about language, instinct vs learned debate. ... Read more Customer Reviews (8) 
The value of contrarian views
I'm torn between a three and a four on this one.I'd recommend this to anyone interested in the issue of whether or not language is instinctual. Sampson scores some hits against those believing that language is inborn. I admit that I'm a pushover for discrediting Noam Chomsky. I consider him to be a philosopher, rather than a scientist, since he doesn't empirically test his ideas.Logic is a valuable tool, but ideas that originally seemed logical litter the path of science when they don't stand up to testing.
Sampson is particularly strong when he catches his opponents making assumptions rather than basing their arguments on actual data. He searches databases like the British National Corpus, that includes samples of everyday speech, to show that many forms of speech aren't as rare as was supposed, and it is therefore more likely that a child could learn them by observation. He also catches them in overgeneralizations about things that are frequently, but not always true.These are the strongest parts of the book.
Still, in the end I am not convinced that he is right. He argues that the idea that language is entirely learned, like games or dances, is the "commonsense" position. I don't know about that: I have read that in the Middle Ages, efforts were made to isolate infants from adult speech in the belief that they would then speak the original language. And I am unaware of any culture that does not have a language. Even deaf infants babble.
I also think that Sampson overstates the "instinct" position, to set up a straw man.He says: "All of us, surely, would rather be what most of us have supposed we are: creatures capable of coming to terms with whatever life throws at us because of our ability to create novel ideas [...] Who would not prefer this picture to that which portrays biology as allotting to the human mind a range of available settings, like a fully featured washing machine [...] The former concept of Man is far nobler.The evidence suggests that it is far more accurate." I don't think that most people are arguing that either all behavior is instinctive or it is all learned. The "instinct" proposal still leaves room for the great variety that we find in languages, and it doesn't necessarily mean that any other behavior is instinctive.Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we would like to believe, but what is true.
So I think that Sampson does the noble work of pointing out weaknesses in the instinct language, and good scientists will thank him, even if it is through gritted teeth, for helping them perfect their data collection. On the other hand, he has chiefly presented arguments against his opponents, not for his own position.
Not what I was looking for
I enjoy looking at both side of an argument; as an introductory linguistics course I am taking has highlighted this book as a good way of looking at the other side of the Chomskyan claims I swiftly ordered my copy, fully expecting several evenings of intellectual challenge and brain stretching. The book has thoroughly disappointed me. It is a pamphlet rather than a scientific work.
I'll propose that the first paragraph of the book is an acid test for the potential reader. It reads as follows: "the English language, and other languages, are institutions like country dancing or the game of cricket: cultural creations that individuals may learn during their lifetimes, if they happen to be born into the appropriate cultures, but to which no one is innately predisposed".
If you're struck by the fact you hardly know anybody who doesn't speak a language (I know nobody having chosen to not learn one during her lifetime), but probably know several people who don't play cricket you'll be hard pressed to find a satisfying explanation.
If on the other hand, you find this claim fairly self obvious (maybe you don't know anybody who doesn't play cricket for instance) and are in fact scandalized anybody could think otherwise, you'll probably enjoy the book.
Extreme lack of scholarship and insight
I approached this book with some enthusiasm as it had promised to disprove nativist theories. However, from the first page it was obvious that the author is quite uninformed and had not delved deep enough into the nativist literature to postulate a reasonable argument. (Come'on, do you actually think you can write off the CPH in 3 pages...?) The tone of the entire book is extremely sophomoric reflecting an emotionally driven stance and lack of theoretical foundation. It is no wonder Chomsky and Pinker have written this author off as a buffoon. The poor scholarship in this book is not deserving of their attention.
If nativism is to be disproved one must go about such an enterprise with some guile and intelligence. This book was written too disingenuously to be of any merit or threat to the theory. If you are a linguist you will find this book quite comical, but it's not worth the money to actually buy it. My suggestion is to check it out from the local library if your curiosity gets the best of you.
Dense, repetitive and could have been better researched
Geoffrey Sampson's critical approach to Pinker's best-selling "The Language Instinct" makes some good points against the nativist position on language acquisition. Mostly, advocating for a return to empiricism, and using the science philosophy of K. Popper, Sampson tries to debunk the basic tenets of Chomsky's (and Pinker's) theory of language acquisition.
Some arguments are clearly backed by evidence. For instance, the idea that "language mutants" with an specific genetic disorder that affects the use of suffixes has been not well research by Pinker, since further evidence shows that the gene involved in the problem is NOT only relevant for linguistic forms, but to more general learning processes.
However, the philosophical and logical arguments against Chomsky's classic proofs such as "poverty of stimulus" and the like are not as clear. Maybe Sampson keeps his arguments at a logical level (which makes it harder to fallow the argumentation, very dense at moments), instead on relying on more empirical evidence.
In sum, it is an interesting book, but the style and the dense argumentation (as well as some subtle clear dislike for Chomsky and his role in the world of ideas) doesn't make it a candidate to be THE definite critical voice in the linguistic innateness debate.
Spoiler Alert!
This book certainly brought a different perspective to the empiricist/ nativist debate.It shed reasonable doubt upon the idea that we are born with innate semantic structure.Mr. Sampson does a good job of showing the empirical evidence does not always indicate the universals the nativists claim are substantial.After reading this book, I am certainly more confident in the creativity of human intelligence.
However, I have my qualms with Mr. Sampson.I am not a linguist, but most of the arguments were not out of my grasp.At times the author was repetitive, ambiguous and he often went on tangents, particularly in the last few chapters in which it seems he is struggling to respond to all of the critics of his first edition.Particularly I note how he struggled to convince the reader that Karl Popper would advocate his position.I am not very familiar with this philosopher, but Mr. Sampson is forced to combine quotes to manipulate his words.It seems that he just wants people to be on his side.All this, after he argued against the atrocities of hegemony!Aside from his prose, the biggest annoyance I had with this book was that he waits until the end to reveal his true stance.This is the spoiler: he believes that the mind is literally infinitely creative.This seems to contradict his statement earlier in the book that he believes Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate to be of great value despite the fact that this conclusion can only come from complete denial of everything this book stands for.Mr. Sampson calls upon the ghost in the machine, Descarte's dualism, as the source of human creativity.This view was not integrated into the book but simply pops out at the end, at least from my perspective.Regardless of whether it is true or not, as he admits, it is not a scientific argument.
It is a shame that Steven Pinker did not write this book, as it would have been more eloquent, and without the unnecessary supernatural conclusion.This book is at least a good start, hopefully someone will build off of it
... Read more
|
