Pinker ’s analysis of the rules of language

【Abstract】Pinker put forward the theory of language instinct， which against the traditional view that language is the product of culture. He believes there is a cognitive system in the linguistic mechanisms of the human brain. The language mechanism in the human brain determines that language is a cognitive system. There are two ways to deal with the language. One is to deal with the conventional rules. The second is based on the mental lexicon stored in memory and the independent system. Language instinct is a kind of learning instinct formed by human evolution， which is based on the need of living environment.

【Key words】Language instinct； Language module； Grammar genes； Pinker

【作者簡介】侯力（1994.07-），女，漢族，山東濟南人，澳門科技大學，碩士，研究方向：批評話語、國際政治。

1. Pinker ’s analysis of the rules of language

Focusing on a single rule of grammar， we find evidence for a system that is modular， independent of real-world meaning， noassociative （unaffected by frequency and similarity）， sensitive to abstract formal distinctions （root versus derived， noun versus verb） more sophisticated than the kinds of “rules” that re taught， organized by principles that could have learned， possibly with a distinct neural substrate and genetic basis. Pinker illustrated how intensive study of one linguistic phenomenon shows that both associationism and rule theories are partly correct， but about different components of the language system.

Any language is composed of three subsystems of grammar， semantics and speech. This system compositional property allows the language to exercise unlimited use with limited intermediaries： According to the rules of phrase structure， finite words can form unlimited new phrases and sentences； the composition of each subsystem of language depends on the general principles and rules of some gifts.

Children can learn the complex grammar in a very short period of time because they only have to set native-language-specific parameters from a limited verbal input， In the vocabulary system， the rules that morphemes making up new words are also in common.

Walk——walked——Regular pattern.

Understand——understood——Irregular pattern.

Black board——black+ board——Compounding rule.

Unbelievable——unbeliev + able——Regular pattern.

The rules are simple， but their abstract psychological symbols called “noun stem”. It’s powerful that the inflection attachment to the trunk and any of the words under the “noun stem” can apply these rules. Words can be drown according to the rules of inflection while irregular verbs and inflections are set in the words of stems and not and can be combined with other stems to form the new stem.

2. Morphology is the subsystem that computes the forms of the words

Past-tense inflection is an isolable subsystem which is insensitive to lexical semantics. Regular past tenses marking is a rule like process resulting in addition of suffix-d. Past –tense marking is insensitive to lexical semantics： the regular –irregular distinction doesn’t correlate with any feature of verb meaning. The three pronunciations of the regular suffix （ripped， ribbed， ridded） represent not three independent processes but a single suffix-d modified to conform with general laws of English sound patterning.

3. Regular- inflection is predictable which computed by a rule that add the affix-d to the verb stem

Irregular-inflection is unpredictable which must be individually memorized. Retrieval of an irregular forms from memory blocks application of the regular rule which results in the over regularization error like breaked.

Linguistic universal includes generative grammar （Word-chain model And X-bar） and Language complexity. The author argues that language mean everything new to different skin people， different tribe and different nation. Its complexity makes some linguists suspect that language is not any cultural invention but the product of human instinct. There are some examples of illustrating the difference of using language between standard English and dialect， the American black and white culture while the author clarified that the different class have language flexibility which breaking the linguistic form to use the ungrammatical sentences.

4. The poverty of input argument

Physiological basis includes the Broca’s aphasia， SLI， Idiot savants. The author illustrated the two situations of language impairments and its correlation with intelligence by analyzing two cases and example.

The first case Broca’s aphasia showed the victim’s grammatical impairment because of the brain tissue damaged in the adult. But his IQ in nonverbal areas were all preserved.

The second case “SLI” argued the children who are language barrier abusing the grammar because of genetic cause although the score is in the normal range in the IQ test. Meanwhile the wug-test demonstrates that the language impaired people can’t grasp the English rules and the normal children can be affected in using rules.

About the rules of languages： In experiments the patients have difficulty converting present sentences to past. Irregular forms are acquired relatively regular forms are memorized as if they were irregular.

The last example of “linguistic idiot savants” integrated his viewpoint.

Mentalese——the language of thought.

We sometimes find ways to express an idea， but we can not find the right word. Or if we say a certain sentence， we may find that the sentence is not the one we want to express. This shows that what we are saying is different from what we want to say.

We can remember the general meaning of something， but we can not remember the exact words. c.

If ideas are subject to language， new words can not be produced. But we often create new words， so our ideas are not subject to language. d.

If ideas are subject to language， then language can not be learned. e. If ideas are subject to language， then it is not possible to translate one language into another.

Pinker thinks that learning the language is converting the language of thought into a series of words. His expression of the language of thought seems to be similar to the universal rules of grammar mentioned， but he does not say the relationship between them. If the thought language is formed of our thinking directly， then it is clear that human thinking can not be dictated by natural language. Therefore， if the universal mentalese exists， linguistic determinism is not valid.

5. Conclusion

He inherited linguistic Chomsky tradition， argued that “language is a kind of instinct of human beings， not a product of social culture”. According to my understanding， the language instinct here means that we have a set innate grammatical knowledge； secondly Pinker attempts to show that natural language is not a suitable intermediary for human thinking to indirectly illustrate the existence of a language of thought； further， he introduced the theory of natural selection to explain language emergence and evolution. Language development lives through a simple to complex stage， but seems like the easier language form can’t be found in the history of language. Pinker believes species that use this language have died.

The language mechanism in the human brain determines that language is a cognitive system. There are two ways to deal with the language. One is to deal with the conventional rules. The second is based on the mental lexicon stored in memory and the independent system. Language instinct is a kind of learning instinct formed by human evolution， which is based on the need of living environment. This ability is to stimulate people to learn different rules of language so that his grammar can be adopted by the living environment. Therefore， everyone has the potential to learn the language out of your imagine. Whether it is the first language or the second language， the useful expression and communication of the learners in the second language teaching are the instincts and needs of stimulating their thought and language. Awareness of the need able to mobilize instincts， language skills can be developed； this is my greatest inspiration learning Pinker theory.

References：

[1]So How Does the Mind Work？[J]Pinker，S.Mind Language，2005.

[2]Steven Pinker.The language instinct：how the mind creates language[M].1994.

[3]The nature of language faculty and its implications for evolution of language（Reply to Fitch， Hauser， and Chomsky）[J].Jackendoff Rapine S.Cognition，2005.

[4]Bonnie D.Schwartz. The second language instinct[J]. Lingua， 1998，106（1）.

[5]The faculty of language： What is it， who has it， and how did it evolve[J].Hauser M D，Chomsky N， Fitch W T. Science，2002.

[6]Rules and Representations. Chomsky， N[J]. The Behavioral and Brain Science，1980.

[7]Response to Pinker. Fodor， J. A. Mind Language[J].2005.