Two from Stephen Pinker - ("The Language Instinct" and "The Blank Slate")

I've just finished re-reading The Language Instinct by Stephen Pinker. Very well written, continually interesting and compelling it presents compelling evidence why language acquisition in humans must be based on innate abilities and not simply a generalised ability to learn. It also provides an interesting laymens introduction to the principals behind Chompsky's universal grammar and an interesting discussion of the neurobiology of speech. And finds time for a gentle de-bunking of myths of animal speechI recommend the book to anyone interested in this most defining of human characteristics.I was inspired to reread The Language Instinct by reading his more recent book The Blank Slate.The Blank Slate begins with a historical look at three persistent myths of human behaviour: the titular Blank Slate (the idea that humans have no innate behavioural traits), the Noble Savage and the Ghost In The Machine along with a thorough debunking of all three. Since I was already thoroughly convinced of the falsehood of all three so I did find this section to rather drag in places. It brightens up later when Pinker attacks the more meaty subjects of what exactly is innate to the human mind, what science can tell about the nature/nurtue question and how the three assumptions he destroys earlier in the book don't live up to their claims of holding the moral high ground. One things that stands out is his willingness to take on hot topics such as the rape-is-about-power myth and the issues surrounding child rearing.Although it does drag in places, I still thoroughly recommend The Blank Slate for it's depth, breadth, willingness to take on tough subjects and the frequent surprises it contains. {Added the two book titles to the topic title (Note: I tried, but the italics dBCode does not work in topic titles). - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-22-2005 01:38 PM

does Pinker discuss or advocate Whorf's concept of Linguistic Determinism, the idea that language determines thought? classic example is if a particular language lacks a word for something (such as 'eternity' or 'heaven'), then the speakers of that language don't think about that concept. I feel it is extreme, but thought-provoking. Maybe akin to the basic nature v nurture debate -- in that the cheap answer is, "well, it's both".

Yes, he does discuss it. He spends quite a number of pages in both books pointing out how wrong it is.