Blog 2: THE RECKONING!

Jon Cuccia
English 1101
Dr. Jennifer A. Hughes
28 August 2009

Our era’s ruling over language seems to agree with Dr. Pinker, in that every child learns its native tongue with perfect facility due to the instinctive nature of language in the human mind. This statement alone presents few difficulties. Although a child’s environment provides a sizeable portion of their linguistic thought, there remains some room for instinct in the equation, as children do acquire a native language if given any exposure to one. The true fault of Dr. Pinker lies with what comes next, and such a fallacious idea revokes any reprieve from the assertion of my indignation! Pinker declares that no language or dialect is superior to any other and that modes of verbal communication cannot be ranked according to complexity, expressiveness, or any other virtue. Thus, attempts to foist alleged grammatical “correctness” on native speakers of an “incorrect” dialect are nothing but the unacknowledged and oppressive exercise of social control; the means by which the elites deprive whole social classes and peoples of self-esteem and keep them in permanent subordination.

Pinker discusses the creation of “pidgin” and “creole” languages. In his chapter “Chatterboxes,” he uses a few examples. Here are two such examples of pidgin language: “Me cape’ buy, me check make.” and “Good, dis one. Kaukau any-kin’ dis one. Pilipine islan’ no good. No mo money.” As even the most casual observer can note, these dialects are very simple and nearly as expressive as a handful of gravel. Now, according to Pinker, this is perfectly fine, and any attempts made to assist this pitiful display of miscommunication would amount to nothing more than elitist oppression. However, as Pinker writes, if children grow up and acquire a pidgin language as their native tongue, they miraculously convert it into a creole language! Here are two examples of this new language, transformed by the wonders of linguistic instinct: “Da firs japani came ran away from japan come.” and “Some Filipino wok o’he-ah dey wen’ couple ya-ahs in filipin islan.” Now, this new and improved language is not only still quite simple, but also perhaps as expressive as two handfuls of gravel!

In conclusion, stating that no language or dialect is superior to another brings Pinker to encourage the previous speakers to remain in their rock-like communicative state, and do so with pride. Such a notion lacks logical and moral fortitude. People could never achieve success on any level with such critical lack of expression. Dr. Pinker’s linguistic latitudinarianism naturally allies itself with moral and cultural relativism, which also encourages tradition and makes change impossible. However, through social exposure to complex and expressive languages and education, possibility remains of a brighter outlook for the stone-talkers.