Tyler Benson
Ms. Hughes
English 1101
27 August 2009
Mr. Pinker just contradicts himself left and right in his whole document, making statements that totally go against his whole opinion on his work. In his works Pinker discusses the topic of a mentally handicapped woman from the United Kingdom. She is mentally handicapped and unable to comprehend the idea of language, according to Pinker of course. He even points out how she is able to form sentences that come close to making perfect sense, and he claims that it is because of “instinct”. What a hack! Pinker completely ignores the issue that, if the woman was excluded from society, she would never be able to imitate words. Her culture and surroundings are what completely made her able to even use a small amount of language. Pinker has to realize that not everything is due to one part of the brain working; the culture is a major influence.
I, Dalrymple, find it just absolutely amazing how a man such as Pinker, with his vast amounts of education, can contradict himself so much. It’s clear to just about any human being on this planet that the man goes against his own beliefs. I find it obvious that if the British woman was on a small island she would only be able to make small moans just because of the waves as an example. She wouldn’t be able to form the words if she is never introduced to the language or the culture. Language can’t just come out of now where as my very good friend Pinker seems to believe. The brain must hear and understand the language in order to form the words, if the brain is never introduced to the words. How can it even form them? Yes, sounds can be formed in terms of moans and grunts such as the cavemen, but to truly grasp modern language culture must be present.
Pinker has to come to realize that he cannot constantly put language off on the biological and “instinct” aspects of humans. My statements on how culture and up bringing are the main reasons for language development must be considered. If Pinker wishes to get things right he needs to find me and take a little of my thoughts, then maybe I could respect the man even a small amount. His thoughts are not incorrect; don’t get me wrong, they are right to a degree. Then Dalrymple proudly takes over. Maybe someday Pinker and I could get together and actually piece together this whole language thing, of course I probably couldn’t stand the man.
Language sticks to “instinct” for only a small period of time. The woman had the instinct to start learning the sounds coming from other people, but it was the culture that launched it. Culture and up-bringing are a far bigger influence than that of “instinct” and biological ability.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Blog Two
Jennifer Conley
Ms. Hughes
Language Controversies
28 August 2009
As we can all see Dalrymple thinks Pinker is a hypocrite, and other individuals may agree, but out of the two arguments we have been reviewing Pinker has been the one saying that it is alright for people to speak the languages that they have learned throughout their lives. Dalrymple remarks," I doubt very much whether it would have reached its 25th printing had he chosen to write it in the dialect of rural Louisiana, for example, or of the slums of Newcastle-upon-Tyne." I agree with Dalrymple in this statement but Pinker probably wrote his book the way he did so that everyone could understand it. Although not everyone speaks in Standard English, they would understand it easier in a standard dialect rather than a nonstandard dialect. In this case it makes me think that Pinker is not a hypocrite. I am not sure how Pinker was taught but by his writing I perceive that he had been taught the rules of the Standard English language. Dalrymple wants to discredit Pinker for the way he writes but in actuality I believe that Pinker knew what he was doing when he wrote in the Standard English. Yes, Pinker may value Standard English but he does talk about and give examples of different vernaculars. In no way did Pinker belittle any other language or give more credit to the standard dialect. He has accepted different vernaculars and has provided the research of the science behind some of his examples. If Pinker was as big of a hypocrite as Dalrymple makes him out to be then why does Pinker make such an effort to further explain his theories to others that there are many different people who speak in many different dialects? I am sure Dalrymple believes he has sufficient evidence against Pinker but I do not agree with Dalrymple's opinion.
Ms. Hughes
Language Controversies
28 August 2009
As we can all see Dalrymple thinks Pinker is a hypocrite, and other individuals may agree, but out of the two arguments we have been reviewing Pinker has been the one saying that it is alright for people to speak the languages that they have learned throughout their lives. Dalrymple remarks," I doubt very much whether it would have reached its 25th printing had he chosen to write it in the dialect of rural Louisiana, for example, or of the slums of Newcastle-upon-Tyne." I agree with Dalrymple in this statement but Pinker probably wrote his book the way he did so that everyone could understand it. Although not everyone speaks in Standard English, they would understand it easier in a standard dialect rather than a nonstandard dialect. In this case it makes me think that Pinker is not a hypocrite. I am not sure how Pinker was taught but by his writing I perceive that he had been taught the rules of the Standard English language. Dalrymple wants to discredit Pinker for the way he writes but in actuality I believe that Pinker knew what he was doing when he wrote in the Standard English. Yes, Pinker may value Standard English but he does talk about and give examples of different vernaculars. In no way did Pinker belittle any other language or give more credit to the standard dialect. He has accepted different vernaculars and has provided the research of the science behind some of his examples. If Pinker was as big of a hypocrite as Dalrymple makes him out to be then why does Pinker make such an effort to further explain his theories to others that there are many different people who speak in many different dialects? I am sure Dalrymple believes he has sufficient evidence against Pinker but I do not agree with Dalrymple's opinion.
Carol
Pinker discussed the many different facts as to how language is used everywhere. Theodore Dalrymple discussed many of the facts about which he did not agree with Dr. Pinker. No matter whether a person is supposed to or not, people will find a way to speak in their own language. In Dr. Pinker’s argument, he says how there are many different ways a person will find ways to communicate. Two ways people communicate is through spoken language and body language. Although people are not supposed to, they sometimes make gestures to tell another how they feel about that certain person. Dr. Pinker discusses a situation in Nicaragua how at a deaf school, the children were not allowed to sign and had to only read lips. It was frustrating to the children so they decided on the school bus and on the playground they would make up a language of their own so they would not get into trouble.
The children would become upset at the fact that they were not allowed to sign, were forced to lip read and master the skill of lip reading. It was completely wrong of the parents and the educators to force them to learn the skill of lip reading because if the children are unable to understand the conversation, they would become frustrated. Most people would favor on the side of the children because they feel sorry for them.
Although the children were frustrated that they were unable to communicate, the teachers and parents were trying to help them in the long run by having them learn how to communicate with hearing and speaking people. The skill of learning how to lip read is one that would help the children so it would be less frustrating in the future. If there was only one deaf person at a school, that one person would want to be able to communicate his or her feelings even though they are unable to speak.
The children would become upset at the fact that they were not allowed to sign, were forced to lip read and master the skill of lip reading. It was completely wrong of the parents and the educators to force them to learn the skill of lip reading because if the children are unable to understand the conversation, they would become frustrated. Most people would favor on the side of the children because they feel sorry for them.
Although the children were frustrated that they were unable to communicate, the teachers and parents were trying to help them in the long run by having them learn how to communicate with hearing and speaking people. The skill of learning how to lip read is one that would help the children so it would be less frustrating in the future. If there was only one deaf person at a school, that one person would want to be able to communicate his or her feelings even though they are unable to speak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)