Friday, August 28, 2009

Immitation is a Must.

Jackie Hand
Blog 2
English 101
In Pinker’s writing, he says that it is okay for people to talk the way that they please, and that grammar may not be that important. I believe that he is in fact contradicting himself. If standard English is really not important, then why would he write in it? This is the universal language that you can connect with everyone on. If Pinker had not written in standard English, would anyone have taken what he said seriously in the first place? Most likely not.
I agree with Dalrymple all the way. Yes, everyone has their own way of speaking and communicating, but when one needs to get their point across to multiple people, it is better to use a universal language so that others can understand. There is a time and place for everything, which means that if you want to be taken seriously you must conform somewhat to the “universal” way of grammar.
Pinker said that the reason a child speaks the way they do is because of biology as opposed to imitation. There is no possible way that this is correct. Children who are not communicated with cannot speak and will have a difficult time learning how. So if it was biological, could they really lose that trait? I don’t believe so. So many things that we do as human beings are caused by imitation. Without imitation, no one would be able to connect each other. There would be no fashion, no dance, no theater, no entertainment, no form of anything. Everyone imitates something or someone at some point in their lives. It is how we as humans can stay in touch with each other.

Blog Two

Tyler Gunnin
8/28/09
Dr. Hughes
English 1101

Everyone is a hypocrite in some way no matter how easy it is to admit it. People go to church, read the Bible, then turn around and do something that goes against God's Word. We go through motions, not only in church, but also with the various people we hang around with, the teachers we present ourselves to, and our parents that gave us this life to begin with. Dalrymple wants to make this point clear in calling Pinker a hypocrite. He states that Pinker writing in Standard English, dedicating the book to his parents whom "gave (him) life", and not believing what he writes makes this hypocritical judgment so clear.
Pinker writes in Standard English, not because he is going anywhere against what he has stated, but because he wants everyone to find this reading fairly simple to follow. Dalrymple questioned how popular the book would have become if Pinker wrote in a New Orleans style. What would be the point of that anyways? What point is Dalrymple trying to make? The style of Standard English was an excellent choice by Dr. Pinker in the fact that the average English speaker will find his reading much easier to consume.
The dedication to his parents is an incredible statement to ponder. What exactly did Pinker mean by saying his parents gave him language, then making the point that he believes language is given by nature? He simply is making the point that without his parents giving birth to him, he would not have even had the chance to pick up language through nature in the first place.
Dalrymple also accuses Pinker of not believing what he writes. There is clearly no doubt that Pinker is not as confrontational on the matter as Dalrymple is. This is just simply the approach he has chosen to take. Writing in this way makes the reader not only take in the message, but also questioning the points throughout. By doing this, the book gives much more meaning to the reader.
Dalrymple may try his best to cut down Pinker’s writing, but the arguments he make can clearly be explained. Pinker writes in Standard English for an easier read. He dedicates the book to his parents, because without them, he would have never had the chance to pick up the biologics of language. He writes in a questionable manner just to draw in the reader more. Pinker does a fantastic job of describing the language we pick up and hear every single day.

What to wear? What to say?

Leila Shearon
Blog 2
Dr. Jennifer Hughes
8.28.2009


One whose private life, opinions, or statements contradict his or her public statements, this is a definition of a hypocrite. Theodore Dalrymple uses this term to describe Steven Pinker. Who is Pinker? Pinker is a professor at Harvard. He is well-known for his revolution…nary theory of how children acquire language and how it changes. He explains the way he sees language. He explains thing like “Language change is normal…Value judgments about different languages and dialects are matters of taste.”Dalrymple tries his best to Pinker is a hypocrite, states that Pinker clearly values Standard English as higher language because he writes in it. Dalrymple says Pinker wrote to “please schoolmarms.” Is this true?
Language I believe is like ones wardrobe. When one goes to a wedding or a formal party in America a man might wear a tail coat a tie and leather shoes. A woman might wear a dress with beautiful jewlerey. In a different culture a different type of dress may be expected. Also one would not wear a suit and patent leather shoes to a construction site or a Braves baseball game. The attire that is expected and suitable for these locations is more casual. At a construction site a hardhat is needed for ones saftey. At home pajamas is needed or wanted for ones comfort.
What does wardrobe and attire have to do with linguistics? A Suit and tie is the correct attire for a formal occasion. A Jersey is the right attire for a baseball. And, pajamas are the right attire for a comfortable day around the house. Words such as pretentious and juxtaposition can be used to present a speech to adults at a formal awards ceremony, but words such as w’sup and dude is correct language for a high school event such as a party or basketball game.
I think that Pinker understood the importance of language flexibility. There are no absolutes in language. Something maybe correct in one house but a mile down the road a different dialect with different rules jargons is spoken. There is a time and place for different starters and styles of language. When Pinker writing he wrote in a style and dialect that was appropriate and needed at the time.

Non-sense

Carmen Solis
08-28-09
Dr. Hughes
Engl 1101


The "respected" linguistic writer, Dr. Steven Pinker, does not know the difference between a Lion and a Kitten. By this, I mean that he does not recognize the distinction between someone who knows a well develop Standard English and someone who creates an invisible language. The ones who create the invisible language lack something extremely important to the development of life which is Education. On one of the passages of his book, Dr. Pinker writes about a “linguist form” that some villages speak or make it in their own way. He is saying that “Pidgins are choppy strings of words borrowed from the language of the colonizers or plantation owners.” And I ask myself and I would like him to answer me this: How can that be a language if those colonizers or farmers did not even know their language? Basically, those people are creating a type of communication so that they can understand each other, but, let’s not forget, it is not language. I called that imagination—it is something that those people created using words that they think is right.
People that live up in the mountains or are isolated from the rest of the world have no chance but to create mixtures of words that sounds like a language, but it is not one. Dr. Pinker calls those interpretation and imagination “pidgin” or “creoles.” Pidgins or creoles exist but those are not language. Those are misinterpretation of sentences. Those people that are up in the hills developed a wrong kind of communication. Those are the influenze of culture because those people goes by and learn the way that everyone else is learning. On the other hand, if you live in a city or somewhere where there is a school, you are going to learn the right way to write and speak. That language is the Standard American English. I know that the only professional language is the Standard English and that one needs education to further one’s path and knowledge.

Hypocritical??

Rebekah Medford
Ms.Hughs
Language Controversies

“Hypocrite: 1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.” In every class, type, occupation, or sex, a person of the definition above is present. Hypocrites are among even the “best” of us: teachers, police men, politicians, religious figures and …linguist? Can this be true? Theodore Dalrymple seems to think so. In his article “The Gift of Language: No, Dr.Pinker, It’s Not Just From Nature,” Dalrymple accuses Pinker of being a hypocrite with his writings on language deriving from instinct and biology. He states “Pinker doesn’t really believe anything of what he writes, at least if example is stronger evidence of belief than precept.” Dalrymple makes several good, clear points against Pinker’s writing but are they enough to classify Pinker as a true hypocrite?
Towards the middle of his article Dalrymple points out a very interesting example on why he thinks Pinker is a hypocrite. Dalrymple and Pinker’s ideas on how a person develops language contrast greatly. In this particular case Dalrymple tries to catch Pinker contradicting his own belief that children do not learn language from imitation and parents. Trying to prove this, Dalrymple examines Pinker’s book dedication which reads “For Harry and Roslyn Parker, who gave me language.” Dalrymple tries to use this against Pinker. The dedication does not mean the Pinker is a hypocrite, it does not mean he is contradicting himself. Pinker’s words could easily be a thank you to his parents for giving him birth and the chance to live life and speak. By giving him life Pinker’s parents gave him language.
Dalrymple continues to try and prove Pinker as a hypocrite, presenting the idea that Pinker clearly values Standard English as higher language because he writes in it. Dalrymple says Pinker wrote to “please schoolmarms.” Pinker wrote in Standard English because it was what he was use to writing. He wanted to make sure what he was writing was clear to the reader. Though Dalrymple does find interesting points to use against Pinker none of them can truly be used or correct in categorizing Pinker as a hypocrite.

Here Is Your New One Mr. Pinker

Jonathan Dishon
ENGL 1101
Ms. Hughes
August 28, 2009

While Steven Pinker may be going on the 25th year of publication for his book that does not mean that his book by any means is correct. Pinker believes that a child learns the language of his parents solely on biology alone, and that the child does not imitate the parents in any way. This statement however is impractical. The fact that children usually grow up speaking the same language as their parents, and in the same dialect as their parents for that matter puts Pinker’s idea of learning language right in the recycle bin. A child is not programmed like a robot to just understand and be able to speak language as it grows up. It has to learn it and all the rules that go along with it, and the child does this through imitation. The child will emulate what its parents do in order to learn. I will admit that biology may have a little bit to do with the learning of language, but it is definitely not everything. To use Pinker’s example of the lady in Britain with chatterbox syndrome, she was highly capable of communicating language, but she was mentally ill. Everything that she said was also a completely made up story. She would talk about bank statements and joint accounts when she had never even been to a bank. So how could she know about all these things that have to do with banks without having heard someone else use them before? My friend Pinker would say that she was born knowing it, but how many people are just born knowing stuff about banks. Actually how many adults even know a lot about banks? This lady has obviously heard people either in her own house or on the television even talking about bank statements and bank accounts and so on. This means that she has obviously used imitation in order to communicate language with other people, and was not born with the ability to know banks and how they work.
While there may be some validity to Pinker’s idea of biology being a contributor to the learning of language it is by far not the most important. It may help it to know how the child is supposed to talk, but the child does not learn language from it. The child learns language and how to speak by imitation. It will either imitate its parents, which is most common, or the child will imitate someone else like a role model or hero, but either way the biggest contributor to the learning of language is imitation.

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.

Pinker Is Not A Moron!

Steven Holland
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 2

Theodore Dalrymple may have made a mistake to accuse Steven Pinker of being a hypocrite. Dalrymple thought that Pinker valued Standard English because he used it when he wrote. Pinker believed that people should use whatever language or dialect they prefer. Dalrymple attacks Pinker by saying that, “his own book is written, not surprisingly, in the kind of English that would please schoolmarms.” What Dalrymple failed to understand is that Pinker did not become hypocritical; he simply chose to use whichever language he preferred. Pinker chose to write in Standard English, which proved his beliefs in the first place. Pinker was the only person who could choose what language to write in. Pinker believed that language was an instinct and not so much cultural, as Dalrymple did. Pinker’s concept that language is an instinct only supports the idea that people will use the language or dialect that they feel the most comfortable with. How could Pinker be a hypocrite if he used his own idea and Dalrymple was too narrow-minded to notice? Pinker says that, “English is a zany logic-defying tongue, in which one drives on a parkway and parks in a driveway, plays at a recital and recites at a play. They know that English spelling takes wackiness to even greater heights…” Pinker understands that the English language is such a hard language to learn that people have problems using Standard English, and therefore don’t feel comfortable using it. Pinker also states that, “unlike most books with language in the title, it will not chide you about proper usage...” Dalrymple instantly attacks this statement by saying that there is an “old-fashioned elitist idea that there is a correct and incorrect form of language…” This actually does not argue against Pinker’s idea, because Pinker didn’t care if people used a correct or incorrect form of language. He only supported that people should speak however they want.

Pinker vs. Dalrymple

Samantha Redden
August 28, 2009
Dr. Jennifer Hughes
Pinker vs. Dalrymple

In modern day American society, Standard American English (SAE) is the respected way of speech. Pinker was not being a hypocrite by writing in a different style than he was defending. He never said that Black English Vernacular (BEV) was the correct writing or speaking style. If so, then writing in SAE rather than BEV would have been considered being hypocritical. Also, if he would have written in BEV then there would be a large chance that his book would not be as popular along with his ideas.
Dalyrmple accuses Pinker of being a hypocrite again because the wording of the dedication to his parents in his book: “For Harry and Roslyn Pinker, who gave me language.” Dalrymple jumps to conclusions and says that Pinker does not actually believe that language is not a process of parental education. However, if Dalrymple would have taken the time to look deeper into Pinker’s meaning he would have seen that he was dedicating the book to them because they gave him the biologic part of language. Pinker believes that language is DNA structured, or “hot-wired” into your brain. By his dedication he is thanking his parents for giving him life, life that language is a really critical part of. He was thanking them for that piece of DNA that allows him to learn language.
Dalrylmple constantly abuses Pinker as well as other individuals in his writings. It is hard to grab his concepts and accept them when he is aggressively judging and questioning a pregnant teenage girl. Pinker brings about his ideas more gently. Pinker is soothing in the way that he teaches. Dalrymple is educated and makes some good ideas from a totally different perspective, however the way he puts forth his ideas is somewhat forceful. I automatically join Pinker and defend him against Dalrymple because Dalrymple seems to get his ideas from forming the opposite of Pinker’s and going with them and that strategy makes it hard to respect him.

Blog 2

Mary Lowe
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
8-28-09



There are many hypocrites in the world but I do not believe Pinker is one of them. He is a product of his society and his speech clearly reflects this point.
One essential skill in strong writing is knowing ones audience. As a seemingly educated and insightful man, Pinker does just this and directs his discoveries toward his primary readers, the scholarly linguistic community. In order to capture a listening ear he does indeed write in elevated, standard English; however, he never said in his paper that he did not communicate in such a way. He only states that it is equally acceptable to speak in a southern, black or alien dialect, for they are just as effective in conveying human thought and emotion.
While I do not believe Pinker is a deliberate hypocrite, I do disagree on one fundamental aspect of his theory. He says that, “Language is a complex, specialized skill which develops in a child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal education”. However, Pinker attended school. Pinker gained a formal education and Pinker most assuredly did not awaken one morning to be greeted by a new extensive vocabulary on his doorstep. He mindfully studied, read and learned in order to gain the linguistic tools which he so obviously possesses.
His argument appears to be scientifically sound and thoughtfully offered, which leads me to believe even if Pinker was a bit hypocritical, it would not effect the legitimacy of his work. However, I do not think the idea that all dialects and vocabularies are of equal validity will ever be accepted until more works in the non-standard dialect, such as “Their Eyes Were Watching God” are published. Even then, it is unlikely that common approval and respect will ever be fully given. While Pinker might believe in theory that all dialects are equal and that unrefined is acceptable, he must know that in reality, that certainly is not the case.