Koko Said What?

All animals have a unique way of communicating with each other in their species. They have to know this to survive, to breed, and to go about life. Humans also possess their own language to make it through everyday situations making life that much easier. This presents a question that is necessary to answer: can animals communicate language to the human race? The answers to this thought-provoking question are evident through examples such as Koko the gorilla and house pets such as dogs.

Koko presented various examples showing evidence that animals can communicate language. The fact that Koko knew the colors of the tomatoes, cucumbers, and sweaters is phenomenal. She did not mimic her keeper in any way. When she was given the new, less favored, yellow sweater, Koko used her hand motions making the statement to obtain her red sweater. First off, Koko knowing that it was a yellow sweater shows that she has knowledge of colors taught to her. The color scale may have been a memory game placed in Koko's brain through training, but as she presented the signing to receive her red sweater, shows this was not mere mimicry. Koko wanted the red sweater and was not going to let up, showing those signs until she got her way. Also, the emotion that Koko was able to produce through signing, showing she was highly upset when All Ball the kitten died, produces more evidence showing that animals have the capability to communicate language to humans. It is not mimicry when a gorilla can state their emotions through hand signs to the human race. 

House pets are present in many families. They are usually raised by that family and communicate language in the way they learn through training. Dogs are an incredible example of this. Through experience with my own dog, I can see that animals have a way of communicating language with people. If my dog is hungry, he will run over to the bowl and pick it up with his mouth. He then proceeds to bring the bowl over to me wherever I may be at the moment. If he wants to use the bathroom, he will go to the backdoor and scratch at it until I let him outside. If he wants what is on my plate, he will place his paw on my leg, as if to shake my hand, because that is what he learned to do. The list of what my dog communicates to me can go on for awhile. The various ways a pet goes about communicating with humans easily give more evidence that animals can very well converse in their own way. 

Animals are very capable of communicating with humans. Koko presented examples showing emotion and letting her keeper know what vegetables and sweater she wanted. Pets such as dogs let their owner know when the are hungry, when they need to use the bathroom, or when they want scraps off the plate. Although many people may try to argue animals are not capable of conversing with the human race, there is just too much evidence that goes against the arguments of the naive. 

  

The Language of the Century

Steven Holland
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 3

When most people think of language, they think that it is something that only humans are capable of. They don’t realize that domestic animals, or any animal for that matter, are also capable of language. Although most animals do not have the ability to speak, they can use other methods to communicate. We as humans may not be able to understand other animals’ languages, but animals do understand their own languages. Animals also use body language and other signals that are simpler for humans to pick up on.
Domestic animals are also more likely than wild animals to communicate efficiently with humans. Animals that are constantly around humans will constantly attempt to communicate with them, or develop new ways to communicate with them. A dog, for instance, will make certain noises or movements to signal to its owner whether it wants to go out, is hungry, thirsty, wants to play, or whatever else it would want or need. Its owner understands what it wants and satisfies the dog’s needs. If other animals were not able to communicate with humans, then how would the dog’s owner understand what it wanted? The owner would have to guess, and would probably guess wrong. Your dog wouldn’t like it if he wanted something to eat and you took him outside to use the bathroom, would he? There must be some kind of inter-species language if humans and dogs are able to understand each other. Training a dog also shows evidence of this inter-species language. Once you teach a dog a new trick, it understands what you want it to do. Some people would argue that the dog only does these tricks to get some kind of reward. This is not always the case. Most trainers actually don’t believe in giving their dogs rewards for performing certain tricks in order to prevent a “dependency” on the rewards.
Animals also communicate to each other using their own form of language that humans are incapable of comprehending. One might say that in this instance, dogs would be superior to humans. This idea is comparable to a person who speaks English, but does not speak Spanish. Dogs have their own language that humans just don’t understand. If animals did not have their own language, then how would they perform instinctual animal actions such as mating or other activities?
Animal language is so complicated that humans will probably never be able to comprehend it.

The Jungle

Carmen Solis
09-03-09
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes


Have you ever wonder, what animals think of us, the human-beings? Well some of the scientists think that animals do not have the capability to understand or create complex ideas as the human beings do. They say that the only things that the animals, let’s called them our “pets,” want are food and shelter and that no matter what we do, they cannot communicate with us. Could this be true? From my point of view, I strongly disagree that animals cannot understand our language or communicate with us. We have seen in our environment every kind of species there exists. It varies from chimpanzees to our domestic pets; and believe it or not, they can understand us and show what they are thinking and feeling.
Some people believe that animals are irrational, meaning that they cannot think nor communicate, because those people have always thought that language is a communication between the humans beings that consists of words and signals. I can say that our pets understand our complex ideas and movements, but the only thing that it is different from the rest of us is that they cannot speak or pronounce any of our words. This is because our pets do not have the same vocal vowel structure as we do, that is why some of them would meow, bark, or grunt. We cannot judge them because we do not even know our own language and the capacity to understand.
We are not imagining when our pets understand what we are saying like “come here kitty” or “no, do not do that.” I know that they understand it for the way we say it like in high pitch o low pitch, but they know what a no and a yes is. I have four kittens and that is why I say that I know that they can understand us and feel what we are feeling. They have feelings and emotions like other humans. My kitties cannot speak but I know that they listen and understand me. Let me put an example, when I moved here to Young Harris College, one of my kittens got depressed. How do I know that? Well, for one of the reasons was that she would not play with the other kittens nor eat. She would lie down on the floor all day long. My kittens had not seen me for two weeks, and when I went home and called their name, they came running and started purring. They knew who I was and what I was saying. I told them to go inside and they did it. I did not rise or lower my tone when I said that, they just knew what I was saying. I know that they were happy because they were meowing a lot and at loud. Some of their meowing was very loud and some was very soft. I think they were communicating with me and, for a fact, I think I know what they were saying.
My kittens were not trained to do certain commands and, afterwards, give them a treats. We just spoke to them and it seems that they really understood what we were saying. When we said, without pointing, “go outside” they actually went. It is really amazing how they understood everything we say, we did not give them a treat or yell, they just did what we said. I know that many people think that humans are the only ones who can think and communicate with other people but we have never given a chance to see with patience if the living organisms that surround us have a brain and can actually understand us. We only believe what it seems logical.
Today, my roommate and I were talking about animals and if they have a language. We both agree that they could understand us and that they would talk to us in the only language that they know. She, also, mentioned something that grabbed my attention which was that animals do know when we love them or not. They have feelings and emotions as other humans have. We might not recognize at first sight, but they can get happy or depressed. My roommate’s grandmother did not like her cat and one day, the cat brought a snake onto her porch. I know it sounds not realistic but cats can be really hateful if you do not love them.
Therefore, animals can communicate and understand what we are saying. We might not understand their language because we do not speak “animal language.” Theoretically, it has not been proven that animals understand us but we can see that happening with our own pets. With every pet’s movement, they are pointing out that they can fully take our words and convert them into action. I only have one question to those people who believe that animals are irrational: If we have evolved over time in the way of thinking; then, why would not the animals have evolved too?

Pets and Humans-The Bridge is Tone and Posture

Tyler Benson
Ms. Hughes
English 1101
September 3, 2009

As humans we tend to warp things with our imagination and minds in hopes of finding something, or creating in this sense, that we want to happen. We have a propensity to get so attached to things that we start to dream and imagine that it is able to communicate with us and let us know what it is truly thinking. Sadly, I am guilty of this as well, hoping that my pet would be able to actually tell me what it is thinking and what it understands. Our imaginations get the best of us and we start to trick ourselves into a false state of mind, ultimately causing real answers to warp into some sort of fantasy. Our pets are not able to understand what we are saying. The only thing that they can truly understand is the way their language is spoken, or barked in this case.
Dogs communicate to one another through growls, whines, barks, and moans. All of these are at different pitches and have many different tones and body postures to give off the message to anything that is near them. When a dog whines, we as humans say that the dog is in some sort of discomfort. We cannot understand that whine, all we can do is comprehend that the dog is upset by its body posture and tone of the whine. It’s the same way for them; they understand that we are in a certain mood because of the way our voices are produced and the way we are standing or moving. That’s why when you get a puppy it has no idea what is wrong and right until it sees you get made and produce a tone and give it some kind of disciplinary action. It will eventually comprehend that certain tones mean certain things, just as it would with other dogs. The question is still asking if a dog can truly understand what we are saying. A dog cannot understand the language of human beings; it can only read the tones and pitches of our voice and watch posture. It is doing the exact same thing as if we were just another dog.
I have actually done a little experiment with my own pet and was rather surprised by the results that he gave to me. Every time I take him outside to do his business I give off a certain tone and clap my hands for him to follow me. He abides by this and heads straight for the door to get an opportunity to excrete his wastes and get a treat. He doesn’t understand a word I say, all he knows is when that pitch is brought out its time to use the restroom and get a treat for it. Today, however, I changed my tone and instead of clapping my hands I snapped my fingers. I said exactly the same thing as I usually did only my voice was a little less audible and I snapped my fingers motioning for the door. He just sat there and looked at me; he had no idea what in the world I was trying to get across because he had never had that certain tone and gesture brought together. Arguments against this may be along the lines of, “Well he is not as smart as other dogs” or “It was just a onetime deal.” I did this over and over again, and he never once went to the door.
Communication between domesticated dogs and humans is limited to mimicry through tones and the way that species is postured. For example, if a dog is mad it will growl and probably lower into a pouncing position and show its teeth. As humans, we have no earthly idea what the dog is upset about unless you actually did something right then and there, all we know is that it is angry due to tone and body position. I’m not saying that we cannot comprehend things like dogs, I am just pointing out the fact that you can never fully understand thoughts of other species. As my first paragraph states; we tend to just imagine that we can understand them because we have grown attached to them, as they are pets.

Blog Prompt 3: Human and Animal Communication

Blog Prompt 3
Due Sept. 4, 2009

Write between 300-600 words in formal standard English on one of the following subjects. Feel free to cite the texts, or the clips that we watched, as you make your points.


1. Which of the five properties of language described in Yule do you believe to be the most important in differentiating between human and animal communication?

2. Many people believe the animals that we live with -- our pets -- understand us and communicate with us. Do you believe that a domestic animal is capable of more or less communicative power than what is described in this chapter? You might consider issues of tone, gesture, or behavior -- Yule does not give much attention to these aspects of communication.

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.

How Dare Thee Mr. Pinker!

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.

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.