Comparison Between ‘Through the Language Glass' of Deutscher and ‘The Language Instinct' of Steven Pinker (Essay Sample)

Comparison between ‘Through the Language Glass’ of Deutscher and ‘The Language Instinct’ of Steven Pinker
Student’s name
Institutional Affiliation
Introduction
The overall assumption concerning language and culture are often amusing although meaningless. However it is worth noting that language and culture are far more sensible and intriguing. There are questions about language and culture that Guy Deutscher has intensively addressed in his latest book, ‘Through the language glass.’ Does our mother tongue determine the perception we have about the world and the universe in general? Can different languages make their speakers have a different opinion about the same subject matter? Does our language reflect our culture? Fascinatingly, Deutscher agrees with these questions through argument that almost convince along his line of thought.
On the other hand, there are further questions that have been argued out by various linguists like why immigrants find it difficult to adjust to a new language yet their children born and raised in the immigrated country end up being masters of the language than their parents and like the natives? Why things are called what they are called? Why can’t a machine speak to you? Is language gene oriented? How did a certain language emerge? And is today’s language deteriorating? CITATION Pin08 \l 1033 (Pinker, 2008) All these questions seem to be interesting yet complicated. In his book, ‘The Language Instinct,’ Steven Pinker, a renowned language scientist elaborates in detail all these intriguing questions that have been there for ages.
The aim of this paper is therefore to compare the books by the two different authors, weigh their sense by drawing evidence from other sources and giving an opinion on the authors’ viewpoint.
Many people have studied language before and these questions addressed by Deutscher have been addressed even before. For example, Aristotle once had the belief that people share concepts like the color blue with which name differ in line with their culture. In the book ‘Through the Language Glass,’ Deutscher reminds that a range of linguists have also observed that categories and concepts do change by language. To further strengthen this, he gives the example of the way Japanese utilized one word, ao, to show the blue green spectrum while on the other hand, the English uses two. This clearly implies that Japanese and English didn’t use to see the same colors in the same way. In a broader sense, do different languages show different cognition or do they rely on the universal ways of thinking? Deutscher goes a step further to affirm that apart from language reflecting on its speakers way of thinking, it also assist in creating their very thoughts, what is referred to linguistic relativity. I concur with Deutscher’s argument because according to Benjamin Lee Whorf, Hopi don’t have words for time. As a result, they get difficulties in comprehending it ‘as a smooth flowing continuum’. This is not the case with English speakers CITATION Mer11 \l 1033 (Meredith, 2011).
However According to Pinker, ‘normal speech , like color vision or walking, is a pattern of engineering excellence- a technology that operates so well that the ordinary person takes its result for granted, unaware of convoluted machinery concealed behind the panels.’(Pinker, 1994, p.15). In this case, Pinker implication is contrary to Deutscher because he urges that language is more complex than we think and that is why most people take it for granted. In line with Deutscher above Japanese have a single word for two spectrum because their language probably don’t reflect one of the color, i.e. it does not exist and they cannot see it completely, they see the two colors as a single color. On the other hand, he urges that English speakers can differentiate the two colors and that is why they have names of the two. Comparing these two argument, Pinker’s is more reasonable because in most of other languages apart from English, have common aspects that shows how their grammar works like embedded phrases and language modifiers. Moreover, there are various theories of universal grammar which apply to almost all human languages.
Deutscher uses almost 95 pages to demonstrate that color inventory terms in a language indicates the state of the culture’s need to differentiate a color to another and its exposure to a large range of hues. The fundamental facts that have been laid down by approximately one hundred and fifty years of empirical results shows that: languages have different color terms e.g. some lack word for color blue and what may be termed blue in one language may end up being different from what is termed blue in another language; color terms are real, i.e. every term shows a coherent subset of the visible spectrum. The pattern in which the color term is predetermined is first black and white followed by red, then yellow or green and blue come last. This implies that all languages must have a term for color black and white before having any other term for another color. Then incase a language has a third color term, it will automatically turn out to be red. In case the same language comprises of four colours, the fourth color will either be green or yellow. This makes me differ partly with Deutscher because his is a research that has not been proven. So far with the languages I am conversant with, his argument is not real. Deutscher actually goes to extra lengths to confirm these facts. I even felt he went to unacceptable details since an average reader may end up disagreeing. At the end, we don’t get a proven answer as to the existence of this pattern but all we can do is blame it on science and anyway give a thumb down to Deutscher for such a weak landing CITATION Mer11 \l 1033 (Meredith, 2011).
In this case, there is a Deutscher’s argument that there exist a set of color terms in almost all languages and the manner in which colors are acquired is clearly predictable e.g. language get names for their color terms in a non disputable way. This is the only point I find very similar and in conformity in the two books. Pinker argument in ‘Language Instinct’ is that human beings ‘acquire language effortlessly and may even have a specific instinct for it.’ There are specific periods in development where learning native language is relatively easy. Almost all human beings irrespective of their social and economic status, IQ, as well as the parental rearing principles catch up with their mother tongue language fluently. Pinker observes that most children commence speaking in fluid complex language at approximately three years. He also observes that when any foreign language is learned before 12 to 13 years, such learners can speak the language without the accent of their native language. When the same individuals learn a foreign language in later years, they develop an accent of their native language in the foreign language.
Pinker goes ahead and writes that human beings have specific ‘instinct’ for acquisition and use of language. He supports this by use of three evidences as described; CITATION Pin08 \l 1033 (Pinker, 2008).
First, children do not get enough input from their surrounding in order to develop the complex principles and language structures. He term this as ‘the poverty of input argument’. He states that they are rather exposed to different words and sentences which they then generalize to complex rules of grammar in their language after which they automatically come up with creative sentences that usually are in line with the rules of that language. It is only after that they learn to construct diagram sentences when they go to school.
Secondly, Pinker gives an evidence calked ‘cealization’ that refers to what occurs when a pidgin language is learned by children. As he puts it ‘complex language is universal because children actually reinvent it, generation after generation, not because they are taught , not because they are generally smart, not because it is useful to them, but because they cannot just help it’ (Pinker, 1994, p.20). The children are by their own turned into a full blown language that have complex principles- based grammars.
The third support that Pinker present is called ‘language impairments’ CITATION Pin08 \l 1033 (Pinker, 2008). They occur due to injury or growth disabilities. Such people find it difficult to understand or use certain types of grammar although their intelligence is normal.
With the three evidences, Pinker presents a strong argument as far as language instinct is concerned. This because we experience all these aspects despite the fact that we live in different environments yet we end up mastering or mother tongue effortlessly CITATION Pin09 \l 1033 (Pinker, 2009).
On the other hand, Pinker argues that individuals’ thought are not routed from their language although he admits that it can be influenced by it. I believe it is a two way cross with this. It first implies that there may be some similarities in the way we think like human beings what Pinker refers to ‘The Stuff of Thought ’ CITATION Pin08 \l 1033 (Pinker, 2008). Second, we should not see language as a confinement that imprisons us but we should instead repeatedly try to achieve better ways to communicate our thoughts. In addition to enabling we express our thoughts; it also sharpens our thinking on the topic.
Contrary to Deutscher, I side with pinker because we should not set the limit so high that we expect every other concept to have a ...