PDF Summary:The Language Instinct, by Steven Pinker

In The Language Instinct, experimental psychologist Steven Pinker argues that language is an innate, biological ability in humans—not just an element of human culture that gets passed from person to person. Pinker contends that just like the chameleon’s ability to camouflage itself or the falcon’s high-speed flight, the ability to produce and interpret complex language is an evolved human superpower.

Pinker aims to inspire readers to appreciate the unique qualities of human language. He also advocates for a functional, rather than a purist, approach to language and grammar, arguing that if a new slang term or speech pattern helps people communicate nuanced ideas, then it enhances language rather than diminishes it.

In the guide, we’ll explore many facets of human language: how our brains process speech, why children can rapidly master new languages, and why we shouldn’t be afraid to toss out arbitrary grammar conventions. Throughout the guide, we’ll also provide updates on research that explains the inner workings of language and discuss counterarguments by Pinker’s critics.

(continued)...

Now that we’ve explored why human language is a highly sophisticated form of communication, we’ll explain Pinker’s underlying argument that language is a biologically derived skill and not something that is purely learned from the environment. He elaborates on this theory by asserting that there are universal elements of grammar in all languages and by explaining that language is an evolutionary adaptation.

Pinker also points out medical cases where people lose their language skills but not other high-level cognitive functions, and vice versa. He suggests that these medical conditions demonstrate that there must be some language-specific physical structures in the brain.

Language Is an Evolved Trait

Pinker writes that language is a genetic adaptation that arose from natural selection in early human communities. He says that language could have started evolving four to seven million years ago, although it’s unclear if Neanderthals (an extinct human subspecies) had language. Pinker suggests that random genetic variation might have enabled some humans to express themselves with more nuance than before, and then people with this skill were more likely to survive longer, reproduce, and pass on their language skills.

The Debate on the Origin of Human Language

To date, researchers still aren’t sure if Neanderthals had language or when human languages first appeared. Some researchers argue that language only occurred when Homo sapiens started living in social groups about 100,000-200,000 years ago. Others point out that language was physiologically possible over 20 million years ago in a common ancestor of primates and humans (although the neurological ability to use language is more recent).

Unlike other aspects of ancient cultures that leave physical evidence behind (like fragments of tools), spoken languages are much harder to trace. However, some researchers are analyzing the physical capacity of Neanderthals to produce speech by examining fossils of the hyoid bone (below the lower jaw), ear ossicles, and the part of the spine that allows humans to precisely control their breathing.

These studies indicate that Neanderthals were capable of producing and hearing complex vocalizations, but this still doesn’t prove that they had syntactic language (following consistent grammar and structural rules) like we have today. Neanderthals might have had the physical anatomy to produce speech and only used it to sing—to soothe children or attract mates—or they might have produced a more basic form of communication.

Pinker argues that language would have increased humans’ chance of survival by allowing them to express abstract ideas and complex logic. For example, language would help people talk about where they discovered a new potential place to take shelter or warn others of danger by telling a story. Pinker also writes that language would have helped people cooperate and rally together to defeat rivals. He claims that it would have enhanced people’s ability to persuade others—possibly increasing political power for those who were skilled orators. Because of these advantages, natural selection continuously favored people who could express and interpret early forms of language.

(Shortform note: Although Pinker explains how language would have benefited early human communities, he doesn’t go into much detail about the evolutionary precursors to modern language. In The Mother Tongue, Bill Bryson writes that Homo sapiens might have jump-started language development by using onomatopoeia—words that imitate a physical sound, like “thump” or “smack.” Like Pinker, Bryson writes that the ability to describe natural sounds to each other most likely improved social cohesion.)

Universal Grammar

In addition to describing the evolutionary pathway for language, Pinker asserts that commonalities among all human languages support the idea that language is biologically innate. This concept is called the Universal Grammar hypothesis. According to Pinker, these universal components include subjects, objects, verbs, phrase structures, and syntax (which determines the relationships between words and phrase types). He argues that although languages seem diverse due to their variation in sounds, words, and sentence structure, the more significant feature of language is its consistent blueprint.

Disagreement on Universal Grammar

The Universal Grammar hypothesis is still contested among linguists, and its supporters disagree on what the universal parameters are. Some researchers suggest that there are up to 100 universal parameters, while others claim there is only one.

Noam Chomsky, the first person to propose the Universal Grammar hypothesis, initially based his argument primarily on European languages, which are characterized by noun phrases and verb phrases. However, several languages exist that don’t include these structures, and other similar outliers have been identified for language traits that were previously considered universal. For example, the Riau Indonesian language doesn’t distinguish between nouns and verbs. In The Language Myth: Why Language Is Not an Instinct, Vyvyan Evans asserts that with a broader understanding of diverse languages, it appears unlikely that there’s any universal aspect of grammar.

Evidence for Hard-Wired Language Skills

Pinker also supports his theory of biological language skills by describing medical case studies where general intelligence and language function are not mutually exclusive. He suggests that if language was simply a cultural byproduct of human intelligence, then all people who have high cognitive abilities should be able to produce and interpret language. However, there are documented cases of aphasia, where brain damage leaves people unable to communicate via language but still cognitively competent at things like following verbal instructions or solving puzzles.

(Shortform note: This concept of a more modular view of linguistic ability, separate from other cognitive functions, is another contested theory in linguistics. Some researchers argue that the complex cognition involved in language processing is linked to more general skills referred to as “domain-general” abilities. These include things like the ability to update information in your working memory or focus your attention.)

On the other hand, there are people with genetic conditions such as Williams Syndrome, in which people have difficulty reasoning or forming logical statements, but their language is grammatically impeccable. Based on these examples, Pinker asserts that the ability to learn and execute grammar must be linked to genetics and innate mechanisms housed in the brain that are distinct from intelligence.

(Shortform note: Recent research challenges this idea that Williams Syndrome implies a modular view of language development that’s separate from general intelligence. For example, one researcher points out that children with Williams Syndrome experience slower cognitive development, and then this development stalls sometime around adolescence. Therefore, since young children tend to have a solid grasp of grammar and sentence structure, it’s possible that Williams Syndrome patients simply develop their language skills and intelligence up to the level of a cognitively normal child.)

Pinker writes that imaging techniques indicate multiple areas of the brain, particularly in the left hemisphere, that contribute to language processing and speech. He suggests that many interconnected areas of the brain help us with the linguistic skills described in the first section, like parsing out phrases and types of words. These brain functions result in a kind of neurological program that takes inputs from the environment and enables us to learn the specific vocabulary and rules of individual languages.

(Shortform note: Modern methods of mapping brain activity have led to more detailed insight into how humans process language. For example, researchers used to think that the part of the brain called Broca’s area was primarily responsible for speech production. However, recent research indicates that it acts as an intermediary between the part of the brain that processes incoming sensory information and other parts of the brain that control how we physically articulate speech. Researchers observed that Broca’s area is inactive while people are actually speaking but reactivates when someone starts to plan what they’ll say next.)

On this topic of the biological aspects of language, Pinker disagrees with other researchers who claim that people are born as linguistic blank slates and learn everything about language from their environment. Pinker and other proponents of the biologically innate language hypothesis use the gene known as FOXP2 as evidence for the theory. This is based on the study of a family with members who have a mutated FOXP2 gene, and as a result, struggle with basic language skills. Pinker suggests that the mutation of FOXP2—due to natural selection—contributed to language development in Homo sapiens alone.

Pinker also points out that language isn’t entirely biological: Genes encode the innate brain mechanisms, and then the environment provides inputs to those mechanisms. Together, they produce language skills.

(Shortform note: Recent research contradicts Pinker’s assertion that FOXP2 is a unique gene of Homo sapiens that enables language. DNA sequencing shows that an identical FOXP2 sequence was present around 400,000 years ago in the common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. So while it may be true that language is unique to Homo sapiens, the underlying role of genetics in language abilities is still unclear.)

Why Children Are Linguistic Geniuses

Pinker’s theory of language as biologically innate provides a key insight in the field of linguistics: It explains why children have the ability to rapidly acquire language. Pinker also claims that the ability of children to spontaneously create new languages further supports his theory of biological language skills.

Children Acquire Language Quickly

By the time children are two or three years old, they can often speak in fully grammatical sentences. Pinker emphasizes the magnitude of this feat—especially children’s ability to memorize the meanings of words and apply them in novel sentence structures according to internalized rules. He asserts that children produce language with the help of innate language skills, like recognizing patterns in syntax, and not just by mimicking exactly what they’ve heard before. Children also expand their vocabulary exponentially, learning an average of one new word every two hours through their adolescence.

(Shortform note: Critics of Pinker argue for an alternative understanding of why children acquire language quickly: the usage-based approach. Proponents of this theory argue that children acquire language through exposure and by using multifunctional cognitive tools. For example, they hear people around them saying things like, “Where is the dog?” and they learn by analogy and inference that they can insert different words into that structure. The key distinction between the biologically innate framework and the usage-based framework is that the latter doesn’t rely on language-specific cognitive mechanisms, like having a genetically encoded ability to recognize universal grammar structures.)

Pinker also writes that our language acquisition skills diminish significantly after puberty. The timeframe before puberty is called the critical period for learning. The general idea of a critical period applies to different scenarios in which an organism must acquire a specific skill within a certain time period, otherwise it will never properly develop. For example, zebra finches have to learn from other birds how to produce a mating song within 65 days of hatching.

Pinker suggests that humans have a critical period for language acquisition because children benefit from learning their community’s language as soon as possible: If they can understand language, they’re more likely to heed warnings of danger, like “don’t go near that animal.” So for children, it’s important to learn a language quickly, but once they’re competent at it, their body allocates less energy to the parts of the brain responsible for language acquisition. According to Pinker, this explains why children can easily learn multiple languages while adults who try to learn a new language often struggle to overcome an accent or fully master the grammar.

(Shortform note: The researcher Eric Lenneberg popularized the concept of the critical period for language acquisition in the 1960s, and it’s still a widely accepted theory in linguistics that’s supported by many case studies. However, some researchers disagree on the age cutoff when people will no longer be able to achieve native-like fluency in a new language. Some argue that it’s as young as four years old while others suggest that the cutoff is closer to 10 years old. For a child’s first language acquisition, one study shows that the first year of an infant’s life is part of the critical period for language development.)

Children Create New Languages From Pidgins

Pinker writes that children not only acquire languages easily, but they also naturally create full-blown languages when they’re raised without one. Pinker explains this concept using examples of communities that speak a pidgin: a simplified mashup of multiple languages that occurs when adults form a community without a common language.

Pidgins historically formed when groups of immigrants or enslaved people from different places were put together, and they attempted to communicate with each other. Pidgins mix together words from different languages, and they don’t have grammar. Without syntax to dictate sentence order or relationships between words, people struggle to convey nuances like tense or possession when speaking in pidgins.

(Shortform note: Pidgin vocabularies are primarily influenced by the dominant language in a physical location. Hawaii illustrates an example where two distinct pidgins formed based on what language was most common at the time. In the 19th century, indentured laborers from many nations—including China, Japan, the Philippines, Portugal, and Korea—worked alongside native Hawaiians on plantations owned by North Americans. At this time, a pidgin formed that was primarily based on Hawaiian vocabulary words. Later, as the Hawaiian population declined due to foreign diseases, and as more English-speaking people colonized the islands, a new English-based pidgin formed.)

Children raised in a pidgin-speaking community spontaneously create a new, complex, and precise grammar system: a “creole.” Pinker writes that deaf children raised around a simple signing pidgin do the same, developing advanced sign languages.

(Shortform note: Today, there are about 100 different creole languages, but many of them are endangered due to the decreasing number of young people learning creole languages at home. Most children from creole-speaking families learn a more dominant language (like English, French, or Spanish) in school, and the global economy encourages more people to learn non-creole languages that will prepare them for the workforce. One exception is Haiti, where both French and Haitian Creole are official languages. In Haiti, 90-95% of the population speaks only Haitian Creole.)

Why We Should Embrace Language Innovation

Pinker also uses his language theory to explain why people should generally be open to changing language conventions. As explained in the previous sections, Pinker contends that language evolved in humans because of its usefulness for social cohesion and cooperation. Therefore, if the purpose of language is to help people communicate ideas clearly, then people will naturally make modifications to language in pursuit of the goal. This more functional approach to language is considered “descriptive” as opposed to the “prescriptive” approach, which focuses on defining rules for how language should be used.

For example, the word “hangry,” a relatively recent addition to dictionaries, concisely conveys the idea of being angry or irritable as a result of hunger. The word has one consistent and commonly understood meaning, and it communicates an idea that people couldn’t previously express in a single word. According to the descriptive school of thought, it’s a valuable term, but according to the prescriptive approach, it’s improper English.

Pinker points out that when people complain about bad grammar or how the younger generation is ruining a language with their slang, they’re ignoring the fact that all language conventions (everything outside of the universal grammar) are completely arbitrary, and innovations are likely to enhance a language. Therefore, Pinker asserts that people shouldn’t jump to negative conclusions about the intelligence or linguistic competence of anyone who speaks a different dialect or makes up new words.

(Shortform note: Like Pinker, lexicographers who decide on what words get added to the dictionary have a descriptive approach to language. Dictionaries add up to 1,000 new words per year, and the definitions are based on how the words are commonly used. Lexicographers generally add a word to official dictionaries if it’s used by a lot of people, it’s used in a fairly consistent way, it’s likely to remain in common usage for a while, and it’s useful for the general public. These criteria, which emphasize functionality, support Pinker’s idea that creative language enhances communication.)