Discussion Details
| Title: | Re: 18.197, Re: 18.45: An Intelligent Man's ... |
| Submitter: | Noah Silbert |
| Description: | Alexander Kravchenko responds to 'An Intelligent Man's Answer to Linguistic
Truisms' by writing that ''...I back Dalrymple on every count and find Pinker 'guilty as charged'.'' Dalrymple may well make some good points, and Pinker has certainly made some bad ones, but it is absurd to suggest that Dalrymple is right ''on every count.'' Let's take perhaps the most obvious example of Dalrymple misrepresenting Pinker's, and Linguistics', position. Dalrymple writes that ''[i]t is utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents (or other social contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration, but Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking children, and Portuguese parents Portuguese-speaking ones.'' It has been a while since I read The Language Instinct, but if I remember correctly, Pinker never claims that imitation has nothing whatever to do with acquisition. I certainly haven't heard it from any regular Joe linguist, either. Dalrymple, and by extension, Kravchenko, fails to maintain an elementary logical distinction here, that between necessary and sufficient conditions. Pinker's (and others') claim is that imitation is not sufficient for language acquisition. Dalrymple is representing Pinker's position as a claim that imitation is not necessary for language acquisition. The two are not equivalent. Obviously, even the most fervent generativists understand that ''Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking children, and Portuguese parents Portuguese-speaking ones.'' They also understand that Chinese and Portuguese have quite a lot in common 'underneath' their many obvious differences. Perhaps Kravchenko was forgetting about this silly straw-man argument when he expressed his agreement with Dalrymple. Kravchenko rightly focuses on the issue of 'equality' between languages, as this is probably the most interesting issue addressed in Dalrymple's article. Many linguists go to great lengths to insist that no one language is any more complex, or any better, than another. Dalrymple and Kravchenko disagree. There is, perhaps, a real issue here, though standard linguistics, Dalrymple, and Kravchenko are all (understandably) reluctant to face it head on. In order to claim that language A is better than Language B, one must define what, exactly, better means. If this is, in fact, a real issue, then the exceedingly difficult work of defining and measuring the relative complexity or 'quality' of different languages should be undertaken. Kravchenko doesn't offer any substantive explanation for his dismissal of the linguistic equality 'myth' other than to quote Dalrymple. Dalrymple seems to address the problem, but in doing so he conflates eloquence and linguistic competence. This is based on either a misunderstanding or a deliberate misrepresentation of Linguistics, as is the imitation foofaraw discussed above. For what it's worth, David Foster Wallace wrote a much better essay (published in the April, 2001, issue of Harper's) that deals with some of these issues in a much more entertaining and well-informed manner than does Dalrymple. The essay can be read (as of 1/19/07, anyway) at: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html |
| Date Posted: | 22-Jan-2007 |
| Linguistic Field(s): | Philosophy of Language |
| LL Issue: | 18.229 |
| Posted: | 22-Jan-2007 |
