The Language Instinct

The Language Instinct Plot Summary

Introduction

Imagine having a conversation with someone from a remote village in Papua New Guinea who speaks a language you've never heard before. Despite the vast differences in your cultures and experiences, both of you are effortlessly using communication systems of remarkable complexity. This universal human ability to acquire and use language is so natural that we rarely stop to marvel at it. Yet language may be humanity's most impressive achievement - a feat no other species on Earth has managed to replicate. What makes language acquisition even more extraordinary is how effortlessly children master it. A four-year-old child, without formal grammar lessons, can produce sentences they've never heard before and understand complex linguistic structures. They somehow extract abstract rules from the speech around them and apply these rules creatively. This book explores the compelling evidence that language is not merely a cultural invention like writing or mathematics, but rather an instinct - a specialized biological adaptation that develops in the human mind according to a genetic program. We'll discover how our brains process grammar, how children acquire language naturally, and how this remarkable capacity might have evolved through natural selection.

Chapter 1: The Universal Grammar Blueprint

Every normal human child, regardless of culture or intelligence, acquires language with remarkable ease. This universality provides our first clue that language might be an innate capacity rather than simply a learned skill. When explorers first contacted isolated tribes in New Guinea in the 1930s, they discovered people who had been separated from the outside world for thousands of years - yet these people possessed fully developed languages with sophisticated grammatical systems just as complex as English or Chinese. What's particularly fascinating is how children acquire language. By age three, most children have mastered most of the grammar of their native language without explicit instruction. They don't simply imitate what they hear; they actively construct grammatical rules. When a child says "I goed to the store" instead of "I went to the store," they're not repeating something they've heard but applying a rule they've deduced. This creative aspect suggests that humans possess what linguist Noam Chomsky calls a "Universal Grammar" - an innate system that guides children to recognize patterns in the language they hear. The evidence for Universal Grammar becomes even more compelling when we look at what happens when children have limited language input. In situations where children are exposed only to fragmented or simplified language, they don't simply reproduce these imperfect models. Instead, they transform them into fully grammatical languages. This happened in Nicaragua in the 1980s, when deaf children with no previous exposure to sign language were brought together in a school. Within a single generation, these children spontaneously created a complete sign language with complex grammatical structures that weren't present in the rudimentary gestures they started with. The language instinct appears to be separate from other cognitive abilities. People with certain forms of brain damage may lose their language abilities while retaining other intellectual functions, and conversely, some individuals with severe cognitive impairments can still acquire normal language. This double dissociation suggests that language is processed by specialized neural circuits rather than being simply a product of general intelligence. The case of Simon, a deaf boy who developed more sophisticated sign language than his parents (who learned sign language late in life), demonstrates how children's brains seem specifically designed to extract and perfect grammatical patterns even from imperfect input. Language acquisition follows a remarkably similar trajectory across cultures, regardless of how complex the language is. Whether learning English with its relatively simple morphology or Kivunjo with its hundreds of thousands of possible verb forms, children master the basics at roughly the same age. This consistency across vastly different languages and learning environments provides further evidence that language acquisition is guided by innate principles rather than being entirely shaped by environmental factors.

Chapter 2: Words and Rules: The Building Blocks

At its core, human language operates through two fundamental mechanisms: words and rules. Words are the memorized units of language - thousands of arbitrary sound-meaning pairings we store in our mental dictionary or "lexicon." Rules are the patterns that allow us to combine these words into an infinite number of novel expressions. This dual system is what gives language its remarkable power and flexibility. Consider what happens when you encounter a new word like "wug." If I show you one wug and then another, you automatically know that two of them are "wugs." You've never heard this word before, yet you effortlessly apply the plural rule. This demonstrates how rules operate independently from memorized words. Your brain isn't simply retrieving memorized forms but actively computing new ones according to patterns. This words-and-rules architecture explains an interesting phenomenon in language: regular versus irregular forms. Regular forms follow predictable patterns - most English verbs form their past tense by adding "-ed" (walk/walked), and most nouns form plurals with "-s" (cat/cats). Irregular forms, however, must be memorized individually (go/went, mouse/mice). When children learn language, they reveal this dual system through their errors. They initially learn irregular forms correctly (went, mice), then go through a phase where they over-regularize them (goed, mouses), before finally mastering both systems. This U-shaped learning curve shows children aren't simply imitating adults but extracting and applying rules. The distinction between words and rules is also evident in how our brains process language. Neuroscience studies show that regular and irregular forms activate different brain regions. Patients with certain types of brain damage may lose the ability to process regular forms while retaining irregulars, or vice versa. What's particularly fascinating is how this dual system creates both stability and creativity in language. The memorized words provide stability - ensuring we all use the same sound sequences to refer to the same concepts. The rules provide creativity - allowing us to express entirely new thoughts by recombining familiar elements. No matter how long you live, you'll continue to hear and produce sentences you've never encountered before. This infinite generativity from finite means is what linguist Wilhelm von Humboldt identified as the defining characteristic of human language. The words-and-rules system also explains how language changes over time. New words enter the lexicon constantly (like "selfie" or "cryptocurrency"), while the rules of grammar change much more slowly. This is why Shakespeare's English has many unfamiliar words but remains largely comprehensible in its grammatical structure. The dual system provides both flexibility and continuity across generations of speakers, allowing language to adapt to new needs while maintaining its core communicative function.

Chapter 3: The Brain's Language Circuits

Language doesn't just float abstractly in our minds - it's grounded in specific brain structures that have evolved to support this uniquely human ability. When neuroscientists examine the brain, they find that language processing is primarily localized in the left hemisphere for about 95% of right-handed people and 70% of left-handed people. This specialization isn't random but reflects how our brains have been shaped by evolution to optimize language processing. The main language areas form a network primarily around what's called the perisylvian region - the tissue surrounding the Sylvian fissure in the left hemisphere. Two areas have been particularly well-studied: Broca's area in the frontal lobe and Wernicke's area in the temporal lobe. Damage to Broca's area typically results in difficulties with grammar and speech production. Patients can understand language but struggle to produce fluent, grammatically correct sentences. Their speech becomes labored and telegraphic, often lacking function words and proper inflections. Damage to Wernicke's area creates a different pattern of impairment. Patients speak fluently with normal rhythm and grammar, but their content makes little sense - filled with made-up words, word substitutions, and incoherent phrases. They also have difficulty understanding others' speech. Modern brain imaging techniques like fMRI and PET scans have revealed that language processing is actually more complex than this simple two-area model. When people process language, multiple brain regions activate in coordinated networks. Grammar, phonology (sound patterns), word meanings, and pragmatics (language use in context) each engage somewhat different neural circuits. This modular organization allows for remarkable efficiency in processing the multiple dimensions of language simultaneously. What's particularly striking is that sign languages activate the same brain areas as spoken languages. Deaf signers with damage to their left hemisphere show sign language impairments that parallel the patterns seen in hearing people with aphasia. This confirms that these brain regions are specialized for language itself, not just speech or hearing. The language organ responds to the abstract properties of language regardless of whether the medium is sound or gesture. The language areas develop according to a genetically guided schedule. Children's brains show increasing specialization for language as they mature, with neural circuits becoming more efficient and focused. This development correlates with the behavioral milestones of language acquisition, suggesting a biologically programmed unfolding of language capacity. However, there's also remarkable plasticity, especially in early childhood. If language areas in the left hemisphere are damaged early in life, language functions can often relocate to corresponding areas in the right hemisphere - something that rarely happens in adults with similar damage.

Chapter 4: How Children Acquire Language Naturally

One of the most astonishing feats of human development is how children acquire language. With no formal instruction, limited exposure, and little direct feedback, children somehow master the intricate system of their native language by age three or four. This process unfolds with remarkable consistency across cultures and languages, following a predictable timeline that suggests a biologically guided process rather than simple learning. Infants begin life already tuned to language. From birth, they prefer human speech to other sounds and can distinguish between languages based on their rhythmic properties. By six months, babies start specializing in their native language's sound system, becoming more sensitive to the phonetic contrasts that matter in their language while losing sensitivity to foreign contrasts. This "perceptual narrowing" represents the first step in language acquisition - identifying the building blocks of their particular language. Around their first birthday, children begin producing their first words. These early words typically refer to people, objects, and actions in their immediate environment. What's remarkable isn't just that children learn words, but how they learn them. They seem to operate with implicit assumptions about what words might mean - for example, assuming that new nouns refer to whole objects rather than their parts or properties. This "fast mapping" allows them to acquire vocabulary at an astonishing rate - often learning 8-10 new words per day during the preschool years. The real magic happens between 18 and 36 months, when children begin combining words and mastering grammar. Initially, they produce two-word combinations like "more juice" or "daddy shoe," but these quickly blossom into more complex sentences. What's striking is that children don't just imitate adult sentences - they generate novel combinations that follow abstract grammatical principles. They create sentences they've never heard before, demonstrating that they're acquiring rules, not just memorizing phrases. Children's grammatical errors are particularly revealing. They make systematic errors like "I goed" and "two foots" that show they're applying rules rather than imitating adults (who would never say these things). These over-regularizations demonstrate that children have extracted the pattern for forming past tense or plurals and are applying it broadly. Interestingly, children rarely make certain types of logical errors - they don't randomly scramble word order or violate structural dependencies, suggesting they're constrained by innate principles of Universal Grammar. Perhaps most remarkably, this process occurs with minimal feedback. Parents rarely correct their children's grammatical errors, focusing instead on the truth of what children say rather than how they say it. When parents do try to correct grammar, children typically ignore them. Yet somehow, children converge on the correct grammar of their community. This "poverty of stimulus" - acquiring a complex system from limited, noisy data without explicit teaching - is one of the strongest arguments that language acquisition must be guided by innate constraints that narrow the possibilities children consider.

Chapter 5: Language Evolution Through Natural Selection

How did humans come to possess language when no other species on Earth has anything remotely comparable? This question about the evolution of language has puzzled scientists for centuries. While other animals communicate - bees dance, birds sing, chimps gesture - none has the open-ended, rule-governed symbolic system that characterizes human language. Understanding how language evolved requires piecing together evidence from multiple fields, from comparative biology to archaeology. The human capacity for language likely evolved gradually over millions of years, building on cognitive and anatomical foundations shared with our primate relatives. Our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, possess many cognitive abilities that might be precursors to language - they can use symbols in limited ways, understand basic cause-effect relationships, and engage in complex social interactions. However, attempts to teach chimps human language have shown clear limitations. Even the most language-trained apes master only a few hundred symbols, rarely combine them in rule-governed ways, and primarily use them to request things rather than share information or express abstract thoughts. The anatomical adaptations for speech provide clearer evidence of language evolution. Humans have a descended larynx that creates a larger vocal tract, allowing us to produce a wider range of sounds than other primates. We also have finer motor control over our vocal apparatus and specialized neural pathways connecting speech areas in the brain. These adaptations come with costs - the descended larynx increases choking risk, for instance - suggesting they evolved under strong selection pressure specifically for speech. Why did language evolve at all? The most compelling explanation involves social coordination and information sharing. Early humans lived in complex social groups where cooperation was essential for survival. Language would have provided enormous advantages - coordinating hunts, sharing knowledge about food sources, warning of dangers, forming alliances, and transmitting cultural knowledge across generations. These benefits created selection pressure for increasingly sophisticated communication. The evolution of language likely followed a feedback loop between genetic changes and cultural innovation. Small genetic changes enabling better communication would have created cultural environments where better communication was increasingly valuable, driving further genetic changes. This gene-culture coevolution could explain how language became so complex so quickly in evolutionary terms. As language developed, it would have dramatically accelerated cultural evolution, allowing humans to share innovations and accumulate knowledge across generations. Fossil evidence gives us clues about when language might have emerged. The brain areas associated with language in modern humans leave subtle impressions on the inside of the skull. Homo habilis, living about 2 million years ago, shows some enlargement of these areas, while Homo erectus (1.5 million years ago) shows more pronounced development. By the time of early Homo sapiens (200,000-300,000 years ago), brain anatomy was essentially modern. Archaeological evidence of symbolic behavior - like art, ritual burial, and complex tools - becomes abundant after 70,000 years ago, suggesting fully modern language was present by then.

Chapter 6: The Myths About Language Decline

We all have strong opinions about language - what's correct, what's proper, what's declining. Self-appointed language authorities regularly lament the deterioration of English, pointing to split infinitives, dangling prepositions, and the supposed misuse of words like "hopefully" as evidence of linguistic decay. But these common beliefs about language often conflict dramatically with what linguistic science has discovered. Perhaps the most persistent myth is that colloquial or nonstandard varieties of English are grammatically inferior or illogical. Southern dialects, African American English, and working-class speech patterns are often dismissed as "bad grammar" or "lazy English." But linguists have demonstrated that all dialects follow systematic, rule-governed patterns - they just follow different rules. For example, the "double negative" construction in sentences like "I don't want no trouble" isn't illogical - it's standard in many languages like Spanish and was common in earlier forms of English. What we call "standard English" isn't linguistically superior; it's simply the dialect that happened to be spoken by socially powerful groups. Another widespread myth is that language is deteriorating in modern times. Every generation seems convinced that young people are destroying the language with slang, abbreviations, and grammatical innovations. Yet this complaint has been made for centuries - Jonathan Swift was lamenting language decay in 1712, and ancient Roman writers voiced similar concerns. The reality is that language constantly changes, but change doesn't equal decay. Today's "proper English" contains countless features that were once considered errors. Shakespeare used "they" as a singular pronoun and regularly ended sentences with prepositions - practices some still consider incorrect today. Many prescriptive grammar rules that people fret about have dubious origins. The prohibition against split infinitives (as in "to boldly go") was invented by 19th-century grammarians who thought English should conform to Latin, where infinitives are single words that cannot be split. The rule against preposition stranding (as in "Who did you talk to?") has a similar artificial origin. These aren't natural properties of English but arbitrary conventions imposed by self-appointed authorities. The myth that children need explicit grammar instruction to learn their native language persists despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Children master the complex grammar of their language by age four without formal teaching. Parents rarely correct grammatical errors, focusing instead on truthfulness. When they do correct grammar, children typically ignore them. Yet all normally developing children acquire language perfectly, suggesting that language acquisition is driven by an innate capacity rather than explicit teaching. Perhaps most fundamentally, many people misunderstand what grammar actually is. Grammar isn't a set of etiquette rules for formal occasions but the unconscious mental system that allows us to form and understand sentences. Everyone who speaks a language has perfect knowledge of its grammar in this scientific sense, even if they don't know formal terminology like "past participle" or "subordinate clause." The language mavens' complaints typically target matters of style, formality, or social convention - not the actual grammatical system that makes language possible.

Summary

Language is not simply a cultural invention or a set of skills we learn through education - it is a biological instinct, a specialized neural system that unfolds according to a genetic blueprint. This perspective transforms how we understand human nature. Rather than seeing ourselves as blank slates shaped entirely by culture, the language instinct reveals that our minds come equipped with sophisticated innate structures that guide how we perceive and interact with the world. These structures don't rigidly determine our behavior, but they do channel development along certain paths and make certain kinds of learning possible. The implications extend far beyond linguistics. If our capacity for language is built into our biology, what other aspects of human cognition and behavior might have innate foundations? The evidence suggests that many of our mental capacities - from visual perception to moral intuitions to social reasoning - may be guided by specialized neural systems that evolved to solve specific problems our ancestors faced. This doesn't mean we're prisoners of our genes; culture and experience play crucial roles in shaping these capacities. But it does suggest that human nature has a universal architecture that transcends cultural differences. Understanding this architecture - beginning with the language instinct - offers our best hope for appreciating both what unites us as a species and how the magnificent diversity of human cultures emerges from our shared biological heritage.

About Author

Loading...

Steven Pinker

Steven Arthur Pinker is a prominent Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, and author of popular science. Pinker is known for his wide-ranging explorations of human nature and its relevance to language, history, morality, politics, and everyday life. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and The New Republic, and is the author of numerous books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, The Blank Slate, The Stuff of Thought, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and most recently, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.He was born in Canada and graduated from Montreal's Dawson College in 1973. He received a bachelor's degree in experimental psychology from McGill University in 1976, and then went on to earn his doctorate in the same discipline at Harvard in 1979. He did research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for a year, then became an assistant professor at Harvard and then Stanford University. From 1982 until 2003, Pinker taught at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, and eventually became the director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. (Except for a one-year sabbatical at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1995-6.) As of 2008, he is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard.Pinker was named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world in 2004 and one of Prospect and Foreign Policy's 100 top public intellectuals in 2005. He has also received honorary doctorates from the universities of Newcastle, Surrey, Tel Aviv, McGill, and the University of Tromsø, Norway. He was twice a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, in 1998 and in 2003. In January 2005, Pinker defended Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard University, whose comments about the gender gap in mathematics and science angered much of the faculty. On May 13th 2006, Pinker received the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year award for his contributions to public understanding of human evolution.In 2007, he was invited on The Colbert Report and asked under pressure to sum up how the brain works in five words – Pinker answered "Brain cells fire in patterns."Pinker was born into the English-speaking Jewish community of Montreal. He has said, "I was never religious in the theological sense... I never outgrew my conversion to atheism at 13, but at various times was a serious cultural Jew." As a teenager, he says he considered himself an anarchist until he witnessed civil unrest following a police strike in 1969. His father, a trained lawyer, first worked as a traveling salesman, while his mother was first a home-maker then a guidance counselor and high-school vice-principal. He has two younger siblings. His brother is a policy analyst for the Canadian government. His sister, Susan Pinker, is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and the author of The Sexual Paradox and The Village Effect. Pinker married Nancy Etcoff in 1980 and they divorced 1992; he married Ilavenil Subbiah in 1995 and they too divorced. He is married to the novelist and philosopher Rebecca Goldstein, the author of 10 books and winner of the National Medal of the Humanities. He has no children.His next book will take off from his research on "common knowledge" (knowing that everyone knows something). Its tentative title is: Don't Go There: Common Knowledge and the Science of Civility, Hypocrisy, Outrage, and Taboo.

Read more

Related Books by Steven Pinker

Loading...

Rationality

Steven Pinker

What It Is, Why It's Scarce, and How to Get More

★★★½☆3.8

Loading...

Enlightenment Now

Steven Pinker

The Case For Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress

★★★★☆4.2

Loading...

The Blank Slate

Steven Pinker

The Modern Denial of Human Nature

★★★★☆4.1

Loading...

Everybody Lies

Steven Pinker

Big Data, New Data and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are

★★★½☆3.9

Loading...

The Sense of Style

Steven Pinker

The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century

★★★★☆4.0

Loading...

The Better Angels of Our Nature

Steven Pinker

Why Violence Has Declined

★★★★☆4.2

Loading...

The Stuff of Thought

Steven Pinker

Language as a Window into Human Nature

★★★½☆3.9