Original title Educating Eve Publication date 1997 ISBN 978-0-304-33908-2 Originally published 1997 Original language English Dewey decimal 401 | Country United Kingdom Media type Print (Hardback) LC Class P37.5.I55 S26 1997 | |
 | ||
Similar Geoffrey Sampson books, Non-fiction books | ||
Educating Eve: The 'Language Instinct' Debate is a book by Geoffrey Sampson, providing arguments against Noam Chomsky's theory of a human instinct for (first) language acquisition. Sampson explains the original title of the book as a deliberate allusion to Educating Rita (1980), and uses the plot of that play to illustrate his argument. Samson's book is a response to Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct specifically and Chomskyan linguistic nativism broadly.
Contents
- Abstract
- Overview
- Foreword
- Chapter 1 Culture or biology
- Chapter 2 The original arguments for a language instinct
- 1 Speed of acquisition
- 2 Age dependence
- 3 Poverty of data
- 4 Convergence among grammars
- 5 Language universals
- 6 Non linguistic analogies
- 7 Species specificity
- Chapter 3 How people really speak
- Chapter 4 The debate renewed
- Chapter 5 Language structure turns queens evidence
- Chapter 6 The creative mind
- Annotated journal commentary
- References
The title, Educating Eve, was dropped after the first edition because the allusion to Educating Rita "was deemed unduly mysterious". The revised edition (2005) contains an additional chapter and "many passages, from a few words up to new chapter-sections, that discuss relevant scientific findings which have emerged since the first edition, or respond to objections made by critics of that edition."
Abstract
Sampson critically evaluates the ability of theories of linguistic nativism to accommodate the growing understanding of human brain processing over the course of the late 20th century. He proposes an alternative explanation, borrowing some ideas and terminology from Karl Popper.
Overview
The book has seven chapters introduced by a foreword by Paul Postal who claims an agnostic position regarding the debate. He expresses serious concerns regarding the strength of the "nativist" argument; but despite being unconvinced of the alternative view, he commends Sampson for challenging nativism and attempting to make a case for an alternative.
The first chapter of Educating Eve considers broad contours of the nature versus nurture debate in regard to human knowledge generally, before narrowing this down to the rise of late 20th century linguistic nativism in particular. It concludes with an overview of the methodology of the rest of the book. Chapter 2 reports evidence that was available to the "first wave" of nativists (like Chomsky) during the 1960s and 1970s. Chapter 3 reports the results of research that have become available since then. Chapter 4 turns to examining the distinctive arguments of "new wave" nativists (like Pinker). Chapter 5 presents a case for an alternative view. chapter 6 In chapter 7 Sampson concludes with a short personal perspective on sociological changes in the nature of academic discourse over the 40 years of the debate regarding nativism. He attributes the popularity of nativism to various features of these sociological changes.
Foreword
Paul Postal starts his foreword (to the 2005 edition), by noting the rise to "dominance" of Chomsky's belief in an innate basis for first language learning; he calls it the "innateness position". He mentions Chomsky's own terms for this hypothesized "faculty of language" or "linguistic organ".
Chapter 1: Culture or biology?
Chapter 2: The original arguments for a language instinct
In the second chapter of Debate, Sampson first presents and numbers seven "empirical premisses" he finds in Chomsky's work. He then provides his responses to each of these premisses, numbered according to the same system (the numbers being utilized throughout the book). This article reverses Sampson's layout, so that premise and response can be seen together, since the premisses are logically independent, whereas the responses depend directly on the premisses. Quotes from Chomsky below are those identified by Sampson. Editorial emmendments (in [brackets]) are Sampson's. Emphasis (in italics) is original per Chomsky.
1 Speed of acquisition
Sampson distinguishes two variants of Chomsky's argument from speed: his main case (i) that speed is absolutely fast, and a less frequent case (ii) that it is relatively fast—faster than learning physics, for example. Sampson notes that the period of language acquisition is normally reckoned from birth, though some studies have demonstrated foetal exposure to the mother's voice results in absorbing language-specific information. However the duration of time is reckoned, though, Sampson challenges (i)—absolute speed—by asking: "Why is it appropriate to regard a learning period of two years or so as 'remarkably fast' rather than 'remarkably slow'?" More specifically, he asks: "How long would human beings have to take to acquire language before Chomsky would no longer see the speed-of-acquisition argument as applicable? Ten years? Fifty years?" Sampson notes that Chomsky's view is actually that language learning would not be possible at all without innate knowledge—time alone would never produce it.
Sampson challenges (ii)—relative speed—by noting a false analogy between tacit language knowledge and descriptive knowledge of physics. On the one hand, descriptive knowledge of language is considered by many professionals to be incomplete even after the work of generations of scholars, and familiarity with this knowledge is neither acquired universally nor quickly by individuals. On the other, tacit knowledge of physics is, broadly speaking, universal and relatively fast. Sampson describes this as "mastery of the 'tacit knowledge' which enables a person to conform his behaviour to the patterns appropriate to the physical world he inhabits: to pour a liquid without spilling it, to use a skipping rope, to succeed in throwing a ball roughly where he wants it to go, etc."
2 Age-dependence
3 Poverty of data
4 Convergence among grammars
5 Language universals
6 Non-linguistic analogies
7 Species-specificity
Chapter 3: How people really speak
Chapter 4: The debate renewed
Sampson notes that "An adverbial clause (when God made . . .); a verbless with clause
Chapter 5: Language structure turns queen's evidence
Chapter 6: The creative mind
Annotated journal commentary
Cowley, and some others, view Sampson and Pinker as standing at extreme ends of a nature–nurture spectrum, as applied to explaining language acquisition. Cowley notes philosophical difficulties with each extreme, as they are argued by Sampson and Pinker: Sampson's version of the nurture position also argues for philosophical dualism; whereas Pinker's version of the nature position also argues for an ontological reality for syntax. Both these auxiliary arguments are unsatisfactory to many writers who address the relevant broader philosophical questions.
Cowley proposes an alternative: that language acquisition involves culturally determined language skills, apprehended by a biologically determined faculty that responds to them. In other words, he proposes that each extreme is right in what it affirms, but wrong in what it denies. Both cultural diversity of language, and a learning instinct, can be affirmed; neither need be denied.