Amazon.com: The 'Language Instinct' Debate: 9780826473851: Sampson, Geoffrey: Books (original) (raw)

Customer reviews

How customer reviews and ratings work

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon

Customer image

Images in this review

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews. Please reload the page.

Reviewed in the United States on March 24, 2007
Chomsky and his followers tried very hard to persuade us that we were born with certain language abilities programmed into our DNA. Others believe that our ability to learn, and even to create, languages is a function of our overall ability to learn things at very high levels.
If you want to believe that human beings are run by their DNA, the way birds and fishes are, then Chomsky is for you. But if you believe that human intelligence is an "open" system that allows complete flexibility in navigating the unpredictabilities of the world, then you might want to make use of the valuable information in this book.
5 people found this helpful
Report

Reviewed in the United States on January 10, 2007
Even if I do not agree with the idea that there is no innateness that we are born with, but the strong argument against Noam Chomsky is very helpful to have better understanding of child language acquisition. If you do not overcome Chomsky's theory, then you better try this book.
One person found this helpful
Report

Reviewed in the United States on November 15, 2006
Format: Paperback
There's nothing better than seeing an overconfident favourite getting a proper seeing to from an unfancied underdog.
All the same, when best-selling MIT and Harvard-credentialised psycho-linguist Steven Pinker's book "the Language Instinct" - a work feted far and wide and rarely challenged in polite circles - is subjected to critical treatment by an curmudgeonly British professor from an unfashionable second tier university in the home counties, it is a hopeful chap indeed who thinks an upset might be on the cards.
Pinker, after all, has the weight of Noam Chomsky (self styled most important intellect on the planet) behind him, and rates consistently favourable mentions from the literary review sections of important newspapers and that peculiar clique of populist science writers (Dan Dennett, Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins among others).
The best you could say for Sampson, on the other hand, is that he lacks profile: His tenure is at the University of Sussex - yes, there is one - and the profile he does have isn't the sort most people would want: as far back as 1977, Christopher Hitchens described him as "an academic nonentity who made various other incautious allegations [about Noam Chomsky's political views] and who later ... strolled into the propellers and was distributed into such fine particles that he has never been heard from again." Ouch.
That's all ancient history, though, and the pleasant surprise is that over the last thirty years the plucky little Britisher has made a full recovery from his encounter with the propellers and is in fine enough fettle to give said global linguistic superstar a good old-fashioned intellectual walloping. Even read alone, Pinker's book is built on a wobbly edifice, but with Sampson's expert guide, it looks positively idiotic. Sampson is systematic: he sets up each of Pinker's arguments (such as they are), represents them fairly (I read Pinker's original concurrently to check) and then, like a gentleman cricketer on the village green dispatches each of them deftly to the boundary through extra-cover.
I'm really not sure why Geoffrey Sampson's book hasn't received more attention: possibly the author's history (he seems to made a number of "incautious" political statements over his life and doesn't seem to be the recanting type), but also because it swims bravely against an intellectual tide: Sampson is - though I don't think he expressly says it - a relativist:
"What the language learner is trying to bring his tacit theory into correspondence with is not some single, consistent grammar inhering in a collective national psyche, the sort of mystic entity that a sociologist such as Emile Durkheim would call a "social fact". Rather, he is trying to reconstruct a system underlying the usage of various speakers to whom he is exposed, and these speakers will almost certainly be working at any given time with non-identical tacit theories of their own - so that there will not be any wholly coherent and irrefutable grammar available to be formulated"
Advocating relativism, as I think Sampson coherently and convincingly does, has the misfortune to be about as incautious as criticising Noam Chomsky these days, so perhaps Sampson's card is marked and that's that. All the same, the passage cited above is beautifully put, and by itself is more persuasive than Steven Pinker's whole book.
All the same, who's laughing now? Probably not G. Sampson esq., as he strolls from the wicket at stumps, having carried his bat valiantly, but not having managed to save the innings. But up on the grassy bank, this cricket connoisseur stand to applaud this stylish, defiant knock.
Well batted, sir.
Olly Buxton
45 people found this helpful
Report

Reviewed in the United States on April 27, 2013
As a scientific adviser to graduate students and as a PhD in linguistics I have to say that I struggle with Sampson's book for several reasons. First, I have a problem with his use of hyperbole such as "most people" (p. 7), "very many people" (p. 1), "some people" (p. 11), "no one would read Chomsky..." (p. 13) and "All academic philosophers know" (p. 19). These are just a few examples I found in Chapter One. His book is filled with this type of assumptive speech once called "Dicto Simpliciter." He also seems to struggle with Hasty Generalizations. I fear that Sampson has failed to keep up with the data concerning new research in language and speech production. Technology has given us tools beyond imagination and as a result we have new insights into language production, language development, and how humans speak. Dr. Deb Roy from MIT (cognitive scientist) has done extensive research on the emergence of language in infants. Dr. Faraneh Vargha-Khadem from University College London has actually isolated the Fox P2 gene responsible for certain types of speech defects and Prof. Gary Morgan's studies into autism shows that some brains have no language barrier at all and can master all the skills of 20 languages. I just have to say that I cannot recommend a book with these types of over generalizations. In addition, it seems that Sampson is angry or acidic towards nativists in general, Chomsky and Pinker in particular. He almost rants in the first three chapters. The evidence of a language instinct is no longer thin, but rather exploding as technology allows us to look into what makes us speak. All of this to say that language cannot be purely cultural if genetic mutations can deform it. I am afraid Sampson has lost his voice.
15 people found this helpful
Report

Top reviews from other countries

Reviewed in Japan on May 11, 2017
これはすごく面白い本でした。
チョムスキーもピンカーもコテンパンです。
私は説得力があると思いました。
ていうか、爆笑モノです。
いや、本当に爆笑しました。
私はもともと生成文法派に乗れないので、バイアスかかってるかもしれませんが。
ところが、英国のAmazonレビューはまあまあですが、米国のレビューを覗くと結構辛辣なものが多いです。
ただ、そういうのは何だか威圧的に切って捨てるような、あんまり愉快じゃないレビューが目につきました。
「問題にならん」とか、「Sampsonって誰？」みたいな。
これは著者が1997年に出したものの改題改訂版なんですが、この改訂版の中で著者は、初版で批判した連中から応答がなかったと不満を述べています。
ピンカーなんかは、明らかに著者の批判を意識して著書中で苦しい弁明をしているのに、著者の名前は出してないそうです(私自身は原著該当部分未確認ですが)。
私、手元にあるCHOMSKY AND HIS CRITICS(2003)なんて本を確認してみたんですが、レファレンスにはSampsonのSの字もないです(……いや、大げさでした。Sはありますけど)。
ま、生成文法派が出来レースで「生産的なご議論」を編集してるわけですから、当り前か。
で、私が考えるに、この本は生成文法派にとってあまりにも痛いところを突いてるので、もう黙殺するしかなかったんじゃないか。
私は実は、日本の言語学者の社会学をだれかやってくれないかと思ってるんです。
多分、1960年代や70年代にMITなんかに留学してチョムスキーの教えを受けた、みたいな奴が帰国してデカイ顔して、そしてまた弟子を米国のチョムスキー派の大学あたりに送り込んで、それがまた帰国してポストを得て、みたいな繰り返しで、今の日本の言語学者の相当部分が米国留学の勲章ぶら下げた生成文法派になってるんじゃないでしょうか。
著者も最終章で書いてるけど、生成文法派に逆らったら大学に職を得るのが難しかっただろうって。
生成文法に疑問を持った連中は、近接他分野に逃げたって。
で、生成文法派が勢力を得た時代的背景についても書いてるけど、私はこれも説得力あると思いました。
まさに、世界中から英語を学びに米国の大学に留学生たちがやってきた、言語学の拡張期だったんですよね。
生成文法って、学校文法と似てるしねw
ちょっと宋代の朱子学の伸長と似てるところがあるかもしれない(科挙制度が定着した時代、朱子学って受験勉強に最適だったんですよ)。
私としては、チョムスキー産業と呼びたいです。
会社と同じで、デカくなりすぎて潰せなくなってる。
でもね、失礼だけど、総帥だって永遠に生きてるわけじゃないんですよ。
昔の歌にあった「親亀コケたら、子亀、孫亀、曾孫亀、……皆コケた」ってなりますよ。
ただ、批判の正当性とは関係ありませんが、著者がしきりにポパーを持ち出すのは、ちょっとどうかなと思いました。
ポパーなしでも十分成り立つ本だと思うんですけど。
とくにエクルスとの対談を引っ張ってきたのは、ちょっと退いたのは確か。
英国って、ポパーを重んじる空気があるみたいですね。

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on November 15, 2006
There's nothing better than seeing an overconfident favourite getting a proper seeing to from an unfancied underdog.
All the same, when best-selling MIT and Harvard-credentialised psycho-linguist Steven Pinker's book "the Language Instinct" - a work feted far and wide and rarely challenged in polite circles - is subjected to critical treatment by an curmudgeonly British professor from an unfashionable second tier university in the home counties, it is a hopeful chap indeed who thinks an upset might be on the cards.
Pinker, after all, has the weight of Noam Chomsky (self styled most important intellect on the planet) behind him, and rates consistently favourable mentions from the literary review sections of important newspapers and that peculiar clique of populist science writers (Dan Dennett, Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins among others).
The best you could say for Sampson, on the other hand, is that he lacks profile: His tenure is at the University of Sussex - yes, there is one - and the profile he does have isn't the sort most people would want: as far back as 1977, Christopher Hitchens described him as "an academic nonentity who made various other incautious allegations [about Noam Chomsky's political views] and who later ... strolled into the propellers and was distributed into such fine particles that he has never been heard from again." Ouch.
That's all ancient history, though, and the pleasant surprise is that over the last thirty years the plucky little Britisher has made a full recovery from his encounter with the propellers and is in fine enough fettle to give said global linguistic superstar a good old-fashioned intellectual walloping. Even read alone, Pinker's book is built on a wobbly edifice, but with Sampson's expert guide, it looks positively idiotic. Sampson is systematic: he sets up each of Pinker's arguments (such as they are), represents them fairly (I read Pinker's original concurrently to check) and then, like a gentleman cricketer on the village green dispatches each of them deftly to the boundary through extra-cover.
I'm really not sure why Geoffrey Sampson's book hasn't received more attention: possibly the author's history (he seems to made a number of "incautious" political statements over his life and doesn't seem to be the recanting type), but also because it swims bravely against an intellectual tide: Sampson is - though I don't think he expressly says it - a relativist:
"What the language learner is trying to bring his tacit theory into correspondence with is not some single, consistent grammar inhering in a collective national psyche, the sort of mystic entity that a sociologist such as Emile Durkheim would call a "social fact". Rather, he is trying to reconstruct a system underlying the usage of various speakers to whom he is exposed, and these speakers will almost certainly be working at any given time with non-identical tacit theories of their own - so that there will not be any wholly coherent and irrefutable grammar available to be formulated"
Advocating relativism, as I think Sampson coherently and convincingly does, has the misfortune to be about as incautious as criticising Noam Chomsky these days, so perhaps Sampson's card is marked and that's that. All the same, the passage cited above is beautifully put, and by itself is more persuasive than Steven Pinker's whole book.
All the same, who's laughing now? Probably not G. Sampson esq., as he strolls from the wicket at stumps, having carried his bat valiantly, but not having managed to save the innings. But up on the grassy bank, this cricket connoisseur stand to applaud this stylish, defiant knock.
Well batted, sir.
Olly Buxton

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 11, 2014
It's fair warning to say that Geoffrey Sampson is a man with unfashionable views. While this book is not about the politics of race or gender, it's worth knowing in advance that Sampson grew up in an era before the current politically correct orthodoxy and on one or two occasions he strays off-topic in a manner that might be described as 'old fashioned'. Given he's now nearly 70 years old I doubt he'd see any need to apologise for that.
That aside, this turned out to be a surprisingly enjoyable academic romp against linguistic nativism and the theory of Universal Grammar. His criticisms of Chomskyan / Pinkerite arguments aren't perfect - indeed, a number of the allegations (a priori circularity, artificial straw men, selective use of evidence) could equally be levelled against him and no doubt have been in academic discussion. That isn't the point of the book.
What he achieves here - in an often cantankerous, pernickety fashion - is a wholesale demonstration that the theory of linguistic nativism has by no means been reconciled with the available evidence to a standard consistent with empirical science. That doesn't mean linguistic nativism is necessarily wrong (and I don't think Sampson would insist that it is) but it does leave a door open for other theories.
Sampson's own theory isn't elegantly expressed in the work, which (from what I could make of it) is a great shame. He appears to accept that there are biological constraints on human capacity for thought, but believe that our constraints are sufficiently weak to allow genuine originality to emerge from the abundant chaos of culture and individuality, and for us to escape from the tyranny of any underlying, predetermined Universal Grammar.
At its heart, this is a book about determinism versus free will, and I hope for my own sake that he is right and I am not simply typing this review as a blind automaton.