82,891
edits
The Language Instinct: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|book review|}}Steven Pinker lost me as a buyer of his thesis with the very second sentence of his book: {{quote|For you and I belong to a species with a remarkable ability: we can shape events in other’s brains with exquisite precision.}} If you take that for granted, Pinker’s book will seem compelling and not especially controversial. Steven Pinker clearly takes it for granted, perhaps because he can’t conceive of how we could possibly communicate effectivel...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Consider the following, which I think perfectly encapsulates the world view Pinker can’t conceive of, by Ogden Nash: | Consider the following, which I think perfectly encapsulates the world view Pinker can’t conceive of, by Ogden Nash: | ||
{{quote| | |||
{{ogden nash listen}} | |||
}} | |||
To my way of thinking, it is the very fact that we ''can’t'' “shape events in other’s brains with exquisite precision” — or with any reliable certainty at all, that describes the human condition. The frisson created by precisely that ambiguity underpins all communication; it is the source of irony, tragedy, comedy, invention and imagination. Any theory of language which denies that fundamental contingency of human communication (as this one does) is going to have to prove it, and displacing that onus is a heavy task indeed. | To my way of thinking, it is the very fact that we ''can’t'' “shape events in other’s brains with exquisite precision” — or with any reliable certainty at all, that describes the human condition. The frisson created by precisely that ambiguity underpins all communication; it is the source of irony, tragedy, comedy, invention and imagination. Any theory of language which denies that fundamental contingency of human communication (as this one does) is going to have to prove it, and displacing that onus is a heavy task indeed. | ||