Comments on: So what’s wrong with The Language Instinct?

By: Joshua Macy

Joshua Macy — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:32:07 +0000

I don’t think so. Pinker’s point is that any compound such as _monster-eater_ is atomic, and the rules of syntax cannot “look inside” it to manipulate its parts. Pulling it apart and rewriting X-Yer to Yer of X splits that atom. _Monster-eater_ -> _eater of monsters_, _dream-catcher_ -> _catcher of dreams_, _soul-stealer_ -> _stealer of souls_, _clothes-dryer_ -> _dryer of clothes_ all follow a regular syntactic rule (at least as I understand syntax), which ought to be impossible according to Pinker’s account. Something that really was atomic could not be broken up at all without losing the meaning, e.g. _locomotive_ can’t be split even with the help of a preposition. _What is this a motive of?_ really is virtually unintelligible, as is _What kind of loco is this?_.
There are compounds that appear to work the way Pinker describes, or at least when you split them you lose the sense because at least one of the parts is being used metaphorically. E.g. there’s nothing literally down about a showdown, or up about a cover-up. But _monster-eater_ and its kin seem to be exceptions that prove the rule.

By: Mike Maxwell

Mike Maxwell — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:03:24 +0000

> Nonsense. What is this monster an eater of? is perfectly intelligible
But you just made Pinker’s point! The phrase that your example is related to is not “monster-eater”, but rather “eater of monsters”, which is not a compound, and therefore not subject to the constraint on plurals. To be precise, “a monster-eater” is a noun phrase consisting of an article plus a compound noun composed of two nouns, whereas “an eater of monsters” is a noun phrase composed of an article, a head noun, and a prepositional phrase.

By: the Greater Nomadic Council

the Greater Nomadic Council — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:28:52 +0000

A Critique of Pinker
For anyone who’s read Pinker’s “The Language Instinct” (which is just about anyone who’s taken a linguistics course), this critique of his evidence (or “evidence”) should be interesting. It’s not a repudiation of his theories—just some im…

By: Logomacy » Ouch

Logomacy » Ouch — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

[...] ge Log: Criticizing Pinker the right way, Mark Liberman takes me to school over my post on The Language Instinct I’ve not only made an error, but I’ve compounded it by jok [...]