What do you think?
Rate this book
The Language Myth: Why Language Is Not an Instinct
Language is central to our lives, the cultural tool that arguably sets us apart from other species. Some scientists have argued that language is innate, a type of unique human 'instinct' pre-programmed in us from birth. In this book, Vyvyan Evans argues that this received wisdom is, in fact, a myth. Debunking the notion of a language 'instinct', Evans demonstrates that language is related to other animal forms of communication; that languages exhibit staggering diversity; that we learn our mother tongue drawing on general properties and abilities of the human mind, rather than an inborn 'universal' grammar; that language is not autonomous but is closely related to other aspects of our mental lives; and that, ultimately, language and the mind reflect and draw upon the way we interact with others in the world. Compellingly written and drawing on cutting-edge research, The Language Myth sets out a forceful alternative to the received wisdom, showing how language and the mind really work.
318 pages, Hardcover
First published September 18, 2014
19 people are currently reading
352 people want to read
About the author
Vyvyan Evans
20 books67 followersVyvyan Evans is a native of Chester, England. He holds a PhD in linguistics from Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., and is a Professor of Linguistics. He has published numerous acclaimed popular science and technical books on language and linguistics. His popular science essays and articles have appeared in numerous venues including 'The Guardian', 'Psychology Today', 'New York Post', 'New Scientist', 'Newsweek' and 'The New Republic'. His award-winning writing focuses, in one way or another, on the nature of language and mind, the impact of technology on language, and the future of communication. His science fiction work explores the status of language and digital communication technology as potential weapons of mass destruction. For further biographical details visit his official website: www.vyvevans.net. For details of his science fiction writing, visit the Songs of the Sage book series website: www.songs-of-the-sage.com.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
April 23, 2017
This book attempts to refute Chomskyan linguistics and its popularization by Steven Pinker. It purports to refute "myths" of language propagated by the Chomskyans; however, I was not at all convinced.
Birds are one of the three taxons of vertebrates capable of flight (the others being bats and extinct pterosaurs). The closest living relatives of birds are the crocodilians. There is this Russian joke: crocodiles can fly, but very, very low. It is likely that Jurassic bird-like dinosaurs had something similar to flight, but not quite the same, like "flying" squirrels and colugos do now, but they are extinct; birds are the only living archosaurs (a taxon consisting of dinosaurs and related reptiles) capable of anything resembling flight. Likewise, humans are the only living animals possessing anything resembling language. Neandertals, Denisovans and other extinct hominids may have possessed something similar to language, but not quite the same, but they are extinct. Evans tries to dredge up examples of animal behavior similar to human language in some respects, but to me this resembles trying to prove that crocodiles can fly. Evans's bringing up examples of apes being taught sign language looks pathetic to me. There are many works of fiction about human children brought up by animals or aliens and learning animal or alien ways, but even in fiction these ways are foreign to human nature. Mowgli did not become a wolf, and did not bring up his children as wolves, nor did Romulus and Remus. Likewise, even if primatologists teach a bonobo or a gorilla some signs (not a real human sign language like ASL, which they are incapable of learning), this is an unnatural thing for apes; there is no ape community actively using sign language and transmitting it to the next generation, and there cannot be.
Chomsky and Pinker say that language is an instinct. Evans disagrees: an instinct is a behavior that appears without learning, and language has to be learned. I think sexuality is a great analogy for language. When I was 13 years old, I looked through a booklet in Hungarian, a language I knew not a word of, which had a picture of sexual intercourse; I popped a woody. Puberty is when people start acquiring what adults think of as sexuality. You need to grow up in a society for it to develop properly, but it is a natural human behavior. Likewise, age 1-2 is when people start acquiring what adults think of as language. That you also need to grow up in a society to get it doesn't make it less of a natural human behavior, which is to say an instinct.
Evans also critiques the concept of Mentalese, or a mind-representation of concepts separate from linguistic representation. To me, the most obvious sign of the existence of Mentalese is irony. When a Donald Trump impersonator says, "Remember American carnage? It's unbelievable. It's even gotten better. How are you guys loving the American carnage now?" it does not mean what it literally means. How does the audience understand it? It doesn't think it words.
(in reality, linguists Asya Pereltsvayg and Norbert Hornstein wrote many blog postings criticizing Evans's book point by point; I am just writing about what struck me as wrong as I was reading it.)
Birds are one of the three taxons of vertebrates capable of flight (the others being bats and extinct pterosaurs). The closest living relatives of birds are the crocodilians. There is this Russian joke: crocodiles can fly, but very, very low. It is likely that Jurassic bird-like dinosaurs had something similar to flight, but not quite the same, like "flying" squirrels and colugos do now, but they are extinct; birds are the only living archosaurs (a taxon consisting of dinosaurs and related reptiles) capable of anything resembling flight. Likewise, humans are the only living animals possessing anything resembling language. Neandertals, Denisovans and other extinct hominids may have possessed something similar to language, but not quite the same, but they are extinct. Evans tries to dredge up examples of animal behavior similar to human language in some respects, but to me this resembles trying to prove that crocodiles can fly. Evans's bringing up examples of apes being taught sign language looks pathetic to me. There are many works of fiction about human children brought up by animals or aliens and learning animal or alien ways, but even in fiction these ways are foreign to human nature. Mowgli did not become a wolf, and did not bring up his children as wolves, nor did Romulus and Remus. Likewise, even if primatologists teach a bonobo or a gorilla some signs (not a real human sign language like ASL, which they are incapable of learning), this is an unnatural thing for apes; there is no ape community actively using sign language and transmitting it to the next generation, and there cannot be.
Chomsky and Pinker say that language is an instinct. Evans disagrees: an instinct is a behavior that appears without learning, and language has to be learned. I think sexuality is a great analogy for language. When I was 13 years old, I looked through a booklet in Hungarian, a language I knew not a word of, which had a picture of sexual intercourse; I popped a woody. Puberty is when people start acquiring what adults think of as sexuality. You need to grow up in a society for it to develop properly, but it is a natural human behavior. Likewise, age 1-2 is when people start acquiring what adults think of as language. That you also need to grow up in a society to get it doesn't make it less of a natural human behavior, which is to say an instinct.
Evans also critiques the concept of Mentalese, or a mind-representation of concepts separate from linguistic representation. To me, the most obvious sign of the existence of Mentalese is irony. When a Donald Trump impersonator says, "Remember American carnage? It's unbelievable. It's even gotten better. How are you guys loving the American carnage now?" it does not mean what it literally means. How does the audience understand it? It doesn't think it words.
(in reality, linguists Asya Pereltsvayg and Norbert Hornstein wrote many blog postings criticizing Evans's book point by point; I am just writing about what struck me as wrong as I was reading it.)
December 30, 2018
Recent controversies in Australia should remind us that textbooks are sites of contestation and contention, and also that anything that purports to speak a truth and introduce a discipline should be subject to rigorous questioning. Not only is ideology at play, but also the economics of the textbook industry discourage perspectives which bust prominent academic myths.
Among the most common of those myths, reinforced by popularisers like Stephen Pinker, is Noam Chomsky's theory of a Universal Grammar. In short, Chomsky's claim is that there is a universal language instinct and that learning a first language is a matter of activating something somehow 'pre-programmed' or hardwired in the brain.
This is actually false, and it is Vyvyan Evans' mission to explain why, a task she undertakes with a minimum of frustration on display, and a maximum of clarity and explanation on the latest research in neuroscience, linguistic anthropology and other domains.
Evans argues, correctly, that Chomsky's thesis is both ideological and scientifically disproved. I hope her book attracts a wide readership, and also because it's a great read full of fascinating facts about animal communication, how the brain works and the absolutely inseparable link between culture and language.
Among the most common of those myths, reinforced by popularisers like Stephen Pinker, is Noam Chomsky's theory of a Universal Grammar. In short, Chomsky's claim is that there is a universal language instinct and that learning a first language is a matter of activating something somehow 'pre-programmed' or hardwired in the brain.
This is actually false, and it is Vyvyan Evans' mission to explain why, a task she undertakes with a minimum of frustration on display, and a maximum of clarity and explanation on the latest research in neuroscience, linguistic anthropology and other domains.
Evans argues, correctly, that Chomsky's thesis is both ideological and scientifically disproved. I hope her book attracts a wide readership, and also because it's a great read full of fascinating facts about animal communication, how the brain works and the absolutely inseparable link between culture and language.
August 28, 2016
I knew that I would like reading this book, languages being one of my favorite subjects. I only gave it three stars, however, first, because I found it too polemical in nature and style. The book is in fact an attack on Noam Chomsky's 50-year old theory of a universal grammar, as well as on some of his more recent adherents such as Steven Pinker. Personal bitterness, which has no place in an academic work, seems to permeate these attacks. (I have read Chomsky and suspected that his view was excessively based on a single language, English, so I have long had more admiration for his political stance than his stance on language.) I have also read Pinker and found him very entertaining, especially The Language Instinct, if not theoretically sound. I have always thought that a "universal grammar" was intended more as a metaphor than a theory, because none of the authors I had read until Evans take multilingualism into account.
My second objection is that, although Evans invokes the variety of existing languages to prove hisa thesis (which does not require a whole book; an article would have been sufficient), he does not go into any detailed consideration of the light that multilingualism can shed on language, in particular on the timing of language learning. I learnt my mother language (Norwegian) in the normal way, between the ages of two and four; I learnt French by immersion (in a French school in Africa) at age 12, and English, by social immersion starting at the same age. Those three languages I know fluently; in English, a slight accent remains, but neither in French, nor Norwegian. While a teenager in Africa I also picked up rudiments of Amharic, a Semitic language, together with good notions of grammar (and thus very different from Indo-European languages, whether Germanic or Romance). At that time, I also knew 4- and 5-year old children who spoke up to 5 languages fluently and kept perfect track of the language in which to address people depending on context.
I still use my knowledge of several languages to test whether a passage actually makes sense. I I can translate it between English and French easily while keeping its meaning intact, all is well. If I cannot, chances are that the original passage was gobbledygook and than it was inserted because it sounded good rather than brought any light to the subject.
Thus, the phenomenon of multilingualism seems to me to be morte that relevant to any meaning-based theory of language.
My second objection is that, although Evans invokes the variety of existing languages to prove hisa thesis (which does not require a whole book; an article would have been sufficient), he does not go into any detailed consideration of the light that multilingualism can shed on language, in particular on the timing of language learning. I learnt my mother language (Norwegian) in the normal way, between the ages of two and four; I learnt French by immersion (in a French school in Africa) at age 12, and English, by social immersion starting at the same age. Those three languages I know fluently; in English, a slight accent remains, but neither in French, nor Norwegian. While a teenager in Africa I also picked up rudiments of Amharic, a Semitic language, together with good notions of grammar (and thus very different from Indo-European languages, whether Germanic or Romance). At that time, I also knew 4- and 5-year old children who spoke up to 5 languages fluently and kept perfect track of the language in which to address people depending on context.
I still use my knowledge of several languages to test whether a passage actually makes sense. I I can translate it between English and French easily while keeping its meaning intact, all is well. If I cannot, chances are that the original passage was gobbledygook and than it was inserted because it sounded good rather than brought any light to the subject.
Thus, the phenomenon of multilingualism seems to me to be morte that relevant to any meaning-based theory of language.
May 16, 2019
I'm glad the book exists for non-linguists who only know the ideas of Chomsky and Pinker. However, personally the writing style, frequent repetition, and sometimes over zealous attacks on other linguists turn me off.
To those who want to read more cognitive/usage-based linguistics, or to those who are interested but like me were turned off by Evans' writing, I would point you to the following (less polemical, admittedly more academic) books:
Taylor (2012) The Mental Corpus: How Language Is Represented in the Mind
Tomasello (2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition
Goldberg (2019) Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions
Hilpert (2014) Construction Grammar and its Application to English
To those who want to read more cognitive/usage-based linguistics, or to those who are interested but like me were turned off by Evans' writing, I would point you to the following (less polemical, admittedly more academic) books:
Taylor (2012) The Mental Corpus: How Language Is Represented in the Mind
Tomasello (2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition
Goldberg (2019) Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions
Hilpert (2014) Construction Grammar and its Application to English
January 19, 2022
Most of this book is a fairly savage critique of the Universal Grammar theories of Chomsky and Pinker. While I tend to agree with Evans over Chomsky/Pinker, the relentless polemical tone and occasional straw person tired me out pretty fast. I am not sure, at this juncture (I'm writing in Jan 2022 as everyone seems to want to kill everyone else over the pandemic) that this is a useful style of debate in building new understandings. Evans also does attempt some synthesis theories - that language encodes a kind of cultural intelligence, but it is briefer, and while I agreed with the more social, cultural and learning base, it would have benefited from better integrating with others work in this space.
Or maybe I was just not in the mood.
Have saved a bunch of quotes and references for follow-up when less grumped out.
Or maybe I was just not in the mood.
Have saved a bunch of quotes and references for follow-up when less grumped out.
April 8, 2021
Alenen Chomsky ve yandaşlarını hedef alan bir eser. Çabayı takdir etsem de yer yer kullanılan üsluptan rahatsız oldum. Üçüncü yıldızı altıncı bölümden sonrasına veriyorum, pek ikna edici olmasa da evrensel dilbilgisine karşı savunduğu kullanım ölçüsünde dil tezini irite etmeden açıklayabilmiş. Olan biteni kültürel zekaya bağlamak da en az evrensel gramercilik kadar kolaya kaçmak gibi gözümde. Kitabın en verimli kısmı atıf yapılan kaynaklar olabilir. Evrensel gramere eleştirel bakmak adına verimli bir kaynakça sunulmuş zannımca. Yine de içerik açısından olmasa da misyonuyla alanda tek olduğunu düşünüyorum ve tam da bu yüzden göz atmaya değer.
February 19, 2015
It is good to see Battleship Chomsky relentlessly attacked, but this not enough to sink him. Second language acquisition is not addressed, but needs to be thought about from his language-is-use thesis.
June 28, 2016
An argument by argument debunking of Chomsky's language-as-instinct thesis. Even if you do not end up agreeing with everything, it is a good overview of the state of the field.
June 1, 2019
كتاب فوق العاده اي بود. با ترجمه رواني كه داشت خيلي راحت خوندمش. چند نكته در مورد كتاب: كتاب يك كتاب كاملا علمي هست و زبانشناس معروف آقاي ايوانز نوشتن، حدودا ٣٤٠ مقاله و كتاب به عنوان منبع براي نوشتن كتاب استفاده شده كه ارزش علمي كار رو نشون ميده. خوندن كتاب خيلي دانش زبانشناسي و زبان شناختي نياز نداره ولي آشنايي با مباني اوليه علوم شناختي در فهم بهتر مطالب خيلي كمك ميكنه. بحث زبانشناسي هم مثل خيلي از زمينه هاي ديگه تو علوم شناختي هنوز كامل نشده و فعلا بيشتر دانشمندان اين حوزه نظريه پردازهاي قوي هستن و به صورت قطعي چيزي اثبات شده نيست. معمولا دانشمندان اين حوزه ها با يك سري آزمايش نظريه هاي هم رو رد يا تاييد ميكنن كه نميشه به عنوان يك حقيقت مرجع استفاده بشه. به همين دليل دلايل رد نظريه غريزي بودن زبان چامسكي در اين كتاب براي من به عنوان تقابل علمي دو دانشمند در يك حوزه تلقي ميشه. فقط بايد كتاب رو خوند و به ادعاها و نظريه هاي اونها فكر كرد. نتيجه گيري در اين رابطه خيلي زود هست به نظرم. براي گسترش جهان بيني، افزايش معلومات در حوزه زبانشناسي و زبان كه يك حوزه بسيار جدي در علوم شناختي هست به نظرم كتاب فوقالعاده اي هست و خوندنش رو به علاقه مندان اين حوزه پيشنهاد ميكنم.
February 11, 2016
The book aims to explicate the prevailing model of language acquisition (what the author, Vyvyan Evans, calls "language as instinct") and the language as use model for a lay audience. Evans suggests the prevailing model is proved false, misleading, or else it is unfalsifiable. However, Evans's somewhat too emphatic arguments suggest he is committed to an overly simple conception of science as if the scientific method adhered to a naive form of falsificationism identical to Karl Popper's view of valid science. The whole argument would have been more challenging and believable if Evans evinced sympathy for the "language instinct" model he denigrates as outmoded and dogmatic at every turn.
September 13, 2023
This is a great book for anyone who was introduced to linguistics by hardcore nativists. I really loved the chapter on animal communication, since I know a few linguists who are ideologically opposed to the very suggestion that non-human animals might have some sort of language-like capabilities.
There are a few problems, nevertheless:
1. A reader who's not familiar with Pinker/Fodor/Chomsky might get bored with all the criticism aimed at them.
2. I think the FLA chapter could be more detailed.
3. Yes, Pinker's style is arrogant, but Evans' is not much better at times.
There are a few problems, nevertheless:
1. A reader who's not familiar with Pinker/Fodor/Chomsky might get bored with all the criticism aimed at them.
2. I think the FLA chapter could be more detailed.
3. Yes, Pinker's style is arrogant, but Evans' is not much better at times.
December 24, 2014
Very interesting!
Evans puts 'all things Chomsky' against current research, and pleads to reconsider ideas/concepts like UG, LAD, and more.
I really enjoyed this!
Evans puts 'all things Chomsky' against current research, and pleads to reconsider ideas/concepts like UG, LAD, and more.
I really enjoyed this!
July 5, 2020
Overall I think this offers a more realistic and reasonable account of human language than the "language instinct." The "language-as-use" arising from "cultural-intelligence" seems plausible and generally well supported.
That said, Evan does feel like he has an axe to grind with Pink and definitely with Chomsky. To this end he definitely spends too much time blowing over straw men, which is unfortunate because I feel like this book could have been improved by avoiding such waste and engaging in more useful arguments.
Additionally I don't believe he model of the modular mind is fair or nuanced enough to reflect our modern understanding. His Whorfian relativism feels like it needs to be drawn out a bit more, and it does feel like he is drawing an "either or" divide when there could be other options.
Overall I think Evans has some compelling arguments but needs to spend less time straw-manning old arguments.
That said, Evan does feel like he has an axe to grind with Pink and definitely with Chomsky. To this end he definitely spends too much time blowing over straw men, which is unfortunate because I feel like this book could have been improved by avoiding such waste and engaging in more useful arguments.
Additionally I don't believe he model of the modular mind is fair or nuanced enough to reflect our modern understanding. His Whorfian relativism feels like it needs to be drawn out a bit more, and it does feel like he is drawing an "either or" divide when there could be other options.
Overall I think Evans has some compelling arguments but needs to spend less time straw-manning old arguments.
September 17, 2021
although i agree with the author on most subjects (not that i know much), some parts of the book were just straw man attacks or just plain weird reasonings. some good literature on cognition, linguistics and primatology though.
-1 star for the trash talk parts of the book; +1 star because that talk was directed to Pinker.
-1 star for the trash talk parts of the book; +1 star because that talk was directed to Pinker.
October 1, 2024
This is a great summary of the evidence against what always seemed to me the utterly bonkers hypothesis that human language is innate.
Unfortunately, it's not well written, being rather repetitive and with mediocre prose. Still, if you are interested in the topic, it's accessible and short, so you don't have the tolerate the so-so writing for very long.
Unfortunately, it's not well written, being rather repetitive and with mediocre prose. Still, if you are interested in the topic, it's accessible and short, so you don't have the tolerate the so-so writing for very long.
July 27, 2022
Recommend but only with research paper follow-up.High time for neuroscience to take over ELT.
December 7, 2016
I am so glad I actually managed to finish this book... this is not gonna be a long review, nor will it be an intellectual discussion, it will be a bit of a rant and my personal opinion, nothing less, nothing more.
Personally... I hated Evans' writing style. Now this actually had nothing to do with his ideas (because surprisingly quite a few of those I agreed with) but it had a lot to do with how he explained them. I found it very annoying how he would continuously state that the opinions of other linguists are clearly wrong because of lack of evidence without ever actually saying what he would use as an alternative to that reasoning and what was his evidence for that. Essentially he would say that this is wrong because nothing says it's right and then wouldn't always give an alternative for what he claims is wrong.
Anyways.. I'm sure there were many things I missed and many more that simply went over my head because of the huge amount of specific references (that were not explained). This makes me believe that this is not a book for one with none or barely any linguistic knowledge.
At the end of the day, when he did give evidence to specific opinions (rather than go on in circles) he did make a lot of sense and did help me form my own opinion on the matter.
End of rant...
Personally... I hated Evans' writing style. Now this actually had nothing to do with his ideas (because surprisingly quite a few of those I agreed with) but it had a lot to do with how he explained them. I found it very annoying how he would continuously state that the opinions of other linguists are clearly wrong because of lack of evidence without ever actually saying what he would use as an alternative to that reasoning and what was his evidence for that. Essentially he would say that this is wrong because nothing says it's right and then wouldn't always give an alternative for what he claims is wrong.
Anyways.. I'm sure there were many things I missed and many more that simply went over my head because of the huge amount of specific references (that were not explained). This makes me believe that this is not a book for one with none or barely any linguistic knowledge.
At the end of the day, when he did give evidence to specific opinions (rather than go on in circles) he did make a lot of sense and did help me form my own opinion on the matter.
End of rant...
April 26, 2015
I could write all day about why it took me so long to read this, but I'll keep myself mercifully brief. Evans tries to tackle a big concept, but does so poorly through - perhaps in a case of irony? - misinterpreting words such as "instinct" to ground his hypothesis. While this seems approachable and understandable to a lay reader, the painful errors he makes (either deliberately or by accident) make it a nearly impossible slog.
February 1, 2016
I thought I would just breeze through this little book but instead I kept having to pause and dismantle the previous assumptions I harboured about language. Overall the book won me over with its goal of describing language for what it is, rather than what we want it to be.
December 22, 2014
Over to you, Messrs. Chomsky and Pinker!
June 26, 2016
Makes really good points
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews