 The Language Myth (first edition) | |
| Author | Vyvyan Evans |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Genre | Popular science |
| Published | 2014 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| ISBN | 978-1107619753 |
| Followed by | The Crucible of Language |
| Website |
www |
The Language Myth is a 2014 book by Vyvyan Evans, written for a general audience. It is a direct rebuttal of Steven Pinker's 1994 book The Language Instinct. Evans argues against Noam Chomsky's claim that all human languages provide evidence for an underlying Universal Grammar. Evans posits, instead, a language-as-use thesis [1] [2] to account for the nature of language, how it is learned and how it evolves.
Reception
The Language Myth caused considerable controversy upon publication among supporters of Chomskyan universal grammar. David Adger argued that the "attack on generative linguistics misrepresents the field". [3] Another vocal critic, Norbert Hornstein attacked the book for presenting caricatures of Chomskyan generative grammar and of providing inadequate arguments to support its main claims. [4] Others have attacked the book for its polemical style and what are claimed to be Evans' misunderstandings of Universal Grammar. [5]
Evans responded by claiming that it is exactly critics of the book who misunderstand. [6] He argues that his critics do not provide a coherent argument that is falsifiable as they posit Universal Grammar as a theoretical axiom, [7] which does not require proof or evidence to support it. [8] He also argues that the Universal Grammar perspectives makes a claim that is biological rather than linguistic in nature, [9] and hence one that cannot be substantiated on the basis of linguistic evidence. [10] [11]
Controversy
In 2016, Language, the flagship academic journal of the Linguistic Society of America published a series of "Alternative (Re)views" [12] by six leading linguists, all addressing The Language Myth. Evans was originally invited to contribute a response to those articles. However, his submission was rejected by the journal's review editor. [13] Evans wrote an open-letter to the linguistics community claiming that he was being censored. [14]
References
- ^ Anderson, Alun (15 October 2014). "Why language is neither an instinct nor innate". New Scientist.
- ^ "The Language Myth: Why Language Is Not an Instinct, by Vyvyan Evans". Times Higher Education (THE). 13 November 2014.
- ^ Adger, David (April 2015). "Mythical myths: Comments on Vyvyan Evans' The Language Myth". Lingua. 158: 76–80. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.006.
- ^ Norbert (6 May 2015). "Faculty of Language: My (HOPEFULLY) last ever post on Vyvyan Evans and his endless dodging of the central issues". Faculty of Language. Retrieved 18 November 2021.[ user-generated source?]
- ^ Allott, Nicholas; Rey, Georges (28 January 2017). "The many errors of Vyvyan Evans' The Language Myth". The Linguistic Review. 34 (3): 1–20. doi: 10.1515/tlr-2017-0011. hdl: 10852/65338. S2CID 171572986.
- ^ "188: The Language Myth (featuring Vyvyan Evans)". Talk the Talk. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
- ^ Evans, Vyvyan (4 January 2015). "The Shape-Shifting Malleability of 'Universals' in UG". Psychology Today.[ non-primary source needed]
- ^ Evans, Vyvyan (24 February 2016). "Why Only Us: The language paradox". New Scientist.[ non-primary source needed]
- ^ Behme, Christina; Evans, Vyvyan (July 2015). "Leaving the myth behind: A reply to". Lingua. 162: 149–159. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.004.[ non-primary source needed]
- ^ Evans, Vyvyan (20 April 2015). "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Psychology Today.[ non-primary source needed]
- ^ Evans, Vyvyan (20 July 2015). "Joining the Dodo". Psychology Today.[ non-primary source needed]
-
^
- Ackerman, Farrell; Malouf, Robert (2016). "Beyond caricatures: Commentary on Evans 2014". Language. 92 (1): 189–194. doi: 10.1353/lan.2016.0008. S2CID 147369677. Project MUSE 612058.
- Berent, Iris (2016). "Evans's (2014) modularity myths: A mental architecture digest". Language. 92 (1): 195–197. doi: 10.1353/lan.2016.0012. S2CID 146864404. Project MUSE 612059.
- Deen, Kamil Ud (2016). "Myths, magic, and poorly drawn battle lines: Commentary on Evans 2014". Language. 92 (1): 197–200. doi: 10.1353/lan.2016.0015. S2CID 147307297. Project MUSE 612060.
- Goldberg, Adele E. (2016). "Another look at the universal grammar hypothesis: Commentary on Evans 2014". Language. 92 (1): 200–203. doi: 10.1353/lan.2016.0018. S2CID 147096248. Project MUSE 612061.
- Hinzen, Wolfram (2016). "Is our mental grammar just a set of constructions?: Commentary on Evans 2014". Language. 92 (1): 203–207. doi: 10.1353/lan.2016.0021. hdl: 10230/42475. S2CID 146874829. Project MUSE 612062.
- Wijnen, Frank (2016). "Not compelling: Commentary on Evans 2014". Language. 92 (1): 207–209. doi: 10.1353/lan.2016.0003. hdl: 1874/339379. S2CID 147305487. Project MUSE 612063.
- ^ "The Language Myth".[ self-published source?]
- ^ "The Language Myth".[ self-published source?]
|
The Language Myth (first edition) | |
| Author | Vyvyan Evans |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Genre | Popular science |
| Published | 2014 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| ISBN | 978-1107619753 |
| Followed by | The Crucible of Language |
| Website |
www |
The Language Myth is a 2014 book by Vyvyan Evans, written for a general audience. It is a direct rebuttal of Steven Pinker's 1994 book The Language Instinct. Evans argues against Noam Chomsky's claim that all human languages provide evidence for an underlying Universal Grammar. Evans posits, instead, a language-as-use thesis [1] [2] to account for the nature of language, how it is learned and how it evolves.
Reception
The Language Myth caused considerable controversy upon publication among supporters of Chomskyan universal grammar. David Adger argued that the "attack on generative linguistics misrepresents the field". [3] Another vocal critic, Norbert Hornstein attacked the book for presenting caricatures of Chomskyan generative grammar and of providing inadequate arguments to support its main claims. [4] Others have attacked the book for its polemical style and what are claimed to be Evans' misunderstandings of Universal Grammar. [5]
Evans responded by claiming that it is exactly critics of the book who misunderstand. [6] He argues that his critics do not provide a coherent argument that is falsifiable as they posit Universal Grammar as a theoretical axiom, [7] which does not require proof or evidence to support it. [8] He also argues that the Universal Grammar perspectives makes a claim that is biological rather than linguistic in nature, [9] and hence one that cannot be substantiated on the basis of linguistic evidence. [10] [11]
Controversy
In 2016, Language, the flagship academic journal of the Linguistic Society of America published a series of "Alternative (Re)views" [12] by six leading linguists, all addressing The Language Myth. Evans was originally invited to contribute a response to those articles. However, his submission was rejected by the journal's review editor. [13] Evans wrote an open-letter to the linguistics community claiming that he was being censored. [14]
References
- ^ Anderson, Alun (15 October 2014). "Why language is neither an instinct nor innate". New Scientist.
- ^ "The Language Myth: Why Language Is Not an Instinct, by Vyvyan Evans". Times Higher Education (THE). 13 November 2014.
- ^ Adger, David (April 2015). "Mythical myths: Comments on Vyvyan Evans' The Language Myth". Lingua. 158: 76–80. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.006.
- ^ Norbert (6 May 2015). "Faculty of Language: My (HOPEFULLY) last ever post on Vyvyan Evans and his endless dodging of the central issues". Faculty of Language. Retrieved 18 November 2021.[ user-generated source?]
- ^ Allott, Nicholas; Rey, Georges (28 January 2017). "The many errors of Vyvyan Evans' The Language Myth". The Linguistic Review. 34 (3): 1–20. doi: 10.1515/tlr-2017-0011. hdl: 10852/65338. S2CID 171572986.
- ^ "188: The Language Myth (featuring Vyvyan Evans)". Talk the Talk. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
- ^ Evans, Vyvyan (4 January 2015). "The Shape-Shifting Malleability of 'Universals' in UG". Psychology Today.[ non-primary source needed]
- ^ Evans, Vyvyan (24 February 2016). "Why Only Us: The language paradox". New Scientist.[ non-primary source needed]
- ^ Behme, Christina; Evans, Vyvyan (July 2015). "Leaving the myth behind: A reply to". Lingua. 162: 149–159. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.004.[ non-primary source needed]
- ^ Evans, Vyvyan (20 April 2015). "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Psychology Today.[ non-primary source needed]
- ^ Evans, Vyvyan (20 July 2015). "Joining the Dodo". Psychology Today.[ non-primary source needed]
-
^
- Ackerman, Farrell; Malouf, Robert (2016). "Beyond caricatures: Commentary on Evans 2014". Language. 92 (1): 189–194. doi: 10.1353/lan.2016.0008. S2CID 147369677. Project MUSE 612058.
- Berent, Iris (2016). "Evans's (2014) modularity myths: A mental architecture digest". Language. 92 (1): 195–197. doi: 10.1353/lan.2016.0012. S2CID 146864404. Project MUSE 612059.
- Deen, Kamil Ud (2016). "Myths, magic, and poorly drawn battle lines: Commentary on Evans 2014". Language. 92 (1): 197–200. doi: 10.1353/lan.2016.0015. S2CID 147307297. Project MUSE 612060.
- Goldberg, Adele E. (2016). "Another look at the universal grammar hypothesis: Commentary on Evans 2014". Language. 92 (1): 200–203. doi: 10.1353/lan.2016.0018. S2CID 147096248. Project MUSE 612061.
- Hinzen, Wolfram (2016). "Is our mental grammar just a set of constructions?: Commentary on Evans 2014". Language. 92 (1): 203–207. doi: 10.1353/lan.2016.0021. hdl: 10230/42475. S2CID 146874829. Project MUSE 612062.
- Wijnen, Frank (2016). "Not compelling: Commentary on Evans 2014". Language. 92 (1): 207–209. doi: 10.1353/lan.2016.0003. hdl: 1874/339379. S2CID 147305487. Project MUSE 612063.
- ^ "The Language Myth".[ self-published source?]
- ^ "The Language Myth".[ self-published source?]