m Open access bot: hdl added to citation with #oabot. |
XOR'easter (talk | contribs) fix name and date parameters ("pm" is not a last name, and whatever script did that apparently took the data from the comment section of the linked page) |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| caption = The Language Myth (first edition) |
| caption = The Language Myth (first edition) |
||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''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 [[Noam Chomsky|Universal Grammar]]. Evans posits, instead, a language-as-use thesis<ref>{{Cite web|last= |
'''''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 [[Noam Chomsky|Universal Grammar]]. Evans posits, instead, a language-as-use thesis<ref>{{Cite web|first=Alun |last=Anderson |date=15 October 2014 |title=Why language is neither an instinct nor innate|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429911-000-why-language-is-neither-an-instinct-nor-innate/|access-date=2021-11-18|website=New Scientist|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2014-11-13|title=The Language Myth: Why Language Is Not an Instinct, by Vyvyan Evans|url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/the-language-myth-why-language-is-not-an-instinct-by-vyvyan-evans/2016831.article|access-date=2021-11-18|website=Times Higher Education (THE)|language=en}}</ref> to account for the nature of language, how it is learned and how it evolves. |
||
== Reception == |
== 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".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Adger|first=David|date=2015-04-01|title=Mythical myths: Comments on Vyvyan Evans' "The Language Myth"|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384115000418|journal=Lingua|language=en|volume=158|pages=76–80|doi=10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.006|issn=0024-3841}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Norbert|date=2015-05-06|title=Faculty of Language: My (HOPEFULLY) last ever post on Vyvyan Evans and his endless dodging of the central issues|url=http://facultyoflanguage.blogspot.com/2015/05/my-hopefully-last-ever-post-on-vyvyan.html|access-date=2021-11-18|website=Faculty of Language}}</ref> Others have attacked the book for its polemical style and what are claimed to be Evans' misunderstandings of Universal Grammar.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Allott|first1=Nicholas|last2=Rey|first2=Georges|date=2017-09-01|title=The many errors of Vyvyan Evans' The Language Myth|url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/tlr-2017-0011/html|journal=The Linguistic Review|language=en|volume=34|issue=3|pages=1–20|doi=10.1515/tlr-2017-0011|hdl=10852/65338 |s2cid=171572986 |issn=1613-3676|hdl-access=free}}</ref> |
''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".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Adger|first=David|date=2015-04-01|title=Mythical myths: Comments on Vyvyan Evans' "The Language Myth"|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384115000418|journal=Lingua|language=en|volume=158|pages=76–80|doi=10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.006|issn=0024-3841}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Norbert|date=2015-05-06|title=Faculty of Language: My (HOPEFULLY) last ever post on Vyvyan Evans and his endless dodging of the central issues|url=http://facultyoflanguage.blogspot.com/2015/05/my-hopefully-last-ever-post-on-vyvyan.html|access-date=2021-11-18|website=Faculty of Language}}</ref> Others have attacked the book for its polemical style and what are claimed to be Evans' misunderstandings of Universal Grammar.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Allott|first1=Nicholas|last2=Rey|first2=Georges|date=2017-09-01|title=The many errors of Vyvyan Evans' The Language Myth|url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/tlr-2017-0011/html|journal=The Linguistic Review|language=en|volume=34|issue=3|pages=1–20|doi=10.1515/tlr-2017-0011|hdl=10852/65338 |s2cid=171572986 |issn=1613-3676|hdl-access=free}}</ref> |
||
Evans responded by claiming that it is exactly critics of the book who misunderstand.<ref>{{Cite web |
Evans responded by claiming that it is exactly critics of the book who misunderstand.<ref>{{Cite web|title=188: The Language Myth (featuring Vyvyan Evans) – Talk the Talk|url=http://talkthetalkpodcast.com/188-the-language-myth/|access-date=2021-11-18|language=en-AU}}</ref> He argues that his critics do not provide a coherent argument that is falsifiable as they posit Universal Grammar as a theoretical axiom,<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Shape-Shifting Malleability of 'Universals' in UG {{!}} Psychology Today|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/language-in-the-mind/201501/the-shape-shifting-malleability-universals-in-ug|access-date=2021-11-18|website=www.psychologytoday.com|language=en}}</ref> which does not require proof or evidence to support it.<ref>{{Cite web|first=Vyvyan |last=Evans |date=24 February 2016 |title=Why Only Us: The language paradox|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2078294-why-only-us-the-language-paradox/|access-date=2021-11-18|website=New Scientist|language=en-US}}</ref> He also argues that the Universal Grammar perspectives makes a claim that is biological rather than linguistic in nature,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Behme|first1=Christina|last2=Evans|first2=Vyvyan|date=2015-07-01|title=Leaving the myth behind: A reply to Adger (2015)|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384115000959|journal=Lingua|language=en|volume=162|pages=149–159|doi=10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.004|issn=0024-3841}}</ref> and hence one that cannot be substantiated on the basis of linguistic evidence.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Structure of Scientific Revolutions {{!}} Psychology Today|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/language-in-the-mind/201504/the-structure-scientific-revolutions|access-date=2021-11-18|website=www.psychologytoday.com|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Joining the Dodo {{!}} Psychology Today|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/language-in-the-mind/201507/joining-the-dodo|access-date=2021-11-18|website=www.psychologytoday.com|language=en}}</ref> |
||
== Controversy == |
== Controversy == |
Revision as of 00:41, 6 June 2023
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. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
- ^ "The Language Myth: Why Language Is Not an Instinct, by Vyvyan Evans". Times Higher Education (THE). 13 November 2014. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
- ^ Adger, David (1 April 2015). "Mythical myths: Comments on Vyvyan Evans' "The Language Myth"". Lingua. 158: 76–80. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.006. ISSN 0024-3841.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Allott, Nicholas; Rey, Georges (1 September 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. ISSN 1613-3676. S2CID 171572986.
- ^ "188: The Language Myth (featuring Vyvyan Evans) – Talk the Talk". Retrieved 18 November 2021.
- ^ "The Shape-Shifting Malleability of 'Universals' in UG | Psychology Today". www.psychologytoday.com. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
- ^ Evans, Vyvyan (24 February 2016). "Why Only Us: The language paradox". New Scientist. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
- ^ Behme, Christina; Evans, Vyvyan (1 July 2015). "Leaving the myth behind: A reply to Adger (2015)". Lingua. 162: 149–159. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.004. ISSN 0024-3841.
- ^ "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions | Psychology Today". www.psychologytoday.com. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
- ^ "Joining the Dodo | Psychology Today". www.psychologytoday.com. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
- ^ "Project MUSE - Language-Volume 92, Number 1, March 2016". muse.jhu.edu. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
- ^ "The Language Myth".
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "The Language Myth".
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)