Patterns in the Mind: Language and Human Nature

by Ray S. Jackendoff

What is it about the human mind that accounts for the fact that we can speak and understand a language? Why can't other creatures do the same? And what does this tell us about the rest of human abilities? Recent dramatic discoveries in linguistics and psychology provide intriguing answers to these age-old mysteries. In this fascinating book, Ray Jackendoff emphasizes the grammatical commonalities across languages, both spoken and signed, and discusses the implications for our understanding of language acquisition and loss.

Genres: Linguistics, Nonfiction, Language, Philosophy, Psychology, Social Science, Science

256 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1993

Reviews

[Jason Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

My views on this book should be tempered by the fact that I really don't know what the field of psycho-linguistics looked like when this was written nearly twenty years ago. But it strikes me as yet another collection of reductions of language to individual and genetic substance. It is as if the author, like most psych specialists it seems, was totally oblivious to the role (the concept of) language and metalanguage has played in anthropological and historical studies since Ferdinand Saussure's work was published. Jackendoff then has the audacity to propose by way of conclusion, as if this wasn't already obvious to the world of cultural studies, that language is an agent of group identity and repression and, thus, linguistics has something to offer the "can't we all just get along" folks. Overall I give this book three stars for being a useful introduction to the casual observer, or -2 stars because narrow minded psychology drives me nuts.

[Julia Vestal · Rating 4 out of 5]

I mean. This was for school so I didn’t ~enjoy~ it. But it was very well written and made psycholinguistics very digestible and interesting to read about so I guess 4 stars is appropriate. Idk???

[Daniela Bocci · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nel conteggio di goodreads valgono anche i saggi letti per gli esami universitari, vero? 💀

[Jcardenas · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good introduction to some of the broader concerns of linguistics, cognitive science, and their various offshoots. The language is clear and unfettered by jargon. Jackendoff focuses primarily on the innatist argument, so there's not a whole lot of technical detail to keep the uninitiated at bay. He musters some convincing arguments, though it still appears as though much of innatism (and UG within the Chomskyan framework of which the author is one of its prime proponents) relies upon largely inferential evidence and an attitude of "Well, no other explnatory theories have emerged; therefore, ours is best." The theory is convincing enough within the realm of phonology and syntax but becomes a bit shakier on semantic ground. But a good place to start, in any event.

[cat! · Rating 4 out of 5]

jackendoff distills the evidence for the biological basis of language and other cognitive functions. mostly interested in the argument for universal grammar, the innateness hypothesis. this is a great read for anyone interested in either language or cognitive science in general.

[Andrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un libro interessantissimo per approfondire l'acquisizione della lingua. Come si acquisisce una lingua? Quali sono i meccanismi che sottendono a tale procedimento che ogni essere umano è in grado di compiere sin dal momento della sua nascita?

[Alexander Cai · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Patterns in the Mind: Language and Human Nature” by Ray Jackendoff is a generally clear and broad overview of one of the most controversial debates of our time in the field of linguistics: the debate surrounding the existence of a “Universal Grammar”, an innate knowledge which enables young children to acquire an unconscious understanding of grammar. Through the following chain of reasoning, which he terms the “Argument for Innate Knowledge”, Jackendoff argues for the existence of a genetically determined Universal Grammar:

1. He first notices that we are able to determine the grammaticality of (a potentially infinite number of) novel, unheard sentences.
2. This implies that our understanding of grammar is not based solely on what we have previously heard, but rather that we have a “mental grammar” consisting of rules that describe grammatical sentences in a language.
3. Then, if we consider the question of where this mental grammar comes from, we discover that it is not consciously taught by parents or teachers, as evidenced by, for example, immigrant children gaining full fluency of a language while their parents do not, or by our use of all sorts of linguistic phenomena which are not typically covered in school.
4. So, we must obtain this mental grammar unconsciously as children.
5. However, the fact that children are unconsciously able to accomplish this feat, which trained professionals have consciously struggled for decades to unravel, implies that they must have some innate knowledge of grammar rules. This innate knowledge is termed “Universal Grammar”.
6. Then, since it is taken for granted that our “knowledge” arises from the physical configuration of the brain, which in turn is determined at birth by genetics like the rest of the body, this implies that the human species has somehow evolutionarily determined a predisposition towards language that is encoded into our genetics.

Jackendoff also uses a variety of empirical data to support his claim, particularly in his treatment of language acquisition in Part III, in which he goes into examples such as ASL in appropriate depth to give the reader a firm understanding of what sign languages and natural languages share in common, which in turn supports the claim that the mind seems to tend to structure language in particular ways. The other examples in this section, including the cases of feral children or deaf children developing sign language, are also convincing and add to his central argument around the existence of innate knowledge.

However, in his search to “[compress] the mass of intricacy” (viii), Jackendoff also seems to give less credit to opposing arguments than is fairly due. Many of the “criticisms” of the theory posed by an imaginary skeptic in the book are quite benign, and do not address some of the deeper issues surrounding the existence of a Universal Grammar. For example, in his discussion of the question of what exactly a Universal Grammar should provide, he claims that “if certain aspects of all languages we have examined are alike, these aspects are likely to fall into the innate part” (34). While there is no fault in this statement itself, it feels as though the implications of this are not thoroughly dealt with, since, considering that new languages are continually being discovered and documented, we can never be fully certain of which patterns we observe are truly universal, which to some extent discredits the predictive power of Universal Grammar. (Of course, the same could be said of almost any modern empirically-based scientific theory — but this, I believe, should at least be mentioned as a footnote.)

Overall, “Patterns in the Mind” is a good overview of the current debate around innate knowledge in language acquisition and is an informative guide for academics in a variety of fields relating to cognitive science.

[Sandy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Introduction to concepts, but the writing is not clear because he veers off into political/social commentary.

[•Asia• · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.75🌟

[Savannah · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had to read this book for a class, it was interesting but very repetitive.

[Kristi Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good introduction to the universal grammar theory. I do need to go back to Chomsky some time. And very convincing. I was especially surprised by how easy it apparently is to construct a new language, they seem to evolve readily within a generation.

Set me wondering about the difference between innate and 'prescribed' grammar... the stuff they teach in school. Can grammar be taught, or does it need to be internalized?

The last chapter where he tried to extrapolate the universal grammar to other things didn't quite work A grammar of constructed seeing I bought because of my other reading in the area, but his extrapolations into moral and political systems were shaky. He didn't have enough space to develop the ideas to the point where they made sense, and I thought that they weakened the book, even if I do agree with his thoughts on libertarianism.

[Carol]

A good "linguistics for dummies" that veers off into tangentially related political/social commentary at the end. Not every argument is represented, but this is a good starting point for the layman interested in the field.

[Ruby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not at all because I disliked it, just because I am not in the mood (and honestly don't think I ever will be). It was interesting, but I have a hard time focusing on non-fiction anyway, especially if it doesn't extremely interest me. thus, no rating.

[Aaron · Rating 1 out of 5]

Alludes to some interesting research, but the tone is grating and the content is watered down.

[Anthony]

really dry, but makes a lot of sense and proves some points with good research and such.

[Bob New · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good intro to language. I like his clear writing style.