Grab The Atoms Of Language: The Minds Hidden Rules Of Grammar Author Mark C. Baker Edition

short, I thought this book was excellent, . . with the caveat that you really have to have an interest in how language works to stay with it,

While there are a lot of subtexts in the book, the major issue is that of the parameterization of language, Specifically, how do we give a scientificish account for the diversity of language we see, Further, how, given the fact that languages appear so different from one another, are we able to effectively more or less translate from one to another.


The answer, I'm now convinced, is the concept of a parameter, This idea basically posits that there are pieces of grammar that can be set in one of a limited number of ways that interact with one another to produce a finite amount of variation among the worlds grammatical structures.


Baker does a really excellent job making this otherwise very technical topic both interesting and understandable, His approach uses humor to elucidate points and is generally very effective,

The only complain I have, and I honestly don't see a way that Baker could have gotten around it, is the technicality of some of the examples.
Obviously, not having a background in Mohawk or indeed, the polysynthetic language type it is a member of, made the explanation of concepts applicable to that language type rather daunting at points.


If one sticks with it, however, they will be rewarded with what I believe is a pretty amazing exposition of language.
Not only does it provide a fairly comprehensive explanation of how languages come to be the way they are, in terms of grammar, but it offers some thoughts on more philosophical issues such as cognition and meaning.


I would only mention one other shortcoming in the book and that is its general lack of mention of grammatical semantics.
While it does receive a very slight bit of attention in later chapters essentially just noting that grammar assists with semantics, I would have like to see the concept of parameterization more fully applied to the semantic realm.


So, to conclude, I would recommend this book to anyone who has a real interest in linguists or an interest in how the language faculty works and has some patience for technical examples.
The bio says that this is the author's first nonacademic book, It didn't need to say that: this is a tough read, But it's pretty amazing, if you're interested in linguistics, It provides both the underlying structure and a lot of support for Steven Pinker's ideas in The Language Instinct, I absolutely loved this book, The author is a riot!! I laughed aloud at least thirty times while reading this, Mark Baker is really quite an entertaining writer, Really an outstanding job.

The content was very interesting, It was not perfect there were a lot of strange examples of English, for example, and the Japanese was very unusual but all in all I thought it was very enlightening.
Mark Baker did a good job of recognizing things that were imperfect or questionable as such, I appreciated his selfawareness and willingness to admit when things were built on shaky foundations, I can't say enough how much I enjoyed, liked, and respected his tone in general,

I have a strong interest in linguistics, but do not have an advanced degree in the field, I had absolutely no trouble reading or understanding anything in the book, I would consider the book to be middleoftheroad when it comes to accessibility, as it requires a certain level of education and familiarity, perhaps, but does not require expert knowledge.
And even if one does not grasp some of the specifics, there is still much to be gleaned from the book that would make it worthwhile.
I'd recommend it just for the jokes!

All in all I loved it and strongly recommend it, I am not going to claim that it is groundbreaking or indispensable, but it was definitely entertaining, Five from me : Clearly written and artfully balances simplicity with complexity, Good thoughts but I felt like there were too many exceptions that prove the rule to actually prove the rule, Or maybe I just didn't get it I appreciate a lot that the author included these exceptions and made mention of them amp I wonder if the whole thing still stands up after a decade or so of research.
An exceptional book, lots of information and often times to much information to fully take in, A book that almost has to be read a couple of times in order to fully get the message and how it can be applied.
I read this book as part of the sitelinkMIT Open CourseWare Intro Linguistics course, and I liked it a lot, The book is a gentlebutnottoogentle overview of the theory of parameters, After finishing it, I find myself intrigued and excited to dive deeper into the study of syntax, Really liked it, although my eyes brain glazed over for a couple chapters of really intense grammar discussions, But that felt like my fault, not the The Atoms Of Language's, it was wellwritten and clear and there was a subtle sense of humor and humility that I really appreciated, Goed boek, deed me weer inzien waarom ol taal zo leuk vind, Op het einde volgde ik 'm niet helemaal meer, maar dat had waarschijnlijk meer met vermoeidheid te maken dan zijn redenaties, . . Dit was wel even genoeg nonfictie, tijd voor fictie ltThe problem with linguistics is that its still wedded to the humanistic disciplines of anthropology and history, which have arbitrarily classified languages by lexicon, proximity or some other, unscientific criterion.
In The Atoms of Language, Mark Baker uses the analogy of the periodic table of elements to argue that languages can be similarly and more usefully classified in terms of elements “parameters” that combine to produce the variety we see around us.
As he writes in the preface: “These parameters combine and interact with each other in interesting ways, Even though every sentence of Mohawk is different in its structure from corresponding sentences in English, and every sentence in English is different in its structure from corresponding sentences in Japanese, the formulas for making sentences in these three languages differ in only one factor each.
” p. ix

In Chapters, Baker identifies several preliminary parameters that identify a distinct language, These chapters can be heavy going for the general reader who doesnt want to put forth some mental effort but Baker ameliorates matters by:

.
Warning you that its going to get complicated and telling you what to skip though why anyone interested enough to pick up this book would want to skip parts is beyond me
.
Providing you with a concise dictionary of linguistic terms that comes in handy when you forget what “ergative” means and Writing in a clear and accessible style,

These first chapters are interesting and informative and straightforward so Im not going to dwell on them in this review Baker illustratescharacteristics of language that he feels should be included in any parametric table, and for a linguistics geek like myself theyre fascinating:

.
Null subject
. Head directionality
. Subject side
. Polysynthesis
. Subject placement
. Verb attraction
. Serial verbs
. Optional polysynthesis



Its in the final two chapters, however, that Baker moves beyond the simple mechanics of parameters and gets into the philosophical “stuff,” and gets into the most interesting part of the book.
He first tackles a schema for ordering his “elements”: “parameters are ranked by their power to affect one another and their potentials for rendering each other irrelevant.
” p.Using this criterion, “polysynthesis” become the first parameter the “hydrogen” of the parametric table of languages, Whether a language opts to be polysynthetic like Mohawk or not like English determines how the remaining parameters interact, e, g. , head directionality is prior to the subject side parameter, which is prior to verb attraction, etc, Baker commendably avoids overdetermining language development, First, hes offering only a preliminary suggestion of how a schema might be organized, And second, humans are not atoms subject to relatively ironclad natural laws, Identifying parameters might help linguists predict a languages syntax but cant determine it, An example is Hindi, an IndoEuropean tongue, which is headfinal and ergative in the simple past tense due to the influence of neighboring, nonIE languages on the Indian subcontinent.
Another example is Amharic, where the verb follows its object, The parametric table would predict that Amharic should use postpositions but it doesnt it uses prepositions just like English and, as with Hindi, due to its proximity to SOV languages.


One cause of parametric change thats observable is stylistic in origin, Old English is Japaneselike in having SOV word order but there is a convention that fronts the verb after conjunctions e, g. , Bob the ball threw, and bit the dog Mary, As verbs and their objects tend to attract each other, the tendency toward an SVO order became too powerful, and Middle English acquired the familiar syntax of modern English.
A more recent example, and one that can be observed in real time, is the transformation of Quebec Eskimo from an ergative to an accusative language.
pp.

Why does this occur It occurs, in Bakers estimation, because “human speech is unbounded, stimulusfree, and appropriate” and cant be explained in wholly mechanical terms.
p.A second factor is that people esp, children learn languages from the people around them, Studies have shown that absent “intentionality” and “interaction” people dont learn a new language so my dreams of learning Spanish by watching “Sabado Gigante” are just that dreams.
A third factor, also most present in the young, is that language learners can extrapolate from examples, It may be an inaccurate conclusion like OEspeaking children coming to believe SVO was the correct

English syntax but if it reaches a critical mass it transforms a language.
This latter factor is part of our general capacity to infer patterns and generalities from imperfectly understood specifics,

Baker is an acolyte of Noam Chomsky and assumes that there is a Universal Grammar lurking in the human brain, Most of my reading in linguistics has been with if not outright antiChomskyans at least authors with serious issues with UG, But Im an agnostic on the subject Chomskys insights and those of his followers are either going to be a part of any theory of language or their inadequacies will have to be addressed and resolved.


Baker defines the two prevailing viewpoints regarding diversity and development: “cultural transmission” and “evolutionary biology, ” Neither of these can wholly account for the variety of languages nor for our ability to learn a language, Cultural transmission focuses on the plasticity of human nature and puts nurture before nature but adherents cant explain why languages are diverse within a limited frame of reference.
E. g. , onlyof nonpolysynthetic languages are OVS, and theres only one possibly OSV language that has been studied to any extent yetof nonpolysynthetic languages are SVO or SOV.
p.The proportions arent exact since they dont incorporate every language but the ratios are probably close to reality, Theres also the problem that a cultures grammar bears no discernable relationship to other cultural artifacts,

Bakers chief objection to evolutionary biology is that it doesnt explain why language capacity doesnt extend to a complete, fixed and truly universal grammar.
Or why diversity confers any advantage at all, In fact, most theorists arent even concerned with the questions Baker wants to ask, Baker is limited to pointing out the limits of current theories since the state of knowledge is still in its infancy,

The first hypothesis we can dispense with is that theres a physical reason why parameters are in a language, Theres no evidence for this, however, Even in the face of our ignorance, nothing suggests such a necessity so Baker dismisses this option,

A second theory says that parameterbased language ability PLA is an accident of evolution, A conceptual system similar to that of apes evolved with a parametric component and fortuitously conferred an advantage over other hominids, But Baker fiercely resists any suggestion that parameters are evolutionary spandrels, So this idea too is dismissed as inadequate,

Other possibilities have been offered by Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom: “some facets of language might have been so easy to learn with the cognitive apparatus that was already in place when a genebased language recipe appeared on the scene that there was no pressure to specify those facets.
” p.This suggestion has significant problems, however, and ends up being as inadequate as other theories but its headed in the right direction, A second hypothesis, also derived from Pinker, argues that a PLA makes it possible for individual speech to stay in tune with a groups communications.
Essentially, people construct language from individual recipes that would express themselves externally in a common tongue, p.Unlike many other hypotheses, this one is potentially testable but studies that touch on the question tangentially suggests that this cant be true.


Ultimately then theres no remotely adequate explanation for why a parametric table of languages would exist, Its here that Baker speculates most freely, He distinguishes between two types of problems: There are puzzles, which are questions that can be answered using traditional scientific theories and procedures, e.
g. , Fermats Theorem. Then there are mysteries, which are questions that appear irresolvable with current theory and practice, e, g. , why would one language “opt” to be polysynthetic and another not A mystery is a puzzle, the “difference is that those explanations happen to be outside the range of what the human mind can grasp.
” p.Its in this latter category that Baker puts PLA, For him, its dependent upon how the human mind relates to the external world, a subject were only beginning to understand and for which we have only the most primitive tools.


Baker doesnt fall into the Intelligent Designers fallacy of saying we cant understand a mystery who would have believed a century ago how many “mysteries” have been reduced to “puzzles” if not solved and doesnt say well never resolve the dilemma but he entertains the possibility that our minds are simply not capable of resolving the dilemma.


In the end I would recommend this book to my fellow linguistics geeks, Its given me a new perspective for looking at languages, their histories and their development,

Once again I am reminded of Olaf Stapledons sitelinkLast and First Men and Star Maker: Two Science Fiction Novels, The First Men us were aware of “mysteries” but they didnt have the brains to solve them, and it drove them insane as a species.
.