Blog 3, Prompt 2

Merry Bridgeman
Language Controversies
Dr. Hughes

Woof-Woof! Meow! What exactly do these words mean? Throughout childhood I fully believed that my pets could understand me. I would often say to them, “Woof-woof-awrf,” and they would look up at me and tilt their head to the side. This look was what I thought to be a look of understanding. Come to find out, I was totally and completely wrong.
Now that I am older and know better than to believe movies like Dr. Dolittle, I understand that animals cannot really tell what you’re saying. They more or less just know your tones and gestures. I might even go as far to say that once they have been trained they might know a couple of key words or sounds. There is no doubt that trained dogs know what to do when their owner says sit, lie down, or roll over, but if this dog is wild it will have no form of communication with the human. In the article, Yule, it states, “Animal communication seems to be designed exclusively for this moment, here and now” (pg.4). This is saying that animals can not tell you about past events that have occurred in their lives. Just like Lassie, she could tell you when little Timmy was in trouble, but not tell you about her past adventures. Even though our pets lack displacement and cannot verbally express themselves to you they can still get their point across. Scooter, a canine friend, will go to the door when he has to go to the bathroom, stand by his food bowl and whine when he wants food, and will bark at whoever comes into the driveway. Do we not count these as ways of communicating? He is smart enough to know that if he has an accident in the house he will get punished, and he knows that if he is hungry he should not only go to the food bowl but also get his owners attention.
No, I do not believe animals know everything we say. If they did we probably would not have them as our pets. I do believe however that once they are trained they are able to pick up gestures and certain words that we say.

Dane Knudsen Blog 3

2)

Many people believe that the animals we live with are able to understand us and communicate with us.  This belief has developed due to the bond that is shared between owner and pet.  It becomes more than just one of master and animal, but rather of friendship and love.  I can attest to this statement, being the owner of four dogs myself.

The argument against this higher intelligence of domesticated animals is that animals actually can’t comprehend the words that are spoken to them, but rather the tone and the gestures used.  I agree with this belief, because animals do respond to the tone you use rather than the word spoken.  For example, if a dog is doing something it shouldn’t be, and the master says the word “no” in a high, praiseful voice, the dog won’t stop what it is doing.  If the word “no” is spoken loud and forcefully, the dog will sense that something it is doing is wrong and will stop.  The same works for our dogs, they recognize the word “treat” when said in a particular tone.  We could use the words “feet, peat, meat, beat, or wheat” said in the same tone and the dogs will come running because they think that tone means that they will receive a dog treat.  This has been scientifically tested by Ivan Pavlov, who’s experiment conditioned dogs to salivate every time they heard the ringing of a bell.

I honestly do believe that pets have a very well developed sense of understanding and communication with their owners.  I have grown to trust and love my dog, Elsa, more than anyone else in this entire world.  I feel like she will never betray me, and that she is always there for me, no matter what I do.  In defense of my belief, after being dropped off and moved in to my new college life, my mom gave me a call.  They had just gotten home after a long day on the road, and she told me that everything was good at home, except that Elsa was walking around looking for me.  She had seemed distressed that I wasn’t there, and kept looking in my room for me.  The behavior Elsa showed can not be disregarded as a higher understanding.  She knew that something was wrong, and this comes down to the love and bond that has developed between us.

Many people believe that they can talk to their animals and they will understand them. I for one believe that this is only somewhat true. The animals, of course, can not converse back with words, but they can show response through their reactions to to the command or action that may have been directed toward them. I believe that there are two main ways of communicating with your pet.
The first way to get your point across to your pet would be through the tone of your voice. An animal, as well as humans, have a pretty good understanding of when someone or something may be angry about something. Or just complimenting them on something good that they have done. For instance, your dog may have gotten into the trash and you yell at it. Although the dog can not respond verbally, he instantly knows that it has done wrong. He knows you are not pleased with what he has done and responds by sticking his tail between his legs, and appears to be frightened. Solely from the angry tone in your voice. On the other hand, you may have a different approach of disciplining the animal. You might attempt to try and talk thinks out with it in a calm, sympathetic tone. In this approach, however, the animal is thinking that it has done something good and you are rewarding him. Thus, he is more likely to doing it again to receive the same reward. This is evidence that the animal does not really know what you are saying to it. It just knows that you are not happy, or are happy, by the way you pronounce it. The same is true for a dog or any other animal. It will let you know when you get a little closer than the animal likes and it lets out a very deep, strong bark; warning you to get back.
The other way to communicate with your pet, or your pet commmunicate with you, would be through your gestures. Gestures, similar to your tone, is generally understood quite well by animals. This can be seen when either disciplining your pet or approaching it in a slow, peaceful manner to pet it. For example, a neighborhood dog is standing in your yard. You take the more aggressive approach to try and scare the animal off. It works. Would this have worked if you took the slow, peaceful way of coming upon the animal? I think not. The animal, however, can also scare a human off by running at them in a threatening way. Also, slowly walking towards the human in the hopes that it will get his head scratched.
In conclusion, although there is no real way to communicate between an animal and a human. There are ways to get each one's point across to the other. This is through the tone of voice, also by the way one approaches the other.

Pet Communication

Many controversial opinions vary on the fact that humans can communicate with their pets. Pets, considered by most as a part of the family, do indeed communicate with their owners. Having many pets myself, I can attribute to the ideas that the relationship between a pet and it's owner leads to an understanding of one another through time. Communication with pets varies from the different species of animals. For instance, I can "communicate" with my fish. However, I can communicate better with my dogs and cats. Communications with my pet birds lies as an even more challenge for me than for them. For the birds, "communication" with me comes easier for them in the way that they can fly to where they would like to go, or they can loudly squawk and sit next to the food and water bowl when they would like fresh bird seed. Still, even louder squawks signal to me to come and chase away any of three cats that constantly keep watch on the ever interesting little feathered things that lie within the partitioning cage bars. Also able to communicate with me through body language, the birds "fluff" their feathers while on the perch to signal their contentment along with soft "cooing" noises. In this way, the birds communicate using their vocal ability along with body language. For showing trust, Chi Chi, the female of the two, will lie on her back in the palm of my hand. However, communication of the birds to me comes across very clear, my communication to them lies strictly limited. They can only recognize tone of voice when I am around. Talking to them softly often often leads to some soft chatter from their end of the "conversation." When raising my voice to scare off any of the ever curious cats, the birds produce loud chattering and will fly from my shoulder to the nearest perch. Though completely different animals, the cats and dogs ability to pick up voice inflections is the same. When scolded for bringing home the never ending fresh roadkill, the dog kneels to the ground, looks down, and tucks his tail. When praised for good actions, the dog wags his tail and begs for a petting. Lucky, our lab and chow mix, communicates with everyone in the family the most. When he wants to go outside, he sits by the door. If you just happen to not look in his direction, you will soon feel the touch of a hairy head under your palm leading you to the door, and if still ignoring his wants, you can count on a friendly nip to get your undivided attention. When ready to come back in, you he will peek in the window, or a let out a high pitched yelp from the outside. Although the dog and birds seem to communicate well vocally, the cats take the cake when it comes to vocal communication. Many different "meows" exist for getting what they want, and also for expressing disgust. Along with vocal communication, their body language comes across even more clear. Cats, the ever independent beings as they come across, only show the greatest affection when they want or need attention. For example, my cat Mary, only will come and join me on the couch if the bottom of the bowl is starting to show. (Although there may be food in the bowl, if she can see the bottom....the world might as well come to an end!) Then the affections really start to show. Climbing up and down, tail in your face, and covered in the never ending shedding fur, will get her what she wants. However, if the cats not happy, no one is happy. As the little queen that she believes herself to be, you never touch her unless she touches you first. Otherwise, do'nt look at her. Asserting her rule over the household, she will walk through the house hissing in disgust at any passerby or freshly sat down items. All of these examples that I have experienced lead me to believe that pets and their owners communicate on a daily basis. Whether communicating needs or just affection, animals and their owners in my mind "speak" and clearly communicate with each other.

Blog 3

I think that the biggest factor that distinguishes humans and animals differently has to do with the basics of language. The idea of language is not so simplistic, but the ideas of what make up language are very simple. I believe that the most important characteristic that distinguishes and differentiates animals and humans is displacement. As George Yule states" displacement allows language users to talk about things and events that are not present at that certain time." Yule discusses that only humans can decipher between the past and the present. For instance, he says “displacement allows us to talk about things and places (e.g. angels, fairies, Santa Claus, Superman, Heaven, Hell) whose existence we cannot be sure of." For example, when a frog "ribbits" he does not have a frog based (-ed) at the end if he was explaining something in the past. Everything that a frog does is the exact same, but with a few variations depending on his environment. This example shows that animals cannot explain the past and the present. They can only explain the here and now. In the article, Yule uses the example of a cat’s meow in relation to the past and present. Yule states" animal communication is generally considered to lack this property." They lack this property because they can only explain certain feelings and emotions. There is one exception though. Yule gives an example of bees in his article. Even though they are not fully capable of displacement, they can do certain things to explain where something might be located; even though they still have shortcomings. In the article bees will do a dance to explain where a beehive or a particular set of honey can be found. On the other hand, Yule’s discredits this by saying even though it is similar to displacement they are not using displacement. He says this because theses bees cannot explain vertical distances; they can only describe horizontal differences. This causes a huge problem for Yule because he thinks that since they cannot do that, there is now way they can communicate on the past and present. I believe that displacement is the most important because if you cannot communicate the when and where, understanding and communicating are near impossible. For example, think of a world when there were no have specific days or months. How would you tell someone when and where to meet you? It is obvious that life as a human would be near impossible. In conclusion, the one main point about communicating with others is not how you talk, but about how you can communicate during the past and the present.

Blog Prompt 3: Human and Animal Communication

Blog Prompt 3
Due Sept. 4, 2009

Write between 300-600 words in formal standard English on one of the following subjects. Feel free to cite the texts, or the clips that we watched, as you make your points.


1. Which of the five properties of language described in Yule do you believe to be the most important in differentiating between human and animal communication?

2. Many people believe the animals that we live with -- our pets -- understand us and communicate with us. Do you believe that a domestic animal is capable of more or less communicative power than what is described in this chapter? You might consider issues of tone, gesture, or behavior -- Yule does not give much attention to these aspects of communication.

Carol's Blog 2

Carol

Pinker discussed the many different facts as to how language is used everywhere. Theodore Dalrymple discussed many of the facts about which he did not agree with Dr. Pinker. No matter whether a person is supposed to or not, people will find a way to speak in their own language. In Dr. Pinker’s argument, he says how there are many different ways a person will find ways to communicate.

Two ways people communicate is through spoken language and body language. Although people are not supposed to, they sometimes make gestures to tell another how they feel about that certain person. Dr. Pinker discusses a situation in Nicaragua how at a deaf school, the children were not allowed to sign and had to only read lips. It was frustrating to the children so they decided on the school bus and on the playground they would make up a language of their own so they would not get into trouble.The children would become upset at the fact that they were not allowed to sign, were forced to lip read and master the skill of lip reading. It was completely wrong of the parents and the educators to force them to learn the skill of lip reading because if the children are unable to understand the conversation, they would become frustrated.

Most people would favor on the side of the children because they feel sorry for them. Although the children were frustrated that they were unable to communicate, the teachers and parents were trying to help them in the long run by having them learn how to communicate with hearing and speaking people. The skill of learning how to lip read is one that would help the children so it would be less frustrating in the future. If there was only one deaf person at a school, that one person would want to be able to communicate his or her feelings even though they are unable to speak.

I can relate to Dalrymple

I can relate to Dalrymple’s critique of Pinker’s style of writing in the standard form of English because I was fairly intimidated while reading his philosophy of linguistics. For example, Pinker’s conceptualizing standard English to be on the same level than any other form or style is being hypocritical. I dare say that if he was trying to convey for example that “Ebonics” or “Black English” is no better or worse depending on your plot in life is completely diminished by his “in your face” formality of standard English. Yes, people are the product of the environment that delivered them however, although through education one can learn the standard form of English and use it proficiently given the proper setting and not be “classified” as “ghetto” or from a lower class because they lapse into their native tongue. Pinker’s writing style in fact contradicts his philosophy that all language is equal. However, he provokes the reader, in my case by intimidation because I struggled with his vernacular having to look up much of the vocabulary I did not understand. I admit I am provoked to learn standard English because I want to be able in some form to relate to anyone I will meet, no matter what their position in life. Maybe the reason he writes in this style is his way of compensating for his own “upbringing” and insecurity because he wants to empress his colleagues and professors at Harvard University while being read. Arguably the significance of the example of letting children continue to speak in their native language such as Ebonics and never allowing them to break out of that environment by not correcting them so that they feel “inferior” is clearly not what he portrays in his style of writing in Standard English which is extremely hypocritical.

Question 2

Pinker attempts to support his argument that language is instinct by providing the example of a child (Simon) with ASL who possesses considerably better sign language than both of parents who suffer from the same condition. Pinker suggests that the reason Simon’s parents both have bad sign language is because they did not acquire it until their until the late ages of fifth teen and sixteen, resulting in them acquiring it badly. He goes on to say that even though Simon had the disadvantage of growing up in this environment, he grasped sign language very well, as he was able to understand their sentences, move topic phrases without difficulty and when he was asked to describe complex videotaped events, he used the ASL versions almost perfectly. Pinker’s conclusion is that the child must have somehow instinctly shut out his parents ‘ungrammatical noise’ and latched on to the inflections that his parents used inconsistently, reinterpreting them as mandatory. These ideas promotes the idea of language being a trait of all humans as it suggests that we all have grammatical rules in our brains and are able to make concise language of what we hear.

I agree with Dalrymple in disagreeing with Pinker’s ideas as I believe that it would be ignorant to say that the child has been able to master sign language instinctly. Dalrymple says that, “Everyone ought to have the opportunity to transcend the limitations of his linguistic environment if it is a restricted one, which means that he ought to have a few school arms in his childhood..... It is fatuous to expect that the most complex of human faculties requires no special training to develop to its highest power”. This makes me think that it would be impossible for a young child to master such a complex language without specific training from their parents and teachers. Dalrymple reinforces this idea by saying, “An intelligent man who can make no constructive use of his intelligence is likely to make a destructive and self destructive use of it”. This means that without the nurturing of language from one’s external environment; for example parents, teachers, etc, we would never be able to construct language which is easy to understand and follow. This is why I believe Pinker simply can not be correct in his ideas and views as he is very one minded and is reluctant to believe our language is affected and improved by learning from others.

Language Controversies - Blog 2

I have never known of a hardworking professional who has not taken pride or believed in the work they produced. If they did not believe in the values or principles in which they were demonstrating, why would one waste their time and effort to work hard at expressing their feelings and emotions? To do this would just be meaningless and pointless. Having said this, I disagree with dear Mr. Theodore Dalrymple when he writes "Pinker doesn't really believe anything of what he writes, at least if example is stronger evidence of belief than precept." If this statement were true, then why would Pinker throw away all of his valuable time to research and write on and in a style that evidently meant a lot to him? I know for me personally, I would not take the time research and and write about a subject that didn't have some sort of meaning to me!
The term "standard English" may have a few different meanings to different people. What is standard? If something is considered standard, by whom's definition are we going by? When thinking about this, I think about the term "normal" as well. What is considered normal, and by whom's defintion is it from? There is a difference also between speaking and writing. I do not speak in perfect, "standard English" with my friends or family, but when writing for and important paper assigned that will have great significance and importance, I tend to be more formal and practice a higher level or writing skills and vocabulary. Does this make me a hypocrite too? We sometimes tend to cater to the audience around us, making it easier for others to understand. For instance, the way I speak to my three year old niece is a lot different from the way I speak my eighteen year old friend, and the way I speak to my friend might be slightly different than the way I speak to my mom. When I speak to my niece, I need to stoop down onto her level of understand and her comprehension of vocabulary words. I will be more respectful and a little more proper when talking to my mom or older authority than I will be when communicating with one of my really good friends. Pinker is just trying to write in a way that he feels will be most effective in getting his points and ideas across to his readers.

Jack dowdell blog post 2 topic 1

Dalrymple’s statement that Pinker doesn’t really believe a thing he says is an obviously false one. Pinker would not take the time to conduct the research or write the essay if he did not care. Rather, the statement seems to be made in order to show a hole in Pinker’s logic.

Dalrymple is because Pinker writes in a tone pleasing to schoolmarms.  This is because the basis of this essay is that we all can, without education, speak in elegant complex language within our own dialect. In almost a parallel to what the writing is about, the writing itself is clear, concise, and elegant. The elegancy is what most likely upset Dalrymple.                                                                                             Many reasons have been suggested for why Pinker wrote that piece the way he did however. One thing we mentioned in class and certainly deserves consideration is the audience intended. This essay was meant for people who spoke the standard English dialect. How could we learn about the equality of the dialects and the other important points in his essay if we could not understand him.

Also, Pinker made arguments pointing out the equality of these languages. However, he never made a single point that they were appropriate in todays’ society. His purpose was to express their equality from a technical standpoint and to stop discrimination against these people on the pure basis of their speech patterns. In know way did he state that they should be accepted as a standard.

Another thing to consider is that Dalrymple is a British physician. This means that most likely he speaks near perfect English as many British people do. On top of this he is a physician which means he is highly educated. This is a man who has dedicated quite a bit of time to speaking and writing properly. Any paper that comes straight out and says that these lesser dialects in his mind are now alright is bound to rub him wrong.

Dalrymple and Pinker represent opposite ends of a spectrum. Pinker the more liberal welcoming party and Dalrymple in the conservative preserve the old writing. I believe both are necessary. As the world grows different dialects will spring up and looking down on them is not an option anymore. However abandoning our language is not an option either. Between the two opinions i believe balance can be struck

Blog Prompt 1

Pinker comes across as a hypocrite in several ways. He has no problem saying that all languages are equal because they each have their own set of rules and grammar, but he wastes no time in pointing out the differences in each language he dissects. On page 19, Pinker says that a preschooler has a sophisticated grasp of grammar, but in the same sentence he likens the preschooler to a,”like, you know, inarticulate teenage skateboarder.” He attempts to make the point that a thick usage and style manual is less sophisticated, yet he gives readers the image of a grungy, uneducated teenager and expects them to believe that the teenager has a better usage of language than the style manual. Pinker’s style of writing suggests that he favors the Standard English, so, even though he does insert passages in other dialects or vernaculars, his point that all languages are perfectly equal becomes weaker. One must support Dalrymple’s point that, yes, the language instinct is there from the moment a person is born, but contrary to Pinker’s view, there must be some sort of mimicry involved with the development of the child’s language. This must be true, because otherwise there would be no explanation for the ability of a Chinese baby to speak English when he was born to Chinese speaking parents but raised by English speaking Americans. A child does not have a pre-programmed language in its brain when it is born or else newborn adoptions would never be successful. Obviously, Pinker is writing for an audience who speaks Standard English, so he must write in Standard English. However, his transitions into his examples show such a difference between the Standard English and whichever language he is comparing it to that the reader feels that Pinker feels superior to the language he is writing about.

Merry Bridgeman
English 1101 – “Language Controversies”
Dr. Hughes
Blog 2

What is Standard English? Does it depend on where one is living? The question Pinker is answering is that there really is not a standard way to speak. Webster’s Dictionary defines Standard English as, “The English that with respect to spelling, grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary is substantially uniform though not devoid of regional differences, that is well established by usage in the formal and informal speech and writing of the educated and that is widely recognized as acceptable wherever English is spoken and understood.” This form of English makes people seem educated and can be intimidating. Pinker believes that there is no “right” way to speak. Everyone has their own dialect and there is no need to change. No one dialect is grammatically wrong; they just have different words and rules. An example Pinker uses is, “…people in some regions of the United States refer to a certain insect as a dragonfly and people in other regions refer to it as a darning needle…”(pg.28) Dragonfly would be what the majority of the population would say was correct, but could darning needle not be correct as well? Another example is when he is talking to Larry, a man who spoke American Black English, and we see that the only difference is the means by which contractions are used. People tend to judge when they hear someone different from them speak. They automatically jump to conclusions and view their dialect better than others.
Even though Pinker’s articles were written in proper, grammatically correct English, one should not be so quick to call him a hypocrite. Just because he chooses to use this so called Standard English in his writings does not mean that he believes all other modes of speaking are wrong. His argument throughout the article is not that Standard English is wrong but that it’s not the only “right” way to speak. Pinker is writing in this form because he is gearing it toward an audience that would be more accepting of this dialect rather that one written in Black English or slang. He also might have been raised to speak this certain type of English while others might have been taught differently, but he is open and accepting to how language constantly changes. Where as Dalrymple seem to laugh at other dialects in his article, "The Gift of Language."

devin oesterle blog #2

In "The Language Instinct", Pinker uses the example of a young boy who is born without the ability to hear. He mentions that the boy, Simon, was not only born deaf, but he was born into a family with two deaf parents. Simon's parents', however, abilities to express themselves through ASL(American Sign Language) is not as fluent or understandable as one who is mute should be. Simon's ability to use ASL, on the other hand, is quite remarkable. The boy, only nine years of age, is far more advanced that the abilities of his mothers and fathers. "Simon must somehow have shut out his parents' ungrammatical 'noise.' He must have latched on to the inflections that his parents used inconsistently, and reinterpreted them as mandatory. And he must have seen the logic that was implicit, though never realized it, in his parent' use of two kinds of verb inflection, and reinvented the ASL system of superimposing both of them onto a single verb in a specific order." After reading this i asked myself this question: Is Steven Pinker really going to imply that this nine year old child mastered the use of ASL on his own with no outside help? Does he really think this is possible? I cannot distinguish between this mad man maybe, actually, believing this or just "blowing smoke" to try and create an uproar from opposing writers. I do know, however, that he is certainly succeeding in the second choice. A nine year old mastering the ASL, or any other language for that matter, without the guidance of an overseer or other form of an educated being is impossible. Claiming that this nine year old child could distinguish right or wrong in his parents' using of ASL without educated help is not only wrong, it is ridiculous! In conclusion, it is obvious that I strongly disagree with Steven Pinker when he implies that young Simon used his instincts to learn the correct use of ASL all by himself. I assure you that this is unobtainable, even by this "remarkable" young lad. Simon obviously had some kind of unknown, or untold, outside source to guide him in the right direction.

Cameron Medina Blog 2

Pinker is clearly a very educated man to be discussing the topic of language; not only is he discussing it though, Pinker is giving explanations of how speech is originated in each individual person. Pinker does use correct speech, as most call it, but Pinker is not an exception from his observations. He is a man who has from birth possessed the knowledge and instinct of how to talk. The way he speaks and writes is completely refined by the education he has completed, though. Pinker never criticizes any person for the ways they speak, so he should not be criticized either. The argument Pinker presents is a very valid point because he presents it in a simple and clear form. Pinker does write in very grammatically correct language, though, not because he necessarily talks in that way, but because to be taken seriously by reviewers and criticizers he must show he is an educated man. If Pinker were to write his book again and write in the speech he uses in common conversation, the book would not be read deep enough to accomplish its purpose. He is no exception; all people speak in less strict form than the way they write. If the way he writes affects his argument in any way, it will make it more valid. People on all levels of education can understand his speech as a result of his grammar and vocbulary, and this ability will affect their perception of what view Pinker is writing from, also. If Pinker wrote on a level on which only the highly educated could understand, then his argument could be considered discredited. Pinker is a great example, just as well as any other human, of his own point that people are born with a basic knowledge of how to speak. The beginnings of speech may not be exactly correct, but the refining of speech is learned through observation and listening to the speech around you. Pinker is not a hypocrite, he is a human who has, by his choice, refined his speech and language to a level acceptable for writing at the level he writes.

To label Pinker a hypocrite for using the "standard English" in his writings presents itself as an unfair accusation. Although the fact that "intelligence does not correlate with language" seems to contradict itself in any way, shape or form, different perspectives always lead to differentiating opinions. To clearly label Pinker as a hypocrite of his own works, one would have to know his past. One would have to know where he spent his childhood, how his parents raised him, and who taught him the native language that he speaks today? Pinker says that "...children learn to talk from role models and caregivers." He also writes "[l]anguage is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction....", depicting the idea that language comes naturally and instinctively to every person. (Pinker, pg.18)Therefore, language always presents itself as an "instinct" so that children learn to feed the want to know and communicate with the people who surround them.(Pinker,18) This leads to the fact that intelligence does not comply with language. To further this statement, in the definition of intelligence, it clearly states that intelligence consists of the "capacity for learning."(Dictionary.com) The "capacity for learning" solely involves a childs capability to concieve and retain knowledge, leading further away from the fact that intelligence correlates with language. All of this information in turn goes to show that only can one judge Pinker to be hypocritical, if they know his formal surroundings. As far as readers know, Pinker's parents taught him his native lanquage. Did they speak in the specific form of correct "standard English"? Could the ways of "standard English" abide as the only form of English he has ever known? The knowing of standard English and the use of it lies not as a higher point of intelligence. However, Pinker's readers can only assume one thing about his writings. He clearly writes to attract specific audiences with a higher scholarly tone than one normally speaks, but he distinctly appeals to the higher levels of knowlege who continue to use the art of"standard English." Still the argument stands....Does Pinker's use of "standard English" discredit his argument, or do most people have the wrong definition of true intelligence?