Educating Eve
1997 book by Geoffrey Sampson
- 3 min read
- 3 chapters
Related on Lably
Through Nature versus nurture and Methodology
The title, Educating Eve, was dropped after the first edition because the allusion to Educating Rita "was deemed unduly mysterious". The revised edition (2005) contains an additional chapter and "many passages, from a few words up to new chapter-sections, that discuss relevant scientific findings which have emerged since the first edition, or respond to objections made by critics of that edition."
Abstract
Sampson critically evaluates the ability of theories of linguistic nativism to accommodate the growing understanding of human brain processing over the course of the late 20th century. He proposes an alternative explanation, borrowing some ideas and terminology from Karl Popper.
Sign in to keep reading
2 more chapters are free with a Lably account.
Overview
- "Eve was not a born know-all. She was ignorant. But she was a good learner." — Geoffrey Sampson, Educating Eve
The book has seven chapters introduced by a foreword by Paul Postal who claims an agnostic position regarding the debate. He expresses serious concerns regarding the strength of the "nativist" argument; but despite being unconvinced of the alternative view, he commends Sampson for challenging nativism and attempting to make a case for an alternative.
The first chapter of Educating Eve considers broad contours of the nature versus nurture debate in regard to human knowledge generally, before narrowing this down to the rise of late 20th century linguistic nativism in particular. It concludes with an overview of the methodology of the rest of the book. Chapter 2 reports evidence that was available to the "first wave" of nativists (like Chomsky) during the 1960s and 1970s. Chapter 3 reports the results of research that have become available since then. Chapter 4 turns to examining the distinctive arguments of "new wave" nativists (like Pinker). Chapter 5 presents a case for an alternative view. In chapter 7 Sampson concludes with a short personal perspective on sociological changes in the nature of academic discourse over the 40 years of the debate regarding nativism. He attributes the popularity of nativism to various features of these sociological changes.
Annotated journal commentary
- Victor M. Longa. Review for Linguistics 37 (1999): 325–344.
- Geoffrey Sampson. "Reply to Longa" Linguistics 37 (1999): 345–350.
- James H. Hurford. Review for Journal of Linguistics 36 (2000): 663–664.
- Ernst Pulgram. Review for Language 76 (2000): 704.
- Stephen John Cowley. "The Baby, the Bathwater, and the 'Language Instinct' Debate[link removed]". Language Sciences 23 (2001): 69–91. [challenges an assumption held by both sides, and proposes an alternative, third explanation]
- The Linguistic Review 19 (2002). [devoted to debating linguistic nativism]
- Ben G. Blount. "Nativism Revisited: Language and the Brain". Current Anthropology 43 (2002): 340. [Blount is a linguistic anthropologist]
- Michael Toolan. Review for Language in Society 36 (2007): 622–626.
- Julia Herschensohn. "Theory and Practice". Review for The Modern Language Journal 91 (2007): 486–487.
- Eve Zyzik. Review for Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29 (2007): 134–136.
- John H McWhorter. Review for Language 84 (2008): 434–437.
Cowley, and some others, view Sampson and Pinker as standing at extreme ends of a nature–nurture spectrum, as applied to explaining language acquisition. Cowley notes philosophical difficulties with each extreme, as they are argued by Sampson and Pinker: Sampson's version of the nurture position also argues for philosophical dualism; whereas Pinker's version of the nature position also argues for an ontological reality for syntax. Both these auxiliary arguments are unsatisfactory to many writers who address the relevant broader philosophical questions.
Cowley proposes an alternative: that language acquisition involves culturally determined language skills, apprehended by a biologically determined faculty that responds to them. In other words, he proposes that each extreme is right in what it affirms, but wrong in what it denies. Both cultural diversity of language, and a learning instinct, can be affirmed; neither need be denied.