oh, I see. yes, for whatever reason we all seem to have our specialty, which we are very, very good at and then everything else is hit or miss.
Pinker says that so much of English, and all languages, is made excessively complicated for little reason.
When kids say "I holded the icecream cone", instead of "I held the icecream cone", who is really correct? The kids are correct, the simplist rule should apply. Language would be much easier to learn if exceptions to rules were eliminated.
In a ghetto, someone might say "I ain't got no" as opposed to "I haven't got any".
if we analyze this functionally, in linguistic terms - ain't is a widely used word that can be substituted in a vast number of circumstances where it's meaning is clear. "I ain't gonna", "Ain't that something?" - it is more efficient then attemptig to differentiate using all these different more 'proper' words like 'havn't' "I'm not", "Isn't".
In, "I haven't got any" - what does 'any' realy mean? Using a double negative, "I ain't got no", makes the sentence more clear. Pinker says that double negatives are used throughout a majority of languages quite frequently. Je ne pense pas - in French is a double negative.
So, ghetto speak is actually more efficient then the gobbly gook coming out of academic conferences. That being said, the fact that some don't take the time to learn proper english etc.. generally indicates that some of the things that you said will be the case.
I just thought the whole perspective was interesting.
Thank you for your summary.
Do you believe Pinker?
1--In some situations, yes I do. But who says simplicity of thought is a good thing? I say the harder the language (without being too lofty), the more concentration and effort it takes, and therefore the more mental exersize you get.
2--Also, I find ebonic de-values very appropriate, specialized words that are extremely efficient at conveying specific meaning.
So in the end, I find Pinker's argument, which you appropriately summarized, to be only marginally correct and, I suspect, motivated by other means that true science. This conclusion is not true if he raised the same arguments I did in 1 & 2.
Thank you for your insight and, if you wish, I look forward to your take on it.