Publications

2000
(2000). Five Questions for Steven Pinker.
Pinker, S. (2000). Survival of the Clearest. Nature , 404, 441-442.Abstract

There are no fossils to show how language evolved. But evolutionary game theory is revealing how some of the defining features of human language could have been shaped by natural selection.

PDF
Pinker, S. (2000). All About Evil. New York Times .
Pinker, S. (2000). Decoding the candidate. New York Times.
Pinker, S. (2000). The Irregular Verbs. Landfall.
Pinker, S. (2000). Life in the Fourth Millennium. Technology Review.
Pinker, S. (2000). Will the Mind Figure out How the Brain Works? Time.Abstract

Understanding how neurons operate is one thing; understanding how they make us the conscious beings we are is another matter.

PDF
1999
(1999). Steven Pinker receives the 2016 William James Fellow Award from the Association for Psychological Science.
Pinker, S. (1999). How Much Art Can the Brain Take? The Independent .Abstract

This article is adapted from How the Mind Works (Penguin paperback, 1999).

Pinker, S. (1999). The Seven Wonders of the World Convocation Address at McGill University.
Pinker, S. (1999). His Brain Measured Up. New York Times. Publisher's Version
Pinker, S. (1999). Horton Heared a Who! Time , 86.Abstract
What the slips of children tell us about language, history and the human mind.
PDF
Pinker, S. (1999). Regular Habits. Times Literary Supplement. Publisher's Version
Pinker, S. (1999). Racist Language, Real and Imagined. New York Times.
Pinker, S. (1999). There Will Always be an English , Dec. 24, 1999. New York Times.
Berent, I., Pinker, S., & Shimron, J. (1999). Default nominal inflection in Hebrew: Evidence for mental variables. Cognition , 72, 1-44.Abstract

According to the ‘word/rule’ account, regular inflection is computed by a default, symbolic process, whereas irregular inflection is achieved by associative memory. Conversely, pattern- associator accounts attribute both regular and irregular inflection to an associative process. The acquisition of the default is ascribed to the asymmetry in the distribution of regular and irregular tokens. Irregular tokens tend to form tight, well-defined phonological clusters (e.g. sing-sang, ring-rang), whereas regular forms are diffusely distributed throughout the phono- logical space. This distributional asymmetry is necessary and sufficient for the acquisition of a regular default. Hebrew nominal inflection challenges this account. We demonstrate that Hebrew speakers use the regular masculine inflection as a default despite the overlap in the distribution of regular and irregular Hebrew masculine nouns. Specifically, Experiment 1 demonstrates that regular inflection is productively applied to novel nouns regardless of their similarity to existing regular nouns. In contrast, the inflection of irregular sounding nouns is strongly sensitive to their similarity to stored irregular tokens. Experiment 2 estab- lishes the generality of the regular default for novel words that are phonologically idiosyn- cratic. Experiment 3 demonstrates that Hebrew speakers assign the default regular inflection to borrowings and names that are identical to existing irregular nouns. The existence of default inflection in Hebrew is incompatible with the distributional asymmetry hypothesis. Our find- ings also lend no support for a type-frequency account. The convergence of the circumstances triggering default inflection in Hebrew, German and English suggests that the capacity for default inflection may be general.

PDF
1998
Pinker, S. (1998). Listening Between the Lines. New York Times.
Pinker, S. (1998). Presidents Behaving Badly. The New Yorker. PDF
Pinker, S. (1998). Steven Pinker's Reply to Ahouse & Berwick's Review of How the Mind Works. The Boston Review.
Pinker, S. (1998). Words and rules. Lingua , 106, 219-242.Abstract

The vast expressive power of language is made possible by two principles: the arbitrary sound- meaning pairing underlying words, and the discrete combinatorial system underlying grammar. These principles implicate distinct cognitive mechanisms: associative memory and symbol- manipulating rules. The distinction may be seen in the difference between regular inflection (e.g., walk-walked), which is productive and open-ended and hence implicates a rule, and irregular inflection (e.g., come-came, which is idiosyncratic and closed and hence implicates individually memorized words. Nonetheless, two very different theories have attempted to collapse the distinction; generative phonology invokes minor rules to generate irregular as well as regular forms, and connectionism invokes a pattern associator memory to store and retrieve regular as well as irregular forms. I present evidence from three disciplines that supports the traditional word/rule distinction, though with an enriched conception of lexical memory with some of the properties of a pattern-associator. Rules, nonetheless, are distinct from pattern- association, because a rule concatenates a suffix to a symbol for verbs, so it does not require access to memorized verbs or their sound patterns, but applies as the "default," whenever memory access fails. I present a dozen such circumstances, including novel, unusual-sounding, and rootless and headless derived words, in which people inflect the words regularly (explaining quirks like flied out, low-lifes, and Walkmans). A comparison of English to other languages shows that contrary to the connectionist account, default suffixation is not due to numerous regular words reinforcing a pattern in associative memory, but to a memory-independent, symbol-concatenating mental operation.

PDF

Pages