Skip to main content

Guy Deutscher – Four Way Interview

Guy Deutscher read Mathematics at Cambridge and went on to do a doctorate in Linguistics.
Formerly a Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge, and of the Department of Ancient Near Eastern Languages in the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, he is an honorary Research Fellow at the School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures in the University of Manchester. His books include The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind’s Greatest Invention and Through the Language Glass.
Why Linguistics?
For scientists, the two biggest questions are how the world works and how it came to be the way it is now. For me, language has always been the particular aspect of the world that cried out for explanation. Language is mankind’s greatest invention – except, of course, that it was never invented. And it is exactly this paradox that has been at the core of my fascination with language ever since I started thinking about it as a child. Language is an incredibly refined instrument. With the most meagre tools – a few dozen morsels of sound – it allows us to convey unlimitedly sophisticated thoughts, and I always wanted to know: how does it manage this? And how could such a clever system ever come into being if it wasn’t designed on an architect’s table?
Why this book?
No matter what aspect of language you are trying to look into, there is one fundamental question that you can hardly avoid: the question of innateness. How much of language is the bequest of nature and how much is influenced by culture? How much is hardwired and determined directly by the genes, and how much is cultural convention? In my previous book on the evolution of language (The Unfolding of Language), I tried very hard not to be sucked into this controversy too directly, although my approach clearly suggested that culture has much more to offer than what it is generally given credit for today. In Through the Language Glass, which is a kind of sequel, I decided to make the case for culture more explicit, and show how cultural conventions have the power to shape some of the most fundamental aspects of language, even those that common sense would have sworn must simply be natural and universal. This debate has as a natural corollary another great controversy, the question of the mother-tongue’s influence on the way we think and perceive the world. So this time, I decided to attack these two bitter controversies head on.
What’s next?
I’m toying with different ideas. One question I find particularly interesting, but couldn’t incorporate into this book, is how politeness and other conventions of social interaction are both mirrored in language, and how they may be affected by language. Another area of interest goes beyond language, to explore ideas about heredity in the past and their relation to ideology. But these are early days for that.
What’s exciting you at the moment?
The other great invention of mankind – music. I’m learning eighteenth century harmony together with my daughter.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more