I wish I knew how to properly do a summary c.c

The book I am reading, The Language Instinct How the Mind Creates Language, is more like the title than I thought it would be. This book actually goes into the detail of how our minds are like little machines creating and formulating our language and since I've started reading this book, I give my mind a lot more credit. First the author, Steven pinker, debunks the origins of language. It is not just a cultural instinct, but it manifests itself out of a special human instinct. He also states that these languages, no matter from what culture they originate or which seems to be more advanced, all these languages are equal in sophistication. This also branches over to those who are thought to have poor education or are working-class, speak a courser or simpler language. However, these underestimated people, have a dialect all their own that is just as complicated as standard English. For example, black English vernacular, has just as many grammatical rules for sentence structure as English, and the words and sentences constructed are just as correct as English. Next he discusses how language is formed, that children actually reinvent language generation after generation all on their own, with no help from how their parents speak to them, "Look at the doggy! See the pretty doggy? Look at the doooooooooooooogggyyyy.", otherwise known as "motherese". The key example given is how children who have parents that speak a sort of broken language, a language that is not their mother tongue and that they have learned through attempting to pick up words around them, those children develop a much more refined and grammatical version called creole. These children obviously did not learn it from their parents, so the deduction is that there is an innate grammatical machine in the brain that takes I what the child has learned from the parent and creates a new more advanced form. Children are wired with a logic of language that helps to create more grammatical and clearer sentences, sentences the child could never have learned from motherese, but from that child's own mind. The theory that language comes from IQ is also being questioned as people with a certain disease, Williams syndrome, where their IQ is less than 50, yet they have amazing language skills, even better than most people of average IQ, because these individuals speak very artfully with very advanced vocabulary. With this information, it can be deduced that IQ and language abilities are separate entities and that there very well could be a part of the brain, that Williams syndrome does not effect, that preserves this ability for language but takes away the ability to even do basic functions. In terms of how language effects the individual, it has been said that certain cultures effect the kind of language they speak and therefore effect the people and their thought patterns, however, this is not true. The key argument for this was that old fable that eskimos have over 100 words for snow and it is so easy to believe since they live in such snowy places. However, this has actually been debunked and eskimos have no more words for varieties of snow than us English language speakers do. Also, people have believed that individuals thoughts are effected by their language. Like italian speakers are more sexist because their language is genderized, however, this has also been disproven. There is a language, in which no mention of what time the event occurred was mentioned, so it was assumed those people had no concept of the future or past, however, once they were tested they were shown to have a full understand of past present and future. What I found most interesting was that thought is what influences language. Without thought to digest and manipulate what is said to us, to give context, we would have a very difficult time really understanding what anybody says to us. Like in terms of ambiguous news lines like "Iraqi head seeks arms", without having our thoughts to digest what is being said this sentence could be very confusing. Also that language is not always explicit, one must fill in the blanks in order to understand what is being said like "John is an elephant. Elephants live in Africa. Elephants have tusks.", without the use of our critical thinking, we would not be able to string together this sentence in a way that will be able to fully describe John. Finally, there is a discussion about how a computer could easily be an advanced speaker by just giving charts of words that generally follow each other or could go with each other, therefore making us no better than the computer, but we are better than the computer. We can make sentences that are more than just a string of words, words that would normally have no probability to be together in a sentence, can still be grammatical in English. Also, the computer only understands a certain number of possible sentence structures and can not keep track of what already was said in the sentence, so it avoids the possiblities of any discrepancies by not making those sentences at all. The human mind is much more advanced than the computer and unlike the computer it is utterly limitless.