Week 8 Universal Grammar Flashcards
(34 cards)
Chomsky’s Epiphenomenalism about
Language
Language vs. Grammar
“Grammar” is a precise definite term while “language” is a vague and derivative term which we could well dispense of, without much loss.
The grammar in someone’s mind/brain is real while language is not real
i-language vs. E-language
The aim of linguistics can be summarized by four questions.
- What constitutes knowledge of language?
- How is such knowledge acquired?
- How is such knowledge put to use?
- What are the physical mechanisms that serve as the material basis?
Port Royal Grammar (1660)
It is heavily influenced by Descartes.
It aims to propose the general form of any possible grammar.
In so doing it elaborates the universal structure underlying the “natural manner in which we express our thoughts”.
The inner/outer aspect of language
According to Port Royal grammarians we must distinguish between language having an inner and an outer aspect.
Hence we distinguish between a sentence qua expression of a thought and the physical shape of a sentence (i.e. an utterance).
To show the structure of the mind the grammar should reflect properties of all minds, it should be universal.
Mental Grammar
The deep structure is often only implicit and does not get expressed. It is only in the mind.
The same deep structure can be realized differently in different languages (e.g.: “Video canem currentum” and “Je vois un chien qui court”).
The rules of this grammar are not “represented” explicitly in the language user: they are simply there. They are part of the cognitive structure. Yet they must be “learned” (i.e., it must be triggered by experience), Cf poverty of the stimulus argument
Transformation Rules
There are transformation rules operating from deep to surface structure. It is the linguist’s job to figure out these rules.
The grammarians of Port Royal are the first to recognize the two systems of rules:
- A base system generating deep structure.
- A transformational system mapping these deep structures onto a surface structure.
Universal Grammar
UG corresponds to the deep structure. Since it is the expression of thought, it is common to all languages.
It is thus universal. Hence, Universal Grammar, UG.
The transformation rules converting the deep structure into surface structure may differ from language to language. (reason there are dialects in languages)
Different outputs (i.e., the manifestations of different languages) can correspond to the same inner structure.
Port Royal
Within the Cartesian tradition exemplified by the grammarians of Port Royal, the deep structure is what constitutes the meaning in the mind.
It can be transmitted in different ways (e.g.: active/passive sentences in the same language, different languages expressing the same meaning/semantic content).
E.g.: different languages or different surface structures transmit the same meaning which is a mental entity.
UG in modern times
means the initial state of a language learner.
It is the “innate” (genetically transmitted) aspect of grammatical rules; the language instinct (Pinker).
It is that aspect of the human mind that causes one to learn the language.
UG qua initial state is biologically determined.
As such, it does not belong to a specific language.
Innate
We do not necessarily mean that it is present at birth or in an embryo.
It rather means that it automatically appears during the development, regardless on whether it is present at birth or not. It ‘develops’ in the same way as humans develop other biological features. Expressions from our genotype
It does not mean that it is free from the input of the environment. E.g. vision capacity.
Deep vs. Surface Structure, and Creativity
The deep/surface structure distinction is what helps explaining linguistic creativity.
The Port Royal’s distinction between deep and surface structure implicitly contains recursive devices allowing for infinite uses of the finite means that it disposes.
The deep structure is what gets represented in the mind when a sentence is produced/heard.
Linguistic creativity and the argument for mental grammar
The expressive variety of language use implies that the brain of a linguistically competent user contains a set of unconscious grammatical principles.
(cf. Jackendoff R. 1994. Patterns in the Mind. Basic Books Harper Collins, New York: 6).
LOT
In adopting the language of thought hypothesis, LOT (or Mentalese) the argument for mental grammar can be stated along the compositional principle for thoughts, or what Fodor characterizes as the productivity of thought
Logical vs. Grammatical Form
Arnauld & Nicole (in Port Royal Logic 1662: 160) highlight the difference between deep (logical) structure and surface (grammatical) structure.
In:
(1) Now few pastors at the present time are ready to give their life for their flocks the grammatical (surface) structure is affirmative, while its underlying structure (LF) is negative.
(1) contains the implicit negative sentence (“it contains this negation in its meaning”):
(1a) Several pastors at the present time are not ready to give their lives for their flocks
The same with:
(2) Come see me
whose deep structure is:
(2a) I order/beg you to come see me (i.e., an imperative)
E.g.: the surface structure “Only the friends of God are happy” is a transformation of the deep structure “The friends of God are happy” and “all others who are not friends of God are not happy”.
Understanding
To understand a sentence one must grasp the semantic content, i.e. the meaning (“natural order”) the speaker has in mind.
One grasps it in reconstructing its meaning, i.e. in coming to entertain its underlying structure (LF) and the meanings of the single words.
The fundamental principles at work are reordering and ellipsis which enable the hearer to recover in her mind the meaning the speaker has in her.
Grammaire Générale (Port Royal)
Cartesian linguistics did not confine to a mere description of a language and its grammar.
It aimed to capture the universal (mental) structure underlying languages.
Port Royal grammar, like modern (Chomsky is an inspired) linguistics can be viewed as a branch of psychology or cognitive sciences.
The general grammar is a kind of universal grammar.
As such, it differs from the special grammar which is language specific. It differs from the grammar of English, Chinese, etc. (E-Language)
Linguistics/General Grammar as a Science
General Grammar is … the rational science of the immutable and general principle of spoken and written language, whatever language this may be … General Grammar is a science, because its object is rational speculation on the immutable and general principle of language … The science of grammar is anterior to all languages in so far as its objects presuppose only the possibility of languages and are the same as those which guide human reason in its intellectual operations … because they are eternally true (Bauzé 1767).
Shortcomings of Cartesian
Linguistics (1600-1700)
The underlying assumption
UG (the abstract structure underlying a natural language sentence) is a kind of sentence itself.
It is generally assumed that deep structure consists of actual sentences in a simpler or more natural organization.
The underlying assumption is gratuitous and can be dismissed.
It rests on the Cartesian idea that the general principles underlying and determining our thoughts and perceptions must be accessible to introspection and can be brought to consciousness with care and attention.
If we assume that UG is unconscious we don’t have to assume that the general principle are sentence-like entities.
Nativism/Innatism
The universal principles are innate and implicit.
Yet, we may require external stimulus to activate them and make them available to introspection.
This is one of the main principles underlying the psychology of Cartesian linguistics and rationalism in general (see e.g. Leibniz’s Hercules’s statue example).
It is true that it is purely arbitrary to connect a certain idea to one particular sound rather than another. But ideas—at least those that are clear and distinct—are not at all arbitrary things depending on our fancy. (Arnauld & Nicole 1662: 28)
Plato’s Problem
Nativism provides a solution to Plato’s problem (cf. Plato’s Meno and Theaetetus).
For it provides a science of language that shows how an internal biological mechanism can, with little input from the external environment (poverty of the stimuli argument) develop (almost automatically) in each individual the rich competence known as “knowing a language”.
Chomsky employs a naturalistic approach to biologicals mechanisms we have genetic disposition
Solving Plato’s problem for language
acquisition.
It involves saying both what is known
when one knows a language and how one
comes to know it.
We should do this with a science of the
mind, not philosophical speculations.
Chomsky vs. Plato
Plato appeals to myth, invoking the pre-
existence of the boy’s soul with other
souls in the world of Forms (ideas) and in
going through a process of reminiscence.
Chomsky solves it in proposing a
naturalistic theory of a biological system
that makes language acquisition virtually
automatic.
General Presuppositions of
Cartesian Linguistics
The principle of language and natural logic are known unconsciously and they are in large part a precondition for language acquisition rather than a matter of instruction or training.
Linguistics as a science tries to bring to light these underlying principles and so becomes a branch of psychology.
The Poverty of the Stimulus
Argument
General language-acquisition schema
Input LAD Output
(primary (Grammar consisting of
linguistic data) principles, parameters and lexicon)