Generativism
Chomsky’s Linguistic Concerns
What is Generativism?
• Generative linguistics is a school of thought within
linguistics that makes use of the concept of a
generative grammar.
• A generative grammar is a set of formal rules
which projects a finite set of sentences upon the
potentially infinite set of sentences that constitute
the language as a whole, and it does this in an
explicit manner, assigning to each a set of structural
descriptions.
• It refers to the fact that languages are systems
with limited sets of linguistic items out of which we
can generate endless number of sentences.
What is Generativism?
• Generativism aims to explain language as a form of
knowledge, a unique human capacity which is part of
our cognitive makeup, and thus can be explained in
part in terms of universal features.
• Thus generative grammar is a linguistic theory that
attempts to describe a native speaker's tacit
grammatical knowledge by a system of rules that in an
explicit and well-defined way specify all of the well-
formed, or grammatical, sentences of a language while
excluding all ungrammatical, or impossible, sentences.
Generativism
A Conceptual Backdrop
•Generativism emerged out of the rationalist critique
of the empiricist theory of mind and language.
• Empiricism centers that the structure of the mind is
closely related (“similar”), via operations like imprinting
and abstraction, to the structure of the environment.
The central feature of an empiricist approach is the
kind of causal link –between the contents of thought and
the structure of the environment.
Problems with Empiricism
The central fact about language acquisition is that
children are able to learn their native languages rapidly
and on the basis of degenerate, deficient, and
inadequate data gathered from the ambient
environment. More precisely, children acquire a
knowledge of language despite the following
inadequacies in the linguistic data set that they have
access to.
(a) The linguistic evidence a child has is imperfect; it
includes slips of the tongue, incomplete thoughts,
misstatements, etc.
Problems with Empiricism
(b) The knowledge of his or her native language that
the native speaker attains extends to an open-ended
set of objects. There is no real upper bound on the
number of sentences native speakers can use and
understand. This is so despite the fact that the linguistic
stimuli to which a child is exposed are merely finite.
This implies that children must postulate rules on the
basis of a limited number of example outputs of these
rules.
In sum, there is an inductive gap between what is
attained (a rule) and the linguistic input to this
acquisition process (sentences/utterances conforming
to this rule).
Noam Chomsky(1957): “Language is a set of
finite number sentences, each finite in length and
constructed out of a finite set of elements
The term ‘generativism’ refers to the theory of
language that has been developed, over the last
twenty years of so, by Chomskyand his followers.
Generativism, has been enormously influential not
only in linguistics, but also in philosophy,
psychology and other disciplines
concerned with languages.
Generativism describes human languages by
means of generative grammars.
Generativism is developed out of, and in
reaction to post Bloomfieldian American
descriptivism: a particular version of
structuralism.
language – systems are productive, in the sense
that they allow for the construction and
comprehension of indefinitely many utterances
that have never previously occurred in the
experience of any of their users.
Chomsky: Children learn their native language by
reproducing, in whole or in part, the utterances
of adult speakers
if children are able to produce novel utterances
which a competent speaker of the language will
recognize as grammatically well – formed, there
must be something other than imitation
involved.
They must have inferred, learned, or
otherwise acquired the grammatical rules by
virtue of which the utterances that they produce
are judged to be well – formed.
Chomsky has has pointed out that technical
vocabulary of behaviourism (stimulus, ‘response’,
‘conditioning’, ‘ reinforcement’, etc. don't have
any relevance to the acquisition and the use of
human language.
Generativists, in contrast are more interested in
what languages have in common.
Chomsky supports that the human language –
faculty is innate and species – specific. i.e.
genetically transmitted and unique to the
species.
difference between generativism and
Bloomfieldian and post –Bloomfieldian
generativism is closer to Sassurean
structuralism –Chomsky draws distinction
between competence and performance.
A speaker’s linguistic competence is that
part of his knowledge of the language –
system as such – by virtue of which he is
able to produce the indefinitely large set of
sentences that constitutes his language (in
Chomsky’s definition of a language as a set
of sentences : cf 2.6).
Performance: on the other hand,
is language behavior ; and this is said to be
determined , not only by the speaker’s linguistic
competence , but also by a variety of non-
linguistic factors including, on the one hand, social
conventions, beliefs about the world, the speaker’s
emotional attitudes towards what he is saying, his
assumption about his interlocutor’s attitudes, etc.
heart of generativism relates to mentalism and
universalism
competence and performance are similar to
langue and parole
Competence and performance
According to Chomsky, competence refers to
the knowledge that native speakers have of
their language as a system of abstract formal
relations.
while performance refers to their actual
linguistic behavior, that is, the actual use of this
knowledge.
Chomsky’s competence is a psychological
construct and de Saussure’s langue is a set of
social conventions.
controversial aspects of generativism
it continues the post – Bloomfieldian
tradition in syntax, by making the
morpheme the basic unit of analysis.
autonomy of syntax (i.e. to the view that
the syntactic structure of languages can be
described without recourse to semantic
considerations)
Language and Innateness
Universal Grammar in Action
Chomsky on the Nature of Language
Acquisition
Large-scale sensory deficit seems to have limited effect on
language acquisition. Blind children acquire language as the
sighted do, even color terms and words for visual experience
like “see” and “look.”
There are people who have achieved close to normal
linguistic competence with no sensory input beyond
that can be gained by placing one’s hand on another
person’s face and throat.
The analytic mechanism of the language faculty seem
to be triggered in much the same way whether the
input is auditory, visual, and seem to be localized in
the same brain areas, somewhat surprisingly.
16
A plausible assumption today is that the principles of
language are fixed and innate, and that variations is
restricted in the manner indicated. Each language, then, is
(virtually) determined by a choice of values for lexical
parameters: with the array of choices, The conditions of
language acquisition make it plain that the process must be
largely inner-directed, as in other aspects of growth,
which means that all languages must be close to
identical, largely fixed by initial state. (Chomsky 2000.
New Horizons … : 121-2)
17
At present little is known on how UG is
embodied in the brain.
UG is considered as a computational
system in the head, but we do not know
about the specific operations of the brain
itself and what leads to the development
of these computational systems.
18
A plausible view is that language is a distinct and
specific part of the human mind and not a
manifestation of a more general capacity or ability
(of general intelligence).
Linguistic capacity rests on a specific module.
It is not the sub-product of a general cognitive
capacity.
19
Evidence
People can “lose their intelligence” and yet they do
not loose their language: substantial retarded
children (e.g. Williams syndrome) manifest a good
grammatical and linguistic competence.
On the other hand, highly intelligent people may lack
linguistic capacity (e.g. aphasia).
The fact that two kinds of abilities can dissociate
quantitatively and along multiple dimensions shows
that they are not manifestations of a single
underlying ability. (Pinker 2003: 23)
20
The theory:
innate language knowledge
If children don’t/can’t learn the rules of
grammar from the language around them
in their environment…
… then these rules must have been in-
born
This explains all the difficulties we found
with environment-only acquisition
theories
Innatism
What is innate?
Chomsky: the essential core of grammar is
innate
A generative grammar that can produce an
infinite range of novel sentences
The innate system for language learning
◦ Language Acquisition Device (LAD)
◦ Universal Grammar (UG)
◦ “bioprogram”
◦ “language organ”
◦ “language instinct”
Is language autonomous?
Chomsky thinks that language is
autonomous in the mind
This means that language (i.e. UG) is a
separate system in the brain’s architecture
It is connected to, but does not interact
extensively with, other sorts of thought
How does UG work?
From autonomy to a black box…
A black box problem:
◦ Something goes in, something comes
out, but the process is hidden
◦ The hidden process is self-contained
and independent
◦ Analysing the input and the output can
tell us what’s happening in the black
box
The “black box”
What is in the UG black box?
Chomsky says that the contents of UG explains:
a) the nature of syntax
b) language acquisition
The description of the grammar and the explanation of
how it is learnt are unified in this theory
The role of the input
What is the input?
◦ Primary linguistic data
◦ This means all the language the child hears
◦ From the child’s environment
The input is critical
◦ Without input at the right stage of
maturation, the child’s UG cannot develop
into a grammar
◦ Evidence: “feral” children e.g. Genie
◦ Critical Period Hypothesis (Lenneberg)
What is the output?
Chomsky sees language competence in terms of
a formal language
A lexicon
Contains words, idioms, etc.
Lexical items have meanings
A set of abstract, algebraic rules
Including the rules of syntax, phonology, etc.
The rules have no meaning
The lexicon is learned normally (from
experience, trial and error, imitation)
… but the rules are innate
Therefore…
This answers our question!
Q: What does UG contain?
A: UG contains the core, formal rules of
the grammar
This is Chomsky’s explanation for how
the generative creativity of language is
acquired
Chomskyan rules
How do these Chomskyan rules work?
Instructions for generating sentence
structures, e.g.:
◦ S NP VP
◦ NP Det Adj N
Structural slots filled by elements from
the lexicon, e.g.
◦ Det Adj N The tall building
Chomskyan trees
Principles and parameters
The rules that produce these “tree” structures
are innate…
… but these rules differ from language to
language!
Chomsky: the UG does not contain the actual
rules of each language.
Instead, it contains PRINCIPLES and
PARAMETERS
◦ The rules of each language are derived from
the principles and parameters
Universals revisited
“Principles” == linguistic universals
Features found in all languages
So what exactly are these universals?
Are there really that many firm universals?
Probably not
Many linguists take other approaches to
universals
Other “universals”
Chomskyan universals are not to be confused
with…
… Greenbergian universals
◦ Rooted in language typology
◦ Based on surveys of lots of languages
◦ Often involve percentages / probabilities
(i.e. they can have exceptions)
◦ May involve implications (if a language has X
then it also has Y)
Word order: the Greenberg
approach
Chomskyan universals
Absolute (always found in every language)
Based on Chomskyan syntactic analysis
These universals are aspects of the
Chomskyan theory of grammar…
…and do not always make sense outside that
theory!
They are simply a feature of the biological
UG
Substantive & Formal Universals
Substantive universals
◦ Things you get in language
◦ e.g. nouns, verbs
This distinction can arise even without input!
Formal universals
◦ How those things work together in sentences
◦ Constraints on the forms of syntactic rules
◦ Structure-dependency principle
Structure Dependency: a reminder
Grammatical rules operate on categories
Many languages have rules that move around specific
parts of the sentence structure
No language has any rule that ignores the structure (e.g.
simply inverts the order of the words)
For example:
I can understand Chomsky’s theory.
can I understand Chomsky’s theory?
* theory Chomsky’s understand can I?
Other principles
The XP principles
◦ Govern the internal structure of phrases
◦ e.g. Every XP contains an X
◦ Every NP contains an N… every VP contains
a V… etc.
Many other formal principles are very abstract;
examples:
• Principle of Proper Government
• Empty Category Principle
• Case Assignment Principle
Parameters
Parameters explain variation across languages
A parameter is like a “switch”
It is a setting which can take one of a small
number of values
◦ Yes/No, On/Off, +/-
The setting of the parameter determines one
or more aspects of the grammar
The parameters are set during language
acquisition
The Pro-drop Parameter
Controls whether subject pronouns can be
dropped in the language
◦ I understand Chomsky’s theory
◦ * understand Chomsky’s theory WRONG
◦ je comprends la théorie de Chomsky
◦ * comprends la théorie de Chomsky
WRONG
◦ comprendo la teoría de Chomsky OK
Spanish: [+ Pro-drop]
English and French: [- Pro-drop]
Heads and complements
The Head of a phrase is the “compulsory
word” of the phrase
◦ A verb is the head of a verb phrase
◦ A noun is the head of a noun phrase
The Complement of a phrase is an “optional”
other element in the phrase
◦ A verb’s complement is its object
ride a horse, explain the problem
◦ A preposition’s complement is its noun
phrase
Some examples -
Languages like English:
◦ Verb before Object
◦ Preposition before NP
◦ Question-words at start of sentence
Languages like Japanese:
◦ Verb after Object
◦ Preposition after NP (= postposition)
◦ Question-words at end of sentence
The Head Parameter
In English, the head consistently comes
before the complement…
In Japanese, the head consistently comes
after the complement…
… in many different kinds of syntactic
phrases!
This same pattern is found in other
languages
The Head Parameter
The orders of verb & object,
pre/postposition & NP, and question word
& sentence are all controlled by the Head
Parameter
This has two settings:
◦ Head-First (e.g. English)
◦ Head-Last (e.g. Japanese)
Setting Parameters
The child must set the parameter for their
language, based on evidence in the input
Remember, the input is vital!
When the Head Parameter matures, the child sets
it to:
◦ Head First if their input contains things like
verb-object
◦ Head Last if their input contains things like
object-verb
The power of parameters
A single parameter can affect many areas of the
grammar
Oneexample of verb-object or object-verb is
enough to set the Head Parameter…
Eat your spinach! (Head First)
Your spinach eat! (Head Last)
… which is all the child needs to correctly
order verbs, pre/postpositions and question
words (and other constructions too)
The problems with parameters
Some languages don’t fit into neat categories
e.g. German : partly Head First and partly Head
Last ???
It is hard to find good examples of parameter
setting in child data
Not much evidence for a sudden effect on
children’s speech from a parameter being set
e.g. young English-speaking children frequently
drop subjects (in a [- Pro-drop] language!) …
… and this falls off gradually not suddenly
What ARE these parameters anyway?
Opposition to the UG theory
General trend away from “instinctive”
learning and towards “social” learning
Autonomy of language not accepted by
many linguists and psychologists
Many linguists disagree with Chomsky’s
analysis of grammar
◦ Functional grammar
◦ Usage-based models of language
Ignoring the data?
“An I-language approach [i.e. a Chomskyan
approach …] sees language acquisition as a
logical problem that can be solved in
principle without looking at the
development of actual children in detail.”
◦ Cook and Newson (1996: 78)
Is this valid?
Conclusion
Chomsky’s theory has advantages…
◦ A simple explanation for complex acquisition
◦ It explains common features of language
… but there are also problems
◦ Some data is difficult to interpret from
Chomsky’s position
◦ Some data supports this position and other
positions simultaneously.
Summary
Chomsky’s theory of language separates lexicon and
grammar
Grammar (UG) is innate and matures
It functions as an independent “black box”
UG contains principles and parameters
Principles: universal basic features of grammar
e.g. nouns, verbs, structure-dependency
Parameters: grammar “switches” with a small
number of options
e.g. Pro-Drop, Head direction
Input is needed at the critical period, to learn the
lexicon and to set the parameters
