Universal grammar

Universal grammar (UG), in modern linguistics, is the theory of

the genetic component of the language faculty, usually credited to
Noam Chomsky. The basic postulate of UG is that a certain set of
structural rules are innate to humans, independent of sensory
experience. With more linguistic stimuli received in the course of
psychological development, children then adopt specific syntactic
rules that conform to UG.[1] It is sometimes known as "mental
grammar", and stands contrasted with other "grammars", e.g.
prescriptive, descriptive and pedagogical.[2][3] The advocates of
this theory emphasize and partially rely on the poverty of the
stimulus (POS) argument and the existence of some universal
properties of natural human languages. However, the latter has not
been firmly established, as some linguists have argued languages Noam Chomsky is usually
are so diverse that such universality is rare.[4] It is a matter of associated with the term universal
empirical investigation to determine precisely what properties are grammar in the 20th and 21st
universal and what linguistic capacities are innate. centuries

Contents
Argument
Relation to the evolution of language
History
Chomsky's theory
Presence of creole languages
Criticisms
See also
Notes
References

Argument
The theory of universal grammar proposes that if human beings are brought up under normal conditions
(not those of extreme sensory deprivation), then they will always develop language with certain properties
(e.g., distinguishing nouns from verbs, or distinguishing function words from content words). The theory
proposes that there is an innate, genetically determined language faculty that knows these rules, making it
easier and faster for children to learn to speak than it otherwise would be.[5] This faculty does not know the
vocabulary of any particular language (so words and their meanings must be learned), and there remain
several parameters which can vary freely among languages (such as whether adjectives come before or
after nouns) which must also be learned. Evidence in favor of this idea can be found in studies like Valian
(1986), which show that children of surprisingly young ages understand syntactic categories and their
distribution before this knowledge shows up in production.[6]

As Chomsky puts it, "Evidently, development of language in the individual must involve three factors:
genetic endowment, which sets limits on the attainable languages, thereby making language acquisition
possible; external data, converted to the experience that selects one or another language within a narrow
range; [and] principles not specific to the Faculty of Language."[7]

Occasionally, aspects of universal grammar seem describable in terms of general details regarding
cognition. For example, if a predisposition to categorize events and objects as different classes of things is
part of human cognition, and directly results in nouns and verbs showing up in all languages, it could be
assumed that rather than this aspect of universal grammar being specific to language, it is more generally a
part of human cognition. To distinguish properties of languages that can be traced to other facts regarding
cognition from properties of languages that cannot, the abbreviation UG* can be used. UG is the term often
used by Chomsky for those aspects of the human brain which cause language to be the way that it is (i.e.
are universal grammar in the sense used here), but here for the purposes of discussion, it is used for those
aspects which are furthermore specific to language (thus UG, as Chomsky uses it, is just an abbreviation for
universal grammar, but UG* as used here is a subset of universal grammar).

In the same article, Chomsky casts the theme of a larger research program in terms of the following
question: "How little can be attributed to UG while still accounting for the variety of 'I-languages' attained,
relying on third factor principles?"[7] (I-languages meaning internal languages, the brain states that
correspond to knowing how to speak and understand a particular language, and third factor principles
meaning "principles not specific to the Faculty of Language" in the previous quote). Chomsky has
speculated that UG might be extremely simple and abstract, for example only a mechanism for combining
symbols in a particular way, which he calls "merge". The following quote shows that Chomsky does not
use the term "UG" in the narrow sense UG* suggested above:

"The conclusion that merge falls within UG holds whether such recursive generation is unique to FL
(faculty of language) or is appropriated from other systems."[7]

In other words, merge is seen as part of UG because it causes language to be the way it is, universal, and is
not part of the environment or general properties independent of genetics and environment. Merge is part of
universal grammar whether it is specific to language, or whether, as Chomsky suggests, it is also used for
example in mathematical thinking. The distinction is the result of the long history of argument about UG*:
whereas some people working on language agree that there is universal grammar, many people assume that
Chomsky means UG* when he writes UG (and in some cases he might actually mean UG* [though not in
the passage quoted above]).

Some students of universal grammar study a variety of grammars to extract generalizations called linguistic
universals, often in the form of "If X holds true, then Y occurs." These have been extended to a variety of
traits, such as the phonemes found in languages, the word orders which different languages choose, and the
reasons why children exhibit certain linguistic behaviors. Other linguists who have influenced this theory
include Richard Montague, who developed his version of this theory as he considered issues of the
argument from poverty of the stimulus to arise from the constructivist approach to linguistic theory. The
application of the idea of universal grammar to the study of second language acquisition (SLA) is
represented mainly in the work of McGill linguist Lydia White.

Syntacticians generally hold that there are parametric points of variation between languages, although
heated debate occurs over whether UG constraints are essentially universal due to being "hard-wired"
(Chomsky's principles and parameters approach), a logical consequence of a specific syntactic architecture
(the generalized phrase structure approach) or the result of functional constraints on communication (the
functionalist approach).[8]

Relation to the evolution of language

In an article entitled "The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?"[9]
Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch present the three leading hypotheses for how language evolved and brought
humans to the point where they have a universal grammar.

The first hypothesis states that the faculty of language in the broad sense (FLb) is strictly homologous to
animal communication. This means that homologous aspects of the faculty of language exist in non-human
animals.

The second hypothesis states that the FLb is a derived and uniquely human adaptation for language. This
hypothesis holds that individual traits were subject to natural selection and came to be specialized for
humans.

The third hypothesis states that only the faculty of language in the narrow sense (FLn) is unique to humans.
It holds that while mechanisms of the FLb are present in both human and non-human animals, the
computational mechanism of recursion is recently evolved solely in humans.[9] This is the hypothesis which
most closely aligns to the typical theory of universal grammar championed by Chomsky.

History
The term "universal grammar" predates Noam Chomsky, but pre-Chomskyan ideas of universal grammar
are different. For Chomsky, UG is "[the] theory of the genetically based language faculty",[10] which
makes UG a theory of language acquisition, and part of the innateness hypothesis. Earlier grammarians and
philosophers thought about universal grammar in the sense of a universally shared property or grammar of
all languages. The closest analog to their understanding of universal grammar in the late 20th century are
Greenberg's linguistic universals.

The idea of a universal grammar can be traced back to Roger Bacon's observations in his c. 1245 Overview
of Grammar and c. 1268 Greek Grammar that all languages are built upon a common grammar, even
though it may undergo incidental variations; and the 13th century speculative grammarians who, following
Bacon, postulated universal rules underlying all grammars. The concept of a universal grammar or
language was at the core of the 17th century projects for philosophical languages. An influential work in
that time was Grammaire générale by Claude Lancelot and Antoine Arnauld. They tried to describe a
general grammar for languages, coming to the conclusion that grammar has to be universal.[11] There is a
Scottish school of universal grammarians from the 18th century, as distinguished from the philosophical
language project, which included authors such as James Beattie, Hugh Blair, James Burnett, James Harris,
and Adam Smith. The article on grammar in the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1771)
contains an extensive section titled "Of Universal Grammar".

This tradition was continued in the late 19th century by Wilhelm Wundt and in the early 20th century by
linguist Otto Jespersen. Jespersen disagreed with early grammarians on their formulation of "universal
grammar", arguing that they tried to derive too much from Latin, and that a UG based on Latin was bound
to fail considering the breadth of worldwide linguistic variation.[12] He does not fully dispense with the
idea of a "universal grammar", but reduces it to universal syntactic categories or super-categories, such as
number, tenses, etc. [13] Jespersen does not discuss whether these properties come from facts about general
human cognition or from a language specific endowment (which would be closer to the Chomskyan
formulation). As this work predates molecular genetics, he does not discuss the notion of a genetically
conditioned universal grammar.

During the rise of behaviorism, the idea of a universal grammar (in either sense) was discarded. In the early
20th century, language was usually understood from a behaviourist perspective, suggesting that language
acquisition, like any other kind of learning, could be explained by a succession of trials, errors, and rewards
for success.[14] In other words, children learned their mother tongue by simple imitation, through listening
and repeating what adults said. For example, when a child says "milk" and the mother will smile and give
her child milk as a result, the child will find this outcome rewarding, thus enhancing the child's language
development.[15] UG reemerged to prominence and influence in modern linguistics with the theories of
Chomsky and Montague in the 1950s–1970s, as part of the "linguistics wars".

In 2016 Chomsky and Berwick co-wrote their book titled Why Only Us, where they defined both the
minimalist program and the strong minimalist thesis and its implications to update their approach to UG
theory. According to Berwick and Chomsky, the strong minimalist thesis states that "The optimal situation
would be that UG reduces to the simplest computational principles which operate in accord with conditions
of computational efficiency. This conjecture is ... called the Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT)."[16] The
significance of SMT is to significantly shift the previous emphasis on universal grammars to the concept
which Chomsky and Berwick now call "merge". "Merge" is defined in their 2016 book when they state
"Every computational system has embedded within it somewhere an operation that applies to two objects X
and Y already formed, and constructs from them a new object Z. Call this operation Merge." SMT dictates
that "Merge will be as simple as possible: it will not modify X or Y or impose any arrangement on them; in
particular, it will leave them unordered, an important fact... Merge is therefore just set formation: Merge of
X and Y yields the set {X, Y}."[17]

Chomsky's theory
Chomsky argued that the human brain contains a limited set of constraints for organizing language. This
implies in turn that all languages have a common structural basis: the set of rules known as "universal
grammar".

Speakers proficient in a language know which expressions are acceptable in their language and which are
unacceptable. The key puzzle is how speakers come to know these restrictions of their language, since
expressions that violate those restrictions are not present in the input, indicated as such. Chomsky argued
that this poverty of stimulus means that Skinner's behaviourist perspective cannot explain language
acquisition. The absence of negative evidence—evidence that an expression is part of a class of
ungrammatical sentences in a given language—is the core of his argument.[18] For example, in English, an
interrogative pronoun like what cannot be related to a predicate within a relative clause:

*"What did John meet a man who sold?"

Such expressions are not available to language learners: they are, by hypothesis, ungrammatical. Speakers
of the local language do not use them, and would note them as unacceptable to language learners.
Universal grammar offers an explanation for the presence of the poverty of the stimulus, by making certain
restrictions into universal characteristics of human languages. Language learners are consequently never
tempted to generalize in an illicit fashion.

Presence of creole languages

The presence of creole languages is sometimes cited as further support for this theory, especially by
Bickerton's controversial language bioprogram theory. Creoles are languages that develop and form when
disparate societies come together and are forced to devise a new system of communication. The system
used by the original speakers is typically an inconsistent mix of vocabulary items, known as a pidgin. As
these speakers' children begin to acquire their first language, they use the pidgin input to effectively create
their own original language, known as a creole. Unlike pidgins, creoles have native speakers (those with
acquisition from early childhood) and make use of a full, systematic grammar.

According to Bickerton, the idea of universal grammar is supported by creole languages because certain
features are shared by virtually all in the category. For example, their default point of reference in time
(expressed by bare verb stems) is not the present moment, but the past. Using pre-verbal auxiliaries, they
uniformly express tense, aspect, and mood. Negative concord occurs, but it affects the verbal subject (as
opposed to the object, as it does in languages like Spanish). Another similarity among creoles can be seen
in the fact that questions are created simply by changing the intonation of a declarative sentence, not its
word order or content.

However, extensive work by Carla Hudson-Kam and Elissa Newport suggests that creole languages may
not support a universal grammar at all. In a series of experiments, Hudson-Kam and Newport looked at
how children and adults learn artificial grammars. They found that children tend to ignore minor variations
in the input when those variations are infrequent, and reproduce only the most frequent forms. In doing so,
they tend to standardize the language that they hear around them. Hudson-Kam and Newport hypothesize
that in a pidgin-development situation (and in the real-life situation of a deaf child whose parents are or
were disfluent signers), children systematize the language they hear, based on the probability and frequency
of forms, and not that which has been suggested on the basis of a universal grammar.[19][20] Further, it
seems to follow that creoles would share features with the languages from which they are derived, and thus
look similar in terms of grammar.

Many researchers of universal grammar argue against a concept of relexification, which says that a
language replaces its lexicon almost entirely with that of another. This goes against universalist ideas of a
universal grammar, which has an innate grammar.

Criticisms
Geoffrey Sampson maintains that universal grammar theories are not falsifiable and are therefore
pseudoscientific. He argues that the grammatical "rules" linguists posit are simply post-hoc observations
about existing languages, rather than predictions about what is possible in a language.[21][22] Similarly,
Jeffrey Elman argues that the unlearnability of languages assumed by universal grammar is based on a too-
strict, "worst-case" model of grammar, that is not in keeping with any actual grammar. In keeping with
these points, James Hurford argues that the postulate of a language acquisition device (LAD) essentially
amounts to the trivial claim that languages are learnt by humans, and thus, that the LAD is less a theory
than an explanandum looking for theories.[23]

Morten H. Christiansen and Nick Chater have argued that the relatively fast-changing nature of language
would prevent the slower-changing genetic structures from ever catching up, undermining the possibility of
a genetically hard-wired universal grammar. Instead of an innate universal grammar, they claim, "apparently
arbitrary aspects of linguistic structure may result from general learning and processing biases deriving from
the structure of thought processes, perceptuo-motor factors, cognitive limitations, and pragmatics".[24]

Wolfram Hinzen summarizes the most common criticisms of universal grammar:

Universal grammar has no coherent formulation and is indeed unnecessary.

 Universal grammar is in conflict with biology: it cannot have evolved by standardly accepted
neo-Darwinian evolutionary principles.
There are no linguistic universals: universal grammar is refuted by abundant variation at all
levels of linguistic organization, which lies at the heart of human faculty of language.[25]

In addition, it has been suggested that people learn about probabilistic patterns of word distributions in their
language, rather than hard and fast rules (see Distributional hypothesis).[26] For example, children
overgeneralize the past tense marker "ed" and conjugate irregular verbs as if they were regular, producing
forms like goed and eated and correct these deviancies over time.[27] It has also been proposed that the
poverty of the stimulus problem can be largely avoided, if it is assumed that children employ similarity-
based generalization strategies in language learning, generalizing about the usage of new words from
similar words that they already know how to use.[28]

Language acquisition researcher Michael Ramscar has suggested that when children erroneously expect an
ungrammatical form that then never occurs, the repeated failure of expectation serves as a form of implicit
negative feedback that allows them to correct their errors over time such as how children correct grammar
generalizations like goed to went through repetitive failure.[27][29] This implies that word learning is a
probabilistic, error-driven process, rather than a process of fast mapping, as many nativists assume.

In the domain of field research, the Pirahã language is claimed to be a counterexample to the basic tenets of
universal grammar. This research has been led by Daniel Everett. Among other things, this language is
alleged to lack all evidence for recursion, including embedded clauses, as well as quantifiers and colour
terms.[30] According to the writings of Everett, the Pirahã showed these linguistic shortcomings not
because they were simple-minded, but because their culture—which emphasized concrete matters in the
present and also lacked creation myths and traditions of art making—did not necessitate it.[31]

Some other linguists have argued, however, that some of these properties have been misanalyzed, and that
others are actually expected under current theories of universal grammar.[32] Chomsky himself has called
Everett a charlatan, and other experts have even accused him of purposely ignoring instances of
recursion.[33] Other linguists have attempted to reassess Pirahã to see if it did indeed use recursion. In a
corpus analysis of the Pirahã language, linguists failed to disprove Everett's arguments against universal
grammar and the lack of recursion in Pirahã. However, they also stated that there was "no strong evidence
for the lack of recursion either" and they provided "suggestive evidence that Pirahã may have sentences
with recursive structures".[34]

Daniel Everett has argued that even if a universal grammar is not impossible in principle, it should not be
accepted because we have equally or more plausible theories that are simpler. In his words, "universal
grammar doesn't seem to work, there doesn't seem to be much evidence for [it]. And what can we put in its
place? A complex interplay of factors, of which culture, the values human beings share, plays a major role
in structuring the way that we talk and the things that we talk about."[35] Michael Tomasello, a
developmental psychologist, also supports this claim, arguing that "although many aspects of human
linguistic competence have indeed evolved biologically, specific grammatical principles and constructions
have not. And universals in the grammatical structure of different languages have come from more general
processes and constraints of human cognition, communication, and vocal-auditory processing, operating
during the conventionalization and transmission of the particular grammatical constructions of particular
linguistic communities."[36]

See also
Applicative universal grammar
Broca's area
 Native language
Optimality theory
Origin of language
Psychological nativism
Universal language
Universal Networking Language

Notes
1. Noam Chomsky. "Tool Module: Chomsky's Universal Grammar" (http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flas
h/capsules/outil_rouge06.html). Retrieved 2010-10-07.
2. Thornbury, Scott (2006). An A-Z of ELT. Macmillan Education. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-4050-
7063-8.
3. Szendroi, Kriszta (16 December 2014). "First Words: How do children develop language?"
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04v382j). Word of Mouth. BBC Radio 4. Retrieved
24 December 2014.
4. Evans, Nicholas; Levinson, Stephen C. (26 October 2009). "The myth of language
universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science" (https://www.semant
icscholar.org/paper/The-myth-of-language-universals%3A-language-diversity-Evans-Levins
on/1202032fc27b5da12362d82d48eed5e1c34c166f). Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 32
(5): 429–48. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999094X (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0140525X099
9094X). PMID 19857320 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19857320). S2CID 2675474 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2675474). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2018
0727171702/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1f31/330319b363499ec974b27b7678d96025c
de9.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 27 July 2018.
5. "Tool Module: Chomsky's Universal Grammar" (http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/capsules/outil_
rouge06.html). thebrain.mcgill.ca. Retrieved 2017-08-28.
6. Valian 1986.
7. Chomsky, Noam (2007). "Approaching UG from Below". In Hans-Martin Gärtner; Uli
Sauerland (eds.). Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the View
from Syntax-Semantics. Studies in Generative Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
ISBN 978-3-11-018872-1.
8. Mark C. Baker (2003). "Syntax". In Mark Aronoff; Janie Rees-Miller (eds.). The Handbook of
Linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-0252-0.
9. Hauser, Marc; Chomsky, Noam; Fitch, William Tecumseh (22 November 2002), "The Faculty
of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?" (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0131228122250/http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20021122.pdf) (PDF), Science, 298
(5598): 1569–1579, doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscienc
e.298.5598.1569), PMID 12446899 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12446899), archived
from the original (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20021122.pdf) (PDF) on 28 December
2013, retrieved 28 December 2013
10. Chomsky 2017, p. 3.
11. Lancelot, Claude, 1615?-1695. (1967). Grammaire generale et raisonnee, 1660. Scolar
Press. OCLC 367432981 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/367432981).
12. Jespersen 1965, p. 46-49.
13. Jespersen 1965, p. 53.
14. Noam Chomsky. "Tool Module: Chomsky's Universal Grammar" (http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flas
h/capsules/outil_rouge06.html). Retrieved 2010-10-07.
15. Ambridge & Lieven, 2011.
16. Chomsky and Berwick. Why Only Us?. MIT Press. 2016. Page 94.
17. Chomsky and Berwick. Why Only Us?. MIT Press. 2016. Page 98.
18. Northumbria University, Ewa Dąbrowska. "What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has
anyone seen it?" (https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/static/5007/sasspdf/whatexactlyisUG.pdf)
(PDF). www.northumbria.ac.uk.
19. Hudson Kam, C. L.; Newport, E. L. (2009). "Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners
change languages" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2703698). Cognitive
Psychology. 59 (1): 30–66. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.01.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F
j.cogpsych.2009.01.001). PMC 2703698 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC270
3698). PMID 19324332 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19324332).
20. Melody Dye (February 9, 2010). "The Advantages of Being Helpless" (http://www.scientifica
merican.com/article/advantages-of-helpless/). Scientific American. Retrieved June 10, 2014.
21. Sampson, Geoffrey (2005). The 'Language Instinct' Debate: Revised Edition. Bloomsbury
Academic. ISBN 978-0-8264-7385-1.
22. Cipriani, Enrico (2015). "The generative grammar between philosophy and science".
European Journal of Literature and Linguistics. 4: 12–6.
23. James R. Hurford (1995). "Nativist and Functional Explanations in Language Acquisition" (h
ttp://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~jim/rocapaper.pdf) (PDF). In I. M. Roca (ed.). Logical Issues in
Language Acquisition. Dordrecht, Holland and Providence, Rhode Island: Foris
Publications. p. 88. Retrieved June 10, 2014.
24. Christiansen, Morten H. and Chater, Nick. "Language as Shaped by the Brain". Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 31.5 (2008): 489–509.
25. Hinzen, Wolfram (September 2012). "The philosophical significance of Universal Grammar".
Language Sciences. 34 (5): 635–649. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.005 (https://doi.org/10.1
016%2Fj.langsci.2012.03.005).
26. McDonald, Scott; Ramscar, Michael (2001). "Testing the distributional hypothesis: The
influence of context on judgements of semantic similarity". Proceedings of the 23rd Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society: 611–616. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.104.7535 (https://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.104.7535).
27. Fernández, Eva M.; Helen Smith Cairns (2011). Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics.
Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-9147-0.
28. Yarlett, Daniel G.; Ramscar, Michael J. A. (2008). "Language Learning Through Similarity-
Based Generalization". CiteSeerX 10.1.1.393.7298 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/su
mmary?doi=10.1.1.393.7298).
29. Ramscar, Michael; Yarlett, Daniel (2007). "Linguistic self-correction in the absence of
feedback: A new approach to the logical problem of language acquisition". Cognitive
Science. 31 (6): 927–960. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.501.4207 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
summary?doi=10.1.1.501.4207). doi:10.1080/03640210701703576 (https://doi.org/10.108
0%2F03640210701703576). PMID 21635323 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21635323).
30. Everett, Daniel L. (August–October 2005). "Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition
in Pirahã: Another Look at the Design Features of Human Language" (http://www1.icsi.berke
ley.edu/~kay/Everett.CA.Piraha.pdf) (PDF). Current Anthropology. 46 (4): 621–646.
doi:10.1086/431525 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F431525). hdl:2066/41103 (https://hdl.handl
e.net/2066%2F41103). S2CID 2223235
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2223235).
31. Schuessler, Jennifer (March 22, 2012). "How Do You Say 'Disagreement' in Pirahã?" (http
s://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/books/a-new-book-and-film-about-rare-amazonian-langua
ge.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). The New York Times. p. C1. Retrieved June 10, 2014.
32. Nevins, et al., 2007 Pirahã Exceptionality: a Reassessment [1] (http://stirling.kent.ac.uk/SE5
51/Week10/Nevins%20et%20al%202007%20Piraha%20Exceptionality.pdf). Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20130521063250/http://stirling.kent.ac.uk/SE551/Week10/Nevins%
20et%20al%202007%20Piraha%20Exceptionality.pdf) May 21, 2013, at the Wayback
Machine
33. Folha de S.Paulo 1 February 2009. (http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/ciencia/fe0102200904.
htm)
34. Piantadosi, Steven T.; Stearns, Laura; Everett, Daniel L.; Gibson, Edward (August 2012). "A
corpus analysis of Pirahã grammar: An investigation of recursion" (http://tedlab.mit.edu/tedla
b_website/researchpapers/Piantadosi_et_al_2012_LSAtalk_Piraha.pdf) (PDF).
35. McCrum, Robert (March 24, 2012). "Daniel Everett: 'There is no such thing as universal
grammar" (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/25/daniel-everett-human-lang
uage-piraha). The Observer. Retrieved June 10, 2014.
36. Tomasello, Michael (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
ISBN 978-0-262-51520-7.

References
Ambridge, Ben; Lieven, Elena V. M. (2011-03-17). Child Language Acquisition. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-76804-7.
Baker, Mark C. The Atoms of Language: The Mind's Hidden Rules of Grammar. Oxford
University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-860632-X.
Beattie, James. "Of Universal Grammar". Section II, The Theory of Language (1788). Rpt in
Dissertations Moral and Critical (1783, 1986.)
Blair, Hugh. Lecture 6, 7, and 8, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, (1783). Rpt New
York: Garland, 1970.
Burnett, James. Of the Origin and Progress of Language. Edinburgh, 1774–1792.
Chomsky, Noam (2007), "Approaching UG from Below", Interfaces + Recursion =
Language?, DE GRUYTER, pp. 1–30, doi:10.1515/9783110207552-001 (https://doi.org/10.1
515%2F9783110207552-001), ISBN 9783110207552
Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, 1965. ISBN 0-262-53007-4.
Chomsky, Noam (2017), "The Galilean Challenge: Architecture and Evolution of Language",
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 880 (1): 012015, Bibcode:2017JPhCS.880a2015C
(https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JPhCS.880a2015C), doi:10.1088/1742-
6596/880/1/012015 (https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1742-6596%2F880%2F1%2F012015),
ISSN 1742-6588 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1742-6588)
Elman, J., Bates, E. et al. Rethinking innateness. MIT Press, 1996.
Harris, James. Hermes or A Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Universal Grammar. (1751,
1771.)
Jespersen, Otto (1965) [1924], The Philosophy of Grammar, Norton
Kliesch, C. (2012). Making sense of syntax – Innate or acquired? Contrasting universal
grammar with other approaches to language acquisition. Journal of European Psychology
Students, 3, 88–94,
Lancelot, Claude; Arnauld, Antoine (1968) [1660], Grammaire générale et raisonnée
contenant les fondemens de l'art de parler, expliqués d'une manière claire et naturelle,
Slatkine Reprints
"Of Universal Grammar". In "Grammar". Encyclopædia Britannica, (1771).
Pesetsky, David. "Linguistic Universals and Universal Grammar" (http://web.mit.edu/linguisti
cs/people/faculty/pesetsky/Pesetsky_MITECS_Universals_UG.pdf). In The MIT
 Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Ed. Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1999.
Sampson, G. The "Language Instinct" Debate. Continuum International Publishing Group,
2005. ISBN 0-8264-7384-9.
Smith, Adam. "Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages". In Lectures
on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Ed. J. C. Bryce. Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1983, 203–226.
Smith, Adam. "Of the Origin and Progress of Language". Lecture 3, Lectures on Rhetoric
and Belles Lettres. Ed. J. C. Bryce. Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1983, 9–13.
Tomasello, M. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition.
Harvard University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-674-01030-2.
Valian, Virginia (1986), "Syntactic Categories in the Speech of Young Children",
Developmental Psychology, 22 (4): 562–579, doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.4.562 (https://doi.or
g/10.1037%2F0012-1649.22.4.562)
Window on Humanity. A Concise Introduction to Anthropology. Conrad Phillip Kottak. Ed.
Kevin Witt, Jill Gordon. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 2005.
White, Lydia. "Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar". Cambridge
University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-521-79647-4
Zuidema, Willem. How the poverty of stimulus solves the poverty of stimulus. "Evolution of
Language: Fourth International Conference", Harvard University, March 2002.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_grammar&oldid=1074694160"

This page was last edited on 1 March 2022, at 16:59 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0;

additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.