As with the rest - this file is eternally undergoing
modification. Many of the bigger issues will later (if they do not
already) include links to a more microscopic analysis. But again, we can
only code so fast. For the time being, enjoy.
If we stick to the assumptions elaborated by Ferdinand de Saussure, we can take the study of language
to be the study of the structure of language. We can further
constrain the object of study by suggesting that language is a system
which tranforms sound structures into conceptual
structures(See: The elements of
the sign. Here the sound structure is the mental representation
of a sound and the conceptual structure is the mental
representation of some "real-world" situation. Langauge, then, is the
process by which one representation is transformed into another.) In this
way, language can be taken to be a structure which, in turn, manipulates
structures. In an attempt to express the nature of language "from the
bottom up" we have begun to reach an impasse. Certainly, we cannot fully
characterize a system of structures if we are not entirely aware of the
character of the structures themselves. Conversely, if Saussure is correct in assuming
that to "think of a sign as nothing more [than the combination of a
certain sound and a certain concept] would be to isolate it from the
system to which it belongs"; that "it would be to suppose that a start
could be made with individual signs, and a system constructed by putting
them together"; that "the system as a united whole is the starting point,
from which it becomes possible, by a process of analysis, to identify its
constituent elements" (p112: emendation from context - crw), then we need
to have a knowledge of the system before we can explore the character of
the structures. Does anyone smell an infinite regress? It stands to
reason, then, that there must be a system of analysis which is capable of
manipulating arbitrary relations, and, which is also capable of
determining those relations during the early stages of childhood. A
remarkable achievement, to say the least.
It is from this perspective that we can begin to see the importance of
The Innateness Hypothesis as it is formulated by Noam
Chomsky in the form of his Universal Grammar. This
issue will be discussed later in more detail.
First, a brief contextualization of the evidence to be presented is
necessary.
(1) Many of the operations of the mind involve systems of
representations and also sets of rules for manipulating
those representations. (Rules and Representations)
The assumptions laid down in (1)-(3) are indicative of the approach advocated by
Chomsky which associates an internal organization with the
processes involved in the language faculty. The necessary questions being
begged here are: What is the character of the Language Faculty? and How
does it relate to the process by which a child comes to acquire a (real)
language? Chomsky addresses the first question by employing the notion of
a generative grammar. By attempting to view the
empirical facts of Natural Language in terms of the predictions made by
such a grammar and by attempting to adjust the details of such a grammar
according to these empirical facts, we can begin to see how a finite brain
might be capable of processing/producing a (potentially) infinite set of
different sentences. By adding a transformational aspect to our
grammar we can express many of the regularities of a language. But the
source of these mechanisms is still a mystery and even more
mysterious is the process by which those rules specific to a person's
native language are learned.
In order to handle the problem of language acquisition, Chomsky
introduced the notion of Universal
Grammar(UG). It is helpful to think of UG as a process,
rather than as a thing. Roughly, we can take UG to be the process by which
children learn their native language from environmental conditions.
In this way, UG is not actually a grammar but, rather, a
method by which to build a grammar from the evidence present in a
child's environment. Since any infant from any culture is capable of
learning any language if placed in the appropriate environment, this
method should be common to every (normal) child and, therefore, should be
biological (genetic) in character. In other words, Chomsky argues that Universal Grammar is
innate. A language, by this theory, is acquired through
a process (UG) which is biologically endowed to our species.
These assumptions provide a
stark backdrop against which to view the empirical facts of Natural
Language. They are, however, merely the assumptions of an
approach to the study of linguistic regularity. That is to say,
they act as a set of constraints
for deciding between various explanations of a linguistic phenomenon,
while, simulateneously, attmpting to guide research by differentiating
between those questions which are interesting and those which are
not.
Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg compared to the
treatment given in the literature. I would direct anyone interested in the
generative tradition and universal grammar to read the primary sources.
The text described here is
a good start, but the best analysis seems to be in Aspects of the
Theory of Syntax (1965) and The Minimalist Program (1992?)
(2) The Language Faculty is a system of rules and
representations and one of its operations (its grammar) is the
process by which the acceptable sentences of a language can be generated.
(3) The rules and representations referred to are reflective of a
specific apparatus with specific structural properties.
(3b) These are, in turn, reflective of a specific internal
organization.
-crw