Chomsky Day 2 Notes Patty & Max

Language organ as natural/biological

"The faculty of language can reasonably be regarded as a language organ in the sense in which
scientists speak of the visual system, or immune system, or circulatory system, as organs of the body... It
is a subsystem of a more complex structure. We hope to understand the full complexity by investigating
parts that have distinctive characteristics, and their interactions..." (Chomsky 2)
...the theory of the initial state of the faculty of language is called universal grammar (Chomsky 3)
Evidently, each language is the result of the interplay of two factors: the initial state and the course of
experience. We can think of the initial state as a 'language acquisition device' that takes experience as
'input' and gives the language as an 'output'..."

Language development is something that happens to the child, not something the child chooses
o Language capability is a genetic endowment, just like any other organ.
Children are born in the initial state, which is the precondition for their language learning.
o This initial state involves a language acquisition device inputs experience, outputs
language.
o Universal grammar is that structure which defines the initial state of the faculty of
language AS WELL AS the theory of that structure.

Is Chomsky a naturalist or a conventionalist?

Argument for naturalism: universal grammar is a naturalist concept all humans are naturally
endowed with universal grammar.
Naturalism/conventionalism, for other thinkers, seem to describe how we ascribe meanings to
words but Chomsky deals w/ language acquisition so is he still a naturalist?
o But, Modistae and von Humboldt both have a sort of naturalism as the basis for their
theories of language-acquisition
For the Modistae, linguistic reality necessarily refers to natural reality
von Humboldt talks about how nations naturally burst into song.
o So in this more general sense, Chomsky is a naturalist he posits language as a natural,
genetic organ of human beings.
Argument for conventionalism: Chomsky, with regards to the specific word used for a specific
thing, believes this is conventionally-determined the specific E-language people use is clearly
a product of social conventionality.
But, foundationally, hes a naturalist defends the claim that linguistics should be a subset of
biology and the only reason we can have conventional variations in language is because we
have I-language, or a universal grammar.
Chomsky downplays the variations between language claims that variation is on the
periphery or on the fringes. Differences between various existing languages are differences
of phenomena, not of essence.

How did Chomskys position change?

Foundational Premise I in 1957. Initially defines language as a set of grammatical sentences, then there
should be a formal and systematic way of describing that language a generative grammar.

~~Argumentative Shift in Chomskys Argumentation~~

Argument for Universal Grammar.

Foundational Premise I in 1964. A generative grammar of a language is a model of the knowledge any
speaker/hearer has of that language, conceived of as their intellectual organization has
psychological reality.
II. So, a child learning a given language must be developing a generative grammar
III. But, a child could not possibly ever acquire such a grammar merely from experience (poverty of
stimulus argument)
IV. Therefore, children must be born with advance knowledge which guides them in constructing an
accurate grammar
V. And, this advance knowledge is not language-specific, because a child will learn any language they are
brought up in.
VI. So, the innate grammatical knowledge each human possesses must contain the core features of
every possible human language,
VII. Thus, universal grammar (UG) = essential properties of every human language.
VIII. Thus, everything that is not UG is not essential and hence is peripheral to human language.

So, what is a language?

I-Language

The state that ones language organ is in, L, is their language.

This is what Chomsky means when he talks about a language.
o Also refers to this as I-language
o Or idiolect individual dialect.
o Or the steady-state.
o In this regard, none of us share the same I-language all of our language organs are in
different states!
o I-language is individual, private, and purely mental/psychological and purely
biological/physical I-language literally exists in the firing of neurons/neural
networks/etc.
So understood, Chomsky says a language is something like the way we speak and understand.
o But it seems the state of a language organ is quite different from the way we speak and
understand.
o The former seems to refer to a biological fact about our natural composition the latter
refers to an actual practice but this is probably just Chomsky simplifying his discourse.
Perhaps what he really means by the latter statement is that I-language is just
whatever lets us speak and understand language.
In 1957, Chomsky refers to a language as a set of sentences.
In 1964, Chomsky refers to a language as a state of a language organ.

E-Language

E-language is a body of knowledge/behavioral habits shared by a community.

o In this sense, the notion of a language is not a coherent concept it is a cultural
fiction. The commonsense notion of, say, English, or Japanese, or Mohawk, as
something shared by a community is simply a cultural construct. E-language does not
properly exist. What really exists is the language organ. E-languages are conventional
fictions.
Q: What about translating from language to language? Are all languages perfectly translatable?

Chomsky doesnt really talk about the meaning of languages hes just talking about the
syntactic structures of languages so its unclear what happens to meaning in
translation with Chomskys theory.
Q: So, are all possibilities of all languages contained in universal grammar?
o Yes to be a language, it must necessarily be something which develops from universal
grammar.

Principles & Parameters

How does Chomskys Principles and Parameters approach explain his claim that all languages are "cast
to the same mold....with differences only at the margins"? What is the difference between core
grammar, peripheral grammar, and I-language?

Switchbox conception of language

We are given initial switches in our language switchbox through universal grammar
Each possible human language is a particular setting of these switches
Less metaphorically, universal grammar gives us the baseline principles necessary for language
development principles are systemic features common to all languages, further modified by
the contingent setting of parameters which determine your particular language. Parameters
are systemic options conceived as switches to be set with the values of a particular grammar.
So, each possible/learnable human language is a particular set of the parameters, derived from
the principles of universal grammar.
When we acquire a language, we are made to pick a particular setting of parameters over all
other possible settings of parameters, and that is our language.
A particular setting of parameters is called a core grammar.
o For example, head-initial vs. head-final does a phrase-modifier come after or before
that which it modifies? Different core grammars have different ways in which phrasemodifiers are positioned with regards to the phrases which they modify.
o There are no exceptions to rules in the core grammar.
o But what about irregularities to the regular setting of the English switch as head-initial?
Like the jelly-doughnut-eating policeman stole my hat. What about irregularities in
general?
o Irregularities are just conventional variations nothing to do with setting of
parameters.
o When you account for these conventional irregularities, you get a peripheral grammar.
o When you add conventional vocabulary, you get I-language.
o So, core grammar + peripheral grammar + vocabulary = I-language.
What about old English vs. contemporary English?
o Same principles, different setting of parameters.
o But, really, English and Old English are cultural fictions what we should really be
concerned about are whether or not the setting of the parameters is different language
to-language.
What about bilingualism?
o Chomsky doesnt really talk about it. Maybe they switch between different settings of
parameters? Maybe their steady states are complex one in two different positions at
the same time? Maybe there are two different steady states? Open question for
generative grammarians.
How does I-language emerge just from the experience of E-language?

Problem for linguistic theory how is it that people with totally different language
experiences during their upbringing communicate with each other? Well it must be
that we only need the tiniest of cues from our language experience to come up with
similar I-languages hence, universal grammar!
Are principles & parameters permanent and unchangeable?
o Yes theyre species-specific. To the extent that we are the same species, we have the
same principles and the same set of parameters to choose from.
When parameters are set, are they set for life?
o Chomsky never talks about second language acquisition, or bilingualism unclear.

What does Chomsky call "the central problem of the modern study of language"? How
does it relate to his claim that we have to adopt the point of view of a Martian in studying human
languages? What would be a non-Martian point of view?
How can we show that all languages are variations on a single theme, while at the same time recording
faithfully their intricate properties of sound and meaning, superficially diverse? (Chomsky 5)
So, a theory of language must deal with the universal features of all languages.
But, languages have intricate (though superficial) diversity.
The central problem of the modern study of language is thus determining that universal features
of all languages universal grammar while keeping in mind (and presumably not being bogged
down by) superficial language diversity.
Really, Chomsky claims, there is only one language human language.
And, we should pretend we arent humans when were studying language otherwise, we get
bogged down in tiny, insignificant differences, like we do in our everyday life in unscientific
discourse.
Rather, we should pretend we are Martians take a macroscopic, scientific, biological
perspective.
A genuine theory of human language has to satisfy two conditions: descriptive adequacy and
explanatory adequacy.
The condition of descriptive adequacy holds for a grammar of a particular language. The
grammar satisfies the conditions insofar as it gives a full and accurate account of the properties
of the language, of what the speaker of the language knows.
The conditions of explanatory adequacy hold for the general theory of language, universal
grammar. To satisfy the condition, universal grammar must show that each particular language
is a specific instantiation of the uniform initial state, derived from it under the 'boundary
conditions' set by experience." (Chomsky 5)