Linguistics I
2nd semester 2020
PROFESSOR: Ph.D. Liliana Anglada
linguisticsone@gmail.com
Universal Grammar (UG)
Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms
By Richard Nordquist
Updated July 12, 2018
Universal grammar is the theoretical or hypothetical system of categories,
operations, and principles shared by all human languages and considered to be
innate. Since the 1980s, the term has often been capitalized. The term is also
known as Universal Grammar Theory.
Linguist Noam Chomsky explained, "'[U]niversal grammar' is taken to be the set of
properties, conditions, or whatever that constitute the 'initial state' of the language
learner, hence the basis on which knowledge of a language develops." ("Rules and
Representations." Columbia University Press, 1980)
The concept is connected to the ability of children to be able to learn their native
language. "Generative grammarians believe that the human species evolved a
genetically universal grammar common to all peoples and that the variability in
1
modern languages is basically on the surface only," wrote Michael Tomasello.
("Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition."
Harvard University Press, 2003)
And Stephen Pinker elaborates thusly:
"In cracking the code of language...children's minds must be constrained
to pick out just the right kinds of generalizations from the speech around
them....It is this line of reasoning that led Noam Chomsky to propose
that language acquisition in children is the key to understanding the
nature of language, and that children must be equipped with an innate
Universal Grammar: a set of plans for the grammatical machinery that
powers all human languages. This idea sounds more controversial than it
is (or at least more controversial than it should be) because the logic of
induction mandates that children make some assumptions about how
language works in order for them to succeed at learning a language at
all. The only real controversy is what these assumptions consist of: a
blueprint for a specific kind of rule system, a set of abstract principles, or
a mechanism for finding simple patterns (which might also be used in
learning things other than language)." ("The Stuff of Thought." Viking,
2007)
"Universal grammar is not to be confused with universal language," noted Elena
Lombardi, "or with the deep structure of language, or even with grammar itself"
("The Syntax of Desire," 2007). As Chomsky has observed, "[U]niversal grammar is
not a grammar, but rather a theory of grammars, a kind of metatheory or
schematism for grammar" ("Language and Responsibility," 1979).
2
History and Background
The concept of a universal grammar (UG) has been traced to the observation of
Roger Bacon, a 13th-century Franciscan friar, and philosopher, that all languages
are built upon a common grammar. The expression was popularized in the 1950s
and 1960s by Chomsky and other linguists.
Components that are considered to be universal include the notion that words can
be classified into different groups, such as being nouns or verbs and that sentences
follow a particular structure. Sentence structures may be different between
languages, but each language has some kind of framework so that speakers can
understand each other vs. speaking gibberish. Grammar rules, borrowed words, or
idioms of a particular language by definition are not universal grammar.
Challenges and Criticisms
Of course, any theory in an academic setting will have challenges, comments, and
criticisms by others in the field; such as it is with peer review and the academic
world, where people build on the body of knowledge through writing academic
papers and publishing their opinions.
Swarthmore College linguist K. David Harrison noted in The Economist, "I and many
fellow linguists would estimate that we only have a detailed scientific description of
something like 10% to 15% of the world's languages, and for 85% we have no real
documentation at all. Thus it seems premature to begin constructing grand
theories of universal grammar. If we want to understand universals, we must first
know the particulars." ("Seven Questions for K. David Harrison." Nov. 23, 2010)
3
And Jeff Mielke finds some aspects of universal grammar theory to be illogical:
"[T]he phonetic motivation for Universal Grammar is extremely weak. Perhaps the
most compelling case that can be made is that phonetics, like semantics, is part of
the grammar and that there is an implicit assumption that if the syntax is rooted in
Universal Grammar, the rest should be too. Most of the evidence for UG is not
related to phonology, and phonology has more of a guilt-by-association status with
respect to innateness." ("The Emergence of Distinctive Features." Oxford University
Press, 2008)
Iain McGilchrist disagrees with Pinkner and took the side of children learning a
language just through imitation, which is a behaviorist approach, as opposed to the
Chomsky theory of the poverty of the stimulus:
"[I]t is uncontroversial that the existence of a universal grammar such as
Chomsky conceived it is highly debatable. It remains remarkably
speculative 50 years after he posited it, and is disputed by many
important names in the field of linguistics. And some of the facts are
hard to square with it. Languages across the world, it turns out, use a
very wide variety of syntax to structure sentences. But more importantly,
the theory of universal grammar is not convincingly compatible with the
process revealed by developmental psychology, whereby children
actually acquire language in the real world. Children certainly evince a
remarkable ability to grasp spontaneously the conceptual and
psycholinguistic shapes of speech, but they do so in a far more holistic,
than analytic, way. They are astonishingly good imitators—note, not
copying machines, but imitators." ("The Master and His Emissary: The
4
Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World." Yale University
Press, 2009)
5