CHOMSKYAN THEORY

Noam Chomsky (b.1928) formulated what is currently the leading model of language, generative grammar. His goal was to create a set of rules to account for the creativity of language: the way in which a potentially infinite number of sentences can be generated from a finite set of words. A Chomskyan grammar offers a symbolic representation of the system which native speaker-hearers internalise in acquiring the language, a system which enables them to formulate or to understand sentences that they may never have said or heard before. The grammar is generative in that its rules serve to specify all possible sentences which are grammatically correct and to exclude from consideration all those which are not. These ‘rules’ are not the prescriptive rules of traditional grammar. They are more like the laws of physics, which account for disparate natural phenomena in terms of general underlying principles.

Chomksyan theory highlights the fact that language is structure dependent, and provides models of standard phrase types. These are taken to represent the underlying form of an utterance, its deep structure. In the first version of the theory, a set of transformational rules showed how the user might reorganise the constituents of a deep structure string to produce a surface structure one. For example, they showed, in stages, how a speaker derived a passive sentence from an underlying active form.

Current theory has replaced the cumbersome transformational rules with movement rules. These show diagrammatically how the deep structure (now d-structure) constituents are moved to new slots to provide a derived s-structure pattern. See Figure C1, which illustrates how a wh- question is derived from the d-structure string Sara is reading what.

 An important feature of this revised theory, sometimes referred to as government and binding, is that when a constituent is moved it leaves behind a trace (t). This enables the listener to retrieve the original deep structure from the sentence that is heard. Studies in psycholinguistics have attempted to verify the existence and effect of such traces.

Chomskyan theory has recently taken a new direction, known as minimalism, which emphasises the importance of simplicity in formulating syntactic rules. One development is that much of what is traditionally represented as syntax can be explained by reference to the constraints which are imposed by lexis. Thus, if one decides to construct a sentence around the verb GIVE, the choice of verb determines the possible structure VP þ NP þ NP (Elizabeth gave Philip a book). This information is stored as part of the lexical entry for GIVE in the user’s lexicon.

Chomskyan theory provided a boost for cognitive psychology. It moved the discussion on from the simplified accounts provided by behaviourism; and redirected attention to the mental processes involved in the production and understanding of language, processes which behaviourism regarded as inaccessible or non-existent. Chomsky made an important distinction between competence, the set of principles which enable a native speaker to generate an infinite set of grammatically acceptable sentences and performance, the spoken/ written language to which the system gives rise. This differs somewhat from de Saussure’s distinction between langue and parole. Where de Saussure defines ‘langue’ in relation to the speech community which shares the language in question, Chomsky relates competence to the individual user of the language.

 Chomsky argues that linguistic theory needs to be based upon competence, not performance. The goal of the linguist should be to specify the means by which the native speaker-hearer constructs grammatically correct sentences rather than to analyse what he/she actually says. Generative grammar thus assumes an ideal speaker-hearer, one from whose speech idiolectal, dialectal and hesitational features have been removed. It is here that linguistic approaches and psychological ones diverge, since the data upon which a psychologist traditionally works is provided by examples of human behaviour in performance.

 In psycholinguistics, those who work within the Chomskyan tradition follow a theory-driven approach which seeks evidence of the psychological reality of Chomsky’s constructs. However, they face a problem in attempting to tap into competence rather than relying on performance data. A solution adopted by many researchers is to ask subjects to make grammaticality judgements. They might, for example, be asked to decide if a sentence such as Who did you introduce the man you got the present from to? is grammatically acceptable.

A second complication is that Chomsky’s grammar is specifically a model of language. Chomsky has much to say on the human mind; but he does not claim that phrase structure and movement rules represent the actual process taking place within the mind of the user as he/she constructs a sentence. Hence there is discussion as to whether these generative rules are psychologically real. Early research in syntactic parsing attempted to demonstrate that the complexity of a transformational rule did, indeed, influence the listener’s ability to process a sentence. The hypothesis was not supported.

Chomskyan thought has had a strong impact on psycholinguistics in the area of language acquisition. Chomsky argues strongly for a nativist view. His main point relates to the ‘poverty of stimulus’ afforded by child directed speech. The language to which the infant is exposed in its early years could not possibly, he suggests, cover the whole range of possible sentences. Furthermore, it is ‘degenerate’ in that it constitutes performance data (complete with ungrammatical forms, hesitations, false starts etc.). How then can the infant succeed in deriving competence from it in a comparatively short time?

 Chomsky concludes that we can only account for first language acquisition by assuming that a child is born with an innate knowledge of the principles of language and a predisposition to employ them in analysing the speech which it encounters. Current theory attempts to bridge the gap between the universal principles with which we are born and the specific form of the language which we finally acquire. We are said to be endowed with a Universal Grammar (UG) in the form of an innate awareness of the nature of language and the various forms that language adopts. UG is represented in terms of a set of principles common to all languages and a set of parameters which are adjusted to reflect the characteristics of the specific language to which the infant is exposed.

See also: Behaviourism, Language acquisition: theories, Nativism, Principles and parameters, Syntactic parsing, Universal Grammar

Further reading: Cook and Newson (1996); Lyons (1970); Smith (1999)

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

في المثنى.. المجمع العلمي يواصل إقامة مشروع تعليم القراءة الصحيحة على طريق زائري الأربعين

تعزيزًا لخطتها الطبية.. العتبة العباسية المقدسة تنشر أكثر من 13 سيارة إسعاف و100 مسعف بزيارة الأربعين

ضمن برنامج بيوت النعيم.. قسم الشؤون الفكرية ينظم مجلسًا حسينيًّا في بابل

تهيئة مساحة إضافية في مجمع أبي الفضل العباس (عليه السلام) خدمةً لزائري الأربعين

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

العلاقة بين الجهاز الهضمي والمزاج

7 علامات على القدمين.. مؤشر لمشاكل صحية خطيرة

9 عادات يومية بسيطة تجعلك أكثر ذكاء وإبداعا

هل يجب تناول مكملات "فيتامين الشمس" في فصل الصيف؟

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

أسرع الطرق لتبريد سيارتك بعد الوقوف تحت أشعة الشمس الحارقة

مشاكل ناقل الحركة CVT وأسباب عدم رضا السائقين عنه ؟

دراسة تكشف تأثيرا خطيرا لـ"تشات جي بي تي" على سلوك المراهقين ؟

أول مفاعل نووي على سطح القمر.. سباق محفوف بالمخاطر بين 3 دول

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

CONCEPT FORMATION

CONCEPT

COMPONENTIAL ANALYSIS

COMPETITION MODEL

COMPETITION

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY (CS)

COLOUR SYSTEMS

COHORT THEORY

COGNITIVISM

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

COGNITION

CLUTTERING