Chomsky and Language

Acquisition

Universal Grammar in Action

 The paradox of language acquisition
2

[A]n entire community of highly trained professionals,

bringing to bear years of conscious attention and sharing of
information, has been unable to duplicate the feat that
every normal child accomplishes by the age of ten or so,
unconsciously and unaided. (Jackendoff 1994: 26)
 Chomsky on the Nature of Language
3
Acquisition

Large-scale sensory deficit seems to have limited effect on

language acquisition. Blind children acquire language as the
sighted do, even color terms and words for visual experience
like “see” and “look.” There are people who have achieved
close to normal linguistic competence with no sensory
input beyond that can be gained by placing one’s hand on
another person’s face and throat. The analytic mechanism
of the language faculty seem to be triggered in much the
same way whether the input is auditory, visual, even
tactual, and seem to be localized in the same brain areas,
somewhat surprisingly.
4

These examples of impoverished input indicate the richness

of innate endowment — though normal language acquisition
is remarkable enough, as even lexical access shows, not only
because of its rapidity and the intricacy of result. Thus very
young children can determine the meaning of a nonsense word
from syntactic information in a sentence far more complex that
they can produce.
A plausible assumption today is that the principles of
language are fixed and innate, and that variations is
restricted in the manner indicated. Each language, then, is
(virtually) determined by a choice of values for lexical
parameters: with the array of choices, we should be able to
deduce Hungarian; with another, Yoruba. … The conditions of
language acquisition make it plain that the process must be
largely inner-directed, as in other aspects of growth, which
means that all languages must be close to identical, largely
fixed by initial state. (Chomsky 2000. New Horizons … : 121-
2)
5

 At present little is known on how UG is embodied in

the brain.

UG is considered as a computational system in the

head, but we do not know about the specific
operations of the brain itself and what leads to the
development of these computational systems.
6

 A plausible view is that language is a distinct and

specific part of the human mind and not a
manifestation of a more general capacity or ability (of
general intelligence).

Linguistic capacity rests on a specific module.

It is not the sub-product of a general cognitive

capacity.
 Evidence
7

People can “lose their intelligence” and yet they do

not loose their language: substantial retarded children
(e.g. Williams syndrome) manifest a good
grammatical and linguistic competence.

On the other hand, highly intelligent people may lack

linguistic capacity (e.g. aphasia).

The fact that two kinds of abilities can dissociate

quantitatively and along multiple dimensions shows that they
are not manifestations of a single underlying ability. (Pinker
2003: 23)
How does UG work?
 From autonomy to a black box…

 A black box problem:

 Something goes in, something comes out, but the
process is hidden
 The hidden process is self-contained and independent
 Analysing the input and the output can tell us what’s
happening in the black box
The “black box”

 What is in the UG black box?

 Chomsky says that the contents of UG explains:
 a) the nature of syntax
 b) language acquisition
 The description of the grammar and the explanation of
how it is learnt are unified in this theory
The role of the input
 What is the input?
 Primary linguistic data
 This means all the language the child hears
 From the child’s environment

 The input is critical

 Without input at the right stage of maturation, the
child’s UG cannot develop into a grammar
 Evidence: “feral” children e.g. Genie
 Critical Period Hypothesis (Lenneberg)
What is the output?
 Chomsky sees language competence in terms of
a formal language
 A lexicon
 Contains words, idioms, etc.
 Lexical items have meanings
 A set of abstract, algebraic rules
 Including the rules of syntax, phonology, etc.
 The rules have no meaning
 The lexicon is learned normally (from
experience, trial and error, imitation)
 … but the rules are innate
Therefore…
 This answers our question!

 Q: What does UG contain?

 A: UG contains the core, formal rules of the grammar

 This is Chomsky’s explanation for how the

generative creativity of language is acquired
Chomskyan rules
 How do these Chomskyan rules work?
 Instructions for generating sentence structures, e.g.:
 S  NP VP
 NP  Det Adj N
 Structural slots filled by elements from the lexicon,
e.g.
 Det Adj N  The tall building
Chomskyan trees
Principles and parameters
 The rules that produce these “tree” structures are
innate…
 … but these rules differ from language to language!

 Chomsky: the UG does not contain the actual rules of

each language.
 Instead, it contains PRINCIPLES and
PARAMETERS
 The rules of each language are derived from the
principles and parameters
Universals revisited

 “Principles” == linguistic universals

 Features found in all languages
 So what exactly are these universals?
 Are there really that many firm universals?
Probably not
 Many linguists take other approaches to
universals
Other “universals”
 Chomskyan universals are not to be confused with…
 … Greenbergian universals
 Rooted in language typology
 Based on surveys of lots of languages
 Often involve percentages / probabilities
(i.e. they can have exceptions)
 May involve implications (if a language has X then it
also has Y)
Word order: the Greenberg approach
Chomskyan universals
 Absolute (always found in every language)
 Based on Chomskyan syntactic analysis
 These universals are aspects of the
Chomskyan theory of grammar…
 …and do not always make sense outside that
theory!
 They are simply a feature of the biological
UG
 Substantive & Formal Universals

 Substantive universals
 Things you get in language
 e.g. nouns, verbs
 This distinction can arise even without input!
 Formal universals
 How those things work together in sentences
 Constraints on the forms of syntactic rules
 Structure-dependency principle
Structure Dependency: a reminder

 Grammatical rules operate on categories

 Many languages have rules that move around specific
parts of the sentence structure
 No language has any rule that ignores the structure (e.g.
simply inverts the order of the words)

 For example:
 I can understand Chomsky’s theory.
 can I understand Chomsky’s theory?
 * theory Chomsky’s understand can I?
Other principles
 The XP principles
 Govern the internal structure of phrases
 e.g. Every XP contains an X
 Every NP contains an N… every VP contains a V…
etc.
 Many other formal principles are very abstract;
examples:
• Principle of Proper Government
• Empty Category Principle
• Case Assignment Principle
Parameters
 Parameters explain variation across languages
 A parameter is like a “switch”
 It is a setting which can take one of a small number
of values
 Yes/No, On/Off, +/-
 The setting of the parameter determines one or more
aspects of the grammar
 The parameters are set during language acquisition
The Pro-drop Parameter
 Controls whether subject pronouns can be dropped in
the language
 I understand Chomsky’s theory
 * understand Chomsky’s theory  WRONG
 Spanish: [+ Pro-drop]
 English and French: [- Pro-drop]
 Heads and complements

 The Head of a phrase is the “compulsory word”

of the phrase
 A verb is the head of a verb phrase
 A noun is the head of a noun phrase
 The Complement of a phrase is an “optional”
other element in the phrase
 A verb’s complement is its object
 ride a horse, explain the problem
 A preposition’s complement is its noun phrase
 in the house, behind my back, after the party
Some examples -

 Languages like English:

 Verb before Object
 Preposition before NP
 Question-words at start of sentence
 Languages like Japanese:
 Verb after Object
 Preposition after NP (= postposition)
 Question-words at end of sentence
The Head Parameter

 In English, the head consistently comes before

the complement…
 In Japanese, the head consistently comes after
the complement…
 … in many different kinds of syntactic phrases!
 This same pattern is found in other languages
The Head Parameter

 The orders of verb & object, pre/postposition

& NP, and question word & sentence are all
controlled by the Head Parameter

 This has two settings:

 Head-First (e.g. English)
 Head-Last (e.g. Japanese)
Setting Parameters
 The child must set the parameter for their
language, based on evidence in the input
 Remember, the input is vital!
 When the Head Parameter matures, the child sets it
to:
 Head First if their input contains things like verb-
object
 Head Last if their input contains things like object-
verb
The power of parameters
 A single parameter can affect many areas of the
grammar

 One example of verb-object or object-verb is enough

to set the Head Parameter…
 Eat your spinach! (Head First)
 Your spinach eat! (Head Last)

 … which is all the child needs to correctly order

verbs, pre/postpositions and question words (and
other constructions too)
The problems with parameters
 Some languages don’t fit into neat categories
 e.g. German : partly Head First and partly Head
Last ???
 It is hard to find good examples of parameter setting
in child data
 Not much evidence for a sudden effect on children’s
speech from a parameter being set
 e.g. young English-speaking children frequently drop
subjects (in a [- Pro-drop] language!) …
 … and this falls off gradually not suddenly
 What ARE these parameters anyway?
Opposition to the UG theory

 General trend away from “instinctive” learning

and towards “social” learning
 Autonomy of language not accepted by many
linguists and psychologists
 Many linguists disagree with Chomsky’s
analysis of grammar
 Functional grammar
 Usage-based models of language
Ignoring the data?
 “An I-language approach [i.e. a Chomskyan
approach …] sees language acquisition as a logical
problem that can be solved in principle without
looking at the development of actual children in
detail.”
 Cook and Newson (1996: 78)
 Is this valid?
Conclusion
 Chomsky’s theory has advantages…
 A simple explanation for complex acquisition
 It explains common features of language
 … but there are also problems
 Some data is difficult to interpret from Chomsky’s
position
 Some data supports this position and other positions
simultaneously.
Summary
 Chomsky’s theory of language separates lexicon and
grammar
 Grammar (UG) is innate and matures
 It functions as an independent “black box”
 UG contains principles and parameters
 Principles: universal basic features of grammar
 e.g. nouns, verbs, structure-dependency
 Parameters: grammar “switches” with a small number
of options
 e.g. Pro-Drop, Head direction
 Input is needed at the critical period, to learn the
lexicon and to set the parameters
 References
• Neil, S, Dreidre, W. (1990). Modern Linguistics: The results
of Chomsky’s Revolution. Harmondsworth, Middlesex,
England: Pelican Books.
• Newmeyer, F. (1986). Linguistic Theory in America.
Orlando: Academic Press.
• Neil, S. (2004). Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals. New York: CUP.
• Deneen, F. P. (1967). An Introduction to General Linguistics.
Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.
• Chomsky, N. ‘A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal
Behaviour’. Landmarks in American Language and
Linguistics. Smolinski, F. (1986). Washington, D.C.:
• http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb8/misc/lfb/html/text/2frame.htm
• www.chomsky.info