Chomsky Definition

‘Language is a set (finite or infinite) of sentences, each finite in length, and constructed out of a finite set of elements’. Chomsky, Synt Syntac acti tic c Stru Struct ctur ures es (195 (1957: 7: 13). 13). Comm Commen entt on the the defi defini niti tion on of language given by Chomsky.

INTRODUCTION Language is a complex phenomenon; defining it is even more complex. Since Bibli Biblical cal times times people people have been been in pursui pursuitt of findin finding g the answers answers to the question, what is language? And how does the process of communication occur? Various philosophers and theorists have tried to tackle the question by observation, experimentation and study. The result of this study is a mixture of complexity and comprehension, where linguists have been able to find various answers to the question such as identifying the various features of the human language, the processes involved in speaking and listening and developmental stages of not only language in general, but also of particular languages, there is much that needs clarification; for instance, what is the use of language—is it used to communicate, control, inform and question or to do all these these things things.. Anothe Anotherr comple complexi xity ty that needs clari clarific ficati ation on is the accusation of language by humans--whether it is an innate ability possessed by humans or learnt by observation and imitation. BACKGROUND All these issues and other questions like these have been the center of debate since long. Ferdinand de Saussure first defined and laid out language as a system of signs and redefined the concept of language in Linguistic stud study y sh shif ifti ting ng the the focu focus s from from a diac diachr hron onic ic appr approa oach ch to a sy sync nchr hron onic ic approach, giving us the concept of langue and parole stating that langue is a language system i.e. the actual total knowledge of a particular community. Saussure – the father of modern linguistics gave an entirely new perspective to linguistics, and ever since then much has been argued about the nature of language. Mode Modern rn ling lingui uist stic ics s saw saw the the rise rise of the the beha behavi viou ouri rist st schoo schooll of thou though ght, t, according to which, all learning, including language learning, is the product of habit formation. The behaviorists claim that learning takes place as a result of imitation and repetition. The behaviorists considered language to be verbal verbal behavior, behavior, learnt through through habit formation formation i.e. children practise and

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.





repeat repeat what they hear, (imitati (imitation on and reinforceme reinforcement) nt) and in this way learn their L 1.

GENERATIVISM The behaviourists view was challenged by Noam Chomsky in 1957 when he put forwar forward d the theory theory of transf transform ormati ation on gramm grammar ar or genera generativ tivist ist.. This This theory of grammar is undoubtedly the most dynamic and influential and has master r of mo moder dern n though thought’’ t’’. Gener made ade him a ‘‘maste Generati ativis vism m is usuall usually y presen presented ted as having having develo developed ped out of, and in react reaction ion to the previ previousl ously y domina dominant nt bloomf bloomfie ieldi ldian an or behavi behaviour ourist ist view view point. point. Chomsk Chomsky’s y’s work work on syntax led him to believe that language is innate, that crucial parts of the human language ability are built into the brain and are programmed into our genes. Chomsky believes ‘‘language to be a set (finite or infinite) of sentences each finite in length and constructed out of a finite set of elements’’. Syntactic Structures(1957). Structures(1957). Chomsky believes that all natural languages in either their spoken or their written form are languages, since: a) each natural language has a finite number of sounds in it, and b) alth althou ough gh ther there e may may be an infi infini nite tely ly many many dist distin inct ct sent senten ence ces s in the the language, each sentence can be represented as a finite sequence of these sounds. If we take the assumption that human language has the property of recursiveness then we see that the set of potential utterances in any given languages is infinite in number. Look Lookin ing g at Chom Chomsk sky’ y’s s poin pointt of view view we see see that that the the esse essent ntia iall core core of grammar is innate, innate, e.g children from from a fairly early early age, are able able to produce novel utterances which a competent speaker of the language will recognize as grammatically well formed, there must be something other than imitation invo involv lved ed.. They They must must have have infe inferr rred ed,, lear learne ned d or othe otherw rwis ise e acqu acquir ired ed the the grammatical rules by virtue of which the utterances that they produce are judged to be well formed. Thus generative grammar can be used to produce and understand an infinite range of novel sentences. Chomsk Chomsky y empha emphasiz sizes es that that the languag language e facult faculty y posses possessed sed by humans humans is innate and species specific i.e. genetically transmitted and unique to the





CREATIVITY Crea Creati tivi vity ty is an unde underl rlyi ying ng conc concep eptt in Chom Chomsky sky’s ’s defi defini niti tion on whic which h is a pecu peculi liar arly ly huma human n attr attrib ibut ute e that that dist distin ingu guis ishe hes s men men from from mach machin ines es and animals. However, it is rule-governed creativity. The utterances produced have a certain grammatical structure: they conform to identifiable rules of well-f well-form ormedn edness ess or gramma grammar, r, i.e. i.e. languag language e is descri described bed by a partic particula ularr grammar as the set of all the sentences it generates. The set of sentences may be, in principle, either finite or infinite in number. For example, the sentence: This is the man that married the girl who lives next to my …, my …, can be fini finite te if we look look it as it is or it can be expand expanded ed by maki making ng prope properr inse insert rtio ions ns in the the plac place e of the the elli ellips psis is(( …) . Howe Howeve ver, r, ther there e are are cert certai ain n practical limitations upon the length of any sentence that has ever been uttered or will be uttered in a language ( in this case English). But the point is that no definite limit can be set to the length of sentences in a language because we may create an infinite combination of sentences that are rule govern governed. ed. Theref Therefor ore, e, it must must be accept accepted ed that, that, in theory theory,, the number number of grammatical sentences in a language is infinite. Alternatively, the number of words in the vocabulary of a language e.g. Engli English sh is presum presumabl ably y finite finite.. There There is consid considera erable ble variat variation ion in the words words know known n to the the diff differ eren entt sp spea eake kers rs of a lang langua uage ge,, and and ther there e may be a difference between the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ vocabulary of every individual. Anal An alyz yzin ing g Chom Chomsky sky’s ’s defi defini niti tion on the the assum assumpt ptio ion n can can be made made that that the the numb number er of dist distin inct ct oper operat atio ions ns that that are are invo involv lved ed in the the gene genera rati tion on of sentences in a language language is finite in in number. If the grammar is to consist of a finite set of rules operating upon a finite vocabulary and is to be capable of gene generratin ating g an infi nfinit nite set of sent senten ence ces, s, it fol follows ows that that som some of the the grammatical rules must be applicable more than once in the generation of the same sentence, making language recursive. Furthermore, according to Chomsky the syntactic description of sentences has two aspects; surface structure and a far more abstract deep structure. Genera Generally lly speaki speaking ng surfac surface e struct structure ure deter determin mines es the phonet phonetic ic form form of a sentence, while deep structure determines semantic interpretation. The rules that that expre express ss the relat relation ionshi ship p of deep deep struct structure ure and surfac surface e struct structure ures s in sent senten ence ces s are are call called ed ‘gra ‘gramm mmat atic ical al tran transf sfor orma mati tion ons; s; henc hence e the the term term





struct structure ure and a deep deep struct structure ure;; a semanti semantic c compon component ent,, which which assign assigns s a semanti semantic c inter interpre pretat tation ion to a deep deep struct structure ure;; a phonol phonologi ogical cal compon component ent,, which assigns a phonetic interpretation to a surface structure. INNATISM & UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR Creativity also leads us towards the issue of innatism. Chomsky was of the view that human beings are genetically endowed with the capacity to form certain linguistic concepts which are rule governed, rather than others due to the notion of the innate system for language learning through the Language Acquisition Device( LAD). A child gets input which is processed and then output is produced, but the output produced is far better in quality and quantity—this difference between input and output points to the presence of the geneti genetical cally ly endowe endowed d languag language e system system and the presen presence ce of Univer Universal sal Grammar (UG). Moreover, Chomsky asserts that UG represents the universal rules present in all human languages e.g. presence of structure, head, nouns etc. The arrangement of the rules may differ from language to language but the type of rules are similar. The grammar of a language is thus a model of the the inte intern rnal aliz ized ed gram gramma mati tical cal comp compet eten ence ce (or (or I-La I-Lang ngua uage ge)) of a nati native ve speaker of a language. STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES Thus we see that Chomsky’s definition of language as a set of sentences, finite or infinite in length… is highly mathematical. The sentences that will be produced will be limited in length; furthermore, the element through which this set is constructed is limited but the language produced as a result of combin combining ing variou various s eleme elements nts will will be unlim unlimite ited. d. This This defini definitio tion n takes takes into into account numerous design features specific to the human language, such as productivity, arbitrariness and stimulus-freedom. Chomsky has also widened the sphere of linguistics giving a new dimension to the nature of language by highlighting the structural properties of language that govern not only its acquisition but also its use. Chomsky’s definition gives somewhat concrete answers to many questions; foremost being : what is language? His work also sheds light on the process of language acquisition for it is his belief that there are such structural properties that are so abstract, so complex and so highly specific to their purpose that they could not possibly be learned from scratch by infants. Such abstract structural properties must be known to the





langua language ge makes makes Chomsk Chomsky y a ration rationali alist, st, believ believing ing that that we are born born with with innate abilities. Despite opening a new avenue in the field of Linguistics and channelizing the thoughts and ideas of Linguists, this particular definition of language can be said to be failing to identify some key notions such as the use and purpose of langua language. ge. The defini definitio tion n mainly mainly focuse focuses s on the struct structura urall proper propertie ties s of language without taking into account the communicative function of either natural or unnatural languages, furthermore, it does not elaborate the nature of the elements, or their sequences. Another aspect of the definition that needs elaboration is the use of the word ‘set’. What exactly is meant by equating sentences with mathematical notions?

CONCLUSION Conclusively, we see that through this definition Chomsky has challenged the trad tradit itio ional nal beha behavi viou ouri rist sts, s, shi shift ftin ing g the the focu focus s of ling lingui uist stic ic stud study y from from an empi empiri rical cal to a rati ration onal al poin pointt of view view.. He beli believ eves es that that an innat innate e abili ability ty pres presen entt in the the mind mind help helps s huma humans ns acqu acquir ire e lang langua uage ge and and mast master er the the stru struct ctur ural al prop proper erti ties es pres presen entt in lang languag uage. e. The The basi basic c prin princi cipl ples es or the the universal rules of grammar (UG) are inbuilt in our brains, we just need to set certain parameters and arrange the different elements of language ( finite or infinite) to produce utterances or sentences finite in length but infinite in comb combin inat atio ion. n. Chom Chomsk sky’ y’s s defi defini niti tion on also also help helps s ling lingui uist sts s unde unders rsta tand nd the the complexities of the phenomenon of language. However, there is much that needs elaboration. Perhaps the most crucial aspect of Chomsky’s theory that need needs s clar clarif ific icat atio ion n is unlo unlock ckin ing g the the Lang Langua uage ge Ac Acqu quis isit itio ion n Devi Device ce and understanding the working of UG, that how, why and what are the universal rules and properties of language present in our competence, properties that help us produce unlimited language following set principles.

REFERENCES





Allen & Buren (eds) (1975) Chomsky: Selected Readings. OUP: London Class lectures and notes

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO LINGUISTICS







SUBMITTED TO: MR. NAZIR MALIK SUBMITTED BY: NADIA M. KHAN DATE: 2nd APRIL, 2009

Chomsky Definition

Recommend Documents