1

77Universal Universal GrammarGrammar

2

Slides on the net at:Slides on the net at:

http://http-server.carleton.ca/~ecorahttp://http-server.carleton.ca/~ecorazza/zza/

http://http-server.carleton.ca/~ecorazza/http://http-server.carleton.ca/~ecorazza/online_courses/Mind_World_and_knowledge/online_courses/Mind_World_and_knowledge/

3

Chomsky’s Chomsky’s Epiphenomenalism about Epiphenomenalism about

LanguageLanguage Language Language vs. vs. GrammarGrammar

““Grammar” is a precise definite term Grammar” is a precise definite term while “language” is a vague and while “language” is a vague and derivative term which we could well derivative term which we could well dispense of, without much loss.dispense of, without much loss.

The grammar in someone mind/brain is The grammar in someone mind/brain is real while language is not.real while language is not.

4

The aim of linguistics can be summarized The aim of linguistics can be summarized by four questions.by four questions.

11. . What constitutes knowledge of What constitutes knowledge of language?language?

22. . How is such knowledge acquired?How is such knowledge acquired?

33. . How is such knowledge put to use?How is such knowledge put to use?

44. . What are the physical mechanisms What are the physical mechanisms that serve as the that serve as the material basis?material basis?

5

Deep Deep vs.vs. Surface Surface StructureStructure

Port Royal Grammar (1660)Port Royal Grammar (1660)

It is heavily influenced by Descartes. It is heavily influenced by Descartes.

It aims to propose the general form of any It aims to propose the general form of any possible grammar. possible grammar.

In so doing it elaborates the universal In so doing it elaborates the universal structure underlying the “natural manner structure underlying the “natural manner in which we express our thoughts”.in which we express our thoughts”.

6

The The inner/outerinner/outer aspect of language aspect of language

According to Port Royal grammarians we According to Port Royal grammarians we must distinguish between language having must distinguish between language having an inner and an outer aspect.an inner and an outer aspect.

Hence we distinguish between a sentence Hence we distinguish between a sentence quaqua expression of a thoughtexpression of a thought and and the the physical shapephysical shape of a sentence (i.e. an of a sentence (i.e. an utterance).utterance).

To show the structure of the mind the To show the structure of the mind the grammar should reflect grammar should reflect properties of all properties of all mindsminds, it should be , it should be universaluniversal..

7

Mental GrammarMental Grammar

The deep structure is often only implicit and The deep structure is often only implicit and does not get expressed. It is only represented does not get expressed. It is only represented in the mind. in the mind.

The same deep structure can be realized The same deep structure can be realized differently in different languages (e.g.: “Video differently in different languages (e.g.: “Video canem currentum” and “Je vois un chien qui canem currentum” and “Je vois un chien qui court”). court”).

The rules of this grammar are not represented The rules of this grammar are not represented in the language user: they are simply there. in the language user: they are simply there. Yet they must be “learned”. But see poverty of Yet they must be “learned”. But see poverty of the stimulus argument.the stimulus argument.

8

Transformation RulesTransformation Rules

There are transformation rules operating There are transformation rules operating from deep to surface structure. It is the from deep to surface structure. It is the linguist’s job to figure out these rules.linguist’s job to figure out these rules.

The grammarians of Port Royal are the first The grammarians of Port Royal are the first to recognize the two systems of rules: to recognize the two systems of rules:

1.1. A base system generating A base system generating deep deep structure.structure.

2. 2. A A transformational systemtransformational system mapping mapping these deep these deep structures into surface structures into surface structure.structure.

9

UGUG

UG corresponds to the deep structure. Since it UG corresponds to the deep structure. Since it is the expression of though, it is common to all is the expression of though, it is common to all languages. languages.

It is thus universal. Hence Universal Grammar, It is thus universal. Hence Universal Grammar, UG. UG.

The transformation rules converting the deep The transformation rules converting the deep structure into surface structure may differ structure into surface structure may differ from language to language.from language to language.

Different outputs can correspond to the same Different outputs can correspond to the same inner structure.inner structure.

10

Port RoyalPort Royal

Within the Cartesian tradition exemplified Within the Cartesian tradition exemplified by the grammarians of Port Royal, the by the grammarians of Port Royal, the deep structure is what constitutes the deep structure is what constitutes the meaning (sense) in the mind.meaning (sense) in the mind.

It can be transmitted in different way It can be transmitted in different way (e.g.: active/passive).(e.g.: active/passive).

E.g.: different languages or different E.g.: different languages or different surface structures transmit the same surface structures transmit the same meaning/sense which is a mental entity.meaning/sense which is a mental entity.

11

NowadaysNowadays UG means the UG means the initial stateinitial state of a of a language learner.language learner.

It is the “innate” (genetically transmitted) aspect It is the “innate” (genetically transmitted) aspect of grammatical rules; the of grammatical rules; the language instinctlanguage instinct (Pinker).(Pinker).

It is that aspect of the human mind that causes It is that aspect of the human mind that causes one to learn the language. one to learn the language.

UG UG quaqua initial state is initial state is biologically determinedbiologically determined..

As such, it does not belong to a specific As such, it does not belong to a specific language.language.

12

UG need not be supposed to be what is UG need not be supposed to be what is universal among languagesuniversal among languages (see Jackendoff (see Jackendoff 2002: 72ff.). 2002: 72ff.).

It is merely the It is merely the human human capacitycapacity, i.e., the , i.e., the initial stateinitial state, allowing one to learn , allowing one to learn aa language. language.

The aspects of the initial sate one ends up The aspects of the initial sate one ends up using in one’s learning periods depends on using in one’s learning periods depends on the stimuli/input.the stimuli/input.

Languages (inputs) affect the development of Languages (inputs) affect the development of the initial state and thus the outputs one ends the initial state and thus the outputs one ends up producing (cf. switches metaphor up producing (cf. switches metaphor explaining the learning of phonetics).explaining the learning of phonetics).

13

InnateInnate

We do not necessarily mean that it is present We do not necessarily mean that it is present at birth or in an embryo. at birth or in an embryo.

It rather means that it It rather means that it automatically automatically appearsappears during the development, regardless during the development, regardless on whether it is present at birth or not. on whether it is present at birth or not.

It does not mean that it is free from the It does not mean that it is free from the input of the environment. E.g. vision input of the environment. E.g. vision capacity.capacity.

14

Deep Deep vsvs. Surface Structure, and Creativity. Surface Structure, and Creativity

The deep/surface structure distinction is what The deep/surface structure distinction is what helps explaining linguistic creativity.helps explaining linguistic creativity.

The Port Royal’s distinction between deep and The Port Royal’s distinction between deep and surface structure implicitly contains recursive surface structure implicitly contains recursive devices allowing for infinite uses of the finite devices allowing for infinite uses of the finite means that it disposes. means that it disposes.

The deep structure is what gets represented in The deep structure is what gets represented in the mind when a sentence is produced/heard the mind when a sentence is produced/heard (see LF).(see LF).

15

Linguistic creativityLinguistic creativity and the and the argument argument for mental grammarfor mental grammar

The expressive variety of language use The expressive variety of language use implies that the brain of a linguistically implies that the brain of a linguistically competent user contains a set of competent user contains a set of unconscious grammatical principles.unconscious grammatical principles.

(cf. Jackendoff(cf. Jackendoff R. 1994. R. 1994. Patterns in the Patterns in the MindMind. Basic Books Harper Collins, New . Basic Books Harper Collins, New YorkYork: 6).: 6).

16

LOTLOT

In adopting the language of thought In adopting the language of thought hypothesis, LOT (or Mentalese) the argument hypothesis, LOT (or Mentalese) the argument for mental grammar can be stated along the for mental grammar can be stated along the compositional principle for thoughts, or what compositional principle for thoughts, or what Fodor characterizes as the productivity of Fodor characterizes as the productivity of thought.thought.

The classical argument that mental states are The classical argument that mental states are complex adverts to the productivity of the attitudes complex adverts to the productivity of the attitudes … The LOT story is, of course, a paradigm of this … The LOT story is, of course, a paradigm of this sort of explanation, since it takes believing to involve sort of explanation, since it takes believing to involve a relation to a syntactically structured object for a relation to a syntactically structured object for which a compositional semantics is assumed. (Fodor which a compositional semantics is assumed. (Fodor J. 1987. J. 1987. PsychosemanticsPsychosemantics. MIT: 147-8). MIT: 147-8)

17

Logical Logical vsvs. Grammatical Form. Grammatical Form

Arnauld & Nicole (in Arnauld & Nicole (in PortPort Royal LogicRoyal Logic 1662: 1662: 160) highlight the difference between deep 160) highlight the difference between deep (logical) structure and surface (grammatical) (logical) structure and surface (grammatical) structure. structure.

In: In:

(1)(1) Now few pastors at the present time are Now few pastors at the present time are ready to give their life for their flocksready to give their life for their flocks

the grammatical (surface) structure is the grammatical (surface) structure is affirmative, while its underlying structure affirmative, while its underlying structure (LF) is negative.(LF) is negative.

18

(1) contains the implicit negative sentence (1) contains the implicit negative sentence (“it contains this negation in its meaning”):(“it contains this negation in its meaning”):

(1a)(1a) Several pastors at the present time Several pastors at the present time are not ready to are not ready to give their lives for give their lives for their flockstheir flocks

The same with:The same with:

(2)(2) Come see meCome see me

whose deep structure is:whose deep structure is:

(2a)(2a) I order/beg you to come see meI order/beg you to come see me

19

According to the Port Royal grammarians According to the Port Royal grammarians there is a there is a transformationtransformation enabling to go enabling to go from (1a/2a) (deep structure) to (1/2) from (1a/2a) (deep structure) to (1/2) (surface structure).(surface structure).

We have hidden underlying structure and a We have hidden underlying structure and a grammatical transformations operating grammatical transformations operating between the deep structure (LF) and the between the deep structure (LF) and the surface (or grammatical) structure. surface (or grammatical) structure.

E.g.: the surface structure “Only the friends E.g.: the surface structure “Only the friends of God are happy” is a transformation of the of God are happy” is a transformation of the deep structure “The friends of God are deep structure “The friends of God are happy” happy” andand “all other who are not friend of “all other who are not friend of God are not happy”.God are not happy”.

20

UnderstandingUnderstanding

To understand a sentence one must grasp the To understand a sentence one must grasp the sense, i.e. the meaning (“natural order”) the sense, i.e. the meaning (“natural order”) the speaker has in mind. speaker has in mind.

One grasps it in reconstructing its meaning, One grasps it in reconstructing its meaning, i.e. in coming to entertain its underlying i.e. in coming to entertain its underlying structure (LF) and the meanings of the single structure (LF) and the meanings of the single words. words.

The fundamental principles at work are The fundamental principles at work are reorderingreordering and and ellipsisellipsis which enable the which enable the hearer to recover in her mind the meaning the hearer to recover in her mind the meaning the speaker has in her.speaker has in her.

21

Linguistic explanation and Linguistic explanation and descriptiondescription

Grammaire GénéraleGrammaire Générale (Port Royal) (Port Royal)

Cartesian linguistics did not confine to a Cartesian linguistics did not confine to a mere description of a language and its mere description of a language and its grammar. grammar.

It aimed to capture the universal (mental) It aimed to capture the universal (mental) structure underlying languages. structure underlying languages.

22

Port Royal grammar, like modern Port Royal grammar, like modern (Chomsky’s inspired) linguistics can be (Chomsky’s inspired) linguistics can be viewed as a branch of psychology or viewed as a branch of psychology or cognitive sciences. cognitive sciences.

The general grammar is a kind of The general grammar is a kind of universal grammar.universal grammar.

As such, it differs from the special As such, it differs from the special grammar which is language specific. It grammar which is language specific. It differs from the grammar of English, differs from the grammar of English, Chinese, etc. Chinese, etc.

23

Linguistics/General Grammar as a Linguistics/General Grammar as a ScienceScience

General Grammar is … the rational science of the General Grammar is … the rational science of the immutable and general principle of spoken and immutable and general principle of spoken and written language, whatever language this may be written language, whatever language this may be … General Grammar is a science, because its … General Grammar is a science, because its object is rational speculation on the immutable object is rational speculation on the immutable and general principle of language … The science and general principle of language … The science of grammar is anterior to all languages in so far of grammar is anterior to all languages in so far as its objects presuppose only the possibility of as its objects presuppose only the possibility of languages and are the same as those which languages and are the same as those which guide human reason in its intellectual operations guide human reason in its intellectual operations … because they are eternally true (Bauzé 1767).… because they are eternally true (Bauzé 1767).

24

Shortcomings of Cartesian Shortcomings of Cartesian Linguistics (1600-1700)Linguistics (1600-1700)

The underlying assumptionThe underlying assumption

UG (the abstract structure underlying a UG (the abstract structure underlying a natural language sentence) is a kind of natural language sentence) is a kind of sentence itself. sentence itself.

It is generally assumed that deep It is generally assumed that deep structure consists of actual sentences in a structure consists of actual sentences in a simpler or more natural organization. simpler or more natural organization.

25

The underlying assumption is The underlying assumption is gratuitous gratuitous and can be dismissedand can be dismissed..

It rests on the Cartesian idea that the It rests on the Cartesian idea that the general principles underlying and general principles underlying and determining our thoughts and perceptions determining our thoughts and perceptions must be must be accessibleaccessible toto introspectionintrospection and and can be brought to consciousness with care can be brought to consciousness with care and attention.and attention.

If we assume that UG is If we assume that UG is unconsciousunconscious we we don’t have to assume that the general don’t have to assume that the general principle are sentence-like entities.principle are sentence-like entities.

26

Language acquisitionLanguage acquisition

Universal ConditionsUniversal Conditions

They are not learned and must exist for They are not learned and must exist for language knowledge to be explained. language knowledge to be explained.

They are the pre-requisite leading to They are the pre-requisite leading to knowledge:knowledge:

principles or notions implanted in the mind … a principles or notions implanted in the mind … a direct gift of Nature, a percept of natural instinct direct gift of Nature, a percept of natural instinct … [they] remain latent when their corresponding … [they] remain latent when their corresponding objects are not present, and even disappear and objects are not present, and even disappear and give no sign of their existence (Herder 1624). give no sign of their existence (Herder 1624).

27

This contrasts with the empiricist view This contrasts with the empiricist view thatthat

our mind is a clean sheet, as though we obtained our mind is a clean sheet, as though we obtained our capacity for dealing with objects from objects our capacity for dealing with objects from objects

themselves (Herder 1624).themselves (Herder 1624).

The mind is not a The mind is not a tabulatabula rasarasa..

28

Nativism/InnatismNativism/Innatism The universal principles are innate and implicit.The universal principles are innate and implicit.

Yet, we may require external stimulus to Yet, we may require external stimulus to activate them and make them available to activate them and make them available to introspection. introspection.

This is one of the main principles underlying This is one of the main principles underlying the psychology of Cartesian linguistics and the psychology of Cartesian linguistics and rationalism in general (see e.g. Leibniz).rationalism in general (see e.g. Leibniz).

[I]t is true that it is purely arbitrary to connect a [I]t is true that it is purely arbitrary to connect a certain idea to one particular sound rather than certain idea to one particular sound rather than another. But ideas—at least those that are clear and another. But ideas—at least those that are clear and distinct—are not at all arbitrary things depending on distinct—are not at all arbitrary things depending on our fancy. (Arnauld & Nicole 1662: 28)our fancy. (Arnauld & Nicole 1662: 28)

29

Plato’s Problem Plato’s Problem

Nativism provides a solution to Plato’s Nativism provides a solution to Plato’s problem (cf. Plato’s problem (cf. Plato’s MenoMeno and and TheaetetusTheaetetus). ).

For it provides a science of language that For it provides a science of language that shows how an internal biological shows how an internal biological mechanism can, with little input from the mechanism can, with little input from the external environment (poverty of the stimuli external environment (poverty of the stimuli argument) develop (almost automatically) in argument) develop (almost automatically) in each individual the rich competence known each individual the rich competence known as “knowing a language”. as “knowing a language”.

30

Solving Plato’s problem for language Solving Plato’s problem for language acquisitionacquisition

It involves saying both It involves saying both whatwhat is known is known when one knows a language and when one knows a language and howhow one one comes to know it.comes to know it.

We should do this with a science of the We should do this with a science of the mind, not philosophical speculations.mind, not philosophical speculations.

31

Chomsky Chomsky vsvs. Plato. Plato

Plato appeals to myth, invoking the pre-Plato appeals to myth, invoking the pre-existence of the boy’s soul with other existence of the boy’s soul with other souls in the world of Forms (ideas) and in souls in the world of Forms (ideas) and in going trough a process of reminiscence.going trough a process of reminiscence.

Chomsky solves it in proposing a Chomsky solves it in proposing a naturalistic theory of a biological system naturalistic theory of a biological system that makes language acquisition virtually that makes language acquisition virtually automatic. automatic.

32

General Presuppositions of General Presuppositions of Cartesian LinguisticsCartesian Linguistics

The principle of language and natural logic The principle of language and natural logic are known unconsciously and they are in large are known unconsciously and they are in large part a precondition for language acquisition part a precondition for language acquisition rather than a matter of institution or training. rather than a matter of institution or training.

Linguistics as a science trying to bring to light Linguistics as a science trying to bring to light these underlying principles becomes a branch these underlying principles becomes a branch of psychology.of psychology.

Thus this art [logic or art of thinking] does not consist Thus this art [logic or art of thinking] does not consist in finding the mean to perform these operations, since in finding the mean to perform these operations, since nature alone furnished them in giving us reason, but nature alone furnished them in giving us reason, but in reflecting on what nature makes us do. (Arnauld & in reflecting on what nature makes us do. (Arnauld & Nicole 1662: 23)Nicole 1662: 23)

33

The Poverty of the Stimulus The Poverty of the Stimulus ArgumentArgument

General language-acquisition schemaGeneral language-acquisition schema

InputInput LADLAD OutputOutput

(primary(primary (Grammar (Grammar consisting ofconsisting of

linguistic data)linguistic data) principles, principles, parameters parameters and lexicon)and lexicon)

34

Language acquisition is a matter of Language acquisition is a matter of growth and maturation of relatively fixed growth and maturation of relatively fixed principles under appropriate external principles under appropriate external conditions and training.conditions and training.

Cf. growth and maturation of bones: the Cf. growth and maturation of bones: the structure of the bones is genetically structure of the bones is genetically programmed, yet it needs exercise to programmed, yet it needs exercise to develop. develop.

35

CreolizationCreolization

One learns a language because one is One learns a language because one is programmed to learn a language, i.e. programmed to learn a language, i.e. because of one’s initial state, UG. because of one’s initial state, UG.

The process of creolization underlies what The process of creolization underlies what happens when a child learns her mother happens when a child learns her mother tongue in normal situations.tongue in normal situations.

The same kind of linguistic genius is involved every The same kind of linguistic genius is involved every time a child learns his or her mother tongue. ... let time a child learns his or her mother tongue. ... let us do away with the folklore that parents teach us do away with the folklore that parents teach their children language. (S. Pinker. 1994. their children language. (S. Pinker. 1994. The The Language InstinctLanguage Instinct: 39): 39)

36

The crux of the argument is that complex language The crux of the argument is that complex language is universal because is universal because children actually reinvent itchildren actually reinvent it, , generation after generation — not because they are generation after generation — not because they are taught, not because they are generally smart, not taught, not because they are generally smart, not because it is useful to them, but because they just because it is useful to them, but because they just can’t help it. (Pinker 1994: 32)can’t help it. (Pinker 1994: 32)

The argument of innate knowledgeThe argument of innate knowledge

It rests on the It rests on the actualactual way children acquire way children acquire their mother tongue. their mother tongue.

It is an empirical hypothesis which posits It is an empirical hypothesis which posits that our brain is genetically programmed to that our brain is genetically programmed to invent a language.invent a language.

37

ChomskyChomsky

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

38

These examples of These examples of impoverished input indicate the impoverished input indicate the richness of innate endowmentrichness of innate endowment — though normal — though normal language acquisition is remarkable enough, as even language acquisition is remarkable enough, as even lexical access shows, not only because of its rapidity lexical access shows, not only because of its rapidity and the intricacy of result. Thus very young children and the intricacy of result. Thus very young children can determine the meaning of a nonsense word from can determine the meaning of a nonsense word from syntactic information in a sentence far more complex syntactic information in a sentence far more complex that they can produce.that they can produce.

A plausible assumption today is that the A plausible assumption today is that the principles of language are fixed and innateprinciples of language are fixed and innate, and , and that variations is restricted in the manner indicated. that variations is restricted in the manner indicated. Each language, then, is (virtually) determined by a Each language, then, is (virtually) determined by a choice of values for lexical parameters: with the array choice of values for lexical parameters: with the array of choices, we should be able to deduce Hungarian; of choices, we should be able to deduce Hungarian; with another, Yoruba. … The conditions of language with another, Yoruba. … The conditions of language acquisition make it plain that the process must be acquisition make it plain that the process must be largely inner-directed, as in other aspects of largely inner-directed, as in other aspects of growth, which means that all languages must be growth, which means that all languages must be close to identical, largely fixed by initial stateclose to identical, largely fixed by initial state. . (Chomsky 2000. (Chomsky 2000. New Horizons …New Horizons … : 121-2) : 121-2)

39

The paradox of language acquisitionThe paradox of language acquisition

[A]n entire community of highly trained [A]n entire community of highly trained professionals, bringing to bear years of conscious professionals, bringing to bear years of conscious attention and sharing of information, has been attention and sharing of information, has been unable to duplicate the feat that every unable to duplicate the feat that every normal child accomplishes by the age of ten normal child accomplishes by the age of ten or so, unconsciously and unaidedor so, unconsciously and unaided. (Jackendoff . (Jackendoff 1994: 26)1994: 26)

40

Language Perception and Language Perception and UnderstandingUnderstanding

Perception of speech rests on innate Perception of speech rests on innate discriminatory capacities.discriminatory capacities.

There is a fundamental difference between There is a fundamental difference between the perception of speech and the the perception of speech and the perception of unarticulated sounds. perception of unarticulated sounds.

Speech perception, unlike visual Speech perception, unlike visual perception for instance, requires the perception for instance, requires the activation of the generative rules playing activation of the generative rules playing the role in the production of speech. the role in the production of speech.

41

Both the perceptual mechanism and the Both the perceptual mechanism and the mechanism of speech production make use mechanism of speech production make use of the same underlying system of generative of the same underlying system of generative rules. rules.

It is because these underlying systems are It is because these underlying systems are the same among us that communication can the same among us that communication can occur. occur.

It is because of this uniformity of human It is because of this uniformity of human nature that we talk the way we do and nature that we talk the way we do and succeed in understanding each others (cf. succeed in understanding each others (cf. Humboldt 1836).Humboldt 1836).

42

Every young child (raised in an English Every young child (raised in an English speaking community) would know that in speaking community) would know that in English ‘blug’ is phonetically possible English ‘blug’ is phonetically possible while ‘bkr’ is not. And they know it while ‘bkr’ is not. And they know it without being told.without being told.

Science of Science of Intelligent BehaviourIntelligent Behaviour

It may be within the boundary of some It may be within the boundary of some other cognitive beings (Martians, God) other cognitive beings (Martians, God) but it transcends human capacities. but it transcends human capacities.

43

Reasons Reasons vsvs. causes. causes

Wittgenstein (Wittgenstein (Blue BookBlue Book) says that in ) says that in explaining action in terms of their explaining action in terms of their coherence and appropriateness with coherence and appropriateness with respect to human aims etc. we “give respect to human aims etc. we “give reasons”, not “give causes”. reasons”, not “give causes”.

When talking about creative linguistic When talking about creative linguistic actions Chomsky and Descartes seem to actions Chomsky and Descartes seem to accept Wittgenstein’s view in assuming accept Wittgenstein’s view in assuming that we are giving reasons, not causes.that we are giving reasons, not causes.

44

Descartes’ Descartes’ dualismdualism

It was a scientific hypothesis dictated by the It was a scientific hypothesis dictated by the science of his time (mechanism). science of his time (mechanism).

Descartes did not have at his disposal the Descartes did not have at his disposal the biological science of our time, he did not biological science of our time, he did not know of genetic transmission and could not know of genetic transmission and could not possibly imagine how human cognition can possibly imagine how human cognition can rest to such an extent on a biological base rest to such an extent on a biological base of concept and structure acquisition.of concept and structure acquisition.

Descartes could not imagine that these Descartes could not imagine that these biological mechanisms need only a little biological mechanisms need only a little input to produce rich conceptual material.input to produce rich conceptual material.

45

At present At present little is knownlittle is known on how UG is on how UG is embodied in the brain. embodied in the brain.

UG is considered as a computational UG is considered as a computational system in the head, but we do not know system in the head, but we do not know about the specific operations of the brain about the specific operations of the brain itself and what leads to the development itself and what leads to the development of these computational systems.of these computational systems.

46

A plausible view is that language is a distinct A plausible view is that language is a distinct and specific part of the human mind and not a and specific part of the human mind and not a manifestation of a more general capacity or manifestation of a more general capacity or ability (of general intelligence).ability (of general intelligence).

Linguistic capacity rests on a specific Linguistic capacity rests on a specific modulemodule..

It is not the sub-product of a general cognitive It is not the sub-product of a general cognitive capacity. capacity.

47

EvidenceEvidence

People can “lose their intelligence” and yet People can “lose their intelligence” and yet they do not loose their language: substantial they do not loose their language: substantial retarded children (e.g. Williams syndrome) retarded children (e.g. Williams syndrome) manifest a good grammatical and linguistic manifest a good grammatical and linguistic competence. competence.

On the other hand, highly intelligent people On the other hand, highly intelligent people may lack linguistic capacity (e.g. aphasia).may lack linguistic capacity (e.g. aphasia).

The fact that two kinds of abilities can dissociate The fact that two kinds of abilities can dissociate quantitatively and along multiple dimensions shows quantitatively and along multiple dimensions shows that they are not manifestations of a single that they are not manifestations of a single underlying ability. (Pinker 2003: 23)underlying ability. (Pinker 2003: 23)