Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Is Universal Grammar ready for retirement? A short review of a longstanding misinterpretation

  • JOSÉ-LUIS MENDÍVIL-GIRÓ (a1)
Abstract

In this paper I consider recent studies that deny the existence of Universal Grammar (UG), and I show how the concept of UG that is attacked in these works is quite different from Chomsky’s, and thus that such criticisms are not valid. My principal focus is on the notions of ‘linguistic specificity’ and of ‘innateness’, and I conclude that, since the controversy about UG is based on misinterpretations, it is rendered sterile and thus does unnecessary harm to linguistic science. I also address the underlying reasons for these misunderstandings and suggest that, once they have been clarified, there is much scope for complementary approaches that embrace different research traditions within current theoretical linguistics.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Is Universal Grammar ready for retirement? A short review of a longstanding misinterpretation
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Is Universal Grammar ready for retirement? A short review of a longstanding misinterpretation
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Is Universal Grammar ready for retirement? A short review of a longstanding misinterpretation
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Author’s address: Department of General and Hispanic Linguistics, University of Zaragoza, C/ Pedro Cerbuna 12, E-50009 Zaragoza, Spainjlmendi@unizar.es
Footnotes
Hide All
[1]

I am grateful to three anonymous JL referees and editor Kersti Börjars for comments and suggestions. My research was supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (AEI) & FEDER (EU) grant FFI2017-82460-P.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Benítez-Burraco, Antonio & Longa, Víctor M.. 2010. Evo-Devo – Of course, but which one? Some comments on Chomsky’s analogies between the biolinguistic approach and Evo-Devo. Biolinguistics 4, 308323.
Bergen, Benjamin K.2014. Universal Grammar. http://edge.org/response-detail/25539 (accessed 10 January 2016).
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boeckx, Cedric, Horno, María Carmen & Mendívil-Giró, José-Luis (eds.). 2012. Language, from a biological point of view. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Cartesian linguistics. New York: Harper & Row.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. The architecture of language. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004a. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and beyond, 104131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004b. The generative enterprise revisited. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 122.
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, Uli & Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from semantics, 130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of Principles and Parameters. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Armin, Sternefeld, Wolfgang & Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 506569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Christiansen, Morten H. & Chater, Nick. 2015. The language faculty that wasn’t: A usage-based account of natural language recursion. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1182. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01182.
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2015. What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it? Frontiers in Psychology 6, 852. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00852.
Embick, David. 2015. The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Boston, MA & Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32, 429448.
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C.. 2010. Time for a sea-change in linguistics: Response to comments on ‘The myth of language universals’. Lingua 120, 27332758.
Evans, Vyvyan. 2014. The language myth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Everaert, Martin B. H., Huybregts, Marinus A. C., Chomsky, Noam, Berwick, Robert C. & Bolhuis, Johan J.. 2015. Structures, not strings: Linguistics as part of the cognitive sciencies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19.12, 729743.
Everett, Daniel L. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology 46, 621646.
Everett, Daniel L.2010. You drink. You drive. You go to jail. Where’s recursion? http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001141 (accessed 16 September 2016).
Everett, Daniel L. 2016. An evaluation of Universal Grammar and the Phonological Mind. Frontiers in Psychology 7, 15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00015.
Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2009. Prolegomena to a future science of biolinguistics. Biolinguistics 3, 283320.
Goldberg, Adele. 2015. Strong evidence that the roots of binding constraints are pragmatic from Cole et al. (2015). http://dlc.hypotheses.org/865(accessed 10 January 2016).
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harbour, Daniel. 2016. Impossible persons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11, 119132.
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The Faculty of Language: What is it, who has it, and how it evolved? Science 298, 15691579.
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2007. The genesis of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Joly, André & Stéfanini, Jean (eds.). 1977. La Grammaire Générale. Des modistes aux idéologues. Lille: Publications de l’Université de Lille.
Kauffman, Stuart A. 1993. The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. London: Oxford University Press.
Lieberman, Philip. 1984. The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lieberman, Philip. 2013. The unpredictable species: What makes Humans unique. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lobina, David J. 2014. What linguists are talking about when talking about... Language Sciences 45, 5670.
Longa, Víctor M. & Lorenzo, Guillermo. 2012. Theoretical linguistics meets development: Explaining FL from an epigeneticist point of view. In Boeckx et al. (eds.), 5284.
Lyons, John. 1991. Chomsky. London: Fontana Press.
Malmberg, Bertil. 1991. Histoire de la linguistique. De Sumer à Saussure. Paris: P.U.F.
Marr, David. 1982. Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York: Freeman.
McMurray, Bob & Wasserman, Edward. 2009. Variability in languages, variability in learning? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32, 458459.
Mendívil-Giró, José-Luis. 2012. The myth of language diversity. In Boeckx et al. (eds.), 85133.
Mendívil-Giró, José-Luis. 2014. What are languages? A biolinguistic perspective. Open Linguistics 1, 7195. doi:10.2478/opli-2014-0005.
Miller, G. A. & Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R. & Galanter, E. (eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, 419492. New York: Wiley.
Moreno, Juan-Carlos & Mendívil-Giró, José-Luis. 2014. On biology, history and culture in human language: A critical overview. Sheffield: Equinox.
Rooryck, Johan, Smith, Neil V., Liptak, Anikó & Blakemore, Diane. 2010. Editorial introduction to the special issue of Lingua on Evans & Levinson’s ‘The myth of language universals’ In Johan Rooryck, Neil V. Smith, Anikó Liptak & Diane Blakemore (eds.), The myth of language universals: Special issue of Lingua 120, 2651–2656.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.
Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36, 16.
Tomasello, Michael. 2009. Universal Grammar is dead. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32, 470471.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and reason: An introduction to minimalist syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zwicky, Arnold. 1977. Hierarchies of person. In Beach, Woodford, Fox, Samuel & Philosph, Shulamith (eds.), Papers from the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 714733. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Linguistics
  • ISSN: 0022-2267
  • EISSN: 1469-7742
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed