The study of acquisition has been shaped by two assertions that, if accurate,
present significant logical problems for our understanding of language. First,
children experience a finite number of sentences but are nevertheless able to de-
velop the grammar tools to produce a theoretically infinite number of sen-
tences. Second, much of the language children encounter is qualitatively
defective. In other words, acquisition must proceed in the face of impoverished
stimuli. To address the problem, T-G grammar proposed an innate “language
acquisition device” that induces the specific grammar rules of the child’s home
language from limited and distorted data. By about age 3, and certainly no later
than age 6, most of the rules are in place, and the child applies those rules
consistently.
The MP offers a slightly different model. Chomsky (1995) noted that “lan-
guage acquisition is interpreted as the process of fixing the parameters of the
initial state in one of the permissible ways” (p. 6). This statement requires a bit
of interpretation. It is based on the idea that each child is born with a language
faculty that contains a universal grammar. Although Chomsky’s argument that
humans have an innate language faculty was first strongly expressed inAspects
(1965), the MP modifies it by emphasizing the notion that the language faculty
operates on its own principles, which are distinct from other cognitive opera-
tions. As Johnson and Lappin (1997) indicated, Chomsky’s language faculty
“is, at root, a biological organ. Hence, the properties of UG [universal
grammar] are biologically determined properties of mind” (p. 45).
More on Universal Grammar. Chomsky’s (1995, 2000) discussion of
universal grammar and the properties of the language faculty is neither concrete
nor unambiguous. According to Chomsky (1995), “It is clear that ... a theory of
the initial state [of universal grammar] must allow only limited variation: particu-
lar languages must be largely known in advance of experience” (p. 4). On this ac-
count, at birth, the universal grammar is in aninitial state of zero,what we may
think of as chaos with “borders.” These borders contain the chaos of potential
language-specific grammars and ensure that the range of grammars is not infi-
nite, a necessary restriction owing to limitations on cognitive processing. The
child’s home language “fixes” the grammar of the specific language—for exam-
ple, fixing SVO as the basic parameter if the home language is English or SOV if
the home language is Japanese.
The term itself—universal grammar—may be unfortunate. There are
about 5,000 distinct languages, yet their grammars are remarkably similar.
On the face of it, we have no reason to expect this. Let’s consider just one, al-
beit important, example.
184 CHAPTER 5