We would agree that these phenomena are extremely interesting, and that they attest to a robust drive among
human beings to communicate their thoughts as rapidly and efficiently as possible. However, these phenomena do
not require a preformationist scenario.... If children develop a robust drive to solve this problem, and are born
with processing tools to solve it, then the rest may simply follow because it is the natural solution.... (Elman et al.
1996: 390)The question, of course, is how one cashes out“a robust drive.”Adults too have this robust drive, and they invent
pidgins. Pidgins work. Why do children respond to a“drive”to go beyond the adequacy of the pidgin, rather than
taking the easy way out and just imitating the grown-ups? And why did Nicaraguan Sign develop beyond a“pidgin”
stage? Something extra seems necessary.
My interpretation of the material sketched in this section is that,en masse, it offers an overwhelming case for some
degree of biological specialization for language learning in humans. My hope is that if, on one hand, skeptics of
Universal Grammar work very hard to deal with the real complexity of linguistic material and toflesh out what this
“drive”and these“processing tools”are, and if, on the other hand, linguists work very hard tofind a version of
UniversalGrammar that can be shown sufficient for language learning and that strives for biologicalrealism, we stand
a chance of eventual convergence. I' mtrying in this book to fulfill my part of the bargain.
4.10 Summary of factors involved in the theory of Universal Grammar
A bewildering variety of facts and arguments have been brought to bear in this chapter. Let me conclude this chapter
by trying to summarize the situation.
The linguist has tofigure out the correct grammar for the language under study from linguistic facts—judgments and
behaviorinordinaryspeechand experimentalsituations. Itisofcoursea scientificdesideratumthatthisgrammar beas
simple as possible, consistent with the facts. The need for simplicityis drivennot only by an a priori desire for analytic
elegance, but also by theneed for thelearner to acquire thegrammar. However, theoretical linguists tend to attempt to
be responsible for a greater range of facts than psychologists, philosophers, and neuroscientists, so they typically end
up positing more complex grammars.
If some aspects of linguistic behavior can be predicted from more general considerations of the dynamics of
communication in a community, rather than from the linguistic capacities of individual speakers, then they should be.
This leaves a residue of grammar that has to be present in the language user's f-mind by virtue of the acquisition
process.