CHAPTER 4 Universal Grammar

4.1 The logic of the argument

Over theyears, themostcontroversialaspectofgenerativegrammar hasbeenChomsky'shypothesisthathumanshave
a cognitive specialization for learning language. This hypothesis is what connects linguistic theory most closely to
biology, cognitive development, ethology, and evolutionary psychology. It also has been a main driving force in
research on language typology, language acquisition, and linguistic change, not to mention day-to-day research on the
structure of language. Hence, whatever controversy surrounds this hypothesis, its importance cannot be
overestimated. This chapter will therefore be devoted to a fairly careful exegesis of the Universal Grammar
hypothesis, the evidence for it, the arguments against it, and the tensions and challenges it presents to linguistictheory
and the other disciplines on which it impinges.

The language learnerfirst enters the scene inAspectsin a passage worth quoting and discussing at some length.

[I]t is useful to consider the abstract proble mof constructing an“acquisition model”for language, that is, a theory

of languagelearning or grammar construction. Clearly, a childwhohas learneda languagehas developedan internal

representation of a system of rules that determine how sentences are to be formed, used, and understood.

(Chomsky 1965: 25)

Our discussion in sections 2.1 and 3.4 recommended purging intentional vocabulary from the theory. This suggests
that Chomsky's phrase“has developed an internal representation of a syste mof rules”is better expressed as“has
internally developed a syste mof rules.”The rules are notrepresentedin the learner's mind, they are just there.

Similarly,“learn”has to be handled with care, because of its closeness in meaning to“come to know,”an intentional
term. In this passage and those to be quoted below, Chomsky speaks of“inventing,”“constructing,”“developing,”
“devising,”and“acquiring”a grammar, all circumlocutions designed to