NOAM CHOMSKY AND GRAMMAR 165
Universal Grammar
The grammar that Chomsky (1957) developed consists of a complex set of trans-
formation rules. The goal of developing a cognitive theory of language necessar-
ily required that the rules apply to all languages, given that human cognition is
the same regardless of language or culture. Chomsky (1995) therefore argued
that the rules were linked to auniversal grammar.We might be tempted immedi-
ately to conclude that universal grammar is identical to the linguistic universals
associated with traditional grammar, but this would be a mistake. There is a con-
nection, but a tenuous one. Linguistic universals refer to a relatively narrow range
of shared features across languages, such as the fact that all languages have sub-
jects and predicates, kinship terms, and a means of indicating when actions oc-
cur. Universal grammar is different. In Chomsky’s (1995) words:
The human brain provides an array of capacities that enter into the use
and understanding of language (thelanguage faculty); these seem to be
in good part specialized for that function and a common human endow-
ment over a very wide range of circumstances and conditions. One com-
ponent of the language faculty is a generative procedure ... that
generatesstructural descriptions(SDs), each a complex of properties, in-
cluding those commonly called “semantic” and “phonetic.” These SDs
are theexpressionsof the language. The theory of a particular language
is its grammar. The theory of languages and the expressions they gener-
ate isUniversal Grammar(UG); UG is a theory of the initial state ... of the
relevant component of the language faculty. (p. 167)To be fair, we need to remember that phrase-structure grammar grew out of
attempts in the late 19thand early 20thcenturies to preserve American Indian
tribal languages. The goal was to preserve the body of the languages as they
were spoken—it was not to develop a theory of language or grammar. In fact,
phrase-structure grammarians like Bloomfield (1933) were wary of univer-
sal-grammar claims because in the past they had resulted in distortions in the
records of investigated languages. Nevertheless, Chomsky’s critique resonated
strongly among scholars, in part because the alternative he proposed was ele-
gant, powerful, and offered exciting new lines of research.
Today, almost 50 years later, the grammar Chomsky proposed to replace
phrase-structure is still vibrant and, indeed, remains a significant factor in
American language study. However, it does not have the same allure that it
once had. One reason is that, over the years, Chomsky revised the grammar
numerous times, which should have been viewed as perfectly reasonable and
in keeping with scientific principles but which nevertheless has often been