Essay Language Is Not Only Grammar By Pierre Bourgoin There needs not be such a sharp dichotomy between ideas of Universal Grammar and the ideas of language as having basis in human culture and cognition. This paper will attempt to provide a brief background of changes in linguistic theory and focus on Noam Chomsky s approach to describing language. In doing so, the notion of Universal Grammar will be critiqued in order to develop a more symbiotic relationship between the Chomskyan generative approach to language and other schools of thought such as Daniel Everett s return to conventional culture-language dependencies. Evidence will be shown on the problem with semantics and culture in dealing with Universal Grammar theories but the notion of a universal language faculty will be supported. Language and identity in support of a cultural approach to linguistics will also be addressed. Before the second half of the 20 th century, the behaviorist view that children learned language by conditionings dominated the linguistic scene (Cowley, 1997). This view that language is a set of learned responses to stimuli (Fromkin et al., 2007) has long been discredited (Lyons, 1981, p. 5). Regardless of behaviorist assumptions, common essential features of language identified by linguists have, for the most part, always included notions of systems of arbitrary symbols designed for the purpose of communication (Lyons, 1981, p. 8). Although communication does occur in species other than Homo Sapiens, popular linguists of the 20 th century treat language as a purely human institution and therefore define a society s language as being part of that particular society s culture (Lyons, 1981, p.5). With the appearance of Noam Chomsky on the linguistic scene in the 1950s, the idea of language as an emergent property of culture was abandoned for a more generative, 1
computational view of language as a universal quality independent of individuals, environments and circumstances (Cowley, 1997). From now on, I will consider language to be a set (finite or infinite) of sentences, each finite in length, and constructed out of a finite set of elements. Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures (Lyons, 1981, p.7) Although Chomsky does not deny that language is in essence a quality unique to man (Fromkin et al., 2007, p. 3), his definition of language does constrain the instinctual phenomena of including culture to something as fundamental to our distinctive cultural identities as language. Chomsky s definition also excludes any concept of symbolic or communicative nature to language (Lyons, 1981, p.7), which in some way also ignores any social basis for language. It is clear that the focus of Chomsky s approach to language has moved from the traditional descriptive approach of languages, to focus more on the rules and generative properties of language. In effect, what we are seeing is a shift from the notion of language to that of grammar (Walmsley, 2006). This description does provide useful insights on language because grammar does encompass a great amount of language s fundamental aspects there are rules for phonology, rules for morphology, rules for syntax and rules for semantics (Fromkin et al., 2007, p.13) but can these rules still fully handle a concept as complex as language? And more specifically, how concrete (and generative) are the rules governing a concept as abstract as semantics? In his book Don t Sleep There Are Snakes, Daniel Everett (2008) states that culture guides us all in the meaning that we perceive in the world around us, and language is part of [that] world Expressing meaning is the purpose of language and sharing this meaning is fundamental to our understanding of culture. Although linguists have done an extensive job of defining various semantic typologies (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams, 2007, Chapter 5), rules governing meaning remain abstract and open to interpretation. 2
Metaphors are good examples. Fromkin et al. (2007, p. 183) describe metaphors as technically anomalous and further states (p. 184) that metaphor has a strong cultural component. After all, a Shakespearean quote such as Our doubts are traitors is only meaningful because it is a culturally accepted expression of human creativity. Even the applicability of such a statement is dependant upon context and personal opinion. In his 2002 book, Ethosyntax: explorations in grammar and culture, Enfield collects contributions from many authors, with specialties in a wide range of linguistic types from around the world, to show that the semantic and the pragmatic in language are at all times cultural (p. 238). Take the pertinent example of pragmatics, which is concerned with meaning in context (Fromkin et al., 2007, p. 199), and the inherent difficulty our modern translation technologies have in translating large discourse. If something as complex as discourse analysis could be mapped or defined, then we would be able to produce algorithms programmable into translation software capable of perfectly translating text from one language to another. But even with the most sophisticated translation tools known today, a bilingual human with complete cultural understanding of both languages is still needed to perform valid translations. Even Chomsky himself when confronted with the rogue concept of generative semantics (inspired from his own theories) rejected the concept for a more interpretive style of semantics (Walmsley, 2006). Generative theories are not sufficient to fully explain meaning in languages evolving out of the sometimes irrational psyche of human culture. But this is not to say that all aspects of Chomskyan linguistics are to be discredited. Language is common to all humans; therefore, Chomsky s view that languages have universal properties is undeniable and proves invaluable in the study of linguistics. However, should linguistics aim to establish a Universal Grammar (UG) accounting for all human linguistic variations? Is it even possible? 3
The fact that children, regardless of origin, naturally acquire any language to which they are exposed to following the same definable stages, under limited exposure, regardless of intelligence, motivation or emotional state, strongly suggests that there is an innate genetic predisposition to language a type of universal language faculty (Fromkin et al., 2007; Walmsley, 2006). The system of knowledge inherent in language speakers finds itself represented in the mind, and invariably in the brain (Cowley, 1997; Fromkin et al., 2007, p. 37). In alignment with Chomsky s theories of Universal Grammar, there are undeniable similarities between the grammars of languages, especially in the area of syntax. Although certain flexible parameters such as word order (e.g. head initial in English vs. head final in Japanese) make languages seem inherently different, the basic constituents (e.g. all languages have head + complement) remain present and language features such as tense, agreement, question forms and modality are usually marked by concrete transformational rules (Fromkin et al., 2007). Languages are related, as are humans Hockett s (1960) 13 universal design features of animal communication show how the 3 universal features (displacement, productivity, duality of patterning) that are present only in man have arisen from other more primitive systems. In resonance with generative grammar, he describes how productivity allows the creation of novel utterances out of patterns familiar in old utterances. But, considering Hockett s evolutionary approach to language features, are the obvious similarities between grammars a result of a distant common linguistic ancestry, or are we in fact all confined to a Universal Grammar? It is undisputable that all languages have rules and that human beings are capable of integrating these rules, but does this mean that the fundamental structure of these rules is universal? UG may fail to account for the continuous evolution of language and the role social life plays in shaping languages (Everett, 2005). 4
Cultures such as the Pirahã of Brazil have shone new linguistic light on the relation between language and culture and pose significant threat to Chomsky s theories of Universal Grammar. According to Everett (2005), who has been in contact with the Pirahã for more than half of his life, some of the components of so-called core grammar are subject to cultural constraints, something that is predicted not to occur by the universal-grammar model. Constituents thought to be common to all languages have been shown to be non-existent within the Pirahã of Brazil: If the form or absence of things such as recursion, sound structure, word structure, quantification, numerals, number and so on is tightly constrained by a specific culture [ ] then the case for an autonomous, biologically determined module of language is seriously weakened. Daniel Everett, Current Anthropology (2005) Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams (2007, p. 14), following Chomskyan theory, describes every grammar as equally complex, logical, and capable of producing and infinite set of sentences to express any thought. In this sense, any idea, concept, feeling or thought that can be expressed in a given dialect invariably can be expressed in any other language/dialect. In the case of the Pirahã of Brazil, this has been shown to be false: Because they [the Pirahã] talk about different things, different things get grammaticalized (Tomasello, 2005). Let s take recursion as a point for elaboration because it is said that all human languages have recursive properties (Clark, 2006) and it has been described as the means in which grammars are able to generate an infinite set of sentences (Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch, 2002; Fromkin et al., 2007, p. 134); and therefore constitutes a specific example of UG. Recursive rules are syntactic rules that allow the repetitive reappearance of the same syntactic category within a single sentence. For this to happen, clausal embedding, 5
focused on by Everett (2005), is necessary. Fromkin et al. (2007, p. 135) gives this simple example of recursion of 3 prepositional phrases within a single sentence: The girls walked [down the street] [with a gun] [toward the bank]. In general terms, recursion involves the embedding of phrases (or clauses) within sentences (or clauses). With more relevance to Everett s arguments, Clark (2005) gives examples of the possibility of infinite recursive processes by embedding strings within strings using reported speech verbs (first set of brackets) and embedding clauses within noun phrases (second set of brackets): [Sylvia wondered whether] Keith said that Billy thought that this was [the chapter that was in] the book that annoyed Everett s book, Don t sleep there are snakes (2008), explains the absence of embedding in Pirahã language by the immediacy of experience principle (IEP), which postulates that formulaic language [ ] that involve reference to non-witnessed events are avoided. This is sufficient to explain the lack of creation myths within the Pirahã, but to tie IEP with embedding, Everett goes out on a limb and states that sentences containing embedded clauses (such as above) creates non-assertions and that declarative utterances [non-formulaic] may contain only assertions, and therefore embedding clauses violates the IEP (Everett, 2008). Regardless of whether or not this explanation is satisfactory to explain the absence of embedding in Pirahã language, the fact remains that the fundamental grammar of the language, which is complex in its own right (Everett, 2005), differs greatly from proposed features of UG. This needs not deny the presence of an innate human language faculty, but simply suggest that there may be many types of grammars, and that human culture and cognition play a role in the expression of the structure of languages. 6
And just as the manifestation of language is affected by culture, languages also serve the purpose of expressing the identity of culturally distinct groups through distinct creative uses. The function of expressing a group (or individual) s feelings, emotions and passions is indeed deep-rooted in language (Joseph, 2004, p.16). This reveals itself in dialectic variations of languages amongst regions, nationalities, class, gender, ethnicity, age, belief, and even within speech habits particular to individuals (idiolects) (Fromkin et al., 2007, Chapter 10). As described by Llamas, Mullany & Stockwell (2007, p. 102), indexicality is the process by which language becomes associated with such types of social characteristics as mentioned above. This phenomenon is seen most obviously in code-switching situations where speakers consciously shift their linguistic performance to a language type that represents the identity they wish to express (Llamas et al., 2007). Examples of this can be seen when people switch from formal to casual situations, or when ethnic minorities wish to assert their cultural identity by emphasizing their dialects. To conclude, grammar plays a large part in understanding the basic structure of language, and although there are unequivocal reemerging patterns amongst languages, the theory of Universal Grammar cannot provide an ultimate solution to our understanding of language because of its inherent ignorance of cultural factors guiding the development, interpretation and use of distinct languages. This does not inhibit the notion of an innate human language faculty, but let s not forget that Homo sapiens has been around for a few hundred thousand years, and that although our genetic makeup created the framework (brain) for the same basic cognitive capabilities back then as it does today, we cannot imagine early man using sophisticated languages such as French or Japanese. Knowledge of language, like any other, has grown out of expressions of human culture, and humans have adjusted their language to better define their culture and identify with it. The deeprooted similarities between our languages may signal that, regardless of our superficial differences, we are not so different after all References: 7
Clark, B. (2006). Recursion. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd Ed., pp. 414-415). Bielefeld: Elsevier. Cowley, S. J. (1997). Of representations and language. Language & Communication, 17(4), 279-300. Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2 nd Cambridge University Press. ed.). Cambridge: Enfield, N. J. (2002). Ethnosyntax: Explorations in grammar and culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Everett, D. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology, 46(4), 621-46. Everett, D. (2008). Don t sleep, there are snakes: Life and language in the Amazonian jungle. New York: Pantheon Books. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2007). An introduction to language (8 th Ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Publishing. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 289, 1569-1579. Hocket, C. F. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 89-97. Joseph, J. E. (2004). Language and identity: National, ethnic, religious. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 8
Llamas, C., Mullany, L. & Stockwell, P. (2007). The Routledge companion to sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge. Lyons, J. (1981). Language and linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tomasello, M. (2005). Comments: Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology, 46(4), 621-46. Walmsley, J. B. (2006). Noam Chomsky. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd Ed., pp. 382-384). Bielefeld: Elsevier. 9