Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:47:55.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic universals as evidence for empiricism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Geoffrey Sampson
Geoffrey Sampson
Affiliation:
University of Lancaster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I. Noam Chomsky turned the previously rather specialized discipline of linguistics into a subject of considerable general philosophical interest by his argument that the discovery of universal properties of natural language requires us to adopt a ‘nativist’ or ‘rationalist’ view of human mind – a view according to which ‘our systems of belief are those that the mind, as a biological structure, is designed to construct’ (Chomsky, 1976: 7). (I shall use the terms ‘nativism’ and ‘rationalism’ interchangeably in this article, since any difference we make between them is not important in the context of Chomsky's work. The truth is that, as with many philosophical ‘isms’, the two words do duty for a range of many more than two closely related, partly overlapping theses.) When Chomsky began publishing, a widespread attitude to human language was that expressed by Martin Joos (1957: 96): ‘languages [can] differ from each other without limit and in unpredictable ways’. Chomsky claims that this is false: to quote one of his favourite examples, it is perfectly possible to imagine a language which forms yes/no questions simply by reversing the order of the words in the corresponding statements, yet in fact no natural language has a rule remotely like this (even though this rule seems rather simpler, in an absolute sense, than many of the rules which are found in natural languages). Human languages differ in some respects, but in other respects they are all cut to a common pattern. Much of Chomsky's and his followers' work consists of formulating and testing increasingly refined hypotheses about the precise limits within which natural languages may vary.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , September 1978 , pp. 183 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aitchison, J. (1976). The articulate mammal. London: Hutchinson.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berlinski, D. (1976). On systems analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In Slobin, 1971: 153–186.Google Scholar
Broadbent, D. E. (1973). In defence of empirical psychology. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Chomsky, A. N. (1959). Three models for the description of language. Reprinted in Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R. & Galanter, E. (eds), Readings in mathematical psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Wiley, 1965. 105–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, A. N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, A. N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.Google Scholar
Chomsky, A. N. (1969). Language and philosophy. In Hook, S. (ed.), Language and philosophy. New York: New York University Press. 51–94.Google Scholar
Chomsky, A. N. (1972a). Problems of knowledge and freedom. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Chomsky, A. N. (1972b). Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In Peters, S. (ed.), Goals of linguistic theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 63–130.Google Scholar
Chomsky, A. N. (1976). Reflections on language. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
Chomsky, A. N. & Halle, M. (1968) The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Collier, G. A. (1973). Review of Berlin & Kay, 1969. Lg 49. 245–248.Google Scholar
Collier, G. A. et al. (1976). Further evidence for universal color categories. Lg 52. 884–890.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976). Hierarchical organization: a candidate principle for ethology. In Bateson, P. P. G. & Hinde, R. A. (eds), Growing points in ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Derwing, B. L. (1973). Transformational grammar as a theory of language acquisition. (Cambridge studies in linguistics, 10.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1897–1913). Œuvres de Descartes, ed. by Adam, C. & Tannery, P. 13 vols. Paris: Cerf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J. E. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1893). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, Vol. I. Jena: Hermann Pohle.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1955). The counter-revolution of science. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1973). Rules and order. (Law, legislation, and liberty, I.) London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R., Fant, C. G. M. & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis. Revised ed. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (ed.) (1957). Readings in linguistics. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K. (ed.) (1975). The transformational-generative paradigm and modern linguistic theory. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science, ser. 4: Current issues in linguistic theory, I.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in the machine. Picador, ed. London: Pan, 1975.Google Scholar
Lee, G. (1969). English word stress and phrase stress. PCLS 5. 389–405.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, J. & Lindblom, B. (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: the role of perceptual contrast. Lg 48. 839–862.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1967). Le rôle d'un système de traits phonologiques dans une théorie du langage. Langages 8. 112–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1970). English as a VSO language. Lg 46. 286–299.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1971). The capacity for the ontogenesis of grammar. In Slobin, 1971: 17–40.Google Scholar
McNeill, N. B. (1972) Colour and colour terminology. JL 8. 21–33.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1974). Phonetic explanation in phonology. Papers from the parasession on natural phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 346–374.Google Scholar
Peters, P. S. & Ritchie, R. W. (1971). On restricting the base component of transformational grammars. Information and Control 18. 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, P. S. & Ritchie, R. W. (1973). Nonfiltering and local-filtering transformational grammars. In Hintikka, K. J. J., Moravcsik, J. M. E. & Suppes, P. (eds), Approaches to natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel. 180–194.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1953). Science: conjectures and refutations. Reprinted in Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963. 33–65.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1965). Of clouds and clocks. Reprinted in Objective knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1972. 206–255.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1967). The ‘innateness hypothesis’ and explanatory models in linguistics. Reprinted in Searle, J. R. (ed), The philosophy of language. London: Oxford University Press, 1971. 130–139.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1972). A reanalysis of English word stress (part I). In Brame, M. K. (ed.), Contributions to generative phonology. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. 229–323.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1973). The philosophy of biology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Sagan, L. (1967). On the origin of mitosing cells. Journal of theoretical biology 14. 225–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sampson, G. R. (1973). The irrelevance of transformational omnipotence. JL 9. 299–302.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. R. (1974). Is there a universal phonetic alphabet? Lg 50. 236–259.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. R. (1975a). The form of language. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. R. (1975b). One fact needs one explanation. Lingua 36. 231–239.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. R. (1976). An empirical hypothesis about natural semantics. Journal of philosophical logic 5. 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. R. (1978). Schools of linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. R. in press. Language and liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1975) Noncyclic English word stress. Goyvaerts, D. L. & Pullum, G. K. (eds), Essays on the sound pattern of English. Ghent: Story-Scientia. 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106. 467–482. Reprinted in The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1966). Comments on ‘Developmental psycholinguistics’. In Smith, F. & Miller, G. A. (eds), The genesis of language. Cambridge: Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 85–91.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. F. (ed.) (1971). The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1969). Stimulus-response theory of finite automata. Reprinted in Studies in the methodology and foundations of science. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1969. 411–444.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1971). Brain and language: a commentary. Synthese 22. 369–395.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1972). Human understanding, vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1974). Words and syllables in natural generative grammar. Papers from the parasession on natural phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 346–374.Google Scholar