Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar (UG) proposes that language acquisition is made possible by innate, language-specific knowledge that all human beings share. According to the theory, UG contains principles of grammar and parameters that children use to set the rules of their native language by analyzing linguistic input. The principles are universal aspects of syntax, while the parameters allow for variation between languages and are set based on evidence in a child's environment. Chomsky argues that UG acts as an autonomous "black box" that generates grammatical sentences through rules determined by parameter settings.

1. Chomsky and Language
Acquisition
Universal Grammar in Action

2. 2
The paradox of language acquisition
[A]n entire community of highly trained professionals,
bringing to bear years of conscious attention and
sharing of information, has been unable to duplicate
the feat that every normal child accomplishes by the
age of ten or so, unconsciously and unaided.
(Jackendoff 1994: 26)

3. 3
Chomsky on the Nature of Language
Acquisition
Large-scale sensory deficit seems to have limited effect
on language acquisition. Blind children acquire language
as the sighted do, even color terms and words for visual
experience like “see” and “look.” There are people who
have achieved close to normal linguistic competence
with no sensory input beyond that can be gained by
placing one’s hand on another person’s face and
throat. The analytic mechanism of the language
faculty seem to be triggered in much the same way
whether the input is auditory, visual, even tactual,
and seem to be localized in the same brain areas,
somewhat surprisingly.

4. 4
These examples of impoverished input indicate the
richness of innate endowment — though normal
language acquisition is remarkable enough, as even
lexical access shows, not only because of its rapidity and
the intricacy of result. Thus very young children can
determine the meaning of a nonsense word from
syntactic information in a sentence far more complex that
they can produce.
A plausible assumption today is that the principles
of language are fixed and innate, and that variations is
restricted in the manner indicated. Each language, then,
is (virtually) determined by a choice of values for lexical
parameters: with the array of choices, we should be able
to deduce Hungarian; with another, Yoruba. … The
conditions of language acquisition make it plain that the
process must be largely inner-directed, as in other
aspects of growth, which means that all languages
must be close to identical, largely fixed by initial
state. (Chomsky 2000. New Horizons … : 121-2)

5. 5
 At present little is known on how UG is
embodied in the brain.
UG is considered as a computational system in
the head, but we do not know about the specific
operations of the brain itself and what leads to
the development of these computational
systems.

6. 6
 A plausible view is that language is a distinct and
specific part of the human mind and not a
manifestation of a more general capacity or
ability (of general intelligence).
Linguistic capacity rests on a specific module.
It is not the sub-product of a general cognitive
capacity.

7. 7
Evidence
People can “lose their intelligence” and yet they
do not loose their language: substantial retarded
children (e.g. Williams syndrome) manifest a
good grammatical and linguistic competence.
On the other hand, highly intelligent people may
lack linguistic capacity (e.g. aphasia).
The fact that two kinds of abilities can dissociate
quantitatively and along multiple dimensions shows that
they are not manifestations of a single underlying ability.
(Pinker 2003: 23)

8. How does UG work?
 From autonomy to a black box…
 A black box problem:
 Something goes in, something comes out, but the
process is hidden
 The hidden process is self-contained and
independent
 Analysing the input and the output can tell us
what’s happening in the black box

9. The “black box”
 What is in the UG black box?
 Chomsky says that the contents of UG explains:
 a) the nature of syntax
 b) language acquisition
 The description of the grammar and the explanation
of how it is learnt are unified in this theory

10. The role of the input
 What is the input?
 Primary linguistic data
 This means all the language the child hears
 From the child’s environment
 The input is critical
 Without input at the right stage of maturation, the
child’s UG cannot develop into a grammar
 Evidence: “feral” children e.g. Genie
 Critical Period Hypothesis (Lenneberg)

11. What is the output?
 Chomsky sees language competence in
terms of a formal language
 A lexicon
 Contains words, idioms, etc.
 Lexical items have meanings
 A set of abstract, algebraic rules
 Including the rules of syntax, phonology, etc.
 The rules have no meaning
 The lexicon is learned normally (from
experience, trial and error, imitation)
 … but the rules are innate

12. Therefore…
 This answers our question!
 Q: What does UG contain?
 A: UG contains the core, formal rules of the
grammar
 This is Chomsky’s explanation for how the
generative creativity of language is acquired

13. Chomskyan rules
 How do these Chomskyan rules work?
 Instructions for generating sentence
structures, e.g.:
 S  NP VP
 NP  Det Adj N
 Structural slots filled by elements from the
lexicon, e.g.
 Det Adj N  The tall building

14. Chomskyan trees

15. Principles and parameters
 The rules that produce these “tree” structures
are innate…
 … but these rules differ from language to
language!
 Chomsky: the UG does not contain the actual
rules of each language.
 Instead, it contains PRINCIPLES and
PARAMETERS
 The rules of each language are derived from the
principles and parameters

16. Universals revisited
 “Principles” == linguistic universals
 Features found in all languages
 So what exactly are these universals?
 Are there really that many firm universals?
Probably not
 Many linguists take other approaches to
universals

17. Other “universals”
 Chomskyan universals are not to be confused
with…
 … Greenbergian universals
 Rooted in language typology
 Based on surveys of lots of languages
 Often involve percentages / probabilities
(i.e. they can have exceptions)
 May involve implications (if a language has X
then it also has Y)

18. Word order: the Greenberg
approach

19. Chomskyan universals
 Absolute (always found in every
language)
 Based on Chomskyan syntactic analysis
 These universals are aspects of the
Chomskyan theory of grammar…
 …and do not always make sense outside
that theory!
 They are simply a feature of the
biological UG

20. Substantive & Formal
Universals
 Substantive universals
 Things you get in language
 e.g. nouns, verbs
 This distinction can arise even without input!
 Formal universals
 How those things work together in sentences
 Constraints on the forms of syntactic rules
 Structure-dependency principle

21. Structure Dependency: a
reminder
 Grammatical rules operate on categories
 Many languages have rules that move around
specific parts of the sentence structure
 No language has any rule that ignores the structure
(e.g. simply inverts the order of the words)
 For example:
 I can understand Chomsky’s theory.
 can I understand Chomsky’s theory?
 * theory Chomsky’s understand can I?

22. Other principles
 The XP principles
 Govern the internal structure of phrases
 e.g. Every XP contains an X
 Every NP contains an N… every VP contains a
V… etc.
 Many other formal principles are very abstract;
examples:
• Principle of Proper Government
• Empty Category Principle
• Case Assignment Principle

23. Parameters
 Parameters explain variation across languages
 A parameter is like a “switch”
 It is a setting which can take one of a small
number of values
 Yes/No, On/Off, +/-
 The setting of the parameter determines one or
more aspects of the grammar
 The parameters are set during language
acquisition

24. The Pro-drop Parameter
 Controls whether subject pronouns can be
dropped in the language
 I understand Chomsky’s theory
 * understand Chomsky’s theory  WRONG
 Spanish: [+ Pro-drop]
 English and French: [- Pro-drop]

25. Heads and complements
 The Head of a phrase is the “compulsory
word” of the phrase
 A verb is the head of a verb phrase
 A noun is the head of a noun phrase
 The Complement of a phrase is an
“optional” other element in the phrase
 A verb’s complement is its object
 ride a horse, explain the problem
 A preposition’s complement is its noun
phrase

26. Some examples -
 Languages like English:
 Verb before Object
 Preposition before NP
 Question-words at start of sentence
 Languages like Japanese:
 Verb after Object
 Preposition after NP (= postposition)
 Question-words at end of sentence

27. The Head Parameter
 In English, the head consistently comes
before the complement…
 In Japanese, the head consistently comes
after the complement…
 … in many different kinds of syntactic
phrases!
 This same pattern is found in other
languages

28. The Head Parameter
 The orders of verb & object,
pre/postposition & NP, and question word
& sentence are all controlled by the Head
Parameter
 This has two settings:
 Head-First (e.g. English)
 Head-Last (e.g. Japanese)

29. Setting Parameters
 The child must set the parameter for their
language, based on evidence in the input
 Remember, the input is vital!
 When the Head Parameter matures, the child
sets it to:
 Head First if their input contains things like
verb-object
 Head Last if their input contains things like
object-verb

30. The power of parameters
 A single parameter can affect many areas of the
grammar
 One example of verb-object or object-verb is
enough to set the Head Parameter…
 Eat your spinach! (Head First)
 Your spinach eat! (Head Last)
 … which is all the child needs to correctly order
verbs, pre/postpositions and question words
(and other constructions too)

31. The problems with
parameters
 Some languages don’t fit into neat categories
 e.g. German : partly Head First and partly Head
Last ???
 It is hard to find good examples of parameter
setting in child data
 Not much evidence for a sudden effect on
children’s speech from a parameter being set
 e.g. young English-speaking children frequently
drop subjects (in a [- Pro-drop] language!) …
 … and this falls off gradually not suddenly
 What ARE these parameters anyway?

32. Opposition to the UG theory
 General trend away from “instinctive”
learning and towards “social” learning
 Autonomy of language not accepted by
many linguists and psychologists
 Many linguists disagree with Chomsky’s
analysis of grammar
 Functional grammar
 Usage-based models of language

33. Ignoring the data?
 “An I-language approach [i.e. a Chomskyan
approach …] sees language acquisition as a
logical problem that can be solved in principle
without looking at the development of actual
children in detail.”
 Cook and Newson (1996: 78)
 Is this valid?

34. Conclusion
 Chomsky’s theory has advantages…
 A simple explanation for complex acquisition
 It explains common features of language
 … but there are also problems
 Some data is difficult to interpret from Chomsky’s
position
 Some data supports this position and other
positions simultaneously.

35. Summary
 Chomsky’s theory of language separates
lexicon and grammar
 Grammar (UG) is innate and matures
 It functions as an independent “black box”
 UG contains principles and parameters
 Principles: universal basic features of grammar
 e.g. nouns, verbs, structure-dependency
 Parameters: grammar “switches” with a small
number of options
 e.g. Pro-Drop, Head direction
 Input is needed at the critical period, to learn the
lexicon and to set the parameters

36. References
• Neil, S, Dreidre, W. (1990). Modern Linguistics: The
results of Chomsky’s Revolution. Harmondsworth,
Middlesex, England: Pelican Books.
• Newmeyer, F. (1986). Linguistic Theory in America.
Orlando: Academic Press.
• Neil, S. (2004). Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals. New
York: CUP.
• Deneen, F. P. (1967). An Introduction to General
Linguistics. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University
Press.
• Chomsky, N. ‘A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal
Behaviour’. Landmarks in American Language and
Linguistics. Smolinski, F. (1986). Washington, D.C.:
• http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb8/misc/lfb/html/text/2frame.htm
• www.chomsky.info