Noam Chomsky
Natural Language as Syntax and Pragmatics
Source:
A large number of contemporary Essentialists who follow Chomsky’s teaching on this matter claim that semantics and pragmatics are not a central part of the study of language. In Chomsky’s view, “it is possible that natural language has only syntax and pragmatics” (Chomsky 1995: 26); that is, only “internalist computations and performance systems that access them”; semantic theories are merely “part of an interface level” or “a form of syntax” (Chomsky 1992: 223).
Chomsky, 1992, “Explaining language use”, Philosophical Topics, 20: 205–231.
Chomsky, , 1995, “Language and nature”, Mind, 104: 1–61.
許多當代遵循喬姆斯基在此問題上教導的本質主義者聲稱，語義與語用並非語言研究的核心部分。在喬姆斯基看來，「自然語言可能只有句法和語用」（Chomsky 1995: 26）；也就是說，僅包含「內在的計算機制與存取它們的表現系統」；語義理論則僅僅是「介面層的一部分」或「某種形式的句法」（Chomsky 1992: 223）。
Analysis:
Chomsky’s perspective, as reflected in the passage, suggests a highly syntax-centered view of language. Here’s what it means:
Syntax as the Core of Language – Chomsky’s generative grammar tradition emphasizes that the structure of language (syntax) is the fundamental component. According to this view, language consists primarily of internal computations in the mind, which are independent of meaning (semantics) or real-world use (pragmatics).
Semantics as Secondary – Instead of treating meaning (semantics) as an inherent part of language, Chomsky suggests that semantics is merely an interface—a way in which syntax interacts with other cognitive systems. This means that meaning is not the driving force behind language structure but is something added on after the syntactic computations take place.
Syntax and Pragmatics Only? – Chomsky even suggests that natural language may only consist of syntax and pragmatics. That is, we have (1) internal syntactic computations and (2) the way these computations interact with usage and context (pragmatics). Semantics, in this view, is either a byproduct of syntax or something external to the core structure of language.
Implication for Linguistic Research – Many contemporary Chomskyan linguists downplay the role of meaning and communication in linguistic theory. They focus on discovering innate syntactic structures (universal grammar) rather than studying how language conveys meaning or functions in social interaction.
This contrasts with functionalist and cognitive approaches, which argue that meaning and usage shape language structure, rather than syntax being an autonomous system.
See Katz, Jerrold J., 1980, “Chomsky on meaning”, Language, 56(1): 1–41.
I-Language and E-Language
In Chomsky’s linguistic theory, I-Language (Internal Language) and E-Language (External Language) represent two different ways of understanding what language is. This distinction is crucial to his approach to generative grammar and the study of linguistic competence.
1. I-Language (Internal Language)
Definition:
I-Language refers to an individual’s internal, mental representation of
Language
the system of rules and structures stored in the mind that allows a person to produce and understand language.
Key Features:
Internal: Exists in the speaker’s brain as a cognitive system.
Intensional: Defined by a set of formal rules and principles rather than by listing every possible sentence.
Biologically based: Chomsky links I-Language to Universal Grammar (UG), arguing that humans are innately equipped with the ability to acquire language.
Competence-focused: Concerned with the underlying grammatical structures rather than language use in real-world contexts.
Example:
A native English speaker has an internal knowledge that allows them to recognize that "The cat is on the mat" is grammatical, while "Cat the on mat is" is not.
This knowledge exists independently of actual speech performance or social variations.
2. E-Language (External Language)
Definition:
E-Language refers to externalized language—language as it is used in society, including speech, writing, and linguistic data observed in the world.
Key Features:
External: Includes all observable instances of language use.
Extensional: Can be described by listing actual sentences and utterances.
Socially influenced: Includes variations due to cultural, historical, and social factors.
Performance-focused: Concerned with how language is used rather than its internal structure.
Example:
The different dialects, accents, and styles of English (British English, American English, slang, formal speech) are part of E-Language.
Corpus linguistics, which studies large databases of real-world language usage, is primarily concerned with E-Language.
Chomsky’s Preference for I-Language
Chomsky strongly favors I-Language as the proper object of linguistic study because:
It is a mental, biological system, making it a subject for cognitive science.
It provides a deeper explanation of linguistic ability, rather than just cataloging observed usage.
E-Language is too messy and variable to serve as a foundation for discovering universal principles of language.
Source:
Chomsky therefore concludes that languages cannot be defined or individuated extensionally or mind-externally, and hence the only scientifically interesting conception of a ‘language’ is the ‘I-language’ view (see for example Chomsky 1986: 25; 1992; 1995 and elsewhere). Chomsky says of E-languages that “all scientific approaches have simply abandoned these elements of what is called ‘language’ in common usage” (Chomsky 1988, 37); and “we can define E-language in one way or another or not at all, since the concept appears to play no role in the theory of language” (Chomsky 1986: 26; in saying that it appears to play no role in the theory of language, here he means that it plays no role in the theory he favours).
Comments
Post a Comment