From Classical Roots to Chomskian Universals: The Evolution of Linguistic Theory

Introduction

The evolution of linguistic theory from traditional grammar to modern approaches, particularly those pioneered by Noam Chomsky, represents a significant shift in how language is understood and analyzed. Traditional grammar, deeply rooted in the literary and cultural traditions of ancient Greece and Rome, was initially developed to preserve and interpret classical texts. However, this framework was later applied—often uncritically—to a wide array of languages, many of which possess structural characteristics vastly different from Greek and Latin. Chomsky’s work in modern linguistics seeks to address this Eurocentric bias by developing a 'general' theory of grammar that can be universally applied to all human languages.

This article draws significantly from John Lyons' book Noam Chomsky, which provides a comprehensive account of Chomsky's linguistic theories. Lyons notes that Chomsky himself read and commented on the manuscript, offering corrections that ensure the work provides a reliable representation of his views:

 "I should like to record here my gratitude to Noam Chomsky for reading and commenting upon the manuscript of this book. The fact that it has been read in advance by Chomsky (and corrected in a number of places) encourages me in the belief that it gives a reasonably fair and reliable account of his views on linguistics and the philosophy of language" (Lyons, 1970).

Through this lens, we explore the relationship between traditional grammar and modern linguistic theory, focusing on Chomsky’s contributions, the critical concepts of duality of structure, and the interrelation of linguistic levels. Additionally, we address the terminological confusions that often arise when discussing the concepts of 'grammar' and 'general' in different linguistic contexts, highlighting Chomsky's specific use of these terms.

The Literary Bias of Traditional Grammar

Traditional grammar is deeply rooted in the literary and cultural traditions of ancient Greece and Rome. Early Western grammarians focused primarily on preserving and interpreting classical texts, particularly those written in Greek and Latin. Consequently, the grammar they developed was tailored to the structure of these classical languages. Understanding this historical context is crucial for recognizing the limitations of traditional grammar when it is applied to other languages. As John Lyons notes, "Traditional grammar was developed on the basis of Greek and Latin, and it was subsequently applied, with minimal modifications and often uncritically, to the description of a large number of other languages" (Lyons, 1970).

The problem with this approach is that many languages differ significantly in structure from Greek and Latin. The grammatical rules suited for these classical languages often fall short when describing languages with vastly different syntactic or morphological features. Imposing a Greek and Latin-based grammatical framework on other languages can lead to a distorted understanding of their unique characteristics.

Modern linguistics, especially within the Chomskian tradition, seeks to overcome this bias by developing a more general theory of grammar, one that is not influenced by the structures of specific languages. Chomsky's theory aims to uncover the underlying principles common to all human languages, acknowledging that while languages may vary on the surface, they share deep, universal structures. This shift from a language-specific to a universal approach represents a significant departure from the literary bias inherent in traditional grammar and highlights the necessity for a theory of grammar that can be accurately applied across diverse linguistic contexts.

Duality of Structure in Human Language

A key feature that distinguishes human language from other forms of communication is its duality of structure. This concept refers to the presence of two levels of grammatical organization in every language: the primary or syntactic level, and the secondary or phonological level. Lyons describes this duality as follows: "There is, first of all, what we may call the 'primary,' or syntactic, level of analysis, at which sentences can be represented as combinations of meaningful units... And there is also a 'secondary,' or phonological, level, at which sentences can be represented as combinations of units which are themselves without meaning and serve for the identification of the 'primary' units" (Lyons, 1970).

At the primary level, language consists of meaningful units, such as words, which are combined according to syntactic rules to form sentences. This level focuses on how these units convey meaning through their arrangement and structure. In contrast, the secondary level deals with the sounds of language—phonemes—that, while meaningless on their own, are essential for distinguishing between different meaningful units. This dual structure allows for a rich and complex system of communication, where a finite set of sounds can be combined in an infinite number of ways to produce meaningful expressions.

In Chomskian theory, recognizing the duality of structure is fundamental to understanding how language operates on different levels. It also underscores the importance of a comprehensive grammatical theory that accounts for both syntax and phonology, rather than treating them as separate or unrelated domains. This duality challenges traditional grammatical models that may emphasize one aspect of language (typically syntax) while neglecting the intricate relationships between sounds and meaning.

The Interrelation of Syntax, Semantics, and Phonology

The duality of structure in language suggests that any comprehensive grammatical theory must address the interrelated components of syntax, semantics, and phonology. In Chomskian linguistics, "grammar" is a broad term that encompasses all these components, viewing them as integral parts of the linguistic system. Lyons clarifies: "The part that accounts for the regularities governing the combination of words is syntax. That part of grammar which describes the meaning of words and sentences is semantics. And the part of grammar that deals with the sounds and their permissible combinations is phonology" (Lyons, 1970).

While Chomsky places particular emphasis on syntax, as it governs the structural rules for combining words into sentences, he does not isolate syntax from the rest of the linguistic system. Instead, he views syntax as deeply connected to semantics (the meaning of these structures) and phonology (the sound system). This integrated approach contrasts with some traditional linguistic models that might treat these components separately, leading to a fragmented understanding of language.

Terminological confusion often arises because different linguistic traditions may use the term "grammar" differently. As Lyons points out, "Many linguists describe as 'grammar' what Chomsky calls 'syntax' and give a correspondingly restricted interpretation to 'syntax,' opposing it to 'morphology'" (Lyons, 1970). This narrower use of "grammar" can obscure the broader Chomskian perspective, which views grammar as encompassing all aspects of language structure.

Chomsky's contributions to the theory of syntax are particularly significant, as this is where he has made his most notable impact on the science of language. However, his work on syntax is part of a larger effort to develop a unified theory of grammar that integrates syntax with semantics and phonology. This holistic view recognizes that understanding language requires an appreciation of how these components work together to produce meaningful communication. In this way, Chomsky's theory offers a more comprehensive framework than traditional grammar, which often isolates or prioritizes certain aspects of language at the expense of others.

The Chomskian Definitions of "Grammar" and "General"

In Chomskian linguistic theory, the term "grammar" is used in a comprehensive sense that goes beyond the traditional focus on syntax. For Chomsky, "grammar" encompasses the entire system that governs a language, including syntax (the arrangement of words and phrases), semantics (the meanings conveyed by these structures), and phonology (the sound system of a language). This broad use of "grammar" reflects Chomsky's belief that these components are deeply interconnected and must be studied together to fully understand the structure of any language.

Furthermore, Chomsky's pursuit of a "general" theory of grammar is rooted in his concept of Universal Grammar—a theoretical framework that posits the existence of a set of innate principles shared by all human languages. Unlike traditional grammatical frameworks, which often apply specific rules derived from classical languages to other linguistic systems, Chomsky's "general" theory seeks to uncover the universal rules and structures that are common to all languages. This approach allows for a more accurate and unbiased description of language, recognizing both the diversity and the underlying uniformity of human linguistic capabilities.

By focusing on these broader and more universal aspects of language, Chomsky’s work marks a significant departure from traditional grammar, moving towards a linguistic theory that is both inclusive and scientifically rigorous.

Conclusion

In Chomskian linguistic theory, "grammar" is a term of broad and fundamental importance. Unlike traditional grammar, which often focused narrowly on syntax or morphology derived from classical languages, Chomsky's use of "grammar" refers to a comprehensive system that includes syntax, semantics, and phonology. This inclusive approach underscores the interconnectedness of different linguistic levels, reflecting the complex duality of structure inherent in all human languages. Furthermore, Chomsky's pursuit of a "general" theory of grammar represents a departure from the specific, often biased frameworks of traditional grammar, aiming instead to uncover universal principles that apply to all languages.

This article has relied heavily on the work of John Lyons, whose book Noam Chomsky—approved and corrected by Chomsky himself—provides a trustworthy account of these theories. Lyons' work helps clarify the terminological confusions that have historically divided the field, illustrating how Chomsky’s theory advances our understanding of language at both universal and specific levels.

Building on this discussion of Chomskian universals, the next article will explore how Saussure's differential view of language contrasts with Noam Chomsky's linguistic theory. While Chomsky focuses on Universal Grammar and the innate structures of language, Saussure emphasizes the relational and systemic nature of linguistic elements, offering a different perspective on how we understand and analyze linguistic phenomena. In Saussure's theory, terms like "grammar" and "general" take on completely different connotations.

This upcoming discussion will delve into these contrasting theories, shedding light on their broader implications for modern linguistics and the ongoing debate about the nature of language.

Related Posts

The Nuanced Meaning of 'General' in Saussure's 'General' Linguistics

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/08/blog-post_12.html

The Differential Nature of Language: An Analysis of Linguistic Levels

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/02/blog-post_12.html

The Computational Nature of Language: Chomsky’s Theoretical Perspectives in the 21st Century

https://leonardoerasmo.blogspot.com/2024/08/blog-post.html

Bibliography

Lyons, John. Noam Chomsky. New York: The Viking Press, 1970.

Chomsky, Noam. Syntactic Structures. Second Edition. With an Introduction by David W. Lightfoot. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.

Chomsky, Noam. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. Second Edition. Edited by James McGilvray. Christchurch, New Zealand: Cybereditions Corporation, 2002.