Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use - Coggle Diagram
Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use
Generative grammar
-
limits itself to certain elements of this larger picture. Its standpoint is that of individual psychology
It is concerned with those aspects of form and meaning that are determined by the “language faculty”
-
vs. traditional grammar
-
Language was regarded as a habit system, one that was assumed to be much overdetermined by available evidence. Production and interpretation of new forms was taken to be a straightforward matter of analogy, posing no problems of principle.
Exactly the opposite is the case: language poses in a sharp and clear form what has sometimes been called “Plato’s problem”, the problem of “poverty of stimulus” of accounting for the richness, complexity and specificity of shared knowledge, given the limitations of the data available.
This difference of perception concerning where the problem lies (overlearning or poverty of evidence) reflects very clearly the effect of the shift of focus that inaugurated the study of generative grammar.
-
Universal grammar (UG)
is a general theory of linguistic structure that has as a subject matter the nature of the language faculty.
-
-
UG is a theory of the “initial state” of the language faculty, prior to any linguistic experience.
Author's purpose
The shift of focus on knowledge of language was from behavior or the products of behavior to states of the mind/brain that enter into behavior. The 3 questions that arise are these:
- What constitutes knowledge of language?
- How is knowledge of language acquired?
- How is knowledge of language put to use?
Ordinary usage
Knowledge of language is often characterized as a practical ability to speak and understand. Ordinary usage makes a much sharper distinction between the 2 phrases:
2 people may share exactly the same knowledge of language but differ markedly in their ability to put this knowledge to use. Ability to use language may improve or decline without any change in knowledge. Then, knowledge cannot be properly described as a practical ability.
Example:
“John is too stubborn to talk to” as meaning “John is too stubborn to talk to someone or other”
We are perfectly capable of associating the sentence, but we know that these are not the associations that our knowledge of the language provides; ability is one thing, knowledge of something quite different.
-