Universal grammar and semiotic constraints (original) (raw)

It has become an unquestioned dictum in modern linguistics that all human languages share a core set of common grammatical principles: a Universal Grammar (UG). What is to be included among these universals is not universally agreed upon, nor are the elements all of the same type (e.g. some candidate universals are rule-like, some are constraint-like, and some are structural), nor is there agreement on the source of these universals (e.g. nature/nurture). Over time, there has also been some erosion of the features once considered categorically universal and the expansion of features that are considered the variable expression of universal biases and constraints. For the most part, theories of language structure, language processing, and language origins all take many of the most common regularities of language as givens. But the universality of words, the major constituent class distinctions, the complementarity of noun-like and predicate-like constituents in the formation of grammatical sentences, and the ubiquity of recursive relationships, among many other basic universals, cannot be taken as self-evident axioms. The existence of even vaguely analogous counterparts in non-human communication and cognition is questionable, and even theories that assume them to be innately pre-specified must ultimately face the question of why such a system evolved this way and not in some other way. Finding the proper joints at which to cut language into its universal and variable components and understanding why there are language universals in the first place, are key mysteries of human cognition. But in one sense they are not linguistic questions. To probe them we must ultimately consider infra-linguistic factors: the semiotic, functional, neurological, and evolutionary constraints and biases that may have played a role. By far the most influential proposal concerning the origins of language universals derives from arguments originally put forth by Noam Chomsky. In a series of progressively refined theoretical positions, Chomsky and his followers have argued that the core language universals derive from an innate language-specific 'mental faculty' (e.g. Chomsky 1968; 1980; 1994; Pinker 1994). Human language competence is, in this view, a set of biologically inherited language principles that specify possible grammars and their variable components. This complex claim has been the focus of one the most heated debates in the history of the study of language. Although most linguists agree that there are universals, there is considerable disagreement concerning their origin: whether they are innate and biologically evolved or else culturally constructed conventions that must be learned. These two sources have been treated as though they are exhaustive alternatives. Whatever the ultimate answer turns out to be, it is assumed by proponents on both sides of the debate that it will need to be stated in terms of these two options, or some combination.