Universal Grammar Introduction

A 9 and a half minute introduction to Universal Grammar on University Level, for new students. Very relevant when following courses on syntax and morphology, phonology, and semantics and pragmatics.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Universal Grammar
• Chomsky
• Theory
• Behaviorism
• Grammar
• Syntax
• stimulus
• constraints
• principles
• Innate
• Innateness

[Juefawn]

Hi, read my book, "Babel, a theory of communication" by Josh Alfred. There is no universal grammar. What he's talking about is the commonality of words representing, and words ordering, about the same things, and phenomena.

[grimgnaver]

@Juefawn Universal Grammar is just one of many theories, as is commonality of words or 'computational grammar' (I think it is called). Personally, I'm not a fan of UG, but it is always a good idea to familiarize yourself with the different theories in the field, and UG is one of them. I'm more inclined towards 'computational linguistics', which is actually closely related to what you call commonality of words, as well as the method Google uses to do websearches. Thanks for the input.

[DRKnessinme]

Hi, thank you for the video but I have to report a mistake:

minute 5:12, using italian words you commit an error writtin "La polla rosa". I'm a spanish student of Modern Languages at UCLM University that's why I must say that that sentence makes a weird sense for a spanish speaker: (Polla = cock/dick in spanish). If you're looking for an italian translation of "ball" you must say "palla". ok?

Good video grimgnaver, I'm studiying linguistics right now. Thank you very much. ^^

[grimgnaver]

@DRKnessinme That is just wonderful, never thought I would learn to swear in Spanish or Italian :-) I'm afraid it has been a while since I uploaded and edited this video, I even graduated in the mean time, but I will add a caption, pointing to the mistake.

For the sake of the argument in the video, the mistake has no influence, but it is still pretty funny! Glad you appreciate it, I'm pretty sure the rest of the video is accurate enough for an introduction.

[ben4649]

Very nice and to the point. But why did you decide to leave out GB Theory?

[grimgnaver]

@ben4649 I only had 10 minutes, and did not have the time to go into GB. The video is meant as an introduction, and I think mentioning binding theory would be confusing. The amount of new terminology is already high. I agree, GB is important, but let's start a little below that. You don't learn the piano by starting with a symphony.

[ClassicalWorkbooks]

Economical and clear. Each slide has about the right amount of information. A very good introduction. Thanks.

[DerEchteSenf]

Skinners theory does not explain anything. Never did. It's magic thinking.

[smart14ful]

thank you

[MrLamotta86]

excellent presentation, thank you

[DareneXx]

thank you

[dsanor]

If there were no UG, it would be difficult to explain the speed of language acquisiton in L1 and L2. If one doesn't like Chomky's approach to this, then there still is the empirical data that has been gathered by Joseph Greenberg and others. Google The Universals Achive for lots of empirical data on universals.

[mistersmith6000]

@tvswnet @tvswnet Why call it "Universal Grammar"? The entire proposal rests on all syntactic variations of all languages being made accountable to a common deeper set of universal rules (i language) and thus, Universal Grammar. Of course the brain is ready to communicate, but universal grammar? Chomsky says himself, we need not study other languages to know this. So much of language education has stood idle, and mute, for decades, demotivated by Chomsky inc./UG and in awe of its prestige

[tvswnet]

@mistersmith6000 "...but a universal system?" Good question, and no. As I understand it, it's not as much a universal system as a universal...hmm..."prewired" ability to operate cognitively within a linguistic system. I agree that the structures of some languages are VERY different than others and syntactic, lexical, etc. commonalities are few; however, the underlying communicative need is universal, and therefore the brain must be ready/able to "plug in" to encountered linguistic systems.

[mistersmith6000]

@tvswnet On the contrary, I think it assumes just that. Universal Grammar assumes what it suggests, that in the brain, hard wired rules and constraints are inherited, and these are universal to all languages. While Chomsky et. al. are careful to distance its relevance to second-language education and manifestation of universals via the disclaimers, a) science hasn't developed yet 2) performance-competence gap 3) parameters 4) imbedded. Of course commonalities exist, but a universal system?

[tvswnet]

@mistersmith6000 UG originally described L1 acquisition, as I understand it. I don't think that anyone (including Chomsky) thinks that "exposure to lexical rules" yields effective SLA.

[mistersmith6000]

I have been a second-language teacher for nearly twenty years and I have been trying to learn a second-language during much of that time. Nothing in my experience, as a teacher or a second-language learner gives me a sense of an existence of a universal underlying skeletal proto- language that means 2nd lang learners just need exposure to lexical rules. In fact, relativity abounds everywhere I look, not universalism. It puts UG in a weak position as far as I am concerned.