What do you think?
Rate this book
Blackwell Applied Language Studies
Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction
Chomsky's Universal Grammar introduces both the general concepts of the theory, particularly its goals of describing the knowledge of language and of accounting for how it is acquired, and the main areas of syntax such as X-bar theory, movement and government.
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
17 people are currently reading
295 people want to read
About the author
Vivian Cook
39 books10 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Vivian Cook is Emeritus Professor of Applied Linguistics at Newcastle University, UK. He is known for his work on second language acquisition, particularly for the concept of multi-competence, and has written technical textbooks and popular books on areas of linguistics ranging from intonation to first language acquisition to spelling.
Vivian Cook is Emeritus Professor of Applied Linguistics at Newcastle University, UK. He is known for his work on second language acquisition, particularly for the concept of multi-competence, and has written technical textbooks and popular books on areas of linguistics ranging from intonation to first language acquisition to spelling.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
July 18, 2019
Most Read for every Linguistic learner.
January 2, 2019
It should be obvious that this book is only for those interested in linguistics, particularly of a more analytical sort. As the title states, it is an introduction to the theory of Universal Grammar--as well as the transformational-generative grammar tied to it--which Noam Chomsky originated in the late 1950s, and which has been expanded on in the decades since, by Chomsky and many other linguists.
The concept of Universal Grammar in itself can still be interesting, even without diving into the analytical details. Summarized, it is the idea that a basic grammatical structure and set of rules hardwired into human beings; when (typically as children) they encounter language, they unconsciously use this structure to understand the language they encounter and to form new utterances in that language. (This ability to form novel utterances, based on prior rules and vocabulary, is the key point of "generative grammar.") What is most important is that 1) this Universal Grammar is hardwired and 2) it provides the basis for learning any language. Regarding its innateness, the main argument is "poverty of stimulus": typical encounters with language do not provide nearly enough information to form the complex underlying structure necessary to form novel utterances. Instead, encounters with a particular language teach someone certain parameters of the language--informally, we might think of how subjects, verbs, and objects are ordered, though the Chomskyian understanding of these concepts involves much more complex structures. This concept of Universal Grammar is described as "principles and parameters" theory: the principles of Universal Grammar, in its deeper structural aspects, are hardwired and the same for every language, while the parameters, which change the surface level of the language, are changeable, often viewed as an on-off switch. (One example of such a parameter is "pro-drop," that is, whether a language requires an explicitly declared subject. For instance, in Spanish, one can simply say "Hablaron" to mean "They spoke," without needing to declare the subject "ustedes," since the conjugation of the verb declares the person and number (3rd person plural) of the implied subject, so it is a pro-drop language; in English, though, we can't simply say "spoke" without a subject, so it is a non-pro-drop language.)
The more general aspect of Universal Grammar--that the underlying grammatical structure of language is innate, not learned--can be somewhat interesting for the non-specialist. It means that, when someone learns a language, they are really learning two main things: 1) the parameters that change certain rules and structures and 2) the vocabulary, or, more properly, the lexicon. For Chomskyian grammar, the definition of a word (the "lexical entry") includes much more than simple definition: it includes information about how a word is used within grammatical structures. For instance, the lexical entries of "die" and "kill" would state that they are, respectively, intransitive and transitive: the first cannot take an object (or "patient"), while the second one can and, in most cases, must.
This more general idea and what it means for the process of language acquisition is only the entryway to the book, though. Most of the text is taken up with an ever more complex discussion of the Chomskyian understanding of the Universal Grammar itself, in all its principles and structures. This mainly makes use of what is called "X-bar syntax," a hierarchical concept typically shown as tree diagrams which explain the underlying grammar as a structure of nodes. There are also two layers of X-bar syntax: the deep structure (d-structure), keeping to the fundamental rules of Universal Grammar, and the surface structure (s-structure), which rearranges elements of the sentence to resemblance the actual speech of a certain language.
It's probably best to just give a simple explanation of how this analysis would be used; perhaps our example sentence could be "Noam wrote a book." In traditional English grammar, we would say the sentence consists of a subject noun ("Noam"), a verb ("wrote"), and an object noun ("book"), with an article ("a"). Let's see how that looks in X-bar (though without the useful diagrams). X-bar is made up of two-layer nodes of two types: lexical (centered around actual words) and functional (which can rearrange words, change tense and number, etc.). The first layer of nodes (XP or X'') consists of a specifier and a lower node (X'); this node consists of a head (X) and its complements, which can be other phrases. The whole sentence "Noam wrote a book" would be contained in a top-layer verbal phrase (VP or V''), consisting of a specifier noun phrase (NP) and the lower verb node (V'). This noun phrase has no specifiers or complements, simply barrelling down to the head, the noun "Noam." V' consists of its head (V), the verb "wrote," and a determiner phrase (DP), "a book." This DP breaks down into D' (which contains the head (D), "a") and NP, which itself breaks down into N', containing simply the head (N), the noun "book."
Here's an attempt to render that sentence via set notation: VP[ NP [N' [N Noam]] [V' [V wrote] [DP [D' [D a]] NP [N' [N book]]]]]. Trust me, it's easier to look at as a tree.
But wait: there's more! In d-structure, there's only a basic form of the verb, typically an un-inflected present tense form, in this case, "write." Yet the final sentence has a past tense: "wrote." What causes that change? To display it in X-bar syntax, we have to add a new layer of functional nodes, at the very least the TP, for "tense phrase," but this is usually part of a more general AGRP, "agreement phrase," which would also apply to making the verb match the subject in number. That's still just a simple beginning, even if we add on these layers; what about a more complex sentence, like, "Who did Noam think Carol saw painting portraits of himself?" To map this, we have to understand traces, to show how "who" moved from its original spot in the d-structure of the sentence; we have to understand the various levels of subordinate clauses and complement phrases; we have to understand the distinction between anaphors and pronomials; then there's the various theta-roles of each head, and the A-chains, and...
If you don't find this basic description interesting, this book is certainly not for you, as it gets far more complicated from here, but the authors do a good job of easing the reader into the fuller explanation, along with providing competing theories for various elements. It's certainly complex and packed to the gills with jargon, but that's the nature of this technical analysis.
The only section I found truly wanting was the final section, on the Minimalist Programme. Beginning in 1993, Chomsky introduced a radical new project meant to simplify the grammatical structure to its simplest elements, including fundamental changes such as dispensing with d-structure vs. s-structure and even the X-bar system itself. The quick summary the authors gave of this project did not make much sense to me, especially since it rejected so much of what they'd spent hundreds of pages piecing together. Part of that, though, is probably due to its newness: at the time of this edition (1996), Chomsky only had four writings (two each in 1993 and 1995) dealing with this project, and it was still being freshly formulated. This is in stark comparison to the older principle and parameters and X-bar theories, which had been worked on, in various ways, for over three decades, by Chomsky and many, many other scholars.
In short, for those interested in Chomsky's basic linguistic theories and how they play out analytically, this is certainly a great introduction; for those interested in his more recent minimalist theories, it is wanting. For those interested in logical analysis and technicalities of syntax, dive right in; for those uninterested in such complexity and jargon, it would be best to find a different pool.
The concept of Universal Grammar in itself can still be interesting, even without diving into the analytical details. Summarized, it is the idea that a basic grammatical structure and set of rules hardwired into human beings; when (typically as children) they encounter language, they unconsciously use this structure to understand the language they encounter and to form new utterances in that language. (This ability to form novel utterances, based on prior rules and vocabulary, is the key point of "generative grammar.") What is most important is that 1) this Universal Grammar is hardwired and 2) it provides the basis for learning any language. Regarding its innateness, the main argument is "poverty of stimulus": typical encounters with language do not provide nearly enough information to form the complex underlying structure necessary to form novel utterances. Instead, encounters with a particular language teach someone certain parameters of the language--informally, we might think of how subjects, verbs, and objects are ordered, though the Chomskyian understanding of these concepts involves much more complex structures. This concept of Universal Grammar is described as "principles and parameters" theory: the principles of Universal Grammar, in its deeper structural aspects, are hardwired and the same for every language, while the parameters, which change the surface level of the language, are changeable, often viewed as an on-off switch. (One example of such a parameter is "pro-drop," that is, whether a language requires an explicitly declared subject. For instance, in Spanish, one can simply say "Hablaron" to mean "They spoke," without needing to declare the subject "ustedes," since the conjugation of the verb declares the person and number (3rd person plural) of the implied subject, so it is a pro-drop language; in English, though, we can't simply say "spoke" without a subject, so it is a non-pro-drop language.)
The more general aspect of Universal Grammar--that the underlying grammatical structure of language is innate, not learned--can be somewhat interesting for the non-specialist. It means that, when someone learns a language, they are really learning two main things: 1) the parameters that change certain rules and structures and 2) the vocabulary, or, more properly, the lexicon. For Chomskyian grammar, the definition of a word (the "lexical entry") includes much more than simple definition: it includes information about how a word is used within grammatical structures. For instance, the lexical entries of "die" and "kill" would state that they are, respectively, intransitive and transitive: the first cannot take an object (or "patient"), while the second one can and, in most cases, must.
This more general idea and what it means for the process of language acquisition is only the entryway to the book, though. Most of the text is taken up with an ever more complex discussion of the Chomskyian understanding of the Universal Grammar itself, in all its principles and structures. This mainly makes use of what is called "X-bar syntax," a hierarchical concept typically shown as tree diagrams which explain the underlying grammar as a structure of nodes. There are also two layers of X-bar syntax: the deep structure (d-structure), keeping to the fundamental rules of Universal Grammar, and the surface structure (s-structure), which rearranges elements of the sentence to resemblance the actual speech of a certain language.
It's probably best to just give a simple explanation of how this analysis would be used; perhaps our example sentence could be "Noam wrote a book." In traditional English grammar, we would say the sentence consists of a subject noun ("Noam"), a verb ("wrote"), and an object noun ("book"), with an article ("a"). Let's see how that looks in X-bar (though without the useful diagrams). X-bar is made up of two-layer nodes of two types: lexical (centered around actual words) and functional (which can rearrange words, change tense and number, etc.). The first layer of nodes (XP or X'') consists of a specifier and a lower node (X'); this node consists of a head (X) and its complements, which can be other phrases. The whole sentence "Noam wrote a book" would be contained in a top-layer verbal phrase (VP or V''), consisting of a specifier noun phrase (NP) and the lower verb node (V'). This noun phrase has no specifiers or complements, simply barrelling down to the head, the noun "Noam." V' consists of its head (V), the verb "wrote," and a determiner phrase (DP), "a book." This DP breaks down into D' (which contains the head (D), "a") and NP, which itself breaks down into N', containing simply the head (N), the noun "book."
Here's an attempt to render that sentence via set notation: VP[ NP [N' [N Noam]] [V' [V wrote] [DP [D' [D a]] NP [N' [N book]]]]]. Trust me, it's easier to look at as a tree.
But wait: there's more! In d-structure, there's only a basic form of the verb, typically an un-inflected present tense form, in this case, "write." Yet the final sentence has a past tense: "wrote." What causes that change? To display it in X-bar syntax, we have to add a new layer of functional nodes, at the very least the TP, for "tense phrase," but this is usually part of a more general AGRP, "agreement phrase," which would also apply to making the verb match the subject in number. That's still just a simple beginning, even if we add on these layers; what about a more complex sentence, like, "Who did Noam think Carol saw painting portraits of himself?" To map this, we have to understand traces, to show how "who" moved from its original spot in the d-structure of the sentence; we have to understand the various levels of subordinate clauses and complement phrases; we have to understand the distinction between anaphors and pronomials; then there's the various theta-roles of each head, and the A-chains, and...
If you don't find this basic description interesting, this book is certainly not for you, as it gets far more complicated from here, but the authors do a good job of easing the reader into the fuller explanation, along with providing competing theories for various elements. It's certainly complex and packed to the gills with jargon, but that's the nature of this technical analysis.
The only section I found truly wanting was the final section, on the Minimalist Programme. Beginning in 1993, Chomsky introduced a radical new project meant to simplify the grammatical structure to its simplest elements, including fundamental changes such as dispensing with d-structure vs. s-structure and even the X-bar system itself. The quick summary the authors gave of this project did not make much sense to me, especially since it rejected so much of what they'd spent hundreds of pages piecing together. Part of that, though, is probably due to its newness: at the time of this edition (1996), Chomsky only had four writings (two each in 1993 and 1995) dealing with this project, and it was still being freshly formulated. This is in stark comparison to the older principle and parameters and X-bar theories, which had been worked on, in various ways, for over three decades, by Chomsky and many, many other scholars.
In short, for those interested in Chomsky's basic linguistic theories and how they play out analytically, this is certainly a great introduction; for those interested in his more recent minimalist theories, it is wanting. For those interested in logical analysis and technicalities of syntax, dive right in; for those uninterested in such complexity and jargon, it would be best to find a different pool.
Read
July 16, 2012It is a very important book to know about Chomsky's theory on Universal Grammar. Everybody will enjoy this book.
January 10, 2011
First of all: I'm totally surprised that this book is here.
Second of all: I was actually pretty surprised at how easy it was to read this book. Sure, it's dry but the author did her best to make it as lively as possible.
I had the first edition so it was a little dated (just the briefest of touching on Minimalism) but I found it to be a solid foundation to Comskyan syntax.
Second of all: I was actually pretty surprised at how easy it was to read this book. Sure, it's dry but the author did her best to make it as lively as possible.
I had the first edition so it was a little dated (just the briefest of touching on Minimalism) but I found it to be a solid foundation to Comskyan syntax.
September 19, 2020
not too bad. It kinda gives a good introduction to the generative framework and how it developed throughout the years. It's not particularly useful for people who have had some background in syntax. As the author states in the introduction, this book is for those who are new to the subject.
February 11, 2023
A good introduction to the topic. A lot of examples help illustrate the technical aspects of the theory, which the Author explains in simple language.
April 16, 2013
A load of bunk, Chomsky made shit up as he went along. Nobody is hardwired with universal grammar. In fact, all humans have the intrinsic need to communicate, which in turn is shaped by their linguistic environment. Simply put, people want to communicate and they will always find a way to do so regardless.
Doubt my point? Go to Thailand and watch a Thai person with the knowledge of only 10 English words get their point across to a Western tourist.
Doubt my point? Go to Thailand and watch a Thai person with the knowledge of only 10 English words get their point across to a Western tourist.
June 3, 2008
One ought just read Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (my copy of which I cannot, for the life of me, find). I traded Vegan John a copy of Haskell: The Craft of Functional Programming (since replaced) for this, and came out the worse in the bargain.
August 13, 2014
I read the first edition. Great book, easy to understand. Very much to the point. So far the best book I've read about Government and Binding.
Want to read
May 13, 2017Testing
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews