تحلیل ماهیت زبان ضمنی در فلسفه چامسکی

Introduction

Chomsky believed that cognitive knowledge is a situational state that is usually accessible to thought not in an informed way but in an implicit way. According to him, our language offers some kind of tacit knowledge in the sense that it is not accessible to consciousness. In this article, the main components of his linguistic theory will be criticized and emphasized by their relation to the tacit nature of language and one of his most important arguments in this regard, namely the argument of motivational poverty. Finally, an analysis and criticism of Chomsky's attitude towards the tacit language will be discussed. 

1. Criticism of behaviorism

Chomsky argues that the scientific application of behavioral principles derived from animal research lacks sufficient explanatory power to explain human language issues.

2. Tacit language knowledge

Tacit knowledge in the Chomsky concept is a kind of ability to use language. This knowledge is embedded in our brain with nervous structure and is represented in the form of skill knowledge.

2-1. Language Faculty

Chomsky regards language faculty as a large genetic component of our biological and claims that the facts about language acquisition support this view. He sees language as a tool of language acquisition and a kind of intrinsic component of the human mind that, through the exchange of experience, leads to a particular language and in turn transforms the experience into knowledge.

2-2. Competence and Performance

According to Chomsky, a person proficient in a language determines the form of the sentence and its semantic content by internalizing the system of language rules. According to Chomsky, the body of knowledge is the ability of the speaker, and linguistic competence is at odds with the linguistic performance that is the actual use of language.

2-3. Generative Linguistic

Chomsky emphasizes on the mental capacity of reproductive statements using tacit knowledge of the language in generative grammar and calls it an attempt to identify what the speaker is aware of.

2-4. Universal Grammar

Chomsky views the universal grammar as a system of principles, conditions, and rules that are components or properties of all human languages.

2-5. The poverty of Stimulus Argument

Chomsky argues that beyond the mechanism of external processing, there is an intrinsic mechanism that is activated by the appropriate stimulus. But how can a physically constrained brain produce unlimited outputs? How does the child know how to interpret specific structures without relevant training and evidence? How can a child create an abstract language?

3. Critique of Chomsky's view

The criticisms of Chomsky's view can be divided into three groups:

3-1.Critique of tacit language

The term should be properly applied to the knowledge that its holders, although unable to verbally express a rule, can recognize it when presented with the rule.

3-2. Critique of tacit rule

Compliance with the rule is not necessary and sufficient for tacit knowledge of a rule. Because the psychological state of knowledge of the rule does not imply the effective use of that knowledge to create a behavior that is consistent with the rule.

3-3. Critique of tacit competence 

How can a child understand the complex generative language of their own language? How can a regular language user create and understand new sentences that he or she has never heard of before?

Conclusion

Chomsky believes that any speaker is proficient at internalizing grammar and thereby expressing their linguistic knowledge. This does not mean, of course, that he is aware of, or even can be aware of, the rules of grammar. According to Chomsky, every language user is implicitly aware of the most important component of his or her own language, grammar, and rules but in most cases, he will not even be able to express such knowledge to others. But by examining the criticisms of Chomsky's view, it can be concluded that his conception of the meaning of language as derived from the intrinsic power of language and genetically situated within one's mind and the brain is not sufficiently convincing. In sum, empirical evidence does not show that Chomsky's attitude toward language is implicit.

References

-      Chomsky, N. (1956) Three Models for the Description of Language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory.

-      Chomsky, N. (1976) Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.

-      Chomsky, N. (1985) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. In R. Stainton. (Ed.), Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language.

-      Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger Publishing.

-      Chomsky, N. (1991) Linguistics and adjacent fields: a personal view. In: Kasher, A. (Ed.). The Chomskyan Turn. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

-      Chomsky, N. (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, pp.1-22.

-      Chomsky, N. (2006) Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

-      Chomsky, N. (2012) Syntactic Structures. London: Mouton.