Feature Linguistic wars

Noam Chomsky in the 1960s

Tom Ruette looks at The Linguistic War from fifty years ago, and the situation now A battle not the war

Babel The Magazine | May 2014 29 Feature Linguistic wars

uring the sixties “Chomsky proposed noun the shooting. Now, a quick and seventies, a reader will have noticed that fierce linguistic a psychologically the shooting of the hunters could war was fought much richer and also be a transformation of the in the United hunters are being shot. In that States over more attractive sentence, it is, quite unnervingly, Dthe position of ‘meaning’ in perspective on somebody else who is shooting at the linguistic system. Names the hunters! The shooting of the were called, voices were raised, linguistic behavior. hunters thus has two meanings: it indecent example sentences were He stated that is ambiguous. Chomsky elegantly given, and linguists assumed explained how language users invective pseudonyms and phrases can be can disambiguate the shooting of affiliations. This is the story of a elegantly derived the hunters by applying different not-so-typical academic dispute, transformations that result in the a linguistic dogfight that lasted from each other unambiguous phrases the hunters for more than ten years, fought by means of shoot and the hunters are being high up in the ivory towers of shot. The University. ‘transformations’, Relating transformations We start our story with with meaning was a central shaking and that these topic of Chomsky’s 1965 book up the linguistic field with transformations Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. his revolutionary Syntactic Although it was left somewhat Structures (1957) and his could help us unclear what meaning and paradigm shifting review of BF to understand syntax really have to do with Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1959). each other, one bold claim – the This arousal did not lead to The meaning, i.e. what ‘Katz-Postal Hypothesis’ – stood Linguistic War, which would is being said.” out. The hypothesis states that only start about a decade later, but did bring about the first cognitive revolution in the study of language. The revolution overthrew the prevailing idea in that a stimulus evokes a response, in the way that the ringing of a bell would cause Pavlov’s dog to drool. Chomsky proposed a psychologically much richer and more attractive perspective on linguistic behavior. He stated that phrases can be elegantly derived from each other by means of ‘transformations’, and that these transformations could help us to Behavioural psychologist BF Skinner. Chomsky’s review of Verbal Behaviour caused a paradigm shift in linguistics understand meaning, i.e. what is being said. a conversion is called a ‘Passive Let’s look at a few examples. Transformation’. The Katz-Postal Hypothesis: First, take a simple active Or take the sentence A transformation from one sentence such as John eats a the hunters shoot. This short sentence to another does sandwich. That sentence can sentence can be transformed not change the meaning; be easily transformed into the into the shooting of the hunters. all transformations of a equivalent passive sentence A This transformation is known sentence have the same sandwich is eaten by John: such as a ‘Nominalization’, since meaning. the verb to shoot becomes the

30 Babel The Language Magazine | May 2014 Feature Linguistic wars

A Generative Semantic analysis of ‘Matthew killed the bogies’ Sentence Syntax Noun Phrase Verb Phrase Noun Verb Noun Phrase Sentence Matthew killed the bogies Matthew caused to die the bogies Semantics Matthew caused to become dead the bogies MATTHEW CAUSE TO BECOME NOT ALIVE BOGIES a transformation from one bottom, which give a perspective Consider the sentences sentence to another shall not on the meaning of the sentence. Many men read few books and change the meaning. In other In this case, the verb ‘to kill’ Few books are read by many men. words, all transformations of a is made increasingly more Although these two sentences sentence must have the same specific by meaning-preserving are transformations of each other meaning. transformations. Four building – just like John eats a sandwich Chomsky left the Katz- blocks of meaning remain: and A sandwich is eaten by John Postal hypothesis as a dangling CAUSE, TO BECOME, NOT and – their meaning is not the same. proposition during a sabbatical ALIVE. In the first sentence, the amount year at Berkeley in 1966. With Haj Ross wrote down the of books may still be large, even Chomsky away, four devoted theory in a 1967 letter to Arnold when each individual man only followers – , Zwicky, and the ideas were reads a few books. In the second Haj Ross, Paul Postal and Jim disseminated to the scientific sentence, the amount of books McCawley – developed a theory community during the ‘Camelot, is very small, and the individual of Generative Semantics 1968’ meeting in Urbana, Illinois. men all read at least the same set by pushing the Katz-Postal The four devoted followers of books. Hypothesis to the extreme. also presented their theory to In the wake of Chomsky’s Chomsky upon his return to attack on Generative Semantics, academic life. However, Chomsky Ray Jackendoff (and others) GENERATIVE SEMANTICS was not happy at all with the formulated the theory of A field of semantics that progress they made. During his Interpretative Semantics, claims that a theory about sabbatical, in contrast to the in which meaning is studied language has a central efforts in Generative Semantics separately from syntax. The component in which meaning to integrate meaning and syntax, theory was presented in and syntax are tightly Chomsky had developed the Jackendoff’s article Semantic interwoven. opposite idea of an autonomous Interpretation in Generative syntactic theory in which Grammar. The central idea of meaning did not play a role. Generative Semantics is The starting point INTERPRETATIVE that meaning-preserving for Chomsky’s idea was a transformations can be used refutation of the Katz-Postal SEMANTICS A theory of semantics in to connect the construction of Hypothesis that transformations which meaning only comes a sentence with unambiguous preserve meaning – a central into play after the words are building blocks of meaning. Let assumption for Generative put together in a syntactic me explain with an example. Semantics, and a hypothesis that structure. As such, syntax Take the sentence Matthew Chomsky himself supported becomes a completely killed the bogies, in the middle of in his 1965 book. Chomsky’s autonomous discipline. the table above. Most linguists counterargument revolves would be quite happy with the around the undeniable fact that syntactic analysis in the first the ‘Passive Transformation’ Now, these are the rows of that table. Generative does not necessarily preserve participants of The Linguistic semanticists, however, insisted meaning. War: two opposing groups on adding more rows at the of fairly young scientists,

Babel The Language Magazine | May 2014 31 Feature Linguistic wars

with Chomsky supporting transformations into an absolute that a grammar should not allow Interpretative Semantics and truth, a dogma of science. for the second sentence, because generative semanticists assuming Another important issue the somewhat childish making the role of the underdog. The for interpretativists was that number 2 is not appropriate year is now 1968, the Vietnam Generative Semantics wanted to in combination with the War is on everybody’s mind, expand the kind of phenomena formality of is generally expedited. revolution is what you do that could be handled by These kinds of usage-related before breakfast, and hippies are grammar. After including phenomena received more and becoming the mainstream. The meaning in grammar, the more attention from Generative atmosphere at The University door of Generative Semantics Semantics, which celebrated grew grim and battle positions now stood open to bring in the difficulty of grasping the were assumed. usage phenomena, such as mysteries of actual language use, At first, the war was appropriateness. Robin Lakoff beyond constructed examples. academically fought in – George Lakoff’s wife – used In contrast, Chomsky tried to publications and during the following example to keep things tidy and clean by conferences. One of the defend the inclusion of usage shunning pragmatics altogether. important battles took place phenomena. More importantly, With ever stronger during the 1969 Texas conference it foreshadowed the adversarial academic polarization between on Goals of Linguistic Theory. tone of the later rows and fights. Generative Semantics and Here, Chomsky and the Sensitive readers may want to Interpretative Semantics, and interpretative semanticists skip this. with a little help from the publicly denounced the idea Take the two similar 1960s-1970s Zeitgeist, a situation that transformations preserve sentences Defecation is generally emerges in which Chomsky meaning. In contrast, Generative expedited by the use of large becomes ‘The Establishment’ Semantics – from then on loudly banana leaves and Making number and Lakoff represents defended by George Lakoff – 2 is generally expedited by the use of ‘Counterculture’. Obviously, turned meaning-preserving large banana leaves. Lakoff claims this simplistic image does not do justice to the truth. Whereas one expects the Counterculture to be the most productive and constructive, it is in fact The Establishment – albeit perhaps inspired and spurred on by Generative Semantics – that makes substantial headway, not in the least through the work of Ray Jackendoff. The Generative Semanticists’ ideas – although exciting and still relevant today – were presented in a defensive and antagonistic way. One type of rebellious action was to sit in Chomsky’s lectures and to challenge him in front of undergraduates. Experts in this guerilla tactic were Mr. and Mrs. Lakoff. At one point, Mr. Lakoff is supposed to have accused Chomsky – at that time still one of the highest ranking professors in the field – of not being up to speed with the latest developments:

George Lakoff

32 Babel The Language Magazine | May 2014 Feature Linguistic wars

“I have been saying the From 1973 onwards, evaporated as soon as it got the same thing” Lakoff remarked. the content of the dispute upper hand. Postal ventured “Where did you write about it?” became methodological and out on his own to develop Chomsky asked in return. conceptual. Methodologically Relational Grammar. Lakoff “I have been lecturing about speaking, generative semanticists moved on to publish his now these things, and if you are loved data and produced famous Metaphors We Live By interested, you should come to new and mostly convincing (with Mark Johnson). Haj Ross my class” Lakoff scoffed. counterexamples against the ventured out into poetics. And Obviously, this is not ideas of Interpretative Semantics James McCawley stuck with a gentlemanly approach to every day. On the conceptual Generative Semantics, but scientific progress. And things level, interpretative semanticists simply did not want to scream as got even less academic from then blamed Generative Semantics loudly and fight as boldly as the on. Those sensitive readers that for not being theoretical enough. Lakoffs did. skipped the examples of Mrs. Lakoff above may also want to A timeline of The Linguistic War skip the following section. Example sentences in 1957 (Chomsky) publications started to express 1964 Katz-Postal Hypothesis: transformations preserve meaning political viewpoints – America’s 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Chomsky) claim that it was difficult to control Vietnamese aggression in Vietnam 1966 Chomsky’s sabbatical at Berkeley surprised no one – and often they 1967 Ross writes a letter to Zwicky were just hedonistic, exclaiming 1968 Camelot, 1968 about sex, drugs and rock n’ roll 1969 Texas Conference on Goals of Linguistic Theory – My cache of marijuana got found by Fido, the police dog. 1970 Lakoff’s PhD dissertation Key publications circulated 1971 On Generative Semantics (Lakoff), Studies out in Left Field in the 1971 bundle that carried (McCawley) the not so revealing title Studies 1972 Semantic Interpretation in out in Left Field: Defamatory (Jackendoff) Essays, with contributions 1973 Nyaah, nyaah! such as ‘Up Yours’ and Related Constructions. Some generative semanticists published under The public opinion, however, The fate of Judith Levi’s offensive aliases. For example, was tilting increasingly in favor Generative Semantic doctoral McCawley used the pseudonym of the opinionated generative dissertation is characteristic Quang Phuc Dong (who taught semanticists and their frivolous of the rapid disintegration at the fictional South-Hanoi approach. Lakoff felt so certain of her field. The dissertation Institute of Technology, S.H.I.T., of becoming the victor of The was supervised by the brilliant and the Free University of Linguistic War that he ended McCawley and successfully Central Quebec, F.U.C.Q.). one of his 1973 papers with the defended in 1974, at the peak of Interpretative Semantics is victorious cry Nyaah, nyaah! Generative Semantics. But when not without blame, either. At And indeed, as a force of she published the dissertation one point, Jackendoff uses the opposition – poking holes in in 1978, her book had a difficult following example: Although the proposals of interpretatives time finding an interested the bum tried to hit me, I can’t – Generative Semantics was audience, because the Generative really get too mad at George. This very successful and attractive. Semantic community was gone. is a direct slur, launched quite However, their dominant Unsurprisingly then, unveiled at George Lakoff. Even position in the field as of 1974 after the hot-headed years of worse, Frederick Newmeyer onward required visionary shouting and polarization, it was reports that Jackendoff and leadership. Alas, the foremen of Interpretative Semantics, and Lakoff “hurled amplified Generative Semantics could not not Generative Semantics, that obscenities at each other before keep the field together. could finally claim victory in The 200 embarrassed onlookers” at a As a matter of fact, Linguistic War. Indeed, by 1977, conference. Generative Semantics basically twenty years after Chomsky’s

Babel The Language Magazine | May 2014 33 Feature Linguistic wars

paradigm-shifting Syntactic Cognitive Linguists out there, by Gregory Guy’s letter in 2005. It Structures, everything was and some Chomskyans are not is striking that no-one jumped to relatively quiet again. all too opposed to accepting Newmeyer’s defense. The crumbling state some meaning and pragmatics in So, what will the future of Generative Semantics their syntax. bring for linguistics? Obviously, in the second half of the This brings to question no one can tell, but something is seventies turned into one whether Interpretative certainly going on. Construction of the feeding lines for the Semantics has justly claimed Grammar, a strand of Cognitive new linguistic paradigm of the victory and declared the Linguistics that was initiated Cognitive Linguistics, which end of The Linguistic War of by (among others) Langacker’s emerged during the eighties the late seventies. Given the student Adele Goldberg, is and established itself in the broad acceptance of many ideas becoming increasingly popular, nineties. Since then, Chomskyan that originate in Generative and its research questions come linguistics and Cognitive Semantics, together with the close to the syntactic questions Linguistics have been living waning – but nonetheless that are being asked in the next to each other, without still strong – paradigm of Chomskyan domain. With the much contact or drama. But Generative Grammar, would it two fields now approaching each just as Chomsky could spark not be more accurate to say that other, one can observe growing the first cognitive revolution, Interpretative Semantics won an animosity and polarization the emergence of Cognitive important battle, but that The – but also a willingness to Linguistics brought a second Linguistic War is not over just embrace cross-fertilization and cognitive revolution. yet? collaboration. For any linguist, The first cognitive Truly, The Linguistic in whatever field of linguistics, revolution indicates the shift War has been very quiet in the these are exciting times. ¶ from an almost mechanic past two decades. Cognitive stimulus-response model Linguistics as a field installed of language, to a meaning- its own journals (e.g. Cognitive Tom Ruette is a postdoctoral researcher oriented cognitive model. The Linguistics, since 1990, by Dirk in the Department for Historical Linguistics at the Humboldt University second cognitive revolution Geeraerts) and conferences of Berlin (Germany) and Honorary indicates the movement from a (e.g. International Cognitive Research Fellow for the Research Unit theoretical syntactic theory, to a Linguistic Conference, since Quantitative Lexicology and Variational psychologically grounded theory 1989, by René Dirven). As a Linguistics at the KU Leuven (Belgium). of language. result, there has been no need to Email: [email protected] This second cognitive look for contact and exchange revolution in linguistics has with Chomsky’s field. Moreover, been attributed to, among many the research questions and others, two key figures: George methodologies of the two fields Lakoff and Ronald Langacker. could not be farther apart. The latter became famous The only noteworthy uprise Find out more and very influential by writing took the form of a 2003 article two monumental volumes on by Frederick Newmeyer and a Books the Foundations of Cognitive response by Gregory Guy – both Randy Allan Harris, (1993). The Grammar in 1987 and 1991. professors who experienced . New York: Oxford University Press. Langacker cast meaning and the roaring battle of the sixties usage – just like Generative and seventies– in the flagship Semantics – as central in the journal Language. Newmeyer analysis of linguistic phenomena argued along Chomskyan lines (although, admittedly, this was to exclude usage-phenomena already the main tenet of pre- from grammar. By doing so, he structuralist European theories provoked a series of responses of the 19th century, such as that defended the Generative Hermann Paul and Michel Bréal. Semantics a.k.a. Cognitive Today, the combination of Linguistics point-of-view to syntax, meaning and pragmatics include usage-phenomena in is accepted by the many grammar. The series was closed

34 Babel The Language Magazine | May 2014