ll DOC UME NT RESUME TE 000 674 ED 022 766 By.Chwasky. Noss THE CLMENT SCDE IN LINGUISTICS:PRESENT DIRECTIONS. Pub Date May 66 Note-10p. Journal Cit-College English: v27 n8p587-95 May 1966 EDRS Price t4-S025 HC-S0A8 INSTRUCTION. *GRAMIAR.LANGUAGE. Descriptors-DEEP STRUCTURE.DESCRIPTIVE LINGUISTICS. ENGLISH THEORY. PERCEPTION. RESEARCH *LANGUAGE RESEARCH. LEARNINGTHEORIES. *LINGUISTICS. *LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE. TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR. METHODOLOGY. STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS, SI.RFACE TRANSFORMATION GENERATIVE GRAMMAR of Two traditions aredistinguishable in modern linguistictheory: the tradition 'universal grammar' which flourished inthe 17th and 18th centuries,and the tradition of structural or descriptivelinguistics which reached itspeak 15 or 20 years ago. with (1) the relationof deep structure tosurface Universal grammar was concerned (3) forms and to the use and acquisitionof language. (2) the actof perception. and general. Structural linguistics. onthe other hand, has the acquisition of knowledge in study of been particularly valuablefor providing a methodologyfor the recording and data. The linguists oftoday can begin toutilize the methods factual problems which developedlancirstructural linguiststo scientificallyinvestigate the concernpd the-universalgrammarians..We may well witness.then. a synthesis of these langUAge study which i411 allow ourstudents to haVe insightinto ttie two traditions in the mysteries of complexities of the grammar they useunconsciously and its relation to the human intelligence itself.(DL) NS NUMMI 0. IOW. MIKAHON s MOAN *HU * NIKON TINS OKUNIIII HAS MN MONK* (um AS *WV* NON III P11501 01 OKAIII1A11011 0101611116 II. MINIS Of VIEW 01 OPINIONS 5IA111 HO IN INCISSAIU IMMO ODKIAl OKI OfMOTION POSMON 01 POW. COLLEGEENGLISH AN OFFICIAL ORGAN OFTHE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH President Executive SecretaryCollege Section Chairman Mtiam. Caossir JAhtes R. SQUIRE ROBERT M. GORRELL Wilmington, Delaware, Public Schools Universityof Illinois University of Nevada Editor:James E. Miller,jr., University of Chicago,Chicago37,Illinois Vol. 27 CONTENTS FOR MAY 1966 No. 8 THE CURRENT SCENE IN LINGUISTICS: NOaM Chomsky 587 ENGLISH WORDS OF VERY HIGH FREQUENCY: William Card and Virginia McDavid 596 PHONOLOGY AND THE TEACHINGOF PRONUNCIATION: J.C. Catford 605 HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH PROGRAMS: f ames R. Squire 613 LITERATURE, THREATAND CONQUEST: Walter 1. Ong, S.1. 620 SPEECH, ENGLISH,AND TRAINING: Henry W. Sams 623 A BACKWARD GLANCE: James E. Miller,Jr. 624 ROUND TABLE: The Copyright Law and T. 4:1 S. Eliot(Oscar Cargill);A Letter 4) to One More Newly-Elected Committee Set Upto Plan and Administer a Course in Freshman Composition(Ken Macrorie);A Note on Culture,or Animation and thejobless (Eric Larsen) 627 C\I REBurrAL: A Comment C\I on Richard Ohmann's "Literatureas Sentences" and Martin Steinmann's "RhetoricalResearch"(A. M. Tibbetts);Pinfeathers 0 for a Ruptured Duck(Raven I. McDavid, Jr.) CI 634 ta DEPARTMENTAL MEMO(Jerome W. Archer,Editor): Master Assistantsat the University of Wisconsin(Edgar 1V. Lacy, William Lenehan,andEdnah S. Thomas); 4. Shift in Composition Sequenceat Fort Hays Kansas State College (W. R. Thompson) 637 NEWS AND IDEAS NO (Louis H. Leiter,Editor);Verse: Man's His Own Wine(James Edmund Magner, fr.) 640 0 Books(Robert E. Knolland 40 Bernice Slote,Editors) 4/ 0 ANNUAL INDEX 661 tki I% COLLEGE ENGLISH V olume 27 May 1966 Number 8 The Current Scene in Linguistics: Present Directions NOAM CHOMSKY THE TITLE OF THIS PAPER may suggest possible, and that it is, to Some extent, something more than can yae provided. It being achieved in current work. Before would be foolhardy to Jttempt to fore-approaching thc problem of synthesis, 1 cast the development of linguistics or any would like to skctch brieflyand, neces- other field, even in general tcrms and insarily,with some oversimplification thc short run. There is no way to antici- what seem to 1 i.e to b thc most signifi- pate ideas and insights that may, at anycant features in these two traditions. time, direct research in new directions or As the name indicates, universal gram- reopen traditional problems that had mar was concerned with general features been too difficult or too unclear to pro-of language structure rather than with vide a fruitful challenge. The most thatparticular idiosyncrasies. Particularly in one can hope to do is to arrive at a clearFrance, universal grammar developed in appraisal of the present situation in lin- part in reaction to an earlier descriptivist guistic research, and an accurate under-tradition which held that the only proper standingofhistoricaltendencies.Ittask for the grammarian was to present would not be realistic to attempt to pro- data, to give a kind of "natural history" ject such tendencies into the future. of language (specifically, of the "culti- Two major traditions can be distin-vated usage" of the court and the best guished in modern linguistic theory: onewriters). In contrast, universal grammar- is the tradition of "universal" or "philo-ians urged that the study 'of language sophical grammar," which flourished inshould be elevated from the level of "nat- the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries;ural history" to that of "natural phi- the second is the tradition of structurallosophy"; hence the term "philosophical or descriptive linguistics, which reachedgrammar", "philosophical" being used, of the high point of its development perhaps course, in essentially the sense of our fifteen or twenty years ago. 1 think thata term "scientific." Grammar should not synthesis of these two major traditions is be merely a record of the data of usage, but, rattier, should offer an ,-xplanation Mr. Chomsky, whose fourth book on linguis- for such data. It should establish general tic theory, Cartesian Linguistics, is now in press, principles, applicable to all languages and is professor of Modern Languages and Linguis- tics at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- based ultimately on intrinsic properties nology. Tbis paper was read at tbe NCTEof the mind, Which would explain how convention in November 1P61. language is used and why it has the par- "MONA TO IDIONCE MS , gy7...r.,,.e ioll42 COMMIS MEM NAS na GRANTED' TO MK AN OPTIONS NE MOM MIN INC II.S. oma of REAM IRMO litIONCTION OM 1NE OK SYSTEM MOMS PENNON Of TIE LOMAT OWNER." 588 COLLEGE ENGLISH ticular properties to whidi thedescriptive modelisrather curious. Infact, the grammarian chooses, irrationally, to re-earliest studies of universal grammar,in strict his attcntion. France, wcrc a part of the movement to Universal granmiarians did not content raise th: status of thc vernacular,and arc themselves with merely stating this goal. conccrncd with details ofFrench that In fact, many generations ofscholarsoften do not even have anyLatin proceeded to develop a rich and far- analogue. reaching account of the generalprinci- As to the belief that modern"anthro- ples of language structure, supported bYpological linguistics" has refutedthc as- whatever detailed evidence theycouldsumptions of universal grammar,this is find from thc linguistic materials avail-not only untrue, but,for a rather impor- able to thcm. On thc basis ofthese prin-tant reason, could not be true.Thc rea- ciples, they attempted to explain manyson is that universal grammarmade a particular iacts, and to develop a psycho-sharp distinction between what we 1112V logical theory dealing with certain as-call "deep structure" and "surface struc- is pects of language use,with the produc-ture." The deep structure of a sentence de- tion and comprehensionof sentences. thc abstract underlying form which The tradition of universal grammartermines the meaning of the sentence;it came to anabrupt end in the nineteenth is present in thc mind but notnecessarilY that 1 will discussrepresented directly in the physicalsig- century.. for reasons directly.I. urthertniire, its achievementsnal. The surface structure of a sentence were very rapidlyforgotten, and an in-is the actual organization of thcphysical teresting mythology developed concern-signal into phrases of varying size,into ing its limitations and excesses. It has now words of various categories, withcertain become something of a cliché amongparticles, inflections, arrangement,and so assunipti9n of the linguists that universal grammarsuffered on. The fundamental from the following defects: (1) it wasuniversalgrammarians was thatlan- not concerned withthe sounds of speech,guages scarcelyditrer at thc level of deep but only with writing; (2) it wasbased structurewhich , eflects the basic prop- primarily on a 11atin model, and was,inertics of thought andconceptionbut the much some sense"prescriptive"; (3) its assump-that they may vary widely at tions about language structure havebeen less interesting level of surface structure. linguistics refuted by modern "anthropologicallin-But modern anthror 'logical guistics." In addition, manylinguists, does not attempt to dcal withdeep struc- though not all, would hold thatuniversal ture and its relations tosurface structure. surface grammar wasmisguided in principle inRather, its attention is limited to phonetic form of an ut- its attempt to provide explanationsratherstructurcto the organization into units of than mere description of usage.the latterterance and its informa- being all that can be contemplatedby the varying size. Consequently, the direct bear- "sober scientist." tion that it provides has no concerning deep The first two criticisms arequite easy ing on thc hypotheses by thc universal to refute; thethird and