Bull. Hiroshima Inst. Tech. Research Vol. 54（2020）1-8

ArticleChomsky’s Implicit Assumption

Naoki ARAKI ＊（Received Oct. 31, 2019）

Abstract
Noam Chomsky insists that we are born with Universal Grammar and acquire a language after
its parameters are set, depending on the language spoken around us. When he explains his theory oflanguage, he always says that children understand meanings of sentences without considering extralinguistic factors. If children comprehend meanings of sentences only with words, his insistence
will be plausible. But if children understand meanings of sentences using extra-linguistic factors,
his claim will be dubious. In this paper, we shall examine and consider whether children interpret
sentences without taking into account any other factors than words.
Key Words: Universal Grammar, extra-linguistic factors, meaning

is called integrational linguistics. It is integrational

Introduction

linguistics but not biolinguistics that explains theChomsky’s theory of language has an implicit
assumption. It is that we can interpret written

true picture of language.

paying any attention to its context. Chomsky insists

1. C homsky’s Interpretation of Meanings
Without Extra-Linguistic Factorsthat children can understand written language

Chomsky is always explaining what written

without being taught anything because they havesentences mean without referring to extra-linguistic

innate structure for doing so. To be exact, Chomsky

factors such as situations where they are used andargues that children are born with Universal

so on:

language, excluding extra-linguistic factors without

Grammar and acquire a particular language
after setting parameters of Universal Grammar.

When we turn to more complex expressions, theBut utterances are understood when they are

gap between what the speaker/hearer knows andinterrelated with extra-linguistic factors. Written

the evidence available becomes a chasm, and thelanguage is rarely interpreted only by printed

richness of innate endowment is still more evident.

letters. So it is impossible to assume that innate

Take simple sentences, say, the following:

structures enable children to understand written
language that excludes extra-linguistic factors. As

1 John is eating an apple.

Roy Harris (1998) says, communication by language

2 John is eating.

can be achieved only when language is intertwinedwith extra-linguistic factors. His theory of language

In 2, the grammatical object of ‘eat’ is missing,＊ epartment of Information Systems and Management, Faculty of Applied Information Science, Hiroshima Institute of Technology,
D
Hiroshima 731-5193, Japan. Email: araki@cc.it-hiroshima.ac.jp― 1 ―Naoki ARAKI

and we understand the sentence on the analogy of 1,

more complex cases, as in 6:

to mean (more or less) that John is eating something6 John is too stubborn to expect the teacher toor-other. The mind fills the gap, postulating antalk to.

unspecified object of the verb.
Actually, that is not quite true. Consider the

The meaning is that John is too stubborn forfollowing brief discourse:

anyone (maybe us) to expect the teacher to talk to
3 John is eating his shoe. He must have lost hishim (John). In this case, parsing difficulties may
make the facts harder to detect, though the sentencemind.

is still a very simple one, well below average
But the sentence 2 does not include the case of

sentence length in normal discourse.
eating one’s shoe. If I say that John is eating, I mean

(Chomsky 1996: 25-26)

that he is eating in a normal way; having dinner,perhaps, but not eating his shoe. What the mind

The meaning of the sentence 2 (John is eating)fills in is not an unspecified grammatical object, but

is not derived from on the analogy of the sentence 1

something normal; that’s part of the meaning of the(John is eating an apple). The sentence 2 is utteredconstructions (though what counts as normal is not).

on a specific situation, so what John is eating can

be interpreted as something to eat, not his shoe.

(Chomsky 1996: 24-25)

In other words, the meaning of the sentence 2
Next, Chomsky takes up much more complex

is interpreted using extra-linguistic factors, notusing only printed letters. The same is true of thesentences based on the observations above:

sentence 5. The meaning of the sentence 5 is not
Let’s suppose that this is roughly correct, andinterpreted, as Chomsky thinks, on the analogy

turn to a slightly more complex case. Consider theof the sentence 4. The sentence 5 is uttered in a

sentence 4:particular circumstance, so it is interpreted withextra-linguistic factors such as knowledge of John’scharacter and so forth. Utterances are never

4 John is too stubborn to talk to Bill.

interpreted only using printed characters. NeedlessWhat it means is that John is too stubborn forhim (John) to talk to Bill—he is so stubborn that heto say, the same is true of the more complex
sentence 6.
Various factors other than linguistic ones are

refuses to talk to Bill. Suppose we drop ‘Bill’ from 4,

involved in understanding what is written or

yielding 5:

spoken in our daily life. So, if these extra-linguistic
factors are excluded, as Chomsky thinks, we must

5 John is too stubborn to talk to.

interpret utterances only by printed characters.
Following the principle illustrated by 1 and 2, we

But this is not the case. After all, what Chomsky

expect 5 to be understood on the analogy of 4, withinsists on is not plausible at all. We do not need tothe mind filling the gap with some (normal) object of

postulate anything which underlies and prescribes‘talk to’. The sentence 5, then, should mean that John

real sentences (utterances). So Chomsky’s somewhat

is too stubborn for him (John) to talk to someone

mysterious explanation of these sentences 5 and 6, isor other. But it doesn’t mean that at all. Rather, it

not necessary:means that John is too stubborn for anyone (maybe
We know all of these things, though withoutus) to talk to him, John.
For some reason, the semantic relations invert

awareness. The reasons lie beyond even possible

when the object of ‘talk to’ in 4 is deleted, unlike 1,

consciousness. None of this could have been learned.

where they remain unchanged. The same holds for

The facts are known to people who have had no― 2 ―Chomsky’s Implicit Assumption

relevant experience with such constructions. Parents

to remarkable discoveries about elementary aspects

and peers who impart knowledge of language (toof nature, previously unsuspected. (Chomsky 1996: 26)

the limited extent that they do), have no awarenessof such facts. If a child made errors using such

Next, we examine Chomsky’s explanation given

expressions, it would be virtually impossible toin his Binding Theory. Is his line of reasoning

correct them, even if the errors were noticed (whichcorrect?

is most unlikely, and surely rare to the point of
nonexistence). We expect that interpretations will be

2. Binding Theory in GB Theory

similar in every language, and so far as is known,that is indeed true.

(Chomsky 1996: 26)

As is well known, Chomsky develops Binding
Theory in his Government and Binding Theory, but
is it possible to explain the behavior of pronouns

Despite Chomsky’s insistence, we do not needusing his theory?

to know the mechanism which determines the

For example, it is thought that the following

meanings of the sentences 5 and 6. There is nosentences 7 and 8 are grammatical because theymechanism beyond consciousness. We do not need

do not violate the “Binding Theory (B)”. But theto learn the mechanism because it does not exist

sentences 5 and 6 are not grammatical because theyat all. Parents and peers do not need to know thedo:mechanism. The same is true of other languages
Binding Theory (B): A pronominal is free in its

than English because extra-linguistic factors aregoverning category.

involved in interpretation of utterances.
S o it is no wonder that dictiona r ies a nd
traditional grammars do not mention anything about

5. *The men like them. (The men ≠ them)this matter because it is not related to a linguistic

6. *The men believe them to be intelligent.

matter but an extra-linguistic one. UniversalGrammar is a fiction that generative grammar has

7. The men believe that they are intelligent.

created but not the fact which is hidden in language.

Gravity may be discovered by observation, which

8. The men believe me to like them.

shows that apples fall to the ground, but assuming(The men ≠ them)(The men = they)(The men = them)

implicit linguistic structures only creates an illusion:
Furthermore, it is thought that the sentence 9 isJust as dictionaries do not even begin to provide
the meanings of words, so the most elaborate multi-

not grammatical because it violates “Binding Theory(C)”:volume traditional grammars do not recognise, letalone try to explain, even elementary phenomena

Binding Theory (C): An R-expression is free.

of the kind just illustrated. It is only in very recent
years, in the course of attempts to construct explicit

9 *He said that Mary kissed John. (He ≠ John)

generative procedures, that such properties havecome to light. Correspondingly, it has become clear

Various problems are hidden in the explanation

how little is known of the elementary phenomena

above. First it is not considered what pronouns are.

of language. That’s not a surprising discovery. As

According to Tsutomu Miura, Motoki Tokieda makes

long as people were satisfied that an apple falls to

it clear what pronouns are:the ground because that is its natural place, eventhe basic properties of motion remained hidden. A

The first person pronoun is used only when awillingness to be puzzled by the simplest phenomena

speaker expresses himself or herself in terms of ais the very beginning of science. The attempt tospeaker. The second person pronoun is used only

formulate questions about simple phenomena has led

when a speaker describes other persons in terms― 3 ―Naoki ARAKIof a listener. The third person pronoun is used only

7. The men believe that they are intelligent.

when a speaker depicts other persons in terms of a

topic. …… If pronouns can be expressions explained

8. The men believe me to like them.

in relation to a speaker, it does not matter whether

(The men = they) or (The men ≠ they)(The men = them) or (The men ≠ them)

persons or things are expressed by pronouns.
(Tokieda 1950: 73-74; Miura 1967: 514)

Needless to say, it does not matter whether “they”
or “them” refers to “the men” or not if the pronouns

Here Miura appreciates Tokieda’s explanationthat pronouns grasp the objective relation as aexpress a concept of relation between a speaker andpersons or things.

concept between a speaker and persons or things.

Furthermore, the sentence 9 is thought to be

If, then, Tokieda is right, is Chomsky’s theory for
pronouns plausible?

ungrammatical using Binding Theory (C): An
R-expression is free:

3. Criticism of Binding Theory

9. *He said that Mary kissed John. (He ≠ John)

First the sentences 5 and 6, which are treated in
explaining Binding Theory (B): A pronominal is free
in its governing category, must be examined:

Here it is thought that “He” does not refer to“John”. But we interpret the sentence 9 based on aconcept of a pronoun but not on “Binding Theory

5. *The men like them. (The men ≠ them)(C)”. The speaker of the sentence 9 expresses a

6. *The men believe them to be intelligent.

person using a pronoun “He” and then describesanother person using a proper noun “John”. This

(The men ≠ them)means that “He” does not refer to “John”. Generally
The sentences 5 and 6 are thought to be

speaking, pronouns are used for a person or a thingungrammatical because the pronouns “them” cannot

that is understood between persons involved. If so,

be interpreted to refer to “the men”. In other words,

the proper noun “John” is not usually employed for athey are ungrammatical because the pronominal

person who has been already expressed (referred to)“them” is not free (is bound) in its governingby the pronoun “He”.

category. But the sentences are grammaticalI n a ny ca se , there a re a lot of problems

unless “them” refers to “the men”. This means

concerning “Binding Theory”, which deals withthat it depends on context whether the sentences

pronouns as phenomena without asking what

are grammatical or not. We usually interpret the

pronouns are.
After all, we may make mistakes if we interpret

sentences to mean that “them” does not refer to “theonly written sentences by completely eliminatingmen”. We usually say:extra-linguistic factors like context or situations
where they are used.

5’. The men like themselves.


By the way, in relation to Chomsky’s Binding(The men = themselves)

6’. The men believe themselves to be intelligent.

Theory, Sadao Ando refers to the following conditionthat reflexive pronouns are appropriately used if:(The men = themselves)

A reflexive pronoun and its antecedent are in the

Here “themselves” refers to “the men”. This is justa matter of convention of English. In short, “Binding

same simple sentence.

(Ando 2005: 441)

Theory (B)” just tries to explain phenomena related
Needless to say, Ando’s condition above is based

to pronouns without asking what pronouns are.
On the other hand, the sentences 7 and 8 are

on Chomsky’s Binding Theory. But Ando takes

thought to be grammatical whether “they” or “them”

up the following sentences and says that reflexive

refers to “the men” or not:pronouns in them violate his condition:― 4 ―Chomsky’s Implicit Assumption

b. Draw it away from you / yourself.

(ｉ) ‘Nobody goes there but myself,’ she thought
quickly. c. I tied the rope around me / myself.

(Burnett, A Little Princess)d. I drove the flies away from me / myself.
(ⅱ) ‘None mount here but herself, Sahib,’ he said.
(Ibid.)

(Ando 2005: 442)

(Spangler 1970)

(Ando 2005: 444)

Here Ando explains that the antecedent of myself

Here in some cases a reflective pronoun isin (ｉ) is ‘I in the speaker’s brain’ and the antecedentused and in others a simple pronoun is also used.

of herself in (ⅱ) is ‘a person already referred to.’According to Ando, a simple pronoun is used when

If we consider these examples above carefully,

a speaker feels a prepositional phrase denoting

Chomsky’s Binding Theory cannot prove that eithera place but a reflexive pronoun is used when asentence is grammatical because the antecedent

speaker thinks that a pronoun is an object of ais not in the same simple sentence as the reflexive

dynamic compound verb (e.g. pulled the covers

pronoun. As Ando explains, there is no doubt thatover = covered; tied the rope around = tied). In

the antecedent of the reflexive pronoun is not inother words, the use of a reflexive pronoun depends

the sentence but exists! This means that we cannot

on how a speaker feels. It has nothing to do withinterpret sentences only by written letters. Only

written letters how a speaker feels. This means

these two sentences are enough to make Chomsky’sthat written letters cannot explain why a reflexive

Binding Theory collapse. But similar examples arepronoun is used. In this respect, we cannot help

found elsewhere and in every case, the antecedentsaying that Chomsky’s Binding Theory collapses.

of the reflexive pronoun is not in the same sentence

In the sentence b above, there is not an antecedent

where it is used:of yourself there. It may be possible to say that thesentence b has you as the subject on the basic level

some other boy knew less than myself.

but this means that we cannot interpret a sentence(J.S. Mill, Autobiography)

using only written letters as in the previous cases

Other youths as poor as himself had marriedof (ｉ) and (ⅱ). Only written letters cannot explain

girls as rich as Sondra. (Dreiser, Sister Carrie)

why a reflexive pronoun appears or not because

What was Shakespeare may, after all, have been

extra-linguistic factors are involved in interpreting a

Hamlet ; or yourself ; or poetry. (V. Woolf, The

sentence.
In the following sentences a simple pronoun or a

Moment )Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctors

reflexive pronoun is used in colloquial English:

and Saints. (E. Fitzgerald, The Rubáiyát of Omar
Khayyám)I bought me (or myself ) a new hat.

John and myself brought the Yule log home.

Did you buy you (or yourself ) a new hat?

No one knew this as well as (or better than)I ’d get me a good strong mule whip and start

myself.

swinging it. (Caldwell, Tragic Ground )To myself, mountains are the beginning and the(English Grammar Series, Vol. 1 1959: 349)

end of all natural scenery. (Ruskin)
Here there are no differences between a simple

They invited my friends and myself to visit themfor a day or two.

pronoun and a reflexive pronoun. If Chomsky’s (English Grammar Series, Vol. 1 1959: 353-354)

Binding Theory cannot explain why a simple
pronoun or a reflexive pronoun is used in these

Also we have other examples of ref lexive

cases, it will collapse.
Next, we examine reflexive pronouns in terms ofpronouns as follows:

their history.
a. I pulled the covers over me / myself.
― 5 ―Naoki ARAKI

4. Reflexive Pronouns from a Historical
Perspective

Considering the historical development of reflexive
pronouns above, Chomsky’s Binding Theory, which
is based on Universal Grammar that is determined

Historically speaking, English did not originallyon the genetic level, has difficulty in explaining thehave reflexive pronouns. So in Old English simple

behavior of reflexive pronouns in modern usage.

pronouns are used as both simple pronouns and

The reason is that genes do not usually change

reflexive pronouns:

over thousands of years although it is not logically
impossible to insist that historical changes in

Hē oftsticode hine. (Old English)

language can be explained by a different parameter-= He stabbed him (someone else).

setting of Universal Grammar.
Next, we examine Chomsky’s explanation on how= He stabbed himself.
(English Grammar Series, Vol.1 1959: 349)

Even after an early form of a reflexive pronoun

interrogative sentences are formed in English.

5. Interrogative Sentences of English

appeared, the situation did not change only toemphasize a simple pronoun:

Chomsky also refers to how interrogative sentences
are generated. For example, interrogative sentences of
1 and 3 are the sentences 2 and 4 respectively:

Hē ofsticode hine selfne. (Old English)= He stabbed that very man.

1. The man is tall.

= He stabbed himself.

2. Is the man tall?



3. The book is on the table.

(English Grammar Series, Vol. 1 1959: 349)

4. Is the book on the table?


But in the early Middle English ref lexive(Chomsky 1975: 30)

pronouns came to be used only in the reflexive senseThis phenomenon can be explained by saying

as in the present-day English. This is how reflexive
pronouns have been established in English.

that ‘is’ is moved to the beginning of a sentence to

So as in Old English simple pronouns are often

generate an interrogative sentence. But in someused in the reflexive sense in Chaucer, Shakespeare,cases like the following, interrogative sentences

and an archaic style now:

cannot be generated in the same way as above:he rydeth him ful right (= he rides himself full

5. The man who is tall is in the room.

right)

6. *Is the man who tall is in the room?

(Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales,

The Knihgt’s Tale 1233)



he wente him hoom ful sone

(Chomsky 1975: 31)

As in the sentences 2 and 4, even if the first(Ibid. The Knight’s Tale 1412)‘is’ is moved to the beginning of the sentence, theI’ll get me to a place more void.

sentence 6 generated is ungrammatical. The correctinterrogative sentence of 5 is as follows:(Shakespeare, Julius Caesar Ⅱ. ⅳ. 37)

And thence retire me to my Millan


7. Is the man who is tall in the room?

(Shakespeare, Tempest ⅴ. i. 310)

on the wall he sat him down.
(Chomsky 1975: 31)(Galsworthy, The Freelands)

He must have at last bethought him that even

Furthermore, according to Chomsky, children

rats deserve more kindness. (Powys, Mr. Weston’s

never generate the sentence 6. Why, then, do

Good Wine)children generate the sentence 7 instead of thesentence 6? Children are never trained or never(English Grammar Series, Vol. 1 1959: 349)

― 6 ―

Chomsky’s Implicit Assumption

learn to generate the sentence 7. So Chomsky insists

According to Andrew Radford, in the sentencesthat if so, then we have only one answer. The answer

10 and 11, after moving ‘is’ or ‘was’ to the beginningis that children are born with genetic endowmentsof the sentence, ‘is’ or ‘was’ is retained in the original(properties) to generate the interrogative sentence 7.

position. Radford explains this phenomenon by

As we have already seen, Chomsky’s way ofsaying that children have not yet acquired a rule toexplaining is always the same. He discards extra-

delete ‘is’ or ‘was’ after moving it to the beginning of

linguistic factors when he explains grammatical

the sentence.

phenomena. He tries to explain grammatical

If the rule that Radford supposes really exists,

phenomena by analyzing the relationship among

the explanation may be true. But the reason why

written letters. If children generate sentences by‘is’ or ‘was’ is retained in the original position may

discarding extra-linguistic factors, Chomsky may

be that children thinks interrogative sentences are

be right. But if children generate sentences based

generated by adding ‘is’ or ‘was’ at the beginning ofon extra-linguistic factors as well as written letters,

the sentence. This is similar to the phenomenon thatthen what will happen?

Japanese interrogative sentences are generated by

Probably children, who generate the sentenceadding the interrogative particle ‘ka’ at the end of

5, should recognize ‘the man who is tall’ as one

the affirmative sentences. If this is true, Radford’sunit of meaning. For example, they may grasp a

explanation may be an explanation for explanation’s

man dressed in black as ‘the man who is tall’. Thissake.

image of theirs is recognition gained from their

In any case, we cannot help saying that it issight. So children can treat ‘the man who is tall’controversial to explain how English interrogative

just as they do ‘the man’ in the sentence 1 and ‘thesentences are generated by analyzing only written

book’ in the sentence 3. So they move the second

letters. The reason is that children can be thought‘is’ in the sentence 5 to the beginning of it andto treat words using extra-linguistic factors as wellgenerate the interrogative sentence 7. Chomsky does

as written letters.
By the way, Moore and Carling point out effects

not understand that children grasp a person theyrecognize, for example, by sight as ‘the man who iswritten language has on the study of language:tall’. He overlooks the fact that children comprehend
a situation by not only written words but also other[…] the analysis of written language has tended

extra-linguistic factors. It is not necessary to propose

to take precedence over spoken language. […] it has

genetically determined properties in generating the

been tacitly assumed that written language is theinterrogative sentence 7. Children make use of extra-

proper object for study. As a result it has seemed

linguistic factors when they treat words. If you doquite natural to isolate language, that is written

not understand this mechanism, you will explain

language, from the overall process of communication

grammatical phenomena only by written letters andin which other factors, gestures, postures, vocal

be unable to construct a correct theory of language.

noises other than spoken sound, play a part. This

Also there is another argument concerning

is all the more understandable since, as these othergeneration of interrogative sentences by children.

factors are not present in written language, ignoring

The sentences 10 and 11 are generated as thethem seems justified.
interrogative sentences of 8 and 9 respectively:(Moore and Carling 1982: 165-166)

8. The steam is hot.

In any case, there is no doubt that Chomsky’s

9. That was Anna.

theory of language is based on written language,

10. Is the steam is hot?

ignoring extra-linguistic factors.

11. Was that was Anna?
(Radford 2009: 149)

― 7 ―

Naoki ARAKI

Chomsky, Noam. Powers and Prospects: Reflections

Conclusion

on Human Nature and the Social Order. Pluto

Chomsky’s assumption is that we can understandwritten language without taking into accountPress. 1996.
Harris, Roy. Introduction to Integrational Linguistics.

extra-linguistic factors. If we can comprehend,
as Chomsky assumes, printed language without

Pergamon. 1998.
Imai, Kunihiko. A Small Encyclopedia of Chomsky.

considering extra-linguistic factors, then we may
be born with a biological endowment like Universal

Taisyukanshoten. 1986. (in Japanese)
Miura, Tsutomu. Theory of Cognition and Language,

Grammar. But if we can grasp written language

Part 2. Keisoshobo. 1967. (in Japanese)using extra-linguistic factors, then we will not need

Moore, Terence and Carling, Christine. Understanding

a biological endowment like Universal Grammar

L a n g u a g e : To w a r d s a Po s t - C h o m s k y a n

the existence of which Chomsky insists on. Can we

Linguistics. The MacMillan Press. 1982.

understand, as Chomsky says, written language

Otsuka, Takanobu et al. English Grammar Series,

without considering extra-linguistic factors?

Vol. 1. Kenkyusha. 1959. (in Japanese)
Radford, Andrew. Analysing English Sentences:
A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge University

References

Press. 2009.

Ando, Sadao. Lectures on Modern English Grammar.

Spangler, W. E. “Locative Restraints on the English

Kaitakusha. 2005. (in Japanese)

Reflexive.” Word 26: pp. 114-118. (1970).

Chomsky, Noam. Reflections on Language. PantheonTokieda, Motoki. Grammar of Present-day Japanese.

Books. 1975.

Iwanamishoten. 1950. (in Japanese)― 8 ―