Abstract
Lin (2017), according to the author, “offers a refutation of Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (UG) from a novel perspective”. Unfortunately, “novel” does not mean logical or valid. On the contrary, as I will show in this refutation of Lin’s refutation, there is a profound and fundamental misunderstanding in Lin’s interpretation of UG. His refutation only proves his superficial understanding of the questions raised and discussed, which nevertheless are worth discussing and explaining. I take each of Lin’s arguments in turn and attempt to show why they are not well founded, either because of flaws in his argumentation or because of a careful consideration of the available empirical evidence. In the first section I show that Lin’s refutation of UG is illogical in that he confuses UG as a theoretical construct and as a reality entity, which renders his own analysis self-contradictory. The second section aims to examine in detail the so-called novelty of Lin’s refutation, proving that his refutation is unscientific. The third section offers a point-to-point refutation of his arguments presented in the third section of his paper. The fourth section furthermore points out several misunderstandings of previous studies against Chomsky and UG. The last section concludes the paper.
6 Acknowledgements
This study was financed by the 2018 Humanities and Social Science Project (18YJC740115) of the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. I would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers of PSiCL for their comments and suggestions. If any imperfection remains, the fault is mine.
References
Andersen, H. & B. Hepburn. 2016. Scientific method. In E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition).Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, S. & D. Lightfoot. 2000. The human language faculty as an organ. Annual Review of Physiology 62. 697–722.10.1146/annurev.physiol.62.1.697Search in Google Scholar
Anjomshoa, L. & S. Firooz. 2015. Minimalism, Economy, Simplicity, and Children Language Acquisition. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 192, 142-9.10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.021Search in Google Scholar
Anogianakis, G. 2017. Book review. Reinterpreting Darwin to explain evolution of language: a review of Why Only Us: Language and Evolution, R.C. Berwick, N. Chomsky, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2016, 215 pp., Price: $22.95, Hardcover, ISBN: 978-0-262-03424-1. Lingua 191-192:94-99.10.1016/j.lingua.2017.01.001Search in Google Scholar
Antovic, M. 2007. Half a century of generative linguistics -- what has the paradigm given to social science? Facta universitatis 5:31-46.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2008a. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619830Search in Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2008b. The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In T. Biberauer (ed.) The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 351-74.Search in Google Scholar
Berk, S., & Lillo-Martin, D. 2012. The Two-Word Stage: Motivated by Linguistic or Cognitive Constraints? Cognitive Psychology, 65(1), 118–140.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Bertocchi, A., & Casadio, C. 1983. Anaphoric relations, pronouns and Latin complementation. In Latin linguistics and linguistic theory, ed. H. Pinkster, 27-40. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/slcs.12.07berSearch in Google Scholar
Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N. 2017. Why only us: recent questions and answers. Journal of neurolinguistics 43, 166-77.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.12.002Search in Google Scholar
Berwick, R., & Chomsky, N. 2015. Why only us. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Berwick, R., Pietroski, P., Yankama, B., & Chomsky, N. 2011. Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science 35(7), 1207-1242.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01189.xSearch in Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2011. Approaching parameters from below. In A. Di Sciullo & Cedric Boeckx (eds.). The biolinguistic enterprise: new perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty, 205-221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Boeckx, C., & Grohmann, K. 2007. Remark: Putting Phases in Perspective. Syntax 10:204-222.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00098.xSearch in Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2002. On Multiple Wh-Fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 351-83.10.1162/002438902760168536Search in Google Scholar
Boxell, O. 2016. The Place of Universal Grammar in the Study of Language and Mind: A Response to Dabrowska (2015). Open Linguisticsa 2, 352-72.10.1515/opli-2016-0017Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky N. 1976. Problems and Mysteries in the Study of Human Language. In: Kasher A. (eds) Language in Focus: Foundations, Methods and Systems. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 43. Springer, Dordrecht10.1007/978-94-010-1876-0_15Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.21236/AD0616323Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1966. The current scene in linguistics: present directions. College English 27:587-595.10.2307/374695Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1967. The formal nature of language. In Biological foundations of langage, ed. E. Lenneberg, 397-442. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1972. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & WorldSearch in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981a. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110884166Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981b. Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Explanation in linguistics: the logical problem of language acquisition, eds. Norbert Hornstein and D. Lightfoot, 32-75. London, New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981c. On cognitive capacity. In Readings in philosophy of psychology. Volume 2. , ed. N. Block, 305-323. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981d. Knowledge of language: its elements and origins. In J. Askedal, I. Roberts and T. Matsushita (eds.). Noam Chomsky and language descriptions, 55-71. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/daslu.2.05choSearch in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1987. Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1990. Language and mind. In D. Mellor (ed.). Ways of communicating, 56-80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1991. Linguistics and adjacent fields, a personal view. In A. Kasher (ed.). The Chomskyan turn, 3-25. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1997. Language from an internalist perspective. In D. Johnson & C. Erneling (eds.). The future of the cognitive revolution, 118-135. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1998. Some observations on economy in Generative Grammar. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M. & Pesetsky, D. (eds.), Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax. 115-127. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. .Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000a. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.). Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000b. Linguistics and brain science. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita & W. O'Neil (eds.). Image, language and brain. Papers from the first Mind Articulation Project Symposium, 13-28. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000c. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511811937Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2002. On Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613876Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2003. Replies. In L. Antony & N. Hornstein (eds.). Chomsky and his critics, 255-328. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9780470690024.ch11Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004a. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (ed.). Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, 104-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004b. Language and mind: current thoughts on ancient problem. In L. Jenkins (ed.). Variation and universals in biolinguistics, 379-406. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1163/9780080474748_018Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36:1-22.10.1162/0024389052993655Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2006. 3rd ed. Language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2007a. Of minds and language. Biolinguistics 1:1-27.10.1037/e400082009-004Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2007b. Biolinguistic explorations: design, development, evolution. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15:1-21.10.1080/09672550601143078Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2007c. Approaching UG from Below. In U. Sauerland & H.-M. Gärtner (eds.). Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, 1-29. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110207552-001Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero & M. Zubizarreta (eds.). Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133-166. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2011. Language and other cognitive systems. What is special about language? Language learning and development 7:263-278.10.4324/9780429301469-8Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130:33-49.10.1075/la.223.01choSearch in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2014. Minimal recursion: exploring the prospects. In T. Roeper & M. Speas (eds.). Recursion: complexity in cognition, 1-15. New York: Spring.10.1007/978-3-319-05086-7_1Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2015a. Problems of projection: extension. In E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann & S. Matteini (eds.). Structures, stragtegies and beyond: studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 3-16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2015b. Problems and mysteries revisited. Lecture given the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, Jerusalem, Isreal, November 2, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & L., Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8:425-504.10.1007/978-94-015-6859-3_4Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Walker, E. 1978. The linguistic and psycholinguistic background. In E. Walker (ed.). Explorations in the biology of language, 15-26. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press.Search in Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2014. Phase theory: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139644037Search in Google Scholar
Clark, B. 2010. Linguistics as a science. In A. Barber & R. J Stainton (eds.). Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language and Linguistics, 371-377. Oxford: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar
Collins, C. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Collins, C. 2003. Economy Conditions in Syntax. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds.). The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 45-61. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1111/b.9781405102537.2003.00004.xSearch in Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. & Roeper, T. (eds.). 2011. Handbook of Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition. Dordrecth: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-1688-9Search in Google Scholar
Edelman, S. & Christiansen, M. 2003. How seriously should we take Minimalist syntax. Trends in Cognitive Science 7, 60-1.10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00045-1Search in Google Scholar
Eguren, L., Fernandez-Soriano, O., & Mendikoetxea, A. (eds.) 2016. Rethinking Parameters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190461737.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Epstein, S., Kitahara, H., Obata, M., & Seely, T. 2013. Economy of derivation and representation. In M. den Dikken (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, 487-514. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804571.019Search in Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. 2009. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behaviour and Brain science 32, 429-492.10.1017/S0140525X0999094XSearch in Google Scholar
Everett, L. 1986. Piraha͂. In D. Derbyshire & G. Pullum (eds.). Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 1, 200–325. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Everett, L. 1987. A lı́ngua Piraha͂ e a teoria da sintaxe: Descriça͂o, perspectivas e teoria. Campinas, Brazil: Editora da Unicamp.Search in Google Scholar
Everett, L. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Piraha͂. Current Anthropology 46.621–46.10.1086/431525Search in Google Scholar
Everett, L. 2009. Piraha͂ culture and grammar: A response to some criticisms. Language 85.405–42.10.1353/lan.0.0104Search in Google Scholar
Fábregas, A., Mateu, J., & Putnam, M. 2015. Contemporary Linguistic Parameters. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 2007. Mental spaces. In D. Geeraerts an&d H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 351-376. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Friederici, A., Chomsky, N., Berwick, R., Moro, A. & Bolhuis, J. 2017. Language, mind and brain. Nature Human Behaviour 1, 713-22.10.1038/s41562-017-0184-4Search in Google Scholar
Friederici, A., Chomsky, N., Berwick, R., Moro, A., & Bolhuis., J. 2017. Language, mind and brain. Nature Human Behaviour 1:713-722.10.1038/s41562-017-0184-4Search in Google Scholar
Gallego, A. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.152Search in Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1963. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In J. Greenberg (ed.). Universals of Language, 58-90. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G., & Kremers, J. 2009. Phases and cycles: some problems with Phase Theory. The Linguistic Review 26:385-430.10.1515/tlir.2009.015Search in Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. German is a multiple wh-fronting language. In Boeckx & Grohmann (eds.), Multiple wh-fronting, 99-130. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/la.64.08groSearch in Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Harlow, S. 2010. Transformational grammar: evolution. In A. Barber & R. Stainton (eds.). Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language and Linguistics, 752-770. Oxford: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. 2012. The philosophical significance of Universal Grammar. Language Sciences 34, 635-649.10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.005Search in Google Scholar
Hinzen, W., Sheehan, M. 2013. The Philosophy of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654833.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hu, J.-H. & Pan, H.-H. 2002. NP prominence and the Chinese reflexive ‘ziji’. Contemporary Linguistics, 1, 46-60.Search in Google Scholar
Huang, Y. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511554292Search in Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P. & Tomasello, M. 2016. Evidence rebuts Chomsky’s theory of language learning. Scientific American.Search in Google Scholar
Jacob, P. 2010. The scope and limits of Chomsky's naturalism. In J. Bricmont & J. Franck (eds.). Chomsky's Notebook, 211-234. Columbia University Press.10.7312/bric14474-011Search in Google Scholar
Joos, M. (ed.). 1957. Readings in linguistics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Larson, R. 2010. Grammar as science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: the MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Li, H. & Sheng, X. 2017. A study on the garden path phenomenon from the perspective of generative grammar. Journal of language teaching and research 8, 1190-4.10.17507/jltr.0806.21Search in Google Scholar
Lin, F. 2017. A refutation of universal grammar. Lingua 193:1-22.10.1016/j.lingua.2017.04.003Search in Google Scholar
Liu, D.-Q. 2005. Hanyu guanxi congju biaoji leixing chutan. Zhongguo yuwen. 304. 3-15.Search in Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. A note on predicates and heads in Irish clausal syntax. In Carnie, Harley & Dooley (eds.), Verb first: on the synatx of verb-initial languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Mosaffa Jahromi, A. 2011. Expletives in modern Persian. Acta Linguistica Asiatica 1, 45-56.10.4312/ala.1.3.45-56Search in Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D. & Rodrigues, C. 2009a. Piraha͂ exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85.355–404.10.1353/lan.0.0107Search in Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D. & Rodrigues, C. 2009b. Evidence and argumentation: a reply to Everett (2009). Language 85(3), 671-681.10.1353/lan.0.0140Search in Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 2004. Against a parameter-setting approach to typological variation. In Pica, P. (ed.) Linguistic Variation Yearbook, vol. 4. 181-234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/livy.4.06newSearch in Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 2005. Possible and probable languages: a generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274338.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 2006. Possible and probable languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274338.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Nola R., Sankey H. 2000. A Selective Survey of Theories of Scientific Method. In Nola, R., Sankey H. (eds.). After Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend. p.1-65. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-011-3935-9Search in Google Scholar
Penke, M., & Rosenbach, A. 2007. What counts as evidence in linguistics? An introduction. In M. Penke & A. Rosenbach (eds.). What counts as evidence in linguistics, 1-50. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/bct.7Search in Google Scholar
Picallo, C. (ed.) 2014. Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1994. The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York:William Morrow and Company.10.1037/e412952005-009Search in Google Scholar
Poole, G. 1995. Constraints on local economy. In P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis and D. Pesetsky (eds.). Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, 385-398. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, I., & Holmberg, A. 2010. Introduction: parameters in minimalist theory. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (eds.). Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 1-57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511770784.001Search in Google Scholar
Sampson, G. 2005. The ‘language instinct’ debate: revised version. London: continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Si, F.-Z. 2009. Chomskyan linguistics and the scientific methodolody in linguistic study. Asian Social Science 5:82-86.10.5539/ass.v5n5p82Search in Google Scholar
Tang, D.-Z. 2006. Yu guanxi congju youguan de santiao yuxu leixing yuanze. Zhongguo yuwen. 314. 409-422.Search in Google Scholar
ter Beek, J. 2004. Is Dutch a multiple fronting language? Linguistics in the Netherlands 21, 13-24.10.1075/avt.21.05beeSearch in Google Scholar
Wilder, C., & Gärtner, H.-M. 1997. Introduction. In C. Wilder, H.-M. & M. Bierwisch (eds.). The role of economy principles in linguistic theory, 1-35. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.10.1515/9783050072173-002Search in Google Scholar
Xu, L.-J. 1994. The antecedent of ‘ziji’. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 21,123-141.Search in Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1980. “Internal” and “external” evidence in linguistics. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2:598-604.10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1980.2.192613Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Reportative evidentiality and attribution in Romanian fairy tales
- Noun/pronoun asymmetry in Polish: Against the nominal perspective and the DP-hypothesis
- Revisiting the duality of convention and ritual: A contrastive pragmatic inquiry
- Functions of gender and numeral classifiers in Nepali
- A refutation of “a refutation of universal grammar”(Lin, f. 2017. Lingua 193. 1–22.)
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Reportative evidentiality and attribution in Romanian fairy tales
- Noun/pronoun asymmetry in Polish: Against the nominal perspective and the DP-hypothesis
- Revisiting the duality of convention and ritual: A contrastive pragmatic inquiry
- Functions of gender and numeral classifiers in Nepali
- A refutation of “a refutation of universal grammar”(Lin, f. 2017. Lingua 193. 1–22.)