Controversy of Universal Grammar

 Controversy Surrounding Universal Grammar Theory

Although Universal Grammar Theory provided a sound foundation for the structure of grammar teaching and showed how children acquired language, there are issues with the application of the theory. Chomsky (2014), recognised that his theory was difficult to apply to actual grammar teaching.

The main objections to UG and its application to language learning were firstly, the diversity in languages and language development around the world. How would the brain recognise the different grammar patterns in the many languages?  As Hinzen (2013, p. 4) states, a universal grammar is controversial due to the “diversity among the world’s languages in their external appearances."

Secondly, languages are always changing, due to cultural and society needs, so how can it be universal?

Thirdly, people learn languages at different rates due to many factors, gender differences, background knowledge, cultural, religious and individual values, temperament and environmental factors. UG does not consider these factors that influence language acquisition.

The problem with the UG theory also arises when applied to L2 language learning, including conceptual inconsistencies between L1 and L2. Learning  L2 language is not a natural language and as Cook (1985, in Abbas & Ghulam Yaseem, 2022, p.194) states, “L2 students use their own syntax, incorporate UG definitions and describe a set of values for their parameters. With the aid of the first language, students can... either directly or indirectly... reach the L2."

White (1986, in Abbas & Ghulam Yaseem, 2022), studied the limitations of using UG's principles to L2 language learning and how L1 effects L2 acquisition. White (1986, in Abbas & Ghulam Yaseen, 2022, p.195), showed that “while L2 grammar adheres to the core principles of all languages, students tend to interpret L2 in a way inspired by L1’s realization." For instance, when the L2 varies from the parameter of L1, the parameter cannot be used. Adult learners of L2 cannot access UG. Even Chomsky himself, as noted by Burns (in Hinkel, 2016), recognised that his ideas could not easily be applied to language teaching.

A further argument against the application of UG to language learning is research on the brain through using MRIs. This research has shown that there is not a single area in the brain that processes language, but that there are various areas. Studies of neural development by several sources including Elman et. al, (1996, in Debrowska, 2015), has shown that brain activity is not localised or genetically predefined, but varies according to the child's individual experiences and activity. Studies by Bates et al. (1997, in Debrowska, 2015) and others, have shown that brains have plasticity and that when a language area is damaged by factors such as strokes, other areas of the brain can take over language. 

As Debrowska (2015,  p.6) states,“while the neurological evidence does suggest that certain areas of the brain are particularly well-suited for language processing, there is no evidence that these regions actually contain a genetically specified preprint blueprint for grammar."

Furthermore, it is argued that Chomsky did not study real children and observe the interaction between children and carers. Nor did he consider the motivation behind the child’s vocalising and how they interact with the environment.

Dabrowska (2015,  p.1), argues against UG and the three main principles of UG stating, “languages differ from each other in profound ways, and there are very few universals, so the fundamental crosslinguistic fact that needs explaining is diversity, not universality." Dabrowska (2015), further states that a number of studies have shown the difference in adult native speakers’ knowledge of the grammar of their language, such as passives and quantifiers and other complex aspects of grammar. Dabrowska (2015, p. 1), argues against the poverty of stimulus ability saying that rather than it being an innate ability humans have “a set of domain-general abilities."

Also, the fact that only humans have language does not prove that there is a universal, innate grammar involved in the acquisition of the languages. Furthermore, studies on the different environments and conditions that children learn to speak in, show that these environmental variables effect the speed and progress of language acquisition.  As noted by Debrowska (2015), studies on children raised by deaf parents, showed a delay in comprehension and spoken language, even though the child was exposed to speaking on television and other children occasionally. In one such study according to Debrowska (2015) once the child started speaking to adults one-to-one, his speaking rapidly improved and by age six he was further advanced in his language achievement compared to his peers.. As noted by Debrowska (2015), this study showed that just being exposed to spoken language incidentally, was not sufficient for the child to acquire age-appropriate language. More explicit exposure to the spoken language, was required for language acquisition. This shows the variability of language acquisition, influenced by environmental factors.

Another area that raises doubt on the UG theory is the fact that there is a large range of ages children acquire language. There can be at least six months variation in early language acquisition. The theory only applies to most, not all children. Factors such as maturation, different learning styles and environmental conditions can effect when children combine words and speak in sentences. As stated by Debrowska (2015, p. 4), “even within the same language…..there are vast individual differences in the rate and course of language development." Children can also differ in their expressive and receptive vocabulary and the types of words they learn. 

My own three children were observed to acquire spoken language at very different rates. My eldest spoke single words by ten months and in simple sentences by eighteen months, with utterances such as, "I dropped the pumpkin." My youngest child uttered single words from eighteen months until aged three and did not speak in sentences until aged four, whereby he rapidly caught up to his peers.

Furthermore, Evans and Levinson (2009, in Debrowka, 2015, p.6) note that “languages differ so fundamentally from one another at every level of description (sound, grammar, lexicon, meaning) that it is very hard to find any single property they share.” Hinzen (2013, p.4) notes, that a problem with the concept of universal grammar is the “separation of a universal, immutable world of ‘thought’, ‘concepts’, or ‘notions’, on the one side, from an expressive and variable system of ‘language’, on the other."

Steinthal (in Hinzen, 2013, p. 8) states, “a universal grammar is no more conceivable that a universal form of political Constitution or of religion, or that a universal plant or animal form."

In contrast to the Universal Grammar proposition, Hinzen (2013, p.15) argues that, “grammatical meaning,…is what gives grammar a universal rationale: it is why grammar is there, and explains how it is built."

Abbas, T., Ghulam Yaseem, H. (2022). A critical review on universal grammar of Chomsky in learning a second language. Ascarya, 2(2), 190-198.

Dabrowska, E. (2015). What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-17.

Hinkel, E. (Ed). (2016). Teaching English grammar to speakers of other languages. London: Routledge.

Hinzen, W., & Sheehan, M. (2013). The Philosophy of universal grammar. Oxford University Press.