GJAT | JUNE 2016 | VOL 6 ISSUE 1 |   7

ISSN : 2232-0474 | E-ISSN : 2232-0482

www.gjat.my

Mentalist vs Behaviorist : Chomsky`s Linguistic Theory

Solehah Yaacob
Department of Arabic Language & Literature, IRKHS, International Islamic University
Malaysia, 50728 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Tel: +0361965114 E-mail: solehah71@gmail.com

Abstract logic]. Chomsky was raised in a school that

applies the Bloomfield approach in Linguistic
The research emphasizes on the relationship Research, that is, emphasis on the scientific
between linguistics and logic according modern basis of linguistics and an adherence to
views and approaches. However, linguistic behaviorism. Despite the stability and growth
argumentation is needed for analyzing a language of this school, Chomsky directed hard criticism
system that uses the meaning of expressions in towards it and towards Descriptive Grammar in
a sentence to provide the complete meaning of general. The first half of the 20th century was
the sentence, as there lies a dependence between marked by the structuralist school, based on
expressions. In fact, the connection between the work of Ferdinand de Saussure in Europe
expressions enhances the overall meaning from and Edward Sapir and Leonard Bloomfield in
the fundamentals of the sentence structure in the United States. Bloomfield was the most
the logical relationship between ideas; where concerned [amongst linguists] that linguistics
there lies a relation between words and thought, was “scientific” and “autonomous”. Thence,
which is dependent on the logic of combined he had struggled in eliminating all that he
utterances. In order to signify the above concept viewed as invalid for an accurate, descriptive
of thinking, the researcher has reviewed the science [that uses/requires precise information
theory of the early system of Arabic grammar systems]. On the other hand, the influence of
that focuses more on an analogical approach Anthropology on Sapir [within Descriptive
rather than anomaly. The analogical approach Grammar] made his concept [and perception]
in the system is based on the underlying theory towards language more human; hence, his focus
that implies the aforementioned relationship, was on its cultural importance (i.e. on how
even though some modern views may disagree cultural patterns were shaped). The need for
on the interpretation of this issue. To add to the the linguistic research to be “scientific” made
discussion, the researcher has included similar Bloomfield reject all materials that were not
existing theories on Chomsky`s approaches, subject to direct observation, as well as to the
which have shown the logical approach as a natural (physical) measurement, and this was
result from the connection between linguistic followed in the ideology of behaviorism, as
argumentation and logic. As a result of this previously mentioned. From this, he confirmed
discussion, the connection between words and that studying the “thought” is the weakest point
logic is shown to be a universal concept. in linguistics, and he tried eliminating it from
the research scope and attempted at its limitation
Keywords: Logic; Method; Descriptive to Phonology and systems on a formal basis.
Grammar; Mentalist; Behaviorist
Chomsky`s Critique on Descriptive Grammar
Introduction
Chomsky rejected this as he saw that linguistic
Descriptive Grammar posed extreme criticism research is focused on the description of the
to Traditional Grammar, especially regarding linguistic surface, as it is, in the standards of
the mental perceptions which it represents, stimulus and response [as behavior/actions] i.e.
[and this often being Aristotle’s approach in the linguistic research almost treats a human

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
GJAT | JUNE 2016 | VOL 6 ISSUE 1 |  8
ISSN : 2232-0474 | E-ISSN : 2232-0482
www.gjat.my

as a “machine” that moves according to rules are deep origins [and processes] in the human
determined by certain [preset] situations. The structure that distinguishes man from other
linguist simply has to determine these specific creatures. These deep origins in the human
procedures to reveal or uncover this human being are yet to be discovered. Chomsky views
behavior. [This is the idea of behaviorism.] that there are common or universal values in all
Generally, descriptive grammar, and as human languages; he believes that these value
specifically represented by Bloomfield’s school, can determine biology as it forms part of our
only presents these formal modes through human nature (Yaacob, 2013, Yaacob 2014a).
“discovery procedures” as Chomsky had named
them (Chomsky, 1957). This means that the Ibn Khaldun, who presented his psycholinguistic
idea of autonomy of the linguistic study and theories in al-Muqaddimah, in the 14 th
its “scientificness” does not actually present Century, also divided the linguistic ability
anything connected to the man by considering into competence, performance, meaning and
him human, rather, it falls under the dominance situation. We can see that Chomsky uses these
of the scientific idea, towards the automated terms in a similar manner, however, he also
description in fear of falling under Metaphysical distinguishes between syntax and meaning.
interpretations. Therefore, the linguist first has to consider the
human being’s language ability. Accordingly,
On the hand, Chomsky’s perception of human the description of surface structure does not
beings is deep and less mechanical. The human present anything; it is not even considered a
being, according to Chomsky, is not a machine, science because it does not explain anything,
he does not differ from an animal except in his the most important is that we have to realize that
ability to think and his intelligence, but more the “deep or underlying structure” is the laws
importantly, he differs in his linguistic ability. of human nature. Chomsky sees that there are
Without a doubt, language is the most important substantial differences between human beings,
aspects of human activity. It is illogical to animals and machines. Scientists should consider
possess this important ability and then [for it] these differences and all factors that weaken the
to be converted to mere formal structures where foundations of descriptive linguistics. Since
the followers of Descriptive Grammar strive the issue of its autonomy is meaningless, it is
for its divestiture from “thought” and from the inevitable to use philosophy and psychology
mind, this superficial description was provided as an essential aid. For this reason, Chomsky
by De Saussure at the beginning of the 20th saw that what we need is a linguistic theory
century. Studying a language as Chomsky sees that participates in the understanding of human
it should not stop at this descriptive approach by nature with the consideration of scientific
considering it autonomous, it does not exceed principles.[Based on the above, we can thus
the limits of the direct subject, and what is add that Chomsky is a mentalist who believes
important in this linguistic study helps us to in ‘thought’ and ‘mind’, even if such studies
understand human nature. Chomsky particularly are not easy to verify.]
draws the attention towards children. For
example, at the age of five a child can pronounce The Linguistic Theory and its Goals
hundreds of sentences every day, sentences
that they have not said or known before, and The most important thing that differentiates
they can understand words that they have not Chomsky is perhaps his efforts to establish a
heard before. [Where did these come from? general (universal) theory for a language to
Therefore, Chomsky views that there has to originate from a mentalistic dimension. This
be something deeper to the subject and that the dimension started dimly at the beginning
‘action-reaction-repetition’ does not explain in his first writings and then developed into
this ability in children.] This implies that there the foundation of the whole approach, this

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
 GJAT | JUNE 2016 | VOL 6 ISSUE 1 |   9
ISSN : 2232-0474 | E-ISSN : 2232-0482
www.gjat.my

mentalistic theory in its essence is built on the ideal speaker-hearer, this aspect represents
what can be called “infiniteness of language”. the deep structure of speech. These two
He holds that each language is composed of a terms, performance and competence, form the
limited group of sounds and writing symbols cornerstone of the linguistic theory. According
that produces or generates infinite sentences. to Chomsky, the performance or the surface
He said: reflects the competence i.e. it reflects the
occurring processes in the depth. This means
“From now on I will consider a language to that the language we speak actually has several
be a (finite or infinite) set of sentences, each deep mental processes , disappearing behind
finite in length and constructed out of a finite the consciousness, or sometimes behind the
set of elements. All natural languages in their subconscious; and studying the performance,
spoken or written form are languages in this which is the surface structure presents the
sense, since each language has a finite number phonetic explanation of the language, as for
of phonemes (or letters in its alphabet) and each studying the competence, which is depth
sentence is representable as a finite sequence structure presents its semantic interpretation
of these phonemes (or letters), though there are (Chomsky, 1972). The theory described
infinitely many sentences.” (Chomsky, 1972). above requires a linguist to consider what the
followers of Descriptive Grammar used to
Based on the statement, we can understand that reject from the traditional grammar, for it was
each and every language in this world has a a normative based grammar examining what
set of finite and infinite components, and finite is correct in language. However, studying the
components focus on the phoneme that is limited performance and capability must seek what
(smallest sound unit that can convey a distinct Chomsky calls grammaticality in language,
meaning). We form meaningful morphemes i.e., the rules on which a sentence is deemed
(smallest unit of language that has meaning) acceptable to a linguist. This means that the aim
from these finite components. If this is the case, of grammar is to differentiate between what is
then the language is creative by its nature. In grammatical and what is not grammatical in
other words, each speaker can say sentences that language, which means that grammar organizes
no one had ever spoken before, and is able to all grammatical sentences. “The fundamental
understand sentences that he had never heard aim in the linguistic analysis of a language L is
before. Hence, linguistic theory has to be able to separate the grammatical sequences which
to determine how to produce sentences that are are the sentences of L from the ungrammatical
infinite from finite sound elements. This theory sequences which are not sentences of L and
is directed towards the native speaker, or to to study the structure of the grammatical
what Chomsky calls the Ideal speaker-hearer, sequences” (Chomsky, 1957). The basic target
in a homogeneous linguistic society that has is to get the correct language, which can be
complete knowledge of his language. This is achieved by utilizing Chomsky’s theory as
necessary because the aim is to acknowledge the explained above. We will not be delving into
language capability that makes humans special. deep details of Chomsky’s theory, but we will
To achieve this purpose, Chomsky rejects the be addressing the grammatical acceptance of a
descriptive grammar that stands on linguistic sentence that requires more than the dictionary’s
facts as presented by the field research in its meaning. It relies on a deep system possessed
actual forms, and confirms that there are two by the speaker by which he can differentiate
aspects that need to be focused on in order between one sentence and another. It might
to understand the human language. The first be suitable to provide some examples of
aspect is the actual linguistic performance that what Chomsky presented to clarify this idea.
represents a human’s pronunciation, while the If we look at the following two sentences
second aspect is the underlying competence of (grammatical of sentences (Language of L)

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
GJAT | JUNE 2016 | VOL 6 ISSUE 1 |  10
ISSN : 2232-0474 | E-ISSN : 2232-0482
www.gjat.my

and ungrammatical sentences (not sentences to exhibit the relevance of logic for the study
of L or not Language of L), we will notice of grammar, we will henceforth use the term
that they both do not indicate the meaning but ‘linguistic argumentation’ to refer to the study
a native English speaker would feel that the of the Arabic grammar system. In fact, Al-
first sentence is grammatical and the second is Farabi (d.950) developed such a theory on
ungrammatical because the surface structure the relationship between language and logic,
of the first coincides with the laws of the deep discussing the origin and development of
structure. The understanding of Chomsky’s language from a logician`s point of view. This can
theory clarifies the essential difference betweenbe found in his book Kitab al-ḥuruf (Al-Farabi,
him and the followers of Descriptive Grammar. 1996a; Zaidan, 1984) wherein he connects the
According to Chomsky, grammar should ideas of Arabic grammar, demonstrating his
consider the intuition of the speaker because awareness of the relevant differences between
he is not a machine that produces sounds languages, in general, and between Greek and
in response to external factors; rather he is Arabic, in particular (Veerstegh, 1977). His aim
influenced by internal factors. Hence, intuition was to incorporate the disciplines of grammar
is not a secondary element in a linguistic study and logic, for he believed, without a doubt that
but rather a substantial element. When intuition they were connected to each other. He based
is humanly, the theory therefore, as we have this on his view that the use of logic transcends
mentioned, is seeking knowledge about the the domain of any particular language and is
overall phenomena in each language. This does common to all languages (Al-Farabi, 1996a).
not mean that these phenomena or occurrences Here he explained the connection between
can be found in all languages, but it can be language and logic concerning the expression
studied separately from a certain language, as of a particular linguistic group or nation that is
we have seen in what is known as distinctive related to their mode of expressing meaning in
features of Phonology (Schane, 1973), which is a grammatical sense, and that the expression of
now necessary to understand the phonological all nations or logics demonstrates an approach of
phenomena in all languages. It also contradicts universality, which is a valid means of expression
the descriptive doctrine that every language is for all nations. This point has been supported
a law in itself. Chomsky being subscribed to by, Ikhwan al-Ṣafa, The Brethren of Purity, in
rationalist theories views that the human mind their Rasa`il. They believed that the heart is the
is the means of knowledge; as opposed to the organ responsible for distinguishing between
followers of Descriptive Grammar who belong intelligible (mafhum), and unintelligible sounds.
to the empiricists, those of whom believe that weFrom the former, it distills the meaning (ma`ani)
arrive at knowledge by way of experiments. This of sounds. They regarded this as the process of
is the linguistic theory according to Chomsky knowledge in establishing a correspondence
in its general headlines; we will address some between word and meaning (Ikhwan al-Ṣafa,
of its aspects in the next chapter, but what are 1995). The Brethren of Purity are not the only
the origins of the theory that had a profound scholars to have discussed the corresponding
impact in converting the linguistic study to whatrelationship between the issue of word, meaning
is known now in the American universities. and thought, Jabir Ibn Hayyan (Veerstegh, 1977)
also has a speculation about the correspondence
The relationship between language and logic between word and meaning where he believed
was discovered by early Muslim scholars this correspondence is based on the balance
(Yaacob, 2014b). They believed that drawing of letters (Mizan al-Hurūf). This theory is
a relationship between the two was basically clearly derived from Greek sources and is
a rouse to redirect the topic of discussion to based on concepts ranging from the numerical
theology and law in terms of Aristotelian logic. speculations of the Pythagoreans to Plato’s
However, in order to claim this argument and dialogue on Kratylos (Sambursky, 1959)

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
 GJAT | JUNE 2016 | VOL 6 ISSUE 1 |   11
ISSN : 2232-0474 | E-ISSN : 2232-0482
www.gjat.my

postulation on the origin of language. However, however the sophisticated approach has been
Ibn Hayyan places greater interest on the nature done which cannot be regardless.
of physical elements in his investigation. Thus,
he often uses grammatical theory as a heuristic References
instrument such as the grammarian applies his
methods of Tasrif (morphology) in order to Al-Farabi. (1953). Kitab ´Ihṣa’ al-Ulum (A. G.
determine their radicals in contrast the alchemy Palencia, Trans.). N.P, Spain, Madrid.
or physical scientist dissects the objects in order
to find out their constituent element (Veerstegh, Al-Farabi. (1996a). Kitab al-Huruf. M. Maḥdi
1977). The discussion on the origin of language (Ed.). Dar al-Mashriq, Beirut, Lebanon.
by Ibn Jinni and his teacher, Ibn Faris, should
also be considered for his arguments on the Al-Farabi. (1996b). Kitab ´Ihṣa’ al-Ulum. Dar
origin of language being revelation or agreement wa Maktabat al-Hilal, Beirut, Lebanon.
between word, meaning and thought. Notably,
most of the speculative philosophers held that Al-Jurjani, A. Q. (1960). Dalail al-I`jaz. S.
the connection between language and logic is M. R. Redha (Ed.). Maktabah Muḥammad Ali
a matter of mutual agreement and convention Subaiḥ wa Awladuhu, Egypt, Cairo.
rather than revelation and inspiration. This
statement emphasizes the human nature of Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures.
language and origin of speech. Based on this Monton & Co, Netherlands, The Hague.
concept, arises the Mutazilite correlation that
since man has free will, then men are responsible Chomsky, N. (1972). Aspects of the Theory of
for their own acts, their own words. In the Syntax (8th ed.). MA The M.I.T Press, USA,
context of the spoken word, man he is the one Cambridge.
who brings into being, such as the nomenclature
of mutakallim can be given only to someone Ahmad Abdul, R. H. (1985). Al-Alaqah Baina
who produces speech (Ibn Jinni, 1952, Yaacob, al-Lughah wa al-Fikri: Dirāsah al-Luzumiyyah
2015). This leads to the discussion of the literary Baina al-Lughah wa al-Fikri. Dar al-Ma`arifah
study conducted by al-Jurjani regarding meaning al-Jami`ah, Egypt, Alexandria.
and expression, he considered the logical ideas
to be signified by the expression. He linked his Ibn Jinnī. (1952). Al-Khasois (Vol. 1). A. H.
view to meaning as being the determining factor, Muḥammad (Ed.). Dar al-Kutub al-Arabiyah,
distinguishing the level of quality of linguistic Beirut, Lebanon
dimension in a text; by not considering this
dimension in isolation but rather as it is realized Ikhwan al-Ṣafa. (1995). Rasa`il Ikhwan al-
within a coherent text (Al-Jurjani, 1960). Ṣafa wa Khalan al-Wafa (Vol. 1). Mansyurat
Uwaydat, Beirut, Lebanon.
Conclusion
Sambursky, S. (1959). A Democratean Metaphor
From the aforementioned viewpoints, it is in Plato`s Kratylos. Journal for Ancient
relevant that the relationship between language Philosophy, 4(1), 1. Retrieved from http://www.
and logic is not a matter of philosophical jstor.org/stable/418164
speculation discussed among philosophers, 31.3.2013
but it’s also been a field of study and discourse
between grammarians and rhetoricians. Meant, Schane, S. (1973). Generative Phonology.
the Chomsky`s views in linguistic approaches Prentice Hall Foundations of Modern
has been discussed among Arab grammarians, Linguistics, Englewood Cliffs, USA, New
rhetoricians and Muslims’ philosophers, Jersey.

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
GJAT | JUNE 2016 | VOL 6 ISSUE 1 |  12
ISSN : 2232-0474 | E-ISSN : 2232-0482
www.gjat.my

Veerstegh, K. (1977). Landmarks in Linguistic

Thought 111. Routledge, England, London.

Yaacob, S. (2013). Linguistic Argumentation

and Logic: An Alternative Method Approach
in Arabic Grammar. Argument: Biannual
Philosophical Journal, 3(2), 407- 430.

Yaacob, S. (2014a). Alternative Paradigm For

Language Acquisition, publication in Open
Journal of Modern Linguistics, Scientific
Research Publication, 4(3), 465-469.

Yaacob, S. (2014b). Kefahaman Nahu Arab Dan

Sejarah Perkembangannya Dalam Menentukan
Penggunaan Kalimah Allah, e-Journal Language
Practice and Information Technology 2014, 1,
9-11. Retrieved from: http://worldconferences.
net/journals/glit/toc/index.html.

Yaacob, S. (2015). Mauqif al-Mustasriqin Min

al-Lughah al-Arabiyyah, Arab Journal For The
Humanities, Kuwait University, Academic
Publication Council, 33(129), 11-37.

Zaidan, M. F. (1984). Fi al-Falsafah al-Lughah.

Dar al-Nahḍah al-Arabiyah, Beirut, Lebanon.

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)