Chomsky's Language Faculty Revisited: A Reading Through Saussure's Lens

Introduction

The nature of language has long been a central concern in intellectual discourse, with varying theories offering different perspectives on its origins, structure, and function. Two of the most influential figures in this ongoing debate are Noam Chomsky and Ferdinand de Saussure, whose ideas have profoundly shaped the field of linguistics. Chomsky, with his focus on the "language faculty" and the concept of "internal language," emphasizes the innate cognitive processes that underlie linguistic capability, suggesting that these processes are largely independent of external influences. In contrast, Saussure presents a more holistic view, highlighting the interconnectedness of language's internal and external aspects, as well as its social and individual dimensions. This article explores the fundamental differences between Chomsky’s and Saussure’s approaches to language, aiming to shed light on the complexities and persistent debates within the field. By examining their theories side by side, we gain a deeper understanding of how language can be perceived both as a cognitive phenomenon and as a social construct.

The Creative Aspect of Language

The fascination with human language dates back to the early modern scientific revolution. Galileo and his contemporaries at the Port Royal monastery were truly amazed by how language enables humans to express an infinite variety of thoughts using a limited set of sounds. This interest in language as a unique human capacity was also shared by other notable figures like René Descartes. In a conference titled “Science, Mind, and Limits of Understanding” held in The Vatican in January 2014, Noam Chomsky said:

“One of the most profound insights into language and mind, I think, was Descartes’s recognition of what we may call 'the creative aspect of language use': the ordinary use of language is typically innovative without bounds, appropriate to circumstances but not caused by them – a crucial distinction – and can engender thoughts in others that they recognize they could have expressed themselves” (Chomsky, 2014).

Wilhelm von Humboldt was equally impressed with the creative principle of the mind. He described language as involving the "infinite use of finite means," highlighting its creative nature. In his essay on the philosophy of language (On Language), published posthumously in 1836, Humboldt wrote:

“For language is quite peculiarly confronted by an unending and truly boundless domain, the essence of all that can be thought. It must therefore make infinite employment of finite means, and is able to do so through the power which produces identity of language and thought.”

While these insights on the creative aspect of language were acknowledged, they were largely overlooked until the mid-20th century, when it became central to modern linguistic study.

The Need for Appropriate Intellectual Tools

The delay in addressing the innate "language faculty," which defines language as a unique characteristic of humans, was due to the lack of intellectual tools necessary to properly formulate and tackle the problem. According to Chomsky, this changed with the work of Alan Turing and other mathematicians who developed the theory of computability. Their work demonstrated how a finite object, such as the brain, could generate an infinite variety of expressions, enabling a direct approach to the challenges posed by Galileo and his contemporaries for the first time. With these new tools, it became possible for linguists to define what Chomsky calls the Basic Property of human language:

"The language faculty provides the means to construct a digitally infinite array of structured expressions, each of which has a semantic interpretation expressing a thought, and each of which can be externalized by means of some sensory modality. The infinite set of semantically interpreted objects constitutes what has sometimes been called a 'language of thought': the system of thoughts that receive linguistic expression and that enter into reflection, inference, planning, and other mental processes, and when externalized, can be used for communication and other social interactions. By far, the major use of language is internal—thinking in language." (Chomsky, 2016)

Chomsky suggests that the language faculty, an innate and unique characteristic of humans, allows the construction of an infinite array of structured expressions, each with a semantic interpretation that can be externalized through various sensory modalities (like speech, writing, sign language, etc.). This array of expressions constitutes a "language of thought," a system that facilitates internal processes such as reflection, inference, and planning, as well as external communication. While language's major use is internal—thinking in language—it also serves important social functions when externalized.

The Internal vs. External Language Debate

Chomsky further elaborates on "internal language" by distinguishing it from the actions that access it, such as production (speaking or signing) and perception (listening or understanding). Production and perception utilize the internal language but involve additional factors, like short-term memory. This distinction between the internal language and the processes of production and perception appears to be central to Chomsky’s linguistic theory, shifting the focus to the internal system of knowledge, separate from the actual processes of producing and perceiving language.

Although compelling, Chomsky’s views here become problematic, specifically the clear-cut distinction between "internal and external language" and his apparent prioritization of "internal" over "external" language. As Derrida aptly asserts in Of Grammatology:

“The outside bears with the inside a relationship that is, as usual, anything but simple exteriority. The meaning of the outside was always present within the inside, imprisoned outside the outside, and vice versa” (Derrida, 1997).

The outside is the inside and vice versa

“Nothing enters the language (la langue) before having been tried out in speech (la parole)” [CGL] [231]

We don’t believe in the existence of a “universal signified” floating through time and space. That is why, in our opinion, each technical term should be considered within the specific context in which it is used. For that reason, it is not advisable to conflate "internal language" with la langue and "external language" with la parole, although some commonalities could be drawn. Nevertheless, by invoking Saussure into this discussion, we intend to shed light on how each of these original thinkers reacted when trying to define internal and external aspects of language. Let’s see how Saussure addressed a similar problem to the one faced by Chomsky when dealing with the concepts of “langue” and “parole” in his linguistic theory at the outset of his investigation.

The Interconnected and Complementary Nature of Linguistic Phenomena

According to Saussure, linguistic phenomena always have two facets. This is a central tenet of his theory, as illustrated below.

For example, auditory perception and vocal articulation, which are interdependent. Sounds heard by the ear cannot exist without the vocal organs producing them, and these vocal movements are defined by the corresponding sounds.

The ear perceives articulated syllables as auditory impressions. But the sounds in question would not exist without the vocal organs. One cannot divorce what is heard from oral articulation. Nor, on the other hand, can one specify the relevant movements of the vocal organs without reference to the corresponding auditory impression. [CGL] [23-25]

Speech sounds are tools for expressing thought and have no standalone existence. Each sound, a mix of auditory and articulatory elements, merges with an idea to form a complex unit, both physiologically and psychologically.

Speech sounds are only the instrument of thought, and have no independent existence. Here another complementarity emerges, and one of great importance. A sound, itself a complex auditory-articulatory unit, in turn combines with an idea to form another complex unit, both physiologically and psychologically. [CGL] [23-25]

Language has both individual and social dimensions, each reliant on the other. Additionally, language encompasses a system in the present and its historical evolution. Distinguishing between the current system and its history is challenging due to their close connection.

Language has an individual aspect and a social aspect. One is not conceivable without the other. Language at any given time involves an established system and an evolution. At first sight, it looks very easy to distinguish between the system and its history, between what it is and what it was. In reality, the connexion between the two is so close that it is hard to separate them. [CGL] [23-25]

This interconnectedness extends not only to the individual and social dimensions of language but also to the relationship between its origins and its present state. The issues of language origins and its ongoing conditions are intertwined, making it impossible to separate them neatly.

Saussure admitted that the two facets of language were so interconnected that it was difficult to distinguish between them, let alone establish which is primary or fundamental. It seems Chomsky’s preference for internal language over external language is due to his commitment to innatism. The following passage suggests that for Chomsky, words are somehow inborn:

“The intricate knowledge of the means of even the simplest words, let alone others, is acquired virtually without experience. At peak periods of language acquisition, children are acquiring about a word an hour, that is, often on one presentation. It must be, then, that the rich meaning of even the most elementary words is substantially innate. The evolutionary origin of such concepts is a complete mystery, one that may not be resolvable by means available to us.” (Chomsky, 2016)

Nothing of the kind occurs in Saussure’s theory. The set of beliefs underlying his doctrine is different. In his framework, Saussure argues that the problem of the origins of language is inseparable from the issue of its permanent conditions.

Would matters be simplified if one considered the ontogenesis of linguistic phenomena, beginning with a study of children’s language, for example? No. It is quite illusory to believe that where language is concerned the problem of origins is any different from the problem of permanent conditions. There is no way out of the circle. [CGL] [23-25]

He emphasizes that at any point in history, a language is always inherited from the past. Consequently, the origins of language are not as significant as often believed and are irrelevant to linguistic study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the contrasting perspectives of Noam Chomsky and Ferdinand de Saussure illuminate different facets of the complex nature of language. Chomsky's emphasis on the innate, internal mechanisms of language underscores the cognitive processes that enable the infinite creativity inherent in human linguistic ability. His prioritization of internal language reflects a commitment to understanding the biological and mental faculties that make language possible.

On the other hand, Saussure offers a more holistic approach, viewing language as an intricate system where internal and external aspects are deeply interconnected. He stresses the importance of considering both the social and individual dimensions of language, as well as its synchronic and diachronic elements. Saussure's refusal to separate the origins of language from its ongoing conditions further highlights the interdependence of these facets.

Together, these perspectives demonstrate that the study of language cannot be confined to a single “point of view.” While Chomsky's focus on internal language has significantly advanced linguistic theory, Saussure’s more integrated view reminds us of the necessity to consider language in its broader, social, and historical context. The ongoing dialogue between these approaches continues to enrich our understanding of the multifaceted nature of human language.

Related Post:

The Computational Nature of Language: Chomsky’s Theoretical Perspectives in the 21st Century

https://leonardoerasmo.blogspot.com/2024/08/blog-post.html

The Protean Nature of Language: An Elusive Quest for Unity

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/03/blog-post_23.html

References

Noam Chomsky: “Science, Mind, and Limits of Understanding”. The Science and Faith Foundation (STOQ), The Vatican, January 2014

Noam Chomsky on the Evolution of Language: A Biolinguistic Perspective. By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout. Published September 24, 2016

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Corrected Edition. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with the collaboration of Albert Riedlinger. Arbre d’Or, Genève, 2005.

Humboldt, Wilhelm von. On Language: The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and Its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind. Translated by Peter Heath. Introduction by Hans Aarsleff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.