نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار گروه فلسفه، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی
چکیده
مطابق دیدگاه چامسکی بخش اصلی دانش زبانی ما به لحاظ ژنتیکی معین شده است. بنابراین قوه زبان ذاتی بوده و این دانش ناآگاهانه یا ضمنی (tacit) در بنیان توانایی ما برای سخن گفتن نهفته است. به باور او کاربرد زبان ناشی از نوعی دانش ضمنی است که کاربر عادی زبان برخلاف زبان شناس نه به آن دسترسی آگاهانه دارد و نه قادر است در صورت لزوم آن را برای دیگری بیان کند. هدف این مقاله تحلیل ماهیت ضمنی زبان در فلسفه چامسکی است. این پژوهش با رویکرد پژوهش کیفی و با روش تحلیل مفهومی به واکاوی مفهوم زبان ضمنی و ارتباط آن با سایر مولفه‌های اصلی نگرش چامسکیایی درخصوص زبان از جمله توانش زبانی، زبان‌شناسی زایشی، دستور جهانی و برهان فقر محرک پرداخته است. با توجه به سه نقد اصلی بر دانش ضمنی زبانی، توانش ضمنی زبانی و قاعده ضمنی زبانی، ادعای دسترسی ضمنی به ذخیره‌ای از قواعد زبانی در فلسفه چامسکی به خوبی تبیین نشده و به لحاظ تجربی نیز قابل اثبات نیست. بنابراین هنگامی این دانش معتبر است که مبتنی بر نوعی دانش صریح زبانی از دستور زبان و قواعد باشد که به شکل گزاره بیان شده و از سوی کاربر زبان قابل تشخیص و تایید باشد.
تازه های تحقیق
Introduction
Chomsky believed that cognitive knowledge is a situational state that is usually accessible to thought not in an informed way but in an implicit way. According to him, our language offers some kind of tacit knowledge in the sense that it is not accessible to consciousness. In this article, the main components of his linguistic theory will be criticized and emphasized by their relation to the tacit nature of language and one of his most important arguments in this regard, namely the argument of motivational poverty. Finally, an analysis and criticism of Chomsky's attitude towards the tacit language will be discussed.
1. Criticism of behaviorism
Chomsky argues that the scientific application of behavioral principles derived from animal research lacks sufficient explanatory power to explain human language issues.
2. Tacit language knowledge
Tacit knowledge in the Chomsky concept is a kind of ability to use language. This knowledge is embedded in our brain with nervous structure and is represented in the form of skill knowledge.
2-1. Language Faculty
Chomsky regards language faculty as a large genetic component of our biological and claims that the facts about language acquisition support this view. He sees language as a tool of language acquisition and a kind of intrinsic component of the human mind that, through the exchange of experience, leads to a particular language and in turn transforms the experience into knowledge.
2-2. Competence and Performance
According to Chomsky, a person proficient in a language determines the form of the sentence and its semantic content by internalizing the system of language rules. According to Chomsky, the body of knowledge is the ability of the speaker, and linguistic competence is at odds with the linguistic performance that is the actual use of language.
2-3. Generative Linguistic
Chomsky emphasizes on the mental capacity of reproductive statements using tacit knowledge of the language in generative grammar and calls it an attempt to identify what the speaker is aware of.
2-4. Universal Grammar
Chomsky views the universal grammar as a system of principles, conditions, and rules that are components or properties of all human languages.
2-5. The poverty of Stimulus Argument
Chomsky argues that beyond the mechanism of external processing, there is an intrinsic mechanism that is activated by the appropriate stimulus. But how can a physically constrained brain produce unlimited outputs? How does the child know how to interpret specific structures without relevant training and evidence? How can a child create an abstract language?
3. Critique of Chomsky's view
The criticisms of Chomsky's view can be divided into three groups:
3-1.Critique of tacit language
The term should be properly applied to the knowledge that its holders, although unable to verbally express a rule, can recognize it when presented with the rule.
3-2. Critique of tacit rule
Compliance with the rule is not necessary and sufficient for tacit knowledge of a rule. Because the psychological state of knowledge of the rule does not imply the effective use of that knowledge to create a behavior that is consistent with the rule.
3-3. Critique of tacit competence
How can a child understand the complex generative language of their own language? How can a regular language user create and understand new sentences that he or she has never heard of before?
Conclusion
Chomsky believes that any speaker is proficient at internalizing grammar and thereby expressing their linguistic knowledge. This does not mean, of course, that he is aware of, or even can be aware of, the rules of grammar. According to Chomsky, every language user is implicitly aware of the most important component of his or her own language, grammar, and rules but in most cases, he will not even be able to express such knowledge to others. But by examining the criticisms of Chomsky's view, it can be concluded that his conception of the meaning of language as derived from the intrinsic power of language and genetically situated within one's mind and the brain is not sufficiently convincing. In sum, empirical evidence does not show that Chomsky's attitude toward language is implicit.
References
- Chomsky, N. (1956) Three Models for the Description of Language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory.
- Chomsky, N. (1976) Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.
- Chomsky, N. (1985) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. In R. Stainton. (Ed.), Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language.
- Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger Publishing.
- Chomsky, N. (1991) Linguistics and adjacent fields: a personal view. In: Kasher, A. (Ed.). The Chomskyan Turn. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
- Chomsky, N. (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, pp.1-22.
- Chomsky, N. (2006) Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Chomsky, N. (2012) Syntactic Structures. London: Mouton.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
An Analysis of the Nature of Tacit Language in Chomsky's Philosophy
نویسنده [English]
- Mohsen Bohlooli Faskhoodi
Assistant Professor, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies
چکیده [English]
According to Chomsky's view, the main part of our linguistic knowledge is genetically determined. Therefore, language is inherent and this unknowing or tacit knowledge lies at the foundation of our ability to speak. The purpose of this article is to analyze the nature of tacit language in Chomsky's philosophy. This research is based on a qualitative research approach and conceptual analysis method to study the concept of tacit language and its relation with other main components of Chomsky's attitude toward language including linguistic competence, generative linguistics, universal grammar and argument of stimulus poverty. According to the three main critiques of tacit linguistic knowledge, tacit linguistic ability, and tacit linguistic rule, the tacit access to the reservoir of linguistic rules in the philosophy of Chomsky is not well explained and it is not empirically verifiable. Therefore, when this knowledge is valid, it is based on a kind of explicit language knowledge of grammar and rules which are expressed in the form of a statement and can be recognized and verified by the user of the language.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Tacit Language
- tacit competence
- tacit Rule
- Essentialism
- Behaviorism
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله