Abstract
What is common to all languages is notation, so Universal Grammar can be understood as a system of notational types. Given that infants acquire language, it can be assumed to arise from some a priori mental structure. Viewing language as having the two layers of calculus and protocol, we can set aside the communicative habits of speakers. Accordingly, an analysis of notation results in the three types of Identifier, Modifier and Connective. Modifiers are further interpreted as Quantifiers and Qualifiers. The resulting four notational types constitute the categories of Universal Grammar. Its ontology is argued to consist in the underlying cognitive schema of Essence, Quantity, Quality and Relation. The four categories of Universal Grammar are structured as polysemous fields and are each constituted as a radial network centred on some root concept which, however, need not be lexicalized. The branches spread out along troponymic vectors and together map out all possible lexemes. The notational typology of Universal Grammar is applied in a linguistic analysis of the ‘parts of speech’ using the English language. The analysis constitutes a ‘proof of concept’ in (1) showing how the schema of Universal Grammar is capable of classifying the so-called ‘parts of speech’, (2) presenting a coherent analysis of the verb, and (3) showing how the underlying cognitive schema allows for a sub-classification of the auxiliaries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
(1995a). Categories. In: Barnes, J. (eds) The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, pp 3–24. Princeton University Press, Princeton
(1995b). De interpretatione. In: Barnes, J. (eds) The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, pp 25–38. Princeton University Press, Princeton
(1995c). Metaphysics. In: Barnes, J. (eds) The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, pp 1552–1728. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Brown R (1958). How Shall a Thing Be Called?. Psychological Review 65: 14–21
Chomsky N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. In: Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J. (eds) The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, pp 50–118. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Chomsky N. (1980a). On Cognitive Structures and Their Development: A Reply to Jean Piaget. As well as Other Contributions to the Abbay de Royaumont debate (October 1975). In: Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (eds) Language and Learning: The Debate Between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, pp 35–52. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Chomsky N. (1980b). Rules and Representations. Columbia University Press, New York
Chomsky N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. Praeger, New York
de Saussure, F.: 1916, in C. Bally and A. Sechehaye (eds.), Course in general linguistics, Translated by R. Harris. Duckworth: City (1983)
Fellbaum C. and Miller G. A. (1990). Folk Psychology or Semantic Entailment? A Reply to Rips and Conrad (1989). Psychological Review 97: 565–570
Fillmore C. J. and Atkins B. T. S. (2000). Describing Polysemy: The Case of “Crawl”. In: Ravin, Y. and Leacock, C. (eds) Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, pp 91–110. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Fowler H. W. (1965). A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gelman, S.A. and J. D. Coley: 1991, in: S.A. Gelman and J.P. Byrnes (eds.), ‘Language and Categorization: The Acquisition of Natural Kind Terms’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 146–196
Gil D. (1991). Aristotle Goes to Arizona and Finds a Language Without “And”. In: Zaefferer, D. (eds) Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics, pp 96–130. Foris, Berlin
Hudson R. A (1981). Some Issues On Which Linguists Can Agree. Journal of Linguistics 17: 333–343
Lakoff G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Piaget J. (1980). The Psychogenesis of Knowledge and its Epistemological Significance. As Well As Other Contributions to the Abbay de Royaumont debate (October 1975). In: Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (eds) Language and Learning: The Debate Between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, pp 23–34. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Pinker S. (1994). The Language Instinct. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth
(1997a). Cratylus. In: Cooper, J. M. (eds) Plato Complete Works, pp 101–156. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis
(1997b). Sophist. In: Cooper, J. M. (eds) Plato Complete Works, pp 235–293. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis
Reber A.S. (1985). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth
Sapir E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Harcourt Brace & World, New York
Shannon C. and Weaver W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana
Simon H. A (1962). The Architecture of Complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106: 467–482
Thrax D. (1987). c100 BC, Techne Grammatike. In: Taylor, D. J. (eds) The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period, pp 172–185. John Benjamins, Amsterdam
Xu F (1997). From Lot’s Wife to a Pillar of Salt: Evidence that Physical Object is a Sortal Concept. Mind & Language 12: 365–392
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Petel, H.P.P. Universal Grammar as a Theory of Notation. Axiomathes 16, 460–485 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-005-3407-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-005-3407-7