Levels of adequacy: Chomsky vs. Behaviorism

Author

Elsa Skënderi Rakipllari

Affiliation

Faculty of History and Philology, Department of Linguistics, University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania

Abstract

This paper compares and contrasts the standpoints of Chomsky and behaviorism on the grammar adequacy levels. Firstly we bring into attention the philosophical views of Chomsky and behaviorism respectively on the language faculty, providing a theoretical point of departure to further elaborate the concept of grammar adequacy. The three levels of adequacy a grammar can attain are observational adequacy, descriptive adequacy, and explanatory adequacy. The paper analyzes the tension among descriptive and explanatory adequacy. Next, it argues why the behaviorist grammars are considered to be at their best descriptively adequate. To conclude we offer an insight into what goes wrong with explanatory adequacy.

Keywords

grammar adequacy; observational adequacy; descriptive adequacy; explanatory adequacy; Chomsky; behaviorism

Publication Date

April 1, 2015

Issue

Volume 5, Issue 1

Citation information

Skënderi Rakipllari, Elsa. 2015. “Levels of adequacy: Chomsky vs. Behaviorism.” Language. Text. Society 5 (1): e1-e8. https://ltsj.online/2015-05-1-rakipllari. (Journal title at the time of publication: SamaraAltLinguo E-Journal.)

BibTeX

@Article{SkenderiRakipllari2015,
author = {Skënderi Rakipllari, Elsa},
title = {{Levels of adequacy: Chomsky vs. Behaviorism}},
journal = {Language. Text. Society},
year = {2015},
volume = {5},
number = {1},
pages = {1–8},
url = {https://ltsj.online/2015-05-1-rakipllari/},
}

References

Bach, Emmon. 1974. “Explanatory Inadequacy.” In Explaining linguistic phenomena edited by David Cohen, 153–171. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation [distributed by Halsted Press Division] Wiley, New York.

Belletti, A., and L. Rizzi. 2002. “Editors’ Introduction: some concepts and issues in linguistic theory.” In On nature and language, by Noam Chomsky, Adriana Belletti, and Luigi Rizzi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carnie, Andrew. 2011. Modern syntax: a coursebook. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. London: Mouton.

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, Noam, Adriana Belletti, and Luigi Rizzi. 2002. On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Delprato, Dennis J., and Bryan D. Midgley. 1992. “Some Fundamentals of B. F. Skinner’s Behaviorism.” American Psychologist 47 (11): 1507–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.11.1507.

Derwing, B. L. 1980. “Against autonomous linguistics.” In Evidence and argumentation in linguistics, edited by Thomas A. Perry, 163-184. Foundations of communication. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter.

Green, Melanie. 2006. “Levels of adequacy: observational, descriptive, explanatory.” In: The encyclopedia of language & linguistics, edited by E. K. Brown, and Anne Anderson, Vol. 7, 49–51. 2nd ed. Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier.

Harris, Randy Allen. 1995. The Linguistics Wars. 3rd print. New York: Oxford University Press.

Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar: a first course. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sanders, A. G. 1974. “Introduction.” In Explaining linguistic phenomena, edited by David Cohen, 1-20. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation [distributed by Halsted Press Division] Wiley, New York.