Key Concepts

Universal Grammar
• Definition: Universal Grammar (UG) refers to the inherent set of grammatical
principles shared across all human languages.
• Implication: This suggests that despite the surface differences in languages, they all
follow a common structural foundation.
Language Acquisition Device (LAD)
• Concept: Chomsky introduced the idea of the Language Acquisition Device, a
theoretical construct that explains how children rapidly learn language.
• Function: The LAD allows children to intuitively grasp grammatical rules without
formal instruction, enabling them to produce sentences they have never heard before.
Poverty of Stimulus
• Argument: Chomsky argued that the linguistic input children receive is often
insufficient for them to acquire complex grammatical structures solely through imitation.
• Conclusion: This leads to the conclusion that children must possess innate knowledge
about language, allowing them to generate new sentences.
Stages of Language Acquisition
Chomsky’s theory implies that children go through specific stages of language development:
1. Pre-linguistic Stage: Babies begin to recognize sounds and rhythms of their native
language.
2. Single Words: Children start using single words to convey meaning.
3. Two-word Combinations: Simple phrases emerge, showcasing an understanding of
basic syntax.
4. Complex Sentences: As they grow, children begin to form more complex sentences,
demonstrating mastery of grammatical rules.
Implications for Education
Chomsky’s theories have significant implications for language teaching:
• Emphasizing exposure to rich linguistic environments can enhance natural language
acquisition.
• Understanding that grammar is not merely learned but intuitively understood can
shape teaching methodologies.
Critiques and Alternatives
While Chomsky’s theories are influential, they have faced criticism:
• Some argue that social interaction plays a crucial role in language learning.
• Alternative theories, such as connectionism and usage-based approaches, suggest
that language acquisition is more about exposure and social context than innate structures.
Conclusion
Chomsky’s contributions have profoundly shaped our understanding of language acquisition. By
proposing that humans are born with an innate capacity for language and a universal grammar
underlying all languages, he opened new avenues for research in linguistics and cognitive science. His
insights continue to influence fields such as psychology, education, and artificial intelligence.
This lecture provides a comprehensive overview of Chomsky’s theories on language acquisition,
suitable for an academic or educational setting.

Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar (UG) explains the similarities between languages by positing
that all human languages share an innate set of grammatical principles and structures. According to
Chomsky, while languages may appear different on the surface, they are built upon a common
underlying framework that is hardwired into the human brain. This innate framework allows children
to acquire language rapidly and consistently, even with limited exposure to linguistic input.
Key points include:
 • Common Structures: All languages possess fundamental elements such as nouns,
verbs, and adjectives, which reflect shared grammatical categories.
• Principles and Parameters: UG consists of universal principles applicable to all
languages, alongside specific parameters that can vary between them. This allows for both
commonality and diversity in language.
• Poverty of Stimulus: Chomsky argues that the limited linguistic input children receive
cannot account for their ability to learn complex grammatical rules. This suggests that they must rely
on innate knowledge rather than solely on external stimuli.
Overall, Chomsky’s UG provides a compelling explanation for why languages exhibit structural
similarities despite their apparent differences.

Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar (UG) has significantly influenced modern linguistics by
shifting the focus from descriptive approaches to understanding the cognitive processes underlying
language acquisition. Key impacts include:
• Innate Language Capacity: Chomsky proposed that humans possess an innate
capacity for language, suggesting that all languages share a common structural foundation, which
has led to extensive research on the cognitive mechanisms involved in language learning.
• Generative Grammar: His work laid the groundwork for generative grammar,
emphasizing the rules and principles that govern sentence structure, thus enabling linguists to
analyze and compare languages systematically.
• Poverty of Stimulus: Chomsky’s argument that children can acquire complex
grammatical structures despite limited input has prompted further investigation into how language is
processed and learned, influencing theories in cognitive science and psychology.
• Principles and Parameters: The framework of principles and parameters allows for
understanding language diversity while maintaining a basis in universal structures, shaping research
on language typology and evolution.
Chomsky’s insights continue to be foundational in linguistics, influencing fields such as psychology,
philosophy, and artificial intelligence.

H.G. Widdowson’s perspective on knowledge of language emphasizes the distinction between

linguistic competence and the ability to use language effectively in communication. He critiques
traditional notions of linguistic competence, which often focus solely on grammatical knowledge, and
argues for a broader understanding that includes communicative competence.
Key points from Widdowson’s work include:
• Competence vs. Performance: Widdowson highlights that knowledge of language is
not just about knowing rules but also involves the ability to apply this knowledge in real-world
contexts.
• Communicative Competence: He builds on Dell Hymes’s concept of communicative
competence, which encompasses not only grammatical rules but also the social and contextual
factors that influence language use.
• Pre-assembled Patterns: Widdowson suggests that language users often rely on
memorized phrases or patterns rather than generating sentences purely from grammatical rules,
indicating a more practical approach to language use.
Overall, Widdowson’s insights contribute to a more nuanced understanding of language knowledge,
emphasizing its relevance to teaching practices and real-life communication scenarios.
Widdowson’s concept of “knowledge of language” differs from Chomsky’s idea of competence in
several significant ways:
1. Scope of Knowledge:
• Chomsky’s Competence: Chomsky defines linguistic competence as the ideal
speaker-listener’s knowledge of their language, focusing primarily on grammatical rules and the
ability to generate grammatically correct sentences. This view emphasizes a theoretical
understanding of language structure.
• Widdowson’s Knowledge: Widdowson expands the notion of knowledge to include
not only grammatical competence but also sociolinguistic and pragmatic aspects. He argues that true
knowledge of language involves understanding how to use language appropriately in various
contexts, reflecting a more practical approach to communication.
2. Performance vs. Ability:
• Chomsky’s Distinction: Chomsky distinguishes between competence (knowledge of
rules) and performance (actual language use), suggesting that performance can be flawed and does
not accurately reflect competence.
• Widdowson’s View: Widdowson emphasizes the importance of performance, arguing
that ability to use language effectively is crucial. He introduces the concept of “capacity,” which refers
to the practical ability to apply knowledge in real communicative situations, thus highlighting the
dynamic nature of language use.
3. Pre-assembled Patterns:
• Widdowson suggests that language users often rely on pre-assembled and
memorized patterns rather than generating sentences solely based on grammatical rules. This
perspective contrasts with Chomsky’s focus on rule-based generation, indicating a more flexible and
context-dependent approach to language use.
In summary, Widdowson’s concept broadens the understanding of “knowledge of language” by
incorporating practical usage, sociolinguistic factors, and the importance of performance, while
Chomsky’s framework remains more focused on abstract grammatical competence.