Energy Sources of the Future Research Paper

Instead of analyzing the innate meaning of these examples using a structured technique, Chomsky argues that it is only through subconscious knowledge of transformational grammar that one can truly understand the deeper meaning of language. Of course, this theory has been challenged by many with its emphasis on syntax and lack of focus on semantics, but as Chomsky himself said:

But the fundamental reason for [the] inadequacy of traditional grammars is a more technical one. Although it was well understood that linguistic processes are in some sense "creative," the technical devices for expressing a system of recursive processes were simply not available until much more recently. In fact, a real understanding of how a language can (in Humboldt's words) "make infinite use of finite means" has developed only within the last thirty years, in the course of studies in the foundations of mathematics (Chomsky, 1965, 8).

This grammatical theory evolved further into psycholinguistics, or which characteristics of neural and cognitive activity combine to make syntax possible. For example, Chomsky's model takes traditional grammar, mapped as in Figure 1, where'd (sentence), D (determiner), N (noun), V (Verb), NP (Noun Phrase), and VP (Verb Phrase):

Impact on Linquistics- Chomsky's core theoretical principles still focus on generative grammar, but in the 1990s he further developed the theory into Minimalism, or a definition of two additional levels of representation; Logical Form (LF) and Phonetic Form (PF) which determine meaning through syntax analysis (Chomsky, 1995). Two of the ways in which Chomsky's modeling dramatically changed linguistics, though were the manner in which he expanded the view of Mentalism and Combinatoriality. Mentalism allows the linguist to focus on the user's mind in language instead of just usage, which is a far more robust and detailed view of language acquisition and acculturation. Combinatoriality takes language to a further extreme as a process of cognitive and psycho-social development, and sees it as an actual expansion of culture.Chomsky's manner of viewing language with the premise that it is possible to construct linguistic rule structures that would explain the workings of language at the surface and deeper levels also challenged the entire field of linguistics, resulting in what some call the "linguistic wars" of the mid-1960s (Jackendoff, 2002).

Conclusions- While Chomsky continues to make the news for his political and cultural views, and most recently the controversy surrounding a trip to Israel, it is his basic philosophy and view on syntax and linguistics that has made him one of the most important intellectuals of the 20th century ("Who's in, Who's Out?" 2010). His views on grammar, construction and language development have, in fact, paved the way for a new generation of linguistic scholarship, all based on moving into a deeper understanding of grammatical construction and philosophical/coginitive meaning (Armstrong and Karchmer, 2009).

REFERENCES & WORKS CONSULTED

Armstrong, D. And M. Karchmer. (2009). "William C. Stokoe and the Study of Signed

Languages." Sign Language Studies. 9 (4): 389+.

Audi, R., ed. (2009). "Chomsky," in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed.

Chomsky, N. (1953). "Systems of Syntactic Analysis." The Journal of Symbolic Logic.

18 (3): 242-56. Cited in: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/195309 -- .pdf

____. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Paris: Mouton Publications.

____. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.

Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, meaning, Grammar, Evolution.

Oxford University Press. Excerpt Cited in:

http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/~amit/books/jackendoff-2002-foundations-of-language.html

Marastos, M. And L. Matheny. (1994). "Language Specificity and Elasticity: Brain and Clinical

Syndrome Studies." Annual Review of Psychology. 45 (1): 487.

Newmeyer, F. (1986). "Has There Been a Chomskyan Revolution in Liniguistics?" Language.

62 (2): 1-18.

Sullivan, a.(2000). "The Problem of Naturalizing Semantics." Language and Communication.

20 (2): 179-96.

Wall, R. (2008). "Who's Afraid of Noam Chomsky?" LewRockwell.com. Cited in:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wall/wall26.html

"Who's in, Who's….....