Chomsky and Wittgenstein on Linguistic Competence
Keywords:20th century philosophy, Wittgenstein Ludwig, Chomsky Noam, competence, language faculty, logical compulsion, rule-following, meaning
In his Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, Saul Kripke presents his influential reading of Wittgenstein’s later writings on language. One of the largely unexplored features of that reading is that Kripke makes a small number of suggestive remarks concerning the possible threat that Wittgenstein’s arguments pose for Chomsky’s linguistic project. In this paper, we attempt to characterise the relevance of Wittgenstein’s later work on meaning and rule-following for transformational linguistics, and in particular to identify the potentially negative impact it has on that project. Although we use Kripke’s remarks to articulate some of the pertinent issues, we return to Wittgenstein’s later writings to address them. We argue that Wittgenstein’s main target in the relevant sections of the Philosophical Investigations is the notion of ‘logical compulsion’, which involves assuming that there is more to applying a word or rule than how we are naturally or “psychologically” compelled to apply. We characterise two of the main lines of argument in the Investigations in terms of the rejection of logical compulsion. We thus propose to address the relevance of Wittgenstein’s writings for Chomsky by considering whether Chomsky’s linguistics presupposes the targeted notion of logical compulsion. We argue that Chomsky’s conception of linguistic competence in terms of successive states of the “language faculty” (containing the principles of universal grammar) does presuppose this problematic notion. Chomsky responded to Kripke by devoting a chapter of his Knowledge of Language to defending this conception of linguistic competence against the Wittgensteinian arguments. We evaluate his response and argue that he has misidentified the threat to his linguistic project as consisting in the attack on its ‘individual psychology’ standpoint, rather than its commitment to logical compulsion. We conclude by arguing that Chomsky’s attempts at defending his individualist or non-communitarian standpoint are undermined by his inability to give a decisive response to Wittgenstein’s attack on logical compulsion.
Boghossian, P., 2005. “Is meaning normative?” In A. Beckermann and C. Nimtz. Eds. Philosophy – Science – Scientific Philosophy. Paderborn: Mentis.
Brandom, R., 1994. Making It Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chomsky, N., 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York, Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger.
Chomsky, N., 2005. “Language and the Brain.” In A. J. Saleemi, O-S. Bohn, & A. Gjedde, Eds. In Search of a Language for the Mind-Brain. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Kripke, S., 1982. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McDowell, J., 2009. The Engaged Intellect: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press.
McNally, T., Forthcoming. Wittgenstein’s Master Arguments.
Wikforss, Å., 2001. “Semantic Normativity.” Philosophical Studies, Vol. 102: 203-226.
Williams, M., 2007. “Blind Obedience: Rules, Community, and the Individual.” In: M. Williams, ed. 2007. Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: Critical Essays. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield.
Wittgenstein, L., 1956. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics. G. H. von Wright, R. Rhees, & G. E. M. Anscombe (eds.). G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L., 1958. The Blue and Brown Books. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L., 2001. Philosophical Investigations. 3rd ed. G. E. M. Anscombe, trans. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wright, C., 2007. “Rule-following without Reasons: Wittgenstein’s Quietism and the Constitutive Question.” Ratio, Vol. 20: 481-502.
NWR uses the Creative Commons license CC-BY.
Vol. 1-3 used CC-BY-NC-SA. The collected works copyright ownership for Vol. 1-2 were shared by Nordic Wittgenstein Society and ontos Verlag/De Gruyter.