Mednikov 1

David Mednikov
UCHUMPHI23 20th Century Philosophy
Floris van den Burg
The Unconscious Knowledge of Grammar
In this paper, I will compare the merits of arguments presented in
Donald Davidsons A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs with those in Noam
Chomskys

Theory

of

Universal

Grammar.

will

then

examine

the

unconscious aspects of grammar and how that fits into both philosophers
theories. Davidson believes that language doesnt really have conventions, it
is merely a form of communication in which we assume that the speaker and
listener have a similar understanding. Nothing bounds the understanding of
language, as long as the two people involved share a perceived meaning of
the world.1 Chomsky, on the other hand, believes that language has a
universal framework, a set of rules that all languages follow. He writes that if
you remove the specific conventions of each language, there can still be
understanding between languages thanks to the universal laws of grammar. 2
Though the two theories can exist together, the two philosophers would
likely disagree regarding the understanding of language. After defining the
unconscious in the context of grammar, I will explain how the unconscious
plays a role in our understanding of language. I will then analyze the
differences and similarities between Davidsons and Chomskys theories of
understanding language, and how the unconscious plays a role in both of
them. Last, I will decide which of the two philosophers I agree more with.
First, I will explain the idea of unconscious understanding of language. To
understand unconscious language, we must first understand that most of
verbal communication is done in the conscious mind. This is done by thinking
of an idea and choosing words to convey that idea. Likewise, we employ the
conscious mind when listening to someone speak, converting a series of
1 Davidson, pg. 137
2 Chomsky, Language & Mind, pg. 24

Mednikov 2
words to a coherent thought. However, communication is not exclusive to the
conscious mind. Speaking and understanding language are phenomena that
take place in both the conscious and unconscious parts of the mind. I will
give an example of the unconscious mind at work in understanding
language. Say a native Spanish speaker were to tell me, The suit not is
black. The phrase would immediately sound wrong to me, a native speaker
of English, because it follows the grammatical rules of Spanish. Even though
I understand what he is intending to say, it just doesnt quite sound right. Im
not sure what particular rule of grammar this violates, but I know that it
would sound right if the not was placed after the is instead of before it.
Despite the objection raised by the unconscious, the sentence still makes
sense. Likewise, if I were to say to the Spanish speaker that El traje es no
negro he too would understand the message I am attempting to convey, but
it would also sound incorrect.
Using a more anecdotal example, yesterday a Dutch student from a
research group project asked me if the phrase resulting to is appropriate in
the sentence We will ask the following research question, resulting to a
better understanding of the politics of voting. To my unconscious mind, the
prepositional phrase resulting to just sounded wrong. There must be some
rule of grammar that it violates that caused it to sound wrong, but I was not
able to identify the rule. However I knew that the sentence would work with
either resulting in or leading to, just not resulting to. Somehow my
mind knows that the phrase is wrong as Im hearing it, and is immediately
able to correct it. Its not a conscious process, however, because I cant think
of the rule that it breaks. Likewise, when attempting to learn Dutch in my
first month in Netherlands, I struggled to understand when to use the words
het and de, which both mean the but cannot be used interchangeably.
When I asked, no Dutch person could explain the rule for it, they just knew
when it sounded right. The unconscious knowledge applies to all languages.
This innate knowledge of grammar suggests that there is an unconscious and
implicit understanding of language that any fluent speaker possesses.

Mednikov 3
This unconscious understanding of language is difficult to test, but an
example of its use in the real world is the Writing section of the SAT, the
most commonly taken university entrance exam in the United States. Part of
the Writing section tests the students grammar skills, by presenting a
sentence or paragraph that may contain grammatical errors, and then
offering 5 multiple choice answers, 4 of which provide an alternative
phrasing, with the 5th option being Correct as is. This part of the exam
challenges students to identify potential grammatical errors and decide
which of the alternatives if any is correct. In my case, when going through
that section I did not stop to think about actual grammatical rules once. I just
read each phrase and picked the one that sounded right. I got a perfect
score on the grammar section, without consciously thinking about it once or
studying grammar rules prior to taking the exam. Though just another
anecdotal example, this also suggests that knowledge of grammar is
unconscious and not something we actively think about.
I will now relate the concept of unconscious knowledge of language to
Davidsons and Chomskys theories of lingual communication, beginning with
Davidson. Davidson argues that language is something that we can do away
with, because everyone has an understanding of the world, and understands
that everything has a meaning. If we see the world as meaningful, then there
must not be a sharp distinction between languages. 3 Whether I call it a
domesticated

canine

dog

or

perro,

Davidson

believes

that

the

understanding is still the same. We know what those words refer toa fourlegged animal that wags its tail and loves its master. The language in which
the word is spoken has no effect on the actual meaning of the word or object.
Davidson argues that there is nothing that a speaker can do to their spoken
language to make it completely incomprehensible. There are no limits and
they can use the language however they want to, granted that the listener
understands that there is meaning in the world. 4 In principle, the starting
point, which Davidson refers to as the first meaning, is the same between
3

Mednikov 4
the two languages.5 He argues that first meanings are shared between
speaker and listener, so the only thing that is different is our own
interpretation of the word. By removing language and its conventions from
the word, the object that we are describing still holds meaning because it
exists.
How does this have anything to do with the unconscious? Unconscious
knowledge of grammar would suggest that grammar is a convention that is
not necessary to truly understand the meaning of an object. This supports
Davidsons belief that eliminating conventions from language preserves the
meaning in the world that all people understand. 6 Though it helps to use
proper grammar when speaking to a native speaker, they are still able to
understand broken language with poor grammar. Even though it sounds
wrong and is incorrect, the phrase will still have meaning. Despite the
unconscious knowing that what it just heard is wrong, the mind still
comprehends the statement as if it were right. The listener may have a
mental thought asking, Wait, that doesnt sound right. Shouldnt it be?,
but they will still understand. If the native speaker can understand despite
the lack of grammatical correctness, the idea that meaning is present with or
without the convention of grammar is reinforced. Davidson would accept the
idea of unconscious grammar as a convention of each language that each
speaker possesses in their own mind. However he would also argue that
unconscious knowledge of grammar is not necessary for communication, or
else that would contradict his belief that communication is possible even
after removing all conventions of language.
Chomsky, on the other hand, believes in universal grammar a convention of
language that is necessary for a language to be a language. 7 Universal
4
5
6
7 Chomsky, Language & Mind, pg. 24

Mednikov 5
grammar goes beyond each language and is required for understanding. An
example of universal grammar is parts of speech, which are found in all
languages. Nouns, verbs, prepositionsthese are elements of language that
any language possesses. Though the particular rules between languages
differ immensely, any elementary speaker can understand that the Sun, no
matter what they call it, is an object, which we refer to as a noun. In any
language, the Sun is still a noun. A thing like the Sun shines, which is a verb.
Any language has subjects (the object about which we speak), predicates
(the actions that the subject does), prepositions (describing setting relative
to an object), adjectives (to describe or modify an object), and adverbs (to
describe or modify an action); as well as other parts of speech I didnt
mention, such as articles and conjunctions. Parts of speech are present in all
languages, whether it is English, Mandarin Chinese, or Sanskrit. This supports
the idea of Chomskys universal grammar, the idea that underneath all of the
individual rules and conventions is one system that ties them all together. He
believes that though each language has its own conventions such as distinct
rules of grammar, they are built on top of the universal grammar that each
language adheres to.8
How does Chomskys theory of universal grammar work with the idea of
unconscious knowledge of grammar? The relationship is actually very close,
but first we must refer to what Chomsky refers to as the faculty of
language.9 This is the body of linguistic rules that all speakers know in order
to use language. Universal grammar falls under the faculty of language,
since it is a set of linguistic rules that is a part of all languages. Another
aspect that falls under the faculty of language is what Chomsky refers to as
linguistic competence.10 Linguistic competence is the minds unconscious
ability to know the rules of a language. It is the innate ability to convert
8
9 Zeglen, pg. 52
10 Zeglen, pg. 52

Mednikov 6
sounds into words, and to apply the rules of language to what we say and
hear, all without consciously thinking about it. A listener is able to distinguish
a grammatically correct sentence from one that is incorrect, but will still
understand both equally.11 According to Chomsky, linguistic competence is
possessed by native speakers of a language, which falls in line with the idea
presented earlierthat native speakers possess the knowledge of grammar
without thinking about it.12 Chomsky refers to the exact phenomena that I
described earlier using examples of the grammar exam, Dutch friend, and
Spanish speaker. According to Chomskys theory, universal grammar and
unconscious knowledge of grammar go together because they are both an
integral

part

of

ones

knowledge

of

language

and

their

ability

to

communicate.13 However, a distinction must be made. Chomsky would argue

that unconscious knowledge of language is not absolutely necessary for
communication, but does make it easier and gives us a better feel for our
own language. On the other hand, universal grammar is paramount to
understanding, because it is the framework that brings all languages
together. Removing the convention of universal grammar would greatly
increase the boundary between languages.
After explaining the two philosophers stance on unconscious knowledge of
grammar in understanding, I will explain why I agree more with Chomskys
idea of universal grammar than with Davidsons theory that lingual
conventions can be eliminated without removing any meaning from
language. First, I have anecdotal experience that would reinforce Chomskys
theory, of which I gave three examples. Second, I find it hard to believe that
a native Chinese speaker and native Spanish speaker will be able to
understand one another when talking about a dog. The Spanish speaker can
say perro all they want but the Chinese speaker will still not understand.
11
12
13

Mednikov 7
They wont understand that the Spanish speaker is just pointing at a dog and
saying the Spanish word for it. Just because they share an understanding of
what a dog is, does not mean that the Spanish speaker will be able to convey
the idea of a dog without pointing to it. A shared first meaning does not
always lead to mutual understanding. Pointing would be non-verbal
conventional communication, an entire topic of its own. Nevertheless, the
language barrier is too great at times. I find it hard to believe that by
removing

all

conventions

of

language,

you

would

still

be

able

to

communicate everywhere in the world. Third, I like Chomskys idea of

universal grammar because it is based on experience and theory, making it
significantly less abstract. Universal grammar does not tell us if the noun or
the verb comes first, or why certain prepositional phrases are appropriate or
not, but it does set a framework that all languages follow. A set of rules that
are necessary for language to even be possible. This is an idea that makes
sense to me and I feel comfortable supporting.
Having examined the two philosophers theories regarding lingual
communication, I have concluded that, while the notion of unconscious
knowledge of grammar could work in both philosophers theories, it fits more
appropriately with Noam Chomskys. I find it hard to agree with Davidson
that all conventions of language are unnecessary and that eliminating them
will not affect meaning. The barrier between languages can be quite
massive, and simply sharing an understanding that the Sun exists doesnt
mean that Ill be able to convey that idea to a Chinese speaker. Chomskys
faculty of language, however, describes a fundamental framework that all
languages share, and explains the unconscious ability to hear, understand,
and then correct. In my opinion Chomskys theory narrows the gap between
languages, while Davidsons only widens it.

Mednikov 8
Works Cited
Chomsky, Noam. Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print.
Chomsky, Noam. Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia UP, 1980. Print.
Davidson, Donald. "A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs." Reading Across the Divide.
Ed. Floris Van Den Burg and Thomas Hart. Leiden: Leiden UP, 2010. 131-50.
Print.
Zeglen, Urszula M. Donald Davidson: Truth, Meaning, and Knowledge. London:
Routledge, 1999. Print.