4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon? 149
reminiscent of Weaver’s independent semantic receiver and semantic noise input.
77
Weaver writes:
One can imagine, as an addition to the diagram [see figure 3.6
], another box labeled “Semantic Receiver” interposed between the engineering receiver which changes signals to messages
and the destination. … Similarly one can imagine another box in the diagram which, inserted between the information source and the transmitter, would be labeled “semantic noise” ….
Weaver 1949b :115–116
Chomsky’s description of language via the conditions spelled out in Shannon’s information theory effectively served to restrict the definition of language and elevate the
notion of grammar. Whereas earlier linguists had concerned themselves with language as the langue of respective speech communities, in the generative tradition language was
simply the product of grammar. Concerning this restricted definition, Simpson writes:
A particular use of the phrase ‘a language’ is that of transformational-generative grammar where a language is held to be an infinite set of sentences, each sentence being finite in length
and constructed out of a finite set of elements. This view … is thus able, it is claimed, to give a precise definition of a language; for a language is seen to be the output of the grammar that
can construct the set of sentences constituting the language: consequently, a given language can be defined as that which a given grammar produces.
Simpson 1994 :1896–1897
In code model terms, then, generative linguistics views the grammar as the code i.e., algorithm used to generate the language. More importantly to the history of linguistics,
the code as grammar is made the focus of attention.
4.4.1.1.2. An abridged model of communication
A restricted definition of language such as Chomsky suggested would also require an adjustment to the code model of communication. The particular adjustment performed
may be characterized as an abridgement, for it shortened the expression while keeping the elements generative linguistics considered relevant. The first hint of such an abridge-
ment occurs in Chomsky
1965 , where he writes of speaker-listeners. Of all Chomsky
has written and said concerning linguistics, it is unlikely that any quotation is better known or has been more debated than the following paragraph.
Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such
grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors random or characteristic in applying his knowledge of the language in
actual performance. This seems to me to have been the position of the founders of modern general linguistics, and no cogent reason for modifying it has been offered. To study actual
linguistic performance, we must consider the interaction of a variety of factors, of which the underlying competence of the speaker-hearer is only one. In this respect, study of language is
no different from empirical investigation of other complex phenomena.
Chomsky 1965 :3–4
Perhaps the most common argument directed toward this quotation concerns the issue of context, stating that it is inadequate to study language apart from context.
Nevertheless, most critics remain satisfied with the dichotomization of competence and
77
The sense of module intended here is that of “a detachable unit with a specific function” Neufeldt 1989
:277.
150 4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon?
performance, just as preceding generations accepted Saussure’s dichotomization of langue
and parole. They simply debate the relative significance of competence and performance.
The other major line of argumentation contests Chomsky’s position that linguistic theory had been and should be concerned primarily with the ideal situation, to the relative
neglect of language use in real world contexts. However strong the arguments to the contrary, it is obvious by now that many did agree with Chomsky’s suggestion, for an
entire school of thought developed around this and related premises.
How did Chomsky come to focus on competence when the broader question of communication was at stake? How did he set aside the problems of real communication
in favor of an abstracted, idealized speaker-listener later “speaker-hearer” and a hypothetical homogenous speech community?
78
The key to these questions lies in a related quotation from Chomsky and Halle’s
1968 The Sound Pattern of English.
Chomsky and Halle’s 1968
The Sound Pattern of English was not directly related to information theory and its applications, as was Chomsky’s
1956 Three Models and
1957 Syntactic Structures. Accordingly, the logical relationships between that theory
and information theory are not as immediately evident. Nevertheless, Chomsky and Halle clearly maintain, and in fact bolster the code model account of communication.
The first chapter of The Sound Pattern of English is titled “Setting.” The first two paragraphs of that chapter do, in fact, create the setting for the theory which followed:
The goal of the descriptive study of a language is the construction of a grammar. We may think of a language as a set of sentences, each with an ideal phonetic form and an associated
intrinsic semantic interpretation. The grammar of the language is the system of rules that specifies this sound-meaning correspondence.
The speaker produces a signal with a certain intended meaning; the hearer receives a signal and attempts to determine what was said and what was intended. The performance of
the speaker or hearer is a complex matter and involves many factors. One fundamental factor involved in the speaker-hearer’s performance is his knowledge of the grammar that determines
an intrinsic connection of sound and meaning for each sentence. We refer to this knowledge— for the most part, obviously, unconscious knowledge—as the speaker-hearer’s “competence.”
Competence, in this sense, is not to be confused with performance. Performance, that is, what the speaker-hearer actually does, is based not only on his knowledge of the language, but on
many other factors as well—factors such as memory restrictions, inattention, distraction, non- linguistic knowledge and beliefs, and so on. We may, if we like, think of the study of
competence as the study of the potential performance of an idealized speaker-hearer who is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant factors.
Chomsky and Halle 1968 :3
In this quotation one finds an appeal to the code model and, more importantly, state- ments regarding Chomsky’s and Halle’s proposed rules for how the code model should
be used to guide the research questions of the discipline. These will be addressed follow- ing discussion of the quotation.
78
It appears that speaker-listener and speaker-hearer were employed as synonyms and that the terminological distinction had no real bearing on the theory see
Harris 1981 :32, n. 1.
4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon? 151
The first paragraph of the quotation was addressed in the preceding section. In this paragraph, Chomsky and Halle reiterate the restricted definition of language and the
elevation of grammar as the code specifying the sound-meaning correspondence. The paragraph serves to identify Chomsky and Halle’s focus of attention. The broader
problem of the code model proper is addressed in the second paragraph. Consider now the first three sentences of the second paragraph. These sentences are quoted
individually in conjunction with discussion of the same.
• The speaker produces a signal with a certain intended meaning; the hearer receives a signal
and attempts to determine what was said and what was intended. Chomsky and Halle
1968 :3, italics added
This comment identifies the notion of “communication,” per se, as being fundamen- tally related to the concept of “language” developed therein. It should be clear that the
sentence is an appeal to the code model of communication. It does not use the words “encode” or “decode,” but otherwise the model appears in a classic form, including the
use of “signal.” More importantly, however, is the fact that in this sentence the model appears in what may be called its expanded form. “Expanded” refers to the fact that, in
this particular sentence and its appeal, Chomsky and Halle leave the speaker encoder and hearer decoder in their independent roles; they are connected via the signal, but are
still on opposing sides of that signal. In such an expanded form the roles of encoder and decoder are identified as being independent and distinct.
As shall be discussed in chapter 5
, the notion of a fixed and shared code creates an anomaly for code model linguistics; the differences in ideolectal “codes” maintained by
real-world speakers and hearers in real-world communicative situations presents a serious conflict for the code model account. In any careful review of the classic expanded model,
the gravity of the fixed-code anomaly is difficult to overlook. The complexity of such real-world issues is briefly mentioned in the next sentence from Chomsky and Halle
1968 , but note that in this sentence they have begun to focus in on a particular part of
the larger model. Also note that the independent tasks of the speaker and hearer are con- flated under the issue of performance.
• The performance of the speaker or hearer is a complex matter and involves many factors.
Chomsky and Halle 1968 :3, italics added
In conflating the tasks of speaker and hearer under the question of performance, Chomsky and Halle imply that the roles of speaker and hearer need not be considered
distinct. In the process, they bring the encoder speaker and decoder hearer closer together, both theoretically and quite interestingly physically, in terms of how they
position the words in the sentence. By the third sentence in the paragraph the encoder and decoder are conflated into a single entity. “Performance” is repeated, providing con-
tinuity and adding weight, while competence begins to emerge through the reference to knowledge.
• One fundamental factor involved in the speaker-hearer’s performance is his knowledge of
the grammar that determines an intrinsic connection of sound and meaning for each sentence.
Chomsky and Halle 1968 :3, italics added
152 4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon?
With this sentence, then, Chomsky and Halle have abridged the code model, so that the independent roles of speaker and hearer in the expanded form have been exchanged
for the individual speaker-hearer. The significance of this abridgement of the larger model should not be underestimated. Chomsky and Halle have interpreted the two
“halves” of the model as being equivalent, albeit inverse processes. This idea is logically related to Shannon’s description of the electronic receiver. Shannon writes, “The receiver
ordinarily performs the inverse operation of that done by the transmitter, reconstructing the message from the signal”
Shannon 1949 :6. This assumption, when applied to hu-
man communication, has contributed to a focus on the speech-generation side of the model, a focus generally identified as monodirectionality.
Abridging the code model of communication in this way allowed Chomsky and Halle to algebraically reduce the larger equation regarding the process of communication,
yielding the smaller equation regarding knowledge of language, the output of grammar. By the fourth sentence in the paragraph the notion of “speaker-hearer” is fixed and
“competence” comes clearly into focus.
• We refer to this knowledge—for the most part, obviously, unconscious knowledge—as the
speaker-hearer’s “competence.” Chomsky and Halle 1968
:3, italics added
Since the encoder and decoder have now been subsumed under the rubric of speaker- hearer, the fixed-code anomaly is no longer an issue. Similarly, the complexity of the
communicative situation is no longer an issue. Accordingly, Chomsky and Halle dismiss performance, and in the process circumnavigate several potentially injurious anomalies
supported by the code model. They further clarify their distinction between competence and performance in the next sentence.
• Competence, in this sense, is not to be confused with performance. Performance, that is,
what the speaker-hearer actually does, is based not only on his knowledge of the language, but on many other factors as well—factors such as memory restrictions, inattention, dis-
traction, nonlinguistic knowledge and beliefs, and so on. Chomsky and Halle 1968
:3
In the final sentence, all concerns but competence are dismissed as “grammatically irrelevant.”
• We may, if we like, think of the study of competence as the study of the potential perform-
ance of an idealized speaker-hearer who is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant factors.
Chomsky and Halle 1968 :3
Recall that in the classic code model, what Chomsky and Halle call “competence” is knowledge of the grammatical code. This final sentence of the paragraph serves to clearly
identify what Chomsky and Halle considered the heart of theoretical linguistics, that is, the study of the internal code.
Through these first two paragraphs of The Sound Pattern of English, Chomsky and Halle state their rules for how the code model should be used in defining the primary
research problem of linguistics. They focused their attention, and subsequently the atten- tion of many other linguists, on a single component of the larger model. Of course, over
4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon? 153
the years many have objected to this focus of attention and its associated neglect of other areas.
For the purposes of this study, however, the important thing to notice is that those arguing against Chomsky and Halle, or against Chomsky independently, rarely if ever
argued against their presuppositions regarding communication or their general appeal to the code model of communication. Rather, criticism was generally directed at the rules
Chomsky and Halle proposed for how to use that model.
Having explored introductory paragraphs from The Sound Pattern of English, the discussion now returns to the famous sentence from Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such
grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors random or characteristic in applying his knowledge of the language in
actual performance. Chomsky 1965
:3–4
While this quotation does not demonstrate the steps involved in the reduction of the code model as does the quotation from Chomsky and Halle
1968 , it does demonstrate a
similar effort to factor out all problems, noise, and real-world distractions which are considered to hinder the effectiveness of communication. As has been discussed, the code
model describes communication as an event which, provided such “grammatically irrele- vant” factors are removed, should produce a decoded message which matches exactly the
originally encoded message. It is presumed that the encoded message and the decoded message would be exactly the same since, in such a homogenous speech community,
every person’s competence that is, his knowledge and ability to control the grammatical code would be exactly the same.
Although no ideal speaker-hearers or homogenous community were to be found in the real world, the abridgement of the code model and the uniting of speaker and hearer
would serve to provide both. In merging the previously distinct roles and tasks of speaker and hearer, Chomsky and Chomsky and Halle performed a methodological coup d’état,
in effect awarding the linguist the ability to be his own language informant and elevating the notion of speaker intuition to previously unknown heights. In that view it mattered
little that there was no such thing as a homogenous community, for by simultaneously serving as both informant and linguist, the linguist could be his own ideal speaker-hearer,
and the only and therefore certainly homogenous member of the speech community. Since the method need not involve actual communication, the study of performance and
its “grammatically irrelevant” problems were easily characterized as superfluous. Finally, having “purified” the access to an individual’s grammar, it seemed plausible to argue that
this access could yield access to the grammar of human language generally, that is, uni- versal grammar, without requiring the linguist to study the breadth of human language in
real world communicative contexts. While this methodological adjustment was not a patch in the sense of adding something to the code model account, it nevertheless served
a similar function; that is, it was an attempt to handle issues which were recognized as being anomalous.
154 4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon?
4.4.1.2. Stratificationalists
