Page 1 of 9

GENERATIVE THEORY
versus
COGNITIVE THEORY

Centaur Priest
(Archer Bishop)
 Page 2 of 9

GENERATIVE THEORY vs COGNITIVE THEORY

INTRODUCTION

In the instant essay, first, I am going to expound on the difference between the
Generative and Cognitive theories in the context of language learning. And then, I
will outline which one among the two is more realistic theory based on my personal
experience.

DISCUSSION

Difference between the Generative and Cognitive Theories:

Generative
Theory

Generative Theory or Generative Linguistics is a doctrine about language

acquisition. It is a linguistic theory that relates to how 'native speakers' generate
language without explicit knowledge. The Generative Theory has plural goals, inter
alia, explanatory adequacy. Selecting one model or the other considers also the
capability of the model to explain the mechanism of acquisition. The linguist would
choose that specific model, that is that theory of grammar that can best account for
not only what are the common elements among languages and what are the
differences between them but also how the young learners are able to learn language
so rapidly and automatically. Within this concept, language knowledge is not meant
as depending on analogy any longer and is defined as a different and specific skill.
The application of language is regarded as “rule governed behavior.”

The Generative Theory requires the language teachers to teach by the application of
the concepts known as Generative Grammar and Universal Grammar. Accordingly,
to understand the Generative Theory, first we will have to understand the
aforementioned concepts.

Generative Grammar deals with how 'logical' rules give rise to examples of language.
The term “generative” is an idea that exists in mathematics. It outlines a set of
formulas rather than a mechanism that creates something. It is mostly found in the
propositions of Noam Chomsky who announced a theory which is widely known as
 Page 3 of 9

the Standard Theory that defines a supposed functional potential of a model of

grammar.

According to the formal definition, the Generative Grammar is one that is

unambiguously straightforward. It is a precisely limited set of rules which is applied to
produce only those sentences that are grammatical in the objective language. In other
words, it normally does not allow any exception to the grammatical formulas it outlines.
Chomsky offered this definition. Under the relevant principle, the term “generate”
is interpreted, not as “to create,” but as that the grammar employs a structural
composition for the sentence.

Although not essential, yet it is worth of mentioning that the essence of Chomsky’s
Generative Linguistics approach is influenced by the application of Transformational
Grammar. This portion of the theory, however, has been drastically changed and
therefore is now quite different from its original form as shaped by Chomsky in his
book named Syntactic Structures. Consequently, since the original idea is in virtual
nonexistence, it is unnecessary to proceed to focus on explaining what the
transformational grammar is.

With respect to Generative Grammar, Chomsky’s argument was that, to speak of

language behavior, the “stimulus-response model” is totally unable to be defended
against attack because, as he reasoned, in its first and foremost setting, this system
is unable to produce and comprehend any new pattern of words. Any human is able
to comprehend and speak out sentences that he or she has never heard in the past.
And any definite and orderly set of words that has not been previously heard can still
be identified as a grammatical sentence. A stimulus-response model cannot clarify
the fact that a sentence that a person may understand or speak out can be a new
combination of words or that the young learners have the ability to learn language
quickly, even without any formal guidance, growing to properly understand
constructions they have heard for the first time. Language is not to be subjected to be
marked out as a set script for play for the purpose of responses; nor is its acquisition
to be categorized as the process of learning this script.
Now let’s turn on to observe the Universal Grammar concept.
Also the theory of Universal Grammar (UG) was outlined and explained by Noam
Chomsky. With respect to this concept, he offered that the grammar learning ability is
a physical component installed in the human brain. For this idea, the terminology
"mental grammar" is sometimes used by the researchers, and it takes a different
position from other "grammars" such as prescriptive, descriptive and pedagogical. The
theory proposes that the language learning capability comes into existence irrespective
of whether it is taught or not and that there are fundamental elements that are
common in all natural human languages. It is subject to monitoring and scientific test
 Page 4 of 9

to identify exactly what capabilities are originated in mind and what elements are
common in all languages.

The formulation of universal grammar offers that, except in case of extreme sensory
deprivation, if a human being is raised in a natural condition, then he or she,
almost in every occasion, will advance language with specific properties like identifying
pronouns from adjectives or identifying the difference between the words that
contribute to syntax and the words that form the basic elements of the target
language. This theory claims that there is an inborn inherent language learning power
(that is determined genetically) that already knows the aforementioned formulas of
the objective language. This faculty, however, is not familiar with the vocabulary of
any certain language and therefore the relevant items have to be learned. Also there
are various other parameters (that vary from language to language) that have to be
learned as well. According to Chomsky, the restrictions in human brain against
organizing language are limited. This essentially means that there exists a structural
basis that is shared by all languages. And this is defined as Universal Grammar.

At this point, it is worth of clarifying that experts have observed: Some persons
researching the instant area occasionally mix up the terminology “Universal Grammar”
with the terminology “Grammar Translation Method”; consequently, they ultimately
use the terminologies “Generative Theory” and “Grammar Translation Method”
interchangeably. – The “Universal Grammar” and the “Grammar Translation Method”
are not the same; nor are they in position to be compared with each other as the
former is a theory and the latter is a method. Likewise, the terminologies “Generative
Theory” and “Grammar Translation Method” cannot be used interchangeably.

In accordance with the observations of the elements of the Generative Theory as

submitted above, the language acquisition under this concept is structure-dependent.
The teaching methods under this theory include (but are not limited to) the Grammar
Translation method.

Cognitive
Theory
Cognitive theory or Cognitive linguistics came into play in the latter years of the
20th century, standing as a challenge against the generative theory. It calls for
merging the
 Page 5 of 9

comprehension of language with the comprehension of the way particular neural

compositions function biologically. This is more a dissimilarity in practical research
technique than in philosophy: in principle, neurological evidence has always been
viewed relevant by the supporters of generative theory while, in practice, it has often
been treated as incapable of leading to a concrete conclusion and subject to various
interpretations.

Cognitive Theory discusses the reciprocal relations (structural) and mutual actions
(dynamical) between language (linguistics) and mind (cognition), inquiring such
questions as whether language effects on cognition or whether language becomes
apparent from non- linguistic cognitive functioning. In her entry on cognitive theory in
the MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, Karen Van Hoek has written, to quote:

“Cognitive linguistics is not a single theory but is rather best characterized as a paradigm
within linguistics, subsuming a number of distinct theories and research programs. It is
characterized by an emphasis on explicating the intimate interrelationship between language
and other cognitive faculties.”

In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens
explain, to quote:

“Cognitive Linguistics is the study of language in its cognitive function, where cognitive refers
to the crucial role of intermediate informational structures in our encounters with the world.
Cognitive Linguistics is cognitive in the same way that cognitive psychology is: by assuming that
our interaction with the world is mediated through informational structures in the mind. It is
more specific than cognitive psychology, however, by focusing on natural language as a means
for organizing, processing, and conveying that information. Language, then, is seen as a
repository of world knowledge, a structured collection of meaningful categories that help us deal
with new experiences and store information about old ones.”

Under the concept of the Cognitive Theory, the branches of language studied include
(but is not limited to) semantics, metaphor, and grammar, as it relates to thinking.
Standing as an interdisciplinary facility, the Cognitive Linguistic merges the
understandings of and functional aspects under these understandings from psychology,
neurobiology, philosophy, computer science, and such other disciplines that heavily
concern the human mind. The researchers of this theory develop their theoretical
understandings based on practical observation and experiment of methodologies;
rather than simply relying on just theory or logic.
 Page 6 of 9

Cognitive linguistics considers language as founded in evolutionarily developed and

speciated components and looks into explanations that develop or suit well into the
current comprehensions of the human mind.

The principle that guides behind this field of linguistics is that language production,
learning, and application are expounded by reference to human cognition in general —
the foundation underlying mental mechanisms that is applicable not only to language
but, indeed, to all other aspects of human intelligence as well.

According to the analysis Cognitive linguistics, the language is both given its tangible
form and built-in in specific natural environments (or bioregions). This can be viewed
as a more advanced form of the Whorfianism - in that – it is not only that language
and cognition are inter-influential but also they are natural experience and
environmental products of the relevant bioregion.

The Cognitive linguists analyze the mental foundations of language – the foundations
that account for the creation of thinking.

The research of Cognitive linguistics is divided into two main fields of study and they
are mutually dependent: cognitive semantics and cognitive approaches to grammar.

The aspects of cognition that the cognitive linguistics concern include: (1) cognitive
neuroscience; (2) linguistic relativism; (3) construction grammar and cognitive
grammar; (4) conceptual organization, categorization, metonymy, image schemas,
frame semantics, iconicity, and force dynamics; (5) construal and subjectivity; (6)
conceptual metaphor and conceptual blending; and (7) gesture and sign language.

The Cognitive Theory demands to merge or incorporate these findings into one
coherent structure for the purpose of creating methods to teach language.

Accordingly, unlike the Generative Theory, the Cognitive Theory opposes to

employment of any structure-dependent universally applicable method in aiding the
learners in their language acquisition process. It employs the theory of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Under this concept, one of the methods
is the Presentation, Practice, and Production (PPP) method.
 Page 7 of 9

Based on the observation of the Generative and the Cognitive theories as discussed
above, the fundamental differences between these two theories are as follows:

Generative Theory Cognitive Theory

1 Considers how 'native Considers language as founded in
speakers' generate language evolutionarily developed
without explicit knowledge and speciated components
and looks into explanations that
develop or suit well into
the current comprehensions of
the human mind
2 Regards the application of language Regards the application of
as language as bioregional behavior
3 Seeks to guide the students towards Seeks to guide the students
the framework of the language towards communicative
4 Shapes teaching methods based Shapes teaching methods
on a theoretical analysis according to practical
observation of psychological
framework
5 Calls for a structure depended Calls for an unstructured learning
learning process process to be structured to suit
individual needs

The More Realistic Theory:

Most definitely the Cognitive Theory is more realistic than the Generative Theory.

According to my theoretical understanding, the Universal Grammar theories are

pseudoscientific theory. It does not predict what is feasible in a given language.
It, in reality, does not keep up with any actual grammar. It has no coherent
construction and thus is unnecessary. Furthermore, it is contradictory to biology. In
fact, there is no practical existence of linguistic universals. The concept of the Universal
Grammar plays a vital role in setting forth the Generative Theory and therefore the
Generative Theory itself is fundamentally flawed.

As far as my practical experience is concerned, I have never even tried to apply the
Generative Theory in my practice. I, however, have observed its application: In
Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, English is a foreign language and a compulsory
subject from the 1st through the 12th grades. And there the Grammar Translation
method is used as a tool to teach English to the students. Under this method, as I
have witnessed, even after 12 years of study, the students fail to attain communicative
competence.
 Page 8 of 9

I find the Cognitive Theory offering the most logical formulas for language acquisition,
especially because it calls for application of multiple intelligence theory, student
centered teaching process, and inductive learning system. And, operating under the
principles of the Cognitive linguistics, I certainly have achieved result. Consequently,
as per my first hand personal experience, the Cognitive theory is more realistic
than the Generative theory.

SUMMARY

The Generative theory and the Cognitive theory are theories about language
acquisition. Both types of approaches share the same objective of modeling the
representation of knowledge of language in the mind. However, they differ in setting
forth the procedures to be used to reach that target. The main goal of this essay has
been: (1) to show the difference between these theories based upon showing the core
cluster of assumptions with regard to language acquisition within them; and (2) to
identify which theory is more practical in my opinion.

The Generative theory focuses on how native speakers learn language without any
formal introduction of its grammatical framework and assumes the application of
language as a behavior limited to certain rules. It looks forward to guiding the students
towards the structural composition of the language while outlining teaching methods
based on a theoretical analysis. And thus, ultimately, it formulates a structure
depended learning process.

On the other hand, the Cognitive theory finds language as rooted in evolutionarily
advanced and speciated faculties and focuses on explanations that develop and fit
suitably into the present understandings of the human mind. It treats the usage of
language as bioregional behavior. Under this theory, the students are guided towards
communicative competence. It designs the teaching methods pursuant to
practical observation of psychological construction. It seeks to employ an
unstructured learning process.

The theoretical analysis standing alone is sufficient to convince one to prefer the
Cognitive theory over the Generative because such observation clearly informs that
Cognitive theory offers a broad range of ideas as to how to teach while the generative
theory confines the teachers’ abilities to a limited atmosphere.
 Page 9 of 9

Moreover, I have observed that the Grammar-Translation method, one of the methods
developed under the Generative theory, is totally ineffective for the purpose of
students’ second language acquisition. It may enable the students to master on the
grammar of the L2 but leaves them with virtually no skill of meaningful communication.
Also, being taught under this method, the learners learn to translate from the L1 to L2
but not to express themselves in the traditional style of L2. – This problem has been
resolved by the Cognitive theory.

The PPP (Presentation, Practice, and Production) method, for an example, employed
under the Cognitive theory, calls for a great deal of practice of the L2 in the context of
real life settings and therefore leads the students to communicative competence.

Consequently, the Cognitive theory certainly is more practical than the Generative
theory.