Universal Grammar, the common rule or set of rules underlying all grammar, can be understood as akin to the Collective Unconsciousness archetypes of Jungian psychology -- the grammatical structures, like the archetypes, are there already and will develop over time naturally. As Chomsky puts it, "We do not really learn language; rather, a grammar grows in the mind." It doesn't matter what culture you belong to, what tribe, what language you speak, from English to Mandarin. Underlying his UG is the precedence of syntax, with surface structures (idiosyncratic) and deep structures (universal).
Shariatmadari describes Chomsky's crucial later concept, Merge,
which apes, birds, dolphins and every other species lack. It is what enables children to acquire language so quickly and dramatically, because they perceive, beyond the jumble of words at the surface, an inner order... Merge is the holy grail.
Because of this function humans are able to generate an infinite number of sentences out of one set of rules.
But for Shariatmadari there's more to it than mere functionality. Whereas Chomsky posits that "the overwhelming use of language is internal -- for thought," Shariatmadari emphasizes a more primary social purpose. He writes,
[L]anguage is fundamentally a social phenomenon. Its structure does not derive from an internal blueprint, but from the general cognitive abilities of a social species, and external factors.
And, really, his whole book is not about how we think about language, but, rather, how we engage each other in social situations and experience in a variety of spheres -- "psychology, sociology, neuroscience, anthropology, literature, philosophy and computing." Although, the author does push for greater self-consciousness. In fact, he suggests that we may be entering a new paradigm regarding language similar to Galileo's heliocentric splash.
Shariatmadari also cites the etymological fallacy -- tracing a word back to its root as an authoritative explanation for a current usage, which the author declares can be "a form of deceit." He cites, as one example, how following such a trace for the word 'treacle' could leave one "in a pickle" because ultimately it means "a wild or venomous beast."
Words have meanings. But is the 'have' in the first sentence the same as the 'have' in the second? Obviously not." Obviously not. He goes hilariously further with the word 'slab'. He says it's "an example of word-as-tool. Its meaning, in the context of a building site, was to get someone to do something that would help build a wall." (Yell 'slab' to a mate driving away in a ute in Australia and he'll bring you back a sexie sixie of XXXX beers. If he's a real mate.)
Well, anyway, Shariatmadari's stated concern with these trace-backs is that "the institutions that define standard language: universities, newspapers, broadcasters, the literary establishment" might employ such fallacies to maintain control of meaning, as they did with the Canon, before postmodernism came along to bust their balls.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).