generative vs cognitive linguistics
introduction
Generative linguistics and cognitive linguistics are two of the biggest branches of linguistics today. They are based off of the ideas of many thinkers of linguistics. Generative linguistics was first and has been in development since the 1950s. Cognitive linguistics came afterward and was a response to generative linguistics. Cognitive linguistics has been in development since the 1970s.
The clash of these two fields is a rather interesting conflict in the field of linguistics. As one of my professors said, linguistics is "a science with a pope" and that pope is Noam Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky is widely regarded as the father of linguistics and he is the one who coined the term "generative linguistics." Cognitive linguistics was a theory formed in response to generative linguistics and caused controversy when it was introduced. The ones who formed the theory were some of Chomsky's students and colleagues. This can be detailed in the book The Linguistics Wars written by Randy Allen Harris.
The main idea clash between generative and cognitive linguistics is whether or not language relies more on meaning or on formula. Generative grammar argues that meaning is derived from the order or formula of the words, while cognitive grammar says that word order comes from the meaning. It is a classic "chicken and egg" scenario - does meaning come first or does structure come first?
generative linguistics
Generative linguistics - or generative grammar - was a term first used by Noam Chomsky. Linguists who ascribe to this theory are referred to as "generativists." This branch of linguistics came first and was the dominant theory for many, many years. Many classes are generally structured on this theory and in many college curriculums, this is the only theory that is taught.
The main idea behind generative grammar is that language itself functions as a set of rules and formulas that are stored in our brain via a "universal grammar". This universal grammar is innate to human brains and it is what allows us to learn language. Generative grammar is largely focused on language structure and thus focuses on the fields of Syntax, Morphology, and Phonology. Generative grammar is largely focused around the field of Syntax, however.
One of the biggest arguments in favor of a "universal grammar" that is innate to human brains is the Poverty of the Stimulus argument. This argument says that toddlers who are learning language do not have enough stimulus or exposure to language to learn it at the rate that they do with all of the rules of that language. It is therefore argued that humans are predispositioned to language and thus have a specialized organ or area in the brain that is dedicated to this. There has been a lot of research done in this area to both prove and disprove this argument. An argument that cognitive linguists have against Poverty of the Stimulus is that other areas of our cognition can process and learn language and there is no specific "universal grammar."
Because generative grammar is very tied to Syntax, reading about Syntax in that page can help in understanding generative grammar. However, the general run-down of generative grammar is taking apart sentences to analyze their structure and figuring out what kinds of things can go into different parts of the sentence. The fact that something can seem "wrong" to native speakers is a clue that whatever is in that sentence does not fit in with the rules in their brain. Using this evidence, generativists identify the rules that we have set in place by our brains to learn the structure of our languages. By doing this, they have created entire rules and formulas for how we form our sentences.
cognitive linguistics
Cognitive linguistics, in contrast to generative grammar, focuses primarily on the meaning of language (or Semantics) and how it relates to how we store concepts in our brains. Cognitive linguistics sees language as an embedded part of our overall cognition and therefore it blends with the field of psychology and, of course, cognitive science. Cognitive linguistics is focused a lot on concepts like metaphors and categorization, as well as the relationship between language and thought process.
While cognitive linguistics does not reject the idea of syntactic structure, it is more focused on the meaning behind such structure rather than the structure itself, and believes that the meaning of the words is what gives rise the structure rather than structure giving the words meaning.
Cognitive linguistics as a general idea was formed by a group of Chomsky's former students and colleagues, who argued that semantics or meaning, was the focus of language structure rather than grammar rules. The idea took off in the 1970s and many papers and books were published on the matter. The two fathers of cognitive linguistics are considered to be George Lakoff and Ronald Langacker. The first work was by George Lakoff named Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, which described the noun categories of the Dyirbal language of Australia. Since then, multiple works have been published in cognitive linguistics, one of the more mainstream works being Metaphors We Live By by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson.
The clash between generative linguistics and cognitive linguistics is ongoing and is surprisingly focused on a bit of an East Coast vs West Coast rivalry in the United States, with the West Coast (particularly UC-Berekley) focused more on cognitive linguistics while the East Coast (such as Harvard and MIT) focus on generative linguistics. This makes sense, as the pioneers of each branch reside in their respective coasts - Noam Chomsky being from the East Coast and Lakoff and Langacker from the West Coast.
Many linguists have tried to propose a middle ground between generative and cognitive linguistics and combine the two ideas into one that is compatible. I imagine that the development of both branches of linguistics will change as time goes on.