Generative Grammar - Coursework Example

Question 1.

Syntactic Change.

Language change is a fundamental aspect of any language. Syntactic change is a subset of language change. Over time, a language is bound to experience changes in its physiognomy and syntactic structure. Syntactic change is undoubtedly the biggest culprit of language change. It influences and consequently induces significant changes in the morphology and the individual syntactic elements of a language. These changes are continuously carried forward and ultimately present new syntactic properties. There are three different streams of syntactic change; Reanalysis of surface structure, Shift of markedness, and Grammaticalization. This essay, to this effect, attempts to convey an in-depth, comprehensive analysis of those as mentioned earlier three while explaining the mechanisms involved. (Zimmermann,2017).

i). Reanalysis of Surface Structure.

This is perhaps the most important of the three. Ambiguity in a surface structure allows for differed interpretations and consequently, a reanalysis of the same. This reanalysis has brought about most of the syntactic changes witnessed in various languages. The impacts are outrightly clear, drawing from the following examples. (Li,2014)

Copula. A copula is a word that is used to connect two different elements in a sentence. In most cases, it is used to connect a subject to a subject complement or two noun phrases to each other. The major copula in English is the verb be. Most languages previously did not have a copula, but after a reanalysis, a copula was adopted. (Zimmerman,2017).

In Chinese, writings before the third century BCE indicate the absence of a Copula. An example is the following Sentence;

Wang-Tai wu zhe ye.

(Wang-Tai outstanding person.)

However, with evolving reanalysis, modern Chinese has adopted the use of a Copula.

Hua shi hong.

(Flower be red)

(Flower is red)

ii) Shift of Markedness.

In English, SVO is the dominant word order and therefore is described as an unmarked form. However, a marked form can occur in sentences bearing the OSV (Object-Subject-Verb), though rarely used.

I can’t buy this phone (SVO)

This Phone I can’t buy (OSV).

Currently, SVO is the most commonly preferred hence rendering OSV as the marked form. Similarly, if at all, OSV becomes the most used form, then it will be the unmarked form, while SVO becomes the marked form. This would represent a syntactic change owing from a shift of markedness.

A while ago, before was used in its spatial form as a preposition to describe the position of an item in relation to another. At this time, because it was the marked form. However, with time, before was replaced by in front of and consequently in front of becoming the most commonly used form, thereby becoming the new unmarked form while before progressively became the marked for.

iii) Grammaticalization.

As a language evolves, rich lexical items may be ultimately reduced and constrained to morphemes. Lexical items, in this case, may lose value to become simple auxiliaries. An example is the word will. Initially, will was used majorly as a lexical verb to mean want. An excerpt from Shakespeare shows this;

What wilt thou?

(What do you want?)

However, over time, will become less lexical and was reduced to a simple grammatical future marker. For instance, in the example;

I will visit her tomorrow.

Another example is do. Initially, in previous English age, do was used both as a Lexical or auxiliary verb but majorly as a lexical verb. As a lexical verb, there was a wide variety of syntactic environments where do could be used, five of them being the most common; NICE (Negation, Inversion, Code, and Emphatic polarity). However, with time, its use has been reduced to an auxiliary verb.

Question 2.

Introduction.

When a child is born, he or she is bound to learn the native language of the parents and probably another second language depending on the environment. This learning natural but assisted as parents and the people around the child play an important role in the child's language development. Sequentially, the child moves from amateur to veteran in the said learned language. The process of language acquisition and learning is dynamic and broad, dependent on a variety of factors. (Galasso and Joseph, 2016).

i). Language Acquisition.

Language acquisition can be divided into the learning of the native language and also the second language. The process is progressive with the timeframes differing from one child to another and also one language to another. Over time, researchers in linguistics formulated two theories in an attempt to explain the process of language acquisition in children. The three theories are the theory of Reinforcement, Imitation, and analogy. There has been much debate on the credibility of the theories, so they can’t be absolutely adopted to explain the process of language acquisition.

Phonology; It easily noted that as children start attempting to pronounce words in their native language, they experience difficulties. In turn, what happens is that children try to simplify a cluster of consonants into a related word that is easy for them to pronounce. For instance, a child will pronounce Spoon as poon. (Galasso and Joseph, 2016).

Morphology; Children as expected have less regard or rather mastery of grammatical rules. They tend to generalize a single rule on all instances of either a verb or a noun. Therefore, during the early stages, they do not understand the differences between regular and irregular verbs and nouns. A child would regularly use goed instead of went since they generalize that all verbs in the past tense are added the suffix -ed .

Critical age; Its certain that there is a critical age for a child at which language acquisition is paramount and becomes a priority. At this age, a child is able to learn a language quickly and efficiently that he or she could or will in any other given age. Children detached from society at this critical age are bound to experience difficulties learning their language in the future.

Regarding the acquisition of a second language, four critical elements play a fundamental role in the acquisition process. These four fundamental skills are; Listening, speaking, reading and writing.

ii)Language and Age.

The process of a child learning his or her language is not abrupt but continuous. The progress becomes more and more significant as the child grows. The timeline for the early stage language development can be classified into three distinct phases; at 2 months, 6 months and 1 year. Through this period, the child graduates from a coo to a Babble and finally being able to pronounce a full word. The time-frame is not necessarily constant since it also depends on other variables including but not limited to mental capacity, environment and physical orientation. The holophrastic stage is probably the most important and its at this point that the caregiver should motivate the child since this will encourage the child to try out other words. The linguistic environment as earlier noted, is also critical factor in the language acquisition and learning process.

Conclusion.

In summary, the acquisition and learning of language by a child is a dynamic and sequential process. Many factors have differing implications on the process and hence might eventually impart positively or negatively. As such, a suitable linguistic environment is paramount and is best offered by the caregivers and relatives to the child.

Question 3.

Universal Grammar.

Universal grammar postulates its assertions in three major lines; Universality, Convergence and Poverty of the stimulus. Universal grammar (UG) argues that there is a profound similarity between languages across the world and all ultimately share a focal element of grammar. It also proposes through the theory of the poverty of stimulus; that the learning of language by children is not entirely dependent on the linguistic environment, but is rather inborn and wired; a function of the left side of the brain. Nonetheless, there has been varied discussion regarding the linguistic authenticity and credibility of the theory. The point of discussion being on whether the theory is actually practical to the real situation. This essay attempts to assert my opposing stand towards the credibility of the Universal Grammar Concept by carrying out an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of all the tabled evidences and arguments. (Lin and Francis,2017).

The first argument is based on the fundamental basis of Chomsky`s theory, that language is inborn and `wired`. UG argues that children inborn with a preinstalled knowledge of their language that will most definitely lead to their mastery of the language with less dependence on the linguistic environment. This I believe is shallow and is not entirely justifiable under the prevailing circumstances. For example, in the light of innateness of language, its unexplainable on how children speaking a creole language able to know the associated grammatical rules. In this case, the children learn form imitation and reinforcement hence disqualifying the UG assumption of language being innate. Another example is the inability of the theory to describe if and how the innate ability is conditioned and updated with the fast-changing languages.

Subjacency; Chomsky alludes to the existence of constrained subjacency in grammar. While the presence of this subjacency can be relatively be proven, there exists one significant and dominant limitation. The subject data utilized by Chomsky was majorly from the English Language. Comparing with the intended universal generalization of his theory, then it would have been prudent for Chomsky to investigate Subjacency across the major if not all languages. Nonetheless, even if he attempted to describe the languages, he won’t be able to fully include all the global languages, and hence all the more stipulating the difficulty and perhaps the impossibility of establishing a general theory that applies to all the languages in the world. Also, on this basis, I disagree with Chomsky`s Universal Grammar. (Lin and Francis,2017).

Perhaps of all the refutes is clearly presented by Ibbotson and Tomasello (2016). They begin by outrightly rejecting Chomsky`s Universality theory by stating that there are tribes in the Amazon who’s semantic and grammatic layout has no similarity with any other languages in the globe. They further argue that subjacency and syntactic constituency are not present in all the languages of the world. They go on to dispute Chomsky`s assumption that language is innate. They instead propose their own Alternative theory which majors on the assumption that children learn their language from interactions and imitations in their environment. I personally support their theory as it is more feasible and applicable to the real-life situation. Its entirely clear that children learn their native language from their mothers and also the larger environment around them. It will highly unscientific to assume that language is innate and less dependent on the environment.\

Theory of the empty mind. Halpern (2015), refutes Chomsky`s claim that language possesses a major significant innate origin. He argues that if indeed this was the case, then why is it individuals find it hard to learn deeper aspects of their native language or a second language. Halpern proposes that if at all there`s an extent of inborn knowledge, then the same knowledge should be able to guide individuals later on in life hence them not having difficulties with their native or second language.

Final Verdict.

Chomsky`s theory of Universal grammar is worth the discussion in its own right as any other linguistic findings. He tries to draw and explain a common converging point for all languages in the globe. He also attempts to explain his theory of language learning not being entirely pegged on external influences, but having elements of natural inborn knowledge. His thoughts are comprehensive and diverse, hence cannot be disqualified at a glance.

To ascertain and support my opposing stand, I have undertaken to discuss the various arguments put forward by different linguistic scholars, highlighting their views on UG. In this case scenario, what stands out is that there are myriads of refutes against UG with sufficient evidence to assert the arguments.

The major setbacks on UG is based on its apparent Universality. It’s clear that the conditions stipulated are not inclusive of all world languages. Also, it fails to satisfactorily defend the assumption that language is inborn.

Regarding the acquisition of a second language, four critical elements play a fundamental role in the acquisition process. These four fundamental skills are; Listening, speaking, reading and writing.

ii)Language and Age.

The process of a child learning his or her language is not abrupt but continuous. The progress becomes more and more significant as the child grows. The timeline for the early stage language development can be classified into three distinct phases; at 2 months, 6 months and 1 year. Through this period, the child graduates from a coo to a Babble and finally being able to pronounce a full word. The time-frame is not necessarily constant since it also depends on other variables including but not limited to mental capacity, environment and physical orientation. The holophrastic stage is probably the most important and its at this point that the caregiver should motivate the child since this will encourage the child to try out other words. The linguistic environment as earlier noted, is also critical factor in the language acquisition and learning process.

Conclusion.

In summary, the acquisition and learning of language by a child is a dynamic and sequential process. Many factors have differing implications on the process and hence might eventually impart positively or negatively. As such, a suitable linguistic environment is paramount and is best offered by the caregivers and relatives to the child.

Question 3.

Universal Grammar.

Universal grammar postulates its assertions in three major lines; Universality, Convergence and Poverty of the stimulus. Universal grammar (UG) argues that there is a profound similarity between languages across the world and all ultimately share a focal element of grammar. It also proposes through the theory of the poverty of stimulus; that the learning of language by children is not entirely dependent on the linguistic environment, but is rather inborn and wired; a function of the left side of the brain. Nonetheless, there has been varied discussion regarding the linguistic authenticity and credibility of the theory. The point of discussion being on whether the theory is actually practical to the real situation. This essay attempts to assert my opposing stand towards the credibility of the Universal Grammar Concept by carrying out an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of all the tabled evidences and arguments. (Lin and Francis,2017).

The first argument is based on the fundamental basis of Chomsky`s theory, that language is inborn and `wired`. UG argues that children inborn with a preinstalled knowledge of their language that will most definitely lead to their mastery of the language with less dependence on the linguistic environment. This I believe is shallow and is not entirely justifiable under the prevailing circumstances. For example, in the light of innateness of language, its unexplainable on how children speaking a creole language able to know the associated grammatical rules. In this case, the children learn form imitation and reinforcement hence disqualifying the UG assumption of language being innate. Another example is the inability of the theory to describe if and how the innate ability is conditioned and updated with the fast-changing languages.

Subjacency; Chomsky alludes to the existence of constrained subjacency in grammar. While the presence of this subjacency can be relatively be proven, there exists one significant and dominant limitation. The subject data utilized by Chomsky was majorly from the English Language. Comparing with the intended universal generalization of his theory, then it would have been prudent for Chomsky to investigate Subjacency across the major if not all languages. Read More