Analysis of The Myth of Language Universals Article - Essay Example

The Myth of Language Universals The Myth of Language Universals The fairly recent article by Evans and Levinson on language universals as well as universal grammar seems to have fascinated much attention. This curiosity has not only been popular but also professional (Evans & Levinson, 2009). At the onset, the article; The Myth of Language Universals identifies the problem of partially being against appropriate consideration, on having theories of conviction with a force to convince people about where these claims are founded (Evans & Levinson, 2009).There exist over seven hundred thousand languages globally. Despite this fact, cognitive scientists frequently assume that all these languages are grounded to a common configuration (Evans & Levinson, 2009). However, this assumption that has spread all over the world appears to be a myth. The justification for this is that language diversity and not universals, exist in nearly all heights of linguistic organization (Evans & Levinson, 2009). In their comprehensive article: The Myth of Language Universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science, Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson gives a summary of the decades of the cross linguistic work as raised by descriptive linguistics and topologists (Evans & Levinson, 2009). They simply bring about how the universal features of language are not only un-profound but only few (Evans & Levinson, 2009).They do not seem to agree that languages differ radically in meaning, sound as well as in the syntactic organization. Only human beings posses a communication system that varies profoundly at all levels (Evans & Levinson, 2009).Evans and Levinson also argue that the assertions about strict universals but rather to tendencies. For instance, the theories of Chomsky assume that all constituencies are universal, yet a number of languages never use this in organizing the structure of their sentences. Structural differences in languages ought to be accepted as they are and unified into a new largely evolutionary attitude to language and cognition that puts diversity at a central position (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Human language diversity brings about sensational new research tips for cognitive scientists and challenges us with extraordinary flexibility of the uppermost human skill. Linguistic universals have made cognitive scientists to believe that languages are all built in a universal pattern (Evans & Levinson, 2009). There are vanishingly few universals of language in the straightforward sense that all languages show signs of them. Diversity is observable at almost all levels of linguistic organizations (Evans & Levinson, 2009). This observation changes the object of inquiry from the perspective of cognitive science. Although there are crucial recurrent patterns in language organization, these patterns are better explained in the sense of stable engineering solutions that satisfy multiple design constraints (Evans & Levinson, 2009). The constraints and designs reflect on both human cognition factors and cultural-historical factors. Linguistic diversity has become one of the most crucial datum for cognitive sciences. Human beings are the only species with communication systems that are fundamentally variable at all levels (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Recognition of the true extent of structural diversity in the languages human beings use opens up exciting research directions for cognitive scientists. Evans and Levinson in their article, that all languages are similar to English but differ with it only in the sound systems as well as in vocabulary (Evans & Levinson, 2009).This claim however is in contrary with the true picture. Languages in essence, differ greatly from each other at various description levels. These differences are evident in terms of grammar, sound, meaning and lexicon (Evans & Levinson, 2009). It is therefore difficult to come across any two languages sharing any structural property. This perception could have arisen from ethnocentrism. Considering the fact that majority of linguists and cognitive scientists communicate solely in the European languages that possess same structural features. The view can also be as a result of the deceptive copy of advertisement given out by the very same linguists (Evans & Levinson, 2009). The root cause of this can be attributed to the sociological split among the linguists that have in turn brought about typological and generative linguists with divergent views in matters pertaining to what is scientifically proven(Evans & Levinson, 2009).These linguists hardly share principles of argumentation that can enable them arrive into solid facts. This generation only tends to represent the leading view (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Consequently, the opinion held by Chomsky concerning universal grammar has widely been mistaken for a number of concrete research findings regarding all the similarities in languages, and not for what it is. To be able to generate considerable results with regards to language universals, the researcher must embark on the ground of linguistic typology (Evans & Levinson, 2009). This field has extensively explored the various aspects of the diverse languages and hence generalizations cannot be easily extracted. Under thorough scrutiny, the ideas of Chomsky by various commentators, have distinguished themselves as quite influential in the field of cognitive science (Evans & Levinson, 2009).The main reason behind this is that these views encompass sophisticated philosophical ideas with mathematical methods to structure, having the distinctive legacy for language that is directly significant and appropriate to cognitive psychologists, theorists and brain scientists. The fundamental idea that all languages have the same structure, to some extent remains pervasive as per the arguments brought forth in the recent decade (Evans & Levinson, 2009). It therefore calls for experts of science to undo the spreading presumption of language uniformity. Still, the main reason remains to be lack of ample communication between cognitive science theorists and linguists pertaining linguistic diversity (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Evans and Levinson also assert that all languages have major lexical categories (Evans & Levinson, 2009).These include the verb, noun, preposition and the adjective. This claim however has its counterexample that questions its authenticity. Some languages have been identified to have neither case making nor word order system. On the claim that every language has major phrasal categories, that is, the verb phrase and the noun phrase, research has shown that a good number of languages, for instance the Chinese language, does not mark tense (Evans & Levinson, 2009).Some have also been identified to lack aspect. Another proposed substantive universal is that every language has rules to guide the linear order, for instance, to bring a difference between subject and object (Evans & Levinson, 2009). In accordance to this claim, it has been reported that many languages do not have auxiliaries. Evans and Levinson, in addition, brought forth the claim that every language has verb affixes that signal tense and aspect. In reaction to this view, it has been reported that some languages do not move their wh-forms when saying for instance, “he brought who?” instead of saying,” who did he bring?” According to Evans and Levinson, the fundamental fact for gaining understanding regarding the position of language in the cognition of humans is diversity (Evans & Levinson, 2009). They argue that languages may contain less than twelve different sounds or may contain twelve dozens. They add that sound language employs no use of sound at all costs (Evans & Levinson, 2009). The two argues that languages may possess derivational morphology or may not have them. They also may have or may fail to have integral structure that consists of the building units of words that make phrases.in their view, languages may have or may not have fixed order of parts and that the semantic systems of these words may cut the globe at varied positions. The article assumes that in all languages, the main classes are four, that is, those which are in essence not limited to their membership, will continuously be same verbs, nouns adverbs and adjective (Evans & Levinson, 2009).However, this claim is untenable if the cross linguistic evidence is to be put into consideration. For instance, several languages have no open adverb class (Evans & Levinson, 2009). They therefore employ other forms of modification. Others, such as the Lao, lack the adjective class, which are the encoding element and a sub-sub form of verb. Provided that a language abandons adjectives as well as adverbs, the last barrier in the difference in the word class will be that between the verbs and nouns (Evans & Levinson, 2009).The question is whether we can abolish this, just to have a one word class of base. There is still controversy with regards to this among the linguists. The bar for proof continues increasing and some claimed cases like the Mundari have fallen by the wayside (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Several languages in the pacific North West coast and in Philippines have raised arguments back and forth for a substantial period of time with the appropriate evidence changing to be more elusive (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Up to date, no conclusive consensus has been arrived at. From the analyses by different scholars, the main lexical items all have a role as predicates (Evans & Levinson, 2009). They then open into many clausal roles, predicate and modifier, as per the syntactic slots within which they are placed. The syntactic classes of predicate that are single open entail words for qualities, events and entities (Evans & Levinson, 2009).These words, when used straight as predicates, each and every one occur in a clause initial position followed by object or subject clitics. However, when applied as arguments, every lexical stem is converted effectively to form relative clauses by making use of determiners that are made use of regardless of the form of the predicate word, either as an entity, event or a proper name (Evans & Levinson, 2009).These therefore justify the claim that there exist languages that do not have adjectives, those without adverbs and even those having no primary noun-verb distinction. In addition, it is evident that other forms of major word classes exist (Evans & Levinson, 2009).These includes the positionals, coverbs and the ideophones. Typically, ideophones convert cross-modal perceptual features. They depict the smell, sound, sight or sensation of situations whereby the event together with its participants are put together to form an indisected gestalt (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Syntactically, idiophones are merely loosely integrated, and are used in narratives independently as units to add flavor to the narratives. Positionals on the other hand, give the description of the form and the position of objects and persons (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Typically, they possess peculiar syntactic and morphological features. On the other hand, co-verbs distinguish themselves as open classes outside nouns, verbs, adverbs and adjectives (Evans & Levinson, 2009).They are combined with inflecting verbs syntactically unlike the idiophones and positionals. Another word class that was not foreseen by the traditional grammar categories is the classifiers (Evans & Levinson, 2009). We have numerical classifiers and hand shape classifiers. Numerical classifiers categorize counted objects as per the shape. Hand shape classifiers on the other hand occur in sign language. It represents the entity involved via a schematized representation of its shape. Any other word classes that are unfamiliar are increasingly being discovered. These word classes only adhere to the internal structural logic of the languages previously not described (Evans & Levinson, 2009). This therefore underscores the claim that no two languages possess word classes which are exactly similar in the morpho-syntactic features. In their semantic view of languages, Evans and Levinson in their article assert that there exists a school of thought that views language to be directly encoding the various groups we think in (Evans & Levinson, 2009). It adds that this makes the innate universal language of thought. This view further explains that knowing a language simply entails being able to translate language of thought into strings of words. According to this point of view, individuals without a language still would have language of thought. Presumably, several non human animals and babies possess simpler dialects (Evans & Levinson, 2009). In that connection, researchers have reported that learning a language therefore only entails understanding the meaning of local clothing for worldwide concepts we have with us already. However, this view has its weaknesses. Languages differ greatly in the concepts that they offer ready coded in lexicon and grammar (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Languages may not have constructions or words that correspond to the rational connectives. Furthermore, some languages have no tense, some lack aspect; some have no numerals while others lack third person pronoun or pronouns in general (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Some languages have several verbs amounting to over ten thousand while others merely have thirty verbs. Also lack of vocabularies may at times simply render an expression more awkward but at times it purely limits impressibility, for instance, in languages with no numerals. In the other way, several languages have semantic distinctions we definitely would never consider making. In a good number of languages, all statements are to be coded say in verbal affixes to provide evidence (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Many languages also have unique kin terms for train referent gulating the link between the hearer, speaker and referent. Another interesting aspect of comparing languages is the spatial domain owing to the fact that spatial is significant to all animals. I essence, we find significant differences in the semantic tools languages employ in coding space (Evans & Levinson, 2009). To justify this claim, there exist some languages that do not have the notions of, “right of”, “front of”, and “left of” or “back of” (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Such languages use geographic and not egocentric coordinates. According to research, speakers of such languages recall the location using the coordinate system rather than the fixed innate language of thought (Evans & Levinson, 2009). On the notion of subject, the article that the grammatical relationship between object and subject effectively apply to a considerable number of unrelated languages that view them as a section of the invariant tool of universal grammar (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Many languages globally, have congruent grammatical relations to those of English subject and object. The concept subject in whichever language is a way of restructuring grammars to consider the fact that three different tasks statistically correlate to form a subject (Evans & Levinson, 2009). These are the subject as a topic, an urgent and the pivot. As a topic, the subject tells us what the sentence is about. As an agent, it gives the semantic purpose of the action’s instigator. As a pivot, the subject acts as the syntactic figure around which several grammatical elements coalesce (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Subject relation generally brings about organization in the grammar of a language since it puts together varied sub tasks that often ought to be bundled together. However, there is a need for languages to give an indication whenever these features do not coalesce. For instance, a subject can be marked by the passive if it is not an agent. Subject hence is a critical notion in analyzing most languages. However, despite the central role played by the subject, some languages tend to split subject by directing all its semantic functions into two major macro functions; actor and undergoer (Evans & Levinson, 2009).Here, the actor plays a wider scope of semantic roles than agent. The undergoer, on the other hand, tends to mean corresponding to. Other languages may also boast of the advantages of having various syntactic properties combined into one syntactic pivot, but extends to English rendering the patient the opportunity of having a semantic role on top of acting as an agent and pivot (Evans & Levinson, 2009).Subject is therefore portrayed as a very fundamental aspect of grammar in a language due to the varied roles it plays meticulously. The article by Evans and Levinson on language universals and universal grammar has offered a detailed summary of decades of linguistic work in the views of topologists and linguists. It clearly depicts the universal features of language that brought forth as being few and less thoughtful, if we soberly challenge the diversity put forward by the over seven thousand languages in the world (Evans & Levinson, 2009).The article has exhaustedly illustrated how Languages vary fundamentally in syntactic organization, meaning and sound. It has gone further to examine inside out, the major grammatical tool for grammatical relations, recursion and consistency. Although various central recurrent patterns exist in organization, the article has explored the fundamental solutions that harmonize the many designed constraints giving a clear view of the cultural historical conditions as well as the constraints of human cognition. The article underscores linguistic diversity as the critical datum in the field of cognitive science. Subject as an aspect of grammar has been vividly brought out in the lime light as one of the major core elements of the grammar. References Evans & Levinson (2009).The myth of language universals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Read More