Approaches to the Study of Cross Linguistic Concepts - Research Paper Example

ARGUMENT AGAINST UNIVERSALITY OF GRAMMATICAL FUNCTIONS Name Institution Date ESSAY PLAN/OUTLINE Recent research by scholars descents the universality of grammatical functions There is no onomasiological determination for grammar The universality of grammatical functions can only be regarded a relative factor An abstract of the general language theory Related studies Further theories formulated due to general language theory Discussion A language provides a demonstration of the case and agreement essentials Grammatical functions can be valuable in explaining Indo- European languages A conclusion that grammatical functions have no universality Further research recommendations References Evans, N.2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Keenan, J. (1987). Towards a universal definition of ‘subject of'. Santiago. Servicio publishers Dryer, G (1992). Are Grammatical Relations Universal? Arlington, VA: Voices of Rupert's Land. CRITICAL SUMMARY Title of the article: Are Grammatical Relations Universal? Author: Matthew S. Dryer The author is currently a linguistics professor at the State University in New York. He has done researches in typology and syntax, as well as documentation in language. He is a renowned scholar for his work on correlations of word order. Additionally, his scholarly work has analyzed myriad definitions on markedness with regard to word order. Significantly, the author’s key purpose in writing the article is to identify that with respect to a functionalist’s language view, the first three issues in the grammatical relations’ domain exist but the last one is unnecessary. These refers to the four types of grammatical relations’ domain; grammatical relations in certain languages, connection between the certain language grammatical relations, practical, cognitive, as well as semantic explanations for the above similarities, and grammatical relations with respect to cross linguistic sense. He has added that the views that word classes are language particular is significantly reflected within the American structuralism tradition (Evans, 2009). It is worthwhile noting that, since the author has presented a critical argument on the universality of grammar, I shall rely on his work to produce a flourishing argument on whether there is a justifiable reason for the universality of grammatical functions. Significantly, I shall borrow the author’s key ideas on the universality of grammatical functions in order to formulate a comprehensive view, as well as a debate on the universality of grammatical functions. The key issues/ points in his work entail word classes’ analogy as categories of cross linguistic, phonemes analogy as categories of cross linguistic, certain language grammatical relations in English, similarities along with differences between certain language grammatical relations, and four cases illustrating problems of grammatical relations. Moreover, he identifies that, a cross linguistic notion about grammatical relations is significantly widely recognizable than a phoneme’s cross linguistic notion. Consequently, he tries to reveal that grammatical relations are significantly often regarded with respect to cross linguistic such that one can not easily discover what is meant by certain language grammatical relations. It is significantly noting that, in his introduction of the article the author identifies that, when one enquires on whether grammatical functions are universal, it does not imply that such inquiries represent cross linguistic notions; however, such attempts aim at discovering whether the above cross linguistic notions can be manifested across all languages. In his comparison between certain language grammatical relations, the author identifies that one ca easily apply similar procedure to other languages, and thus discover the grammatical relations in such languages. However, in order to carry on such kind of an exercise the defining characteristics of the grammatical relations would still remain language- particular. Concisely, he concludes that although agreement and case, as well as position are critical in English, for each of them there are evidently languages in which such criterion is inappropriate. Additionally, whenever two languages utilize similar criteria, such languages will defer in details. Concisely, I would argue that the above argument by the authors presents a stand that there is no universality in grammatical functions (Dryer, 1992). Considerably, in order to address the problem in the universality of grammatical functions, the author has presented in his article a debate of four cases about the key problems I grammatical relations. The authors emphasize that the above cases of four problems present examples of languages that deviate from the prototype such that they have initiated competing criticism in the research of grammatical relations in such languages. The four problems entail the Dyirbal, which is a discussion about a language that is syntactically ergative, Cree (demonstrating the general problem construction in Algonquian languages), Cebuano (the problem of Philippine languages). It is worthwhile noting that, compared to related studies on ter universality of grammatical functions the author of the above article has presented an extremely flourishing research on the universality of grammatical functions. For instance, Keenan (1987) in his work entitled “towards a universal definition of subject’ has identified that a definition of the subject merely allows a verification of myriad universal generalizations described with respect to the notion. Significantly, Keenan only argues that, any attempted universality of grammatical functions represents only a generalization of ideas and facts. Concisely, the above article is significantly essential in my debate on the universality of grammatical functions. The reason is due to the author’s conformity with other researches on the grammatical functions. However, one should identify that, the author of the article has only relied on the functionalist view of language to provide generalizations on the universality of grammatical functions. Significantly, there are myriad schools of though which ought to be consulted before any generalizations. However, the article’s key role in exploring the universality on grammatical functions remains critical. Consequently, I shall borrow ideas from Dryers’ article to produce a comprehensive debate over the universality of grammatical functions. Bibliography Evans, N.2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Keenan, J. (1987). Towards a universal definition of ‘subject of'. Santiago. Servicio publishers Dryer, G (1992). Are Grammatical Relations Universal? Arlington, VA: Voices of Rupert's Land. ARGUMENT AGAINST UNIVERSALITY OF GRAMMATICAL FUNCTIONS Introduction According to Keenan (1987) LFG refers to a theory of linguistic which explores the diverse linguistic structure aspects and their relations. Significantly, the analyses of LFG usually targets at two significant syntactic structures. For instance, there is the Constituent structure known as c- structure, represents word order along with phrasal groupings. Secondly, there is the functional structure known as the f-structure, which signifies grammatical functions such as subject, as well as object. It is worthwhile noting that, the above structures entail significant separate representations, although they complement one another in logical aspects. Current LFG research incorporates examinations about argument structure and semantic structure, as well as other structures of linguistic along with their significant relation to c-structure in addition to f-structure. Keenan (1987) identifies that LFG presents a theory of linguistic which explores the diverse linguistic structure aspects and their relations. Significantly, the analyses of LFG usually targets at two significant syntactic structures. For instance, there is the Constituent structure known as c- structure, represents word order along with phrasal groupings. Secondly, there is the functional structure known as the f-structure, which signifies grammatical functions such as subject, as well as object. It is worthwhile noting that, the above structures entail significant separate representations, although they complement one another in logical aspects. Current LFG research incorporates examinations about argument structure and semantic structure, as well as other structures of linguistic along with their significant relation to c-structure in addition to f-structure. Considerably, LFG presents a language structure theory and how myriad linguistic structure is interlinked. Consequently, the LFG theory is significantly lexical meaning that the lexicon is splendidly well thought-out, comprising lexical relations as opposed to transformations or phrase structure operations on trees in order to capture linguistic generalizations. Additionally, it is functional, meaning that grammatical functions such as s subject, as well as object are significantly theory primitives, not described through configuration of phrase structure nor semantic roles. LFG hold the presupposition that two syntactic points are vital in the linguistic structure examination. Significantly, the F-structure symbolizes theoretical grammatical functions such as subject plus the object and abstract features such as tense, as well as case. Secondly, c- structure, symbolize the real phrasal expression of the above relations, determined by certain language restrictions on order of words along with phrase structure. It is significant noting that, the above syntactic representation duality is aggravated by the diverse nature of the above two structures within languages and across them. Related studies Considerably, Keenan (1987) defines LFG as a language structure theory and how myriad linguistic structure is interlinked. Consequently, the LFG theory is significantly lexical meaning that the lexicon is splendidly well thought-out, comprising lexical relations as opposed to transformations or phrase structure operations on trees in order to capture linguistic generalizations. Additionally, it is functional, meaning that grammatical functions such as s subject, as well as object are significantly theory primitives, not described through configuration of phrase structure nor semantic roles. Languages differ significantly in the order of word along with phrasal structure additionally, and the constituent structure theory enables the above variation within some universally determine parameters. However, every language has similar functional vocabulary with the other languages. According to LFG’s functional structure theory, each language theoretical syntactic structure is organized through the subject, object, along with other grammatical functions, which are significantly familiar from usual grammatical work. Moreover, Languages differ significantly in the indispensable expression of phrases expression in simple sentences. Discussion It is significant noting that, whenever an individual refers to grammar, he significantly thinks of either morphology or morphosyntax or both, this indicates case, as well as number with respect to noun, person marking, tense, and mode along with aspect as far as the verb is concerned; an individual thinks of the prepositions usage, pronouns, of the adverb formation from the adjective, of the conjunctions value, among others. Considerably, certain categories of grammar and markings, which can easily take for granted, are thus significantly by no manner universal, ad this is significantly inevitable when an individual compares myriad languages, stages of language and types of language. The manner in which the above categories become significantly explicit is o think about isolating languages such as Chinese and Vietnamese, which one can simply refer to languages with no morphology. Significantly, such languages utilize syntax so as to create relations in a sentence and also use merely full words apart from certain exceptions. Consequently, in my sense they do not have profound grammatical rules. However, one can never learn Chinese so as to understand the principles guarding an isolating language, which is significantly pitiable either with respect to grammar or economical(!). Alternatively, one constructs a fictitious language which can operate in the absence of markings of morphology and ask what alternatives are vital in respecting the essential conditions so as to avoid putting it at dangerous communication. Therefore, it is significantly clear about what one instinctively comprehend by either grammar or morphology and in which way they disagree with vocabulary. Additionally, it will become apparent that several phenomena of indo- European grammars are merely per se, although they are as a result of history of linguistic. The idea about grammatical functions like subject, as well as object, has existed for centuries and is among key fundamentals of conventional syntactic analysis. Nevertheless, for about a century ago debate has dominated over the significance of the notion for the entire description, or certainly whichever, language as well as linguists looks as if they are at odds on the problem. The debate keeps on and is also evident in generative grammar, even though it is found with a certain angle. It is worthwhile noting that conceivably at its significantly critical level, the deliberation over grammatical functions tackles the matter of the concepts’ universality like subject. Conversely, still the above question is not simple and can one can address it using myriad perspectives. For instance, one may question on the universality of the notion subject in its description of every likely languages of humanity. Additionally, it is empirically impossible for one to determine such value of the notion subject since obviously one cannot access every feasible human languages, because a large amount of are imaginary. However, one can explore every existent language in order to establish whether each one has subjects, although there is another significant problem of establishing whether observable facts a certain language equals those observed in others. Consequently, for instance, if one considers the sentence in English such as Alex noticed Charles, and converts it into Hungarian Alex látott charles , can one reasonably postulate that since in English Alex is a subject , then in Hungarian Alex is a subject. Considerably, the debate remains on the grounds in which one allege that the concept subject is pertinent in both languages and these results to the delicate issue of how one can define it. It is worthwhile noting that there is inevitable disagreement over the above issues, which makes responding the universality issue of the functions of grammar quite challenging. Additionally, one is also faced with the issue of whether to have a common definition for the notion in every language: it is likely that the notion is available significantly in every language, except that it relates to diverse occurrences in all such that since an individual defines a component as a subject in a sentence of a certain language does not essentially indicate that the resultant element must follow the same formula in equal sentences in any other language. Significantly, at this juncture it is significant identifying that the conclusion of the above debate does not essentially summarize on the universality issue of functions of grammar as it would imply a completely steady observation to consider the notion universal, although it is absent in every language. For instance, an individual can identify that the (ph )sound is a constituent of the set of likely sounds employed in phonetic systems of humanity therefore it is among the components of human language. Significantly, it is not applicable in every human language, or certainly that it is not employed in similarly each of them, cannot detract from the assert ion that it is strange to individual language in a manner that other sounds are not. In the above sense there is universality in sound, such that it is a prospective fraction of a human language. Considerably, the same might apply in grammatical functions: significantly they are components of what defines the system of universal human linguistic, although may not constitute every characteristic example about human language. Significantly, the above task is evidently not a very empirically easy subject to respond, despite the fact that eventually it is a pragmatic question, along with one must consult certain developed theories to make available answers. Significantly, despite the fact that one has a reason to consider that the grammatical functions concept is pertinent in a certain language, it is even contentious on the applicability of the grammatical functions’ universality to every sentence of the respective language. Considerably, the subject notion is principally imperative as the argument remains that, for certain languages, the subject is a compulsory component of every sentence. For instance, it has been identified that in English situations come whereby there must be a grammatical subject despite the need for a semantic subject, whereby one gets the manifestation of a pleonastic subject. It is worthwhile noting that the notion that empty elements that are significantly of phonological have been utilized in the above cases to uphold the assertion that every sentence entails subjects. Additionally, in the above particular it comes out as reasonable, despite the fact that it would be possible for one to offer an analysis whereby no empty subject was anticipated any of the above structures. However, not every language utilizes pleonastic subjects, although one believes that there is the existence of subjects in other clauses. Moreover, Languages which are short of pleonastic subjects habitually express the discretionary apprehension of evocative pronominal subjects as well. Arguments similar to the ones used in favor of the PRO subject analysis in infinitive clauses of English can be employed to identify that there is also a null pronoun in such clauses , under which supposition might an individual argue that the sentences above also entail an unsound pronoun subject, even if of course there can merely be argument utilizing the existence of a meaning to maintain the supposition of the pronoun existence. Conversely, the existence of the empty null pronoun relies on the supposition that as supplementary sentences can be said to entail subjects, therefore the same should apply to the above sentences. Nevertheless, this is rather spherical as it is precisely the supposition that all sentences entail subjects that one tries to determine their accuracy. Considerably, one should identify that apart from the above issues, there is one extra concern openly debated on: whether grammatical functions are basic grammatical notions, definite and influenced by ordinary human grammars, or whether they result from significant notions and mere epiphenomena. The above question is autonomous from the universality question as an individual can believe in a consequent subject that is collective if the concept whereby the subject is consequent are significantly universal and constantly augment the apparent subject. Significantly, it is likewise feasible to believe in an essentially definite grammatical functions’ notion that are absent in all likely human language. At this point one can identify from the above debate, the issue remains on how one can describe grammatical functions. Theoretical framework Since the traditional view relied on the exploration of conventional languages with there morphology permitted a significantly varied word order than it is the case in languages like English and therefore the phrase not was poorly developed, grammatical functions often associated with certain words, characteristically nouns. Additionally, as was characteristic of traditional grammar, people put a profound dependence on meaning in the description of grammatical functions. Two critical ideas seem to manifest relating to the description of the subject. Significantly, from one viewpoint, the subject refers to the element that addresses the sentence and is distinguished with the notion predicate, characteristically a verbal aspect, which implies the argument over the subject. Moreover, it is apparent that such a definition compares the subject notion with the topic’s notion. It is significant noting that, although there is a definite association connecting subjects and topics, the assertion that the subject refers to the topic in reality cannot be sustained because the two notions are not connected but distinct, it being likely to get a non-subject topic and also getting a non-topic subject. Pronominalisation refers to the chief way that English and other languages display topic hood. Significantly, after its initial introduction, a topic is often maintained in succeeding sentences through the utilization of pronouns. It is clearly absolutely possible to position the pronoun in place of the object, as well as having a subject without pronoun, as indicated above and this simply expresses that one cannot define the subject topically. Additionally, the certainty that subjects can either be in form of elements representing impossible topics implies that one cannot equate the two notions. For instance, an empty element perceptibly cannot stand for a topic because it would lead to circumstances whereby a sentence addressed nothing. Furthermore, negative elements like no one do not come out as possible topics, because they are unpronominalisable in successive sentences: For example, no one attended the party. They only drink some beer but not the whole of it. Nonetheless, it is absolutely possible to have empty or negative subjects yet signifying that subjects refers to mere topics. Consequently, the subject has the responsibility of fulfilling the accomplishment. Regardless of the apparent problem that not every predicate signify actions and consequently that not every subjects represent agents, there is significant relationship connecting thematic roles with grammatical functions. It is worthwhile emphasizing that, the above relationship is not as simple as traditional grammar, other than that it seems to be intervened by a thematic chain of command, which even though it opts for agent subjects, shall authorize other subjects in the nonexistence of an agent. However, even the above intricacy does not address every base. The evident example of the empty subject, which is not connected to the argument or the agent, presents a geared up predicament. In addition, there are several renowned examples which lift up other problems for the simple definition of grammatical functions thematically. Both the word frightens and the word fear takes an experience and matter as arguments. Even one can make obvious a connection connecting thematic roles with grammatical function, the above relationship does not imply that one is described in terms with thee other. Recent research holds that every syntactic-semantic relation is interpretative as opposed to being definitive; hence, one cannot anticipate that the traditional methodology would yield better results. Significantly, if one discards semantic based efforts to describe grammatical functions, the right way should entail an application of syntactic based functions. However, an individual will also notice that there is no clear cut that brings out the matter straightforward. Syntactically grammatical functions express myriad phenomena, together with Case morphology along with verb agreement. Significantly, a traditional observation would address the subject as the element linked with nominative situation and which comes into a conformity association with the verb, while an object refers to the element which entails accusative Case and lacks a conformity association with the verb. Nevertheless, one should identify that none of the above claims turns seems to appear problem free. Considerably, even within a language which has to be simple from the above perspective, like English, which entail nominative subjects plus accusative objects, as well as insignificant subject-verb agreement, impossible things. For instance, English subjects merely entail nominative Case in limited clauses also in clauses that are non-finite, if they entail any overt subject; they may materialize in the accusative or else in the genitive. Considerably, due to the fact that certain subjects can come out in the accusative, it is apparent that one cannot consider the accusative as the ultimate objects’ property. It is apparent that the position verbal element in the above sentences principally determines the agreement verb form, although the subject of the two sentences is there. Consequently, one could identify that there in the initial sentence is singular although plural in the subsequent sentence, possibly since it concurs with the post verbal element as in examples like the following. However, the above problem still implores in the question because in the above sentences it is not apparent which among the elements matches with the verb. The typical supposition is that since in other examples the verb matches with the preverbal element, therefore this is what is settled with such examples. However, again this entails certain circularity because it seeks whether the verb constantly matches with the preverbal element, that is, the subject under investigation. It is worthwhile noting that, even languages that entail overt Case, as well as agreement morphology can be difficult for the supposition that one can describe grammatical functions on the above bases. For instance, when one utilizes Case to establish grammatical function he significantly complicates the situation because human languages reveal myriad and diverse Case systems. As identified by linguists researching on linguistic typology, the utilization of terms like subject or object when addressing diverse Case systems is obstructive because it brings in unavoidable circularities. Furthermore other complexities also arise over the above debate. For instance, there exist other languages which express the two Case systems for diverse elements. In Dyirbal, a language in Australia, the pronouns are discernible with respect to the nominative-accusative outline whereas other nouns are discernible with respect to the nominative pattern. Considerably, if one identifies that the issue is to be described in nominative Case, consequently sentences comprising a nominal pronoun along with an absolutive noun will entail two subjects, while the corresponding sentence among an accusative pronoun, as well as an ergative noun will lack subject!. It is worthwhile noting that the structural methodology to the description of grammatical functions arises from the thoughts of the American structuralists, despite the fact that they also discarded the initiative of universal grammatical functions. Significantly the structuralist viewpoint, referred to as Linguistic Relativity, refutes the existence of any kid of linguistic universal. Considerably, grammatical functions can significantly be valuable for the explanation of Indo-European languages, although it was erroneous to inflict them on other languages, like the languages of Amerindian families. Additionally, the structuralist viewpoint switches from the traditional view by postulating that grammatical functions were linked with phrases as opposed to words. Concisely, from distributional examination, one can identify that grammatical functions are connected with structural positions, despite the fact that not essentially the similar position in every language. Nevertheless, one should identify that the language demonstrates Case, as well as agreement essentials which point out that diverse arguments are treated in a special way and therefore it is likely to recognize subjects along with objects on the above observations. Conclusion I have discussed in this essay against the perception of grammatical relations as cross linguistic notions, asserting that the descriptive role that grammatical relations play in formal theories is needless in a functionalist approach, that the similarities between languages can be explained openly in terms of functional, as well as cognitive principles that inspire language along with which cause languages to be the way they are. A question that might arise is: If functional and cognitive principles explain the similarities among grammatical relations in different languages, then why are there any differences at all? This issue is most directly addressed in the literature on competing motivations. Considerably, the general initiative is that the fundamental functional, as well as cognitive principles, such as the motivations, are habitually in conflicts. Generally, it is impracticable to gratify every motivating principle. Additionally, differences between languages are because of differences in how the competition among motivations is determined in certain cases. The differences among grammatical relations in dissimilar languages appear to replicate myriad ways in which functionally related occasions are addressed likewise in the languages’ grammars. However, the predicament is that there are myriad dimensions in which certain tokens may be comparable to or dissimilar from one other. Moreover, although there are dissimilarities of judgment in the literature regarding this point, there appear to be at least two competing dimensions, one associated with semantic roles, and one associated with pragmatic functions. It is worthwhile noting that, the fact that grammatical relations in other languages tend not to demonstrate such an obvious peculiarity of the influence of the above two proportions could be construed in myriad ways. A further likelihood is that the above two dimensions are essentially themselves multi-dimensional, significantly the pragmatic one, along with the special pragmatic dimensions are doing away one another in diverse languages. Bibliography Evans, N.2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Keenan, J. (1987). Towards a universal definition of ‘subject of'. Santiago. Servicio publishers Dryer, G (1992). Are Grammatical Relations Universal? Arlington, VA: Voices of Rupert's Land. Read More

Considerably, one should identify that apart from the above issues, there is one extra concern openly debated on: whether grammatical functions are basic grammatical notions, definite and influenced by ordinary human grammars, or whether they result from significant notions and mere epiphenomena. The above question is autonomous from the universality question as an individual can believe in a consequent subject that is collective if the concept whereby the subject is consequent are significantly universal and constantly augment the apparent subject.

Significantly, it is likewise feasible to believe in an essentially definite grammatical functions’ notion that are absent in all likely human language. At this point one can identify from the above debate, the issue remains on how one can describe grammatical functions. Theoretical framework Since the traditional view relied on the exploration of conventional languages with there morphology permitted a significantly varied word order than it is the case in languages like English and therefore the phrase not was poorly developed, grammatical functions often associated with certain words, characteristically nouns.

Additionally, as was characteristic of traditional grammar, people put a profound dependence on meaning in the description of grammatical functions. Two critical ideas seem to manifest relating to the description of the subject. Significantly, from one viewpoint, the subject refers to the element that addresses the sentence and is distinguished with the notion predicate, characteristically a verbal aspect, which implies the argument over the subject. Moreover, it is apparent that such a definition compares the subject notion with the topic’s notion.

It is significant noting that, although there is a definite association connecting subjects and topics, the assertion that the subject refers to the topic in reality cannot be sustained because the two notions are not connected but distinct, it being likely to get a non-subject topic and also getting a non-topic subject. Pronominalisation refers to the chief way that English and other languages display topic hood. Significantly, after its initial introduction, a topic is often maintained in succeeding sentences through the utilization of pronouns.

It is clearly absolutely possible to position the pronoun in place of the object, as well as having a subject without pronoun, as indicated above and this simply expresses that one cannot define the subject topically. Additionally, the certainty that subjects can either be in form of elements representing impossible topics implies that one cannot equate the two notions. For instance, an empty element perceptibly cannot stand for a topic because it would lead to circumstances whereby a sentence addressed nothing.

Furthermore, negative elements like no one do not come out as possible topics, because they are unpronominalisable in successive sentences: For example, no one attended the party. They only drink some beer but not the whole of it. Nonetheless, it is absolutely possible to have empty or negative subjects yet signifying that subjects refers to mere topics. Consequently, the subject has the responsibility of fulfilling the accomplishment. Regardless of the apparent problem that not every predicate signify actions and consequently that not every subjects represent agents, there is significant relationship connecting thematic roles with grammatical functions.

It is worthwhile emphasizing that, the above relationship is not as simple as traditional grammar, other than that it seems to be intervened by a thematic chain of command, which even though it opts for agent subjects, shall authorize other subjects in the nonexistence of an agent. However, even the above intricacy does not address every base. The evident example of the empty subject, which is not connected to the argument or the agent, presents a geared up predicament. In addition, there are several renowned examples which lift up other problems for the simple definition of grammatical functions thematically.

Read More