Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference By: Randy J. LaPolla City University of Hong Kong Presented by: Hikaru Inuzuka and Christina Zontini

Introduction Rejects the idea of a functional difference conceptual and procedural information Communication Ostension Inference Hypothesis: There is no innate language structure and no deterministic coding-decoding process

How Language Differs There is no assumption of a universal genetically- encoded grammar that each language is seen as a unique entity reflecting a unique society we must look at each language on its own terms and determine its constraints Which means Meaning

information Inference: to recognize the intention Ostensive Act Exchange of symbolic expressions ∧ successful determination of the reason of the communicator Ostensive-Inferential Communication

Non-linguistic communicatio n Linguistic communicatio n may differ in precision, but it always involves inference regardless of the process being linguistic or not

Interpretation; not simply to decode a signal … Inference is always involved in interpretation to figure out what the communicator’s intended messages are

Degree of Explicitness= communicator’s assumption of the hearer’s inferential abilities and current knowledge state knowledge the speaker assumes the hearer is able to access in the process of an utterance, explicit the utterance can be Q: Do you want something to drink? A1: (points to soup bowl) A2: I have soup. A3: No. I have soup. A4: No, because I have soup. A5: No, since I have soup, I don’t need anything to drink. A6: No, I don’t want anything to drink. Since I have soup, I don’t need anything else to drink right now. Less explicit More explicit Less explicit More explicit

How to make the interpretations more constrained + determinate? i.e., use discourse connectives; Peter’s not stupid, so he can find his own way home. Peter’s not stupid, after all, he can find his own way home. i.e., use more explicit lexical item; him, person <<< the teacher “Goal of communication is not to decode the meaning in words but to understand the speaker’s communicative intention” (LaPolla 126)

The Development of Language Structure Grammar is constantly evolving “Communication in the pragmatic mode depends largely on word order and the lexicon alone, while communication in the more syntacticized mode depends much more on conventionalized constructions and morphology in tightly structured relationships” (LaPolla, p. 127)

Grammaticalization and the fixing of particular patterns in language use are like the creation of a path through a field The development of grammar out of repeated discourse patterns then can be seen as the fixing of constraints on the search for relevance during the process of interpretation.

4 Types of Conventionalization 1.Morphological means for constraining the interpretation 2.Extending already available morphological markings in new ways 3.The fixing of syntactic constrains on interpretation 4.A type of secondary grammaticalization

Why Languages Differ Language= unintended byproduct of human attempts to communicate effectively  socio-cultural evolution conventionalization= related to particular environments; similar adaptation process to similar environments= similarities among conventions We construct and represent the world differently, and are constrained by salience and relevance of the speaking community

Salience of mentioning certain things + a regularly performance = convention Salience of mentioning certain things + a regularly performance = convention Bank= silver company; silver= conventional currencies repetitive use of you all

Chinese= feeling the need for third person pronoun for different genders Taiwan: large plate (western influence) for rice, Chinese spoon to scoop and chopsticks to eat off the spoon Borrowed words= possible new concepts + conventions

Interference of first language convention on another language production i.e., English speaker learning Chinese; may overuse the perfective aspect marker to replace the past tense concept to fill the perceived gap Learning new Language= construe the world in a different way

How Languages Differ From the hearer’s point of view, we can say that languages differ not so much in what can be understood, but in what must BE understood. Languages differ not so much in what they can say, but in what they must say.

Most languages have developed obligatory grammatical markings that constrain the interpretation in certain domains to some extent. Which domains the speakers of a language will chose to constrain How they will constrain the interpretation 2 MAJOR ways languages differ

Language can differ between cultures in terms of how specialized its structures are EXAMPLE: A: The man dropped the melon and burst. *In this example, because of the grammatical constraint on conjunction reduction in English, this sentence has to be interpreted as saying that the man burst after dropping the melon. EXAMPLE: A: The man dropped the melon and burst. *In this example, because of the grammatical constraint on conjunction reduction in English, this sentence has to be interpreted as saying that the man burst after dropping the melon.

A: Pickles and ice cream are really great. B: Pickles and ice cream is really great. A: Pickles and ice cream are really great. B: Pickles and ice cream is really great. Another Example VS.

1.context constrains the interpretation of the linguistic form 2.linguistic form that constrains the context (constrains the creation of the context) Fundamental aspect of communication= linguistic structure <<< interaction of the speaker + hearer Summary Grammatical forms help develop construction of proper context, but the INFERENCE is the basis of communication!

Grammatic alization; applied to the class of items Lexicalizati on; applied to a single specific item both of them are a process of conventio nalization

1)Languages differ in what not/to constrain (which information to elaborate on and what to drop) 2)constrains= result of grammaticalization; NOT genetically hard-wired; people’s cultural needs came first  human language ability = NOT autonomous or genetically programmed Implications for Linguistic Theory