August 23, 2010 Grammars and Lexicons

How do linguists study grammar?

Discussion Would we be better off with fewer languages? What is likely to happen in your lifetime? Why study languages with few speakers and no economic power?

Outline Views of language: –Prescriptive –Artistic –Descriptive Claims about knowledge of a language: –Unconscious –Complex –Systematic –Can be studied scientifically Analyzing a language you don’t know

Prescriptive and Descriptive Linguistics Natural phenomena cannot be legislated, just described. –You can’t declare the value of π to be 3. Sag, Wasow, and Bender, page 1 Social phenomena can be legislated. Language use can be legislated as a social phenomenon, but it can also be studied as a natural phenomenon.

Prescriptive view of language Rules about how language should be used –Don’t say Me and him went to the movies. –It doesn’t make sense because you can’t say Me went to the movies. Focus on isolated phenomena that are thought to be corruptions of the language. –Everybody should do their homework. Some people speak correctly and others don’t. Rules are something that you are aware of.

Artistic View of Language Language can be used creatively to make literature and poetry. Some people are better at it than others. Language is not systematic and rule governed.

Descriptive view of language Study language as a natural phenomenon –People say Me and him went to the movies. –That’s interesting because they don’t say Me went to the movies. Focus on all aspects of language, even very normal sentences. Every native speaker of a language speaks equally well. –Unless there is an injury or an illness that affects certain parts of the brain or speech producing organs. Language consists of systematic knowledge that the speakers are not aware of.

Outline Views of language: –Prescriptive –Artistic –Descriptive Claims about knowledge of a language: –Unconscious –Complex –Systematic –Can be studied scientifically Discovery in a language you don’t know

Knowledge of Language “Every normal speaker of any natural language has acquired an immensely rich and systematic body of unconscious knowledge, which can be investigated by consulting speakers’ intuitive judgments.” “Languages are objects of considerable complexity, which can be studied scientifically. That is, we can formulate hypotheses about linguistic structure and test them against the facts of particular languages.” Sag et al., page 2 Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 2 Claim 4

Chomsky, 1957 on testable hypotheses The search for rigorous formulation in linguistics has a much more serious motivation than mere concern for logical niceties or the desire to purify well-established methods of linguistic analysis. Precisely constructed models for linguistic structure can play an important role, both negative and positive, in the process of discovery itself. By pushing a precise but inadequate formulation to an unacceptable conclusion, we can often expose the exact source of the inadequacy and, consequently, gain a deeper understanding of the linguistic data. More positively a formalized theory may automatically provide solutions for many problems other than those for which it was explicitly designed. Obscure and intuition-bound notions can neither lead to absurd conclusions nor provide new and correct ones, and hence they fail to be useful in two important respects. (Noam Chomsky has been the most influential linguist in many parts of the world since You may have also heard his name associated with politics. )

Outline Approaches to human language –Descriptive –Prescriptive –Artistic Discovering rules that you aren’t aware of in English Discovering rules of another language

Rules that you know and rules that you aren’t aware of Rules that you know: –Me and him went to the movies. –Everyone did their homework. –Don’t use no double negatives. –To boldly go where no one has gone before. –Prepositions are bad to end sentences with.

In Class Exercise *We like us. We like ourselves. She likes her. (She ≠ her) She likes herself. Nobody likes us. *Leslie likes ourselves. *Ourselves like us. *Ourselves like ourselves.

What is that asterisk for? Ungrammatical –Not an English sentence. We’ll get back to this

Testable hypotheses Use a reflexive pronoun only when: Use a regular pronoun only when:

More examples We think that Leslie likes us. *We think that Leslie likes ourselves. *We think that ourselves like Leslie.

New Hypothesis Use a reflexive pronoun only when: Use a regular pronoun only when: (This is an English rule. Many languages do not follow it.)

Support for the new hypothesis We think that she voted for her. (she ≠ her) We think that she voted for herself. *We think that herself voted for her. *We think that herself voted for herself.

Are these consistent with the current hypothesis? Our friends like us. *Our friends like ourselves. Those pictures of us offended us. *Those pictures of us offended ourselves.

New Hypothesis Use a reflexive pronoun only when: Use a regular pronoun only when:

Are these examples consistent with the current hypothesis? Vote for us. *Vote for ourselves. *Vote for you. Vote for yourselves.

How about these? We appealed to them to vote for themselves. We appealed to them to vote for them. –Them ≠ them We appealed to them to vote for us. *We appealed to them to vote for ourselves. *We appeared to them to vote for themselves. We appeared to them to vote for them. –Them = them *We appeared to them to vote for us. We appeared to them to vote for ourselves.

Concepts that have emerged Clausemates: –subject and object of the same verb. Phrases: –e.g., those pictures of us Embedded clauses: –We think that she voted for herself. Understood arguments –Vote for yourself! (understood “you”) “Appeal” and “appear” have different understood arguments in their embedded clauses –We appealed to them to vote for themselves. –We appeared to them to vote for ourselves.

This allows us to understand something else: This sentence is ambiguous. –Who do you want to visit? What are its two meanings? What does this sentence mean? –Who do you wanna visit?

Knowledge of Language “Every normal speaker of any natural language has acquired an immensely rich and systematic body of unconscious knowledge, which can be investigated by consulting speakers’ intuitive judgments.” “Languages are objects of considerable complexity, which can be studied scientifically. That is, we can formulate hypotheses about linguistic structure and test them against the facts of particular languages.” Sag et al., page 2 Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 2 Claim 4

One more claim: It is also possible to make testable hypotheses about how languages differ and what they have in common.

Applying the discovery methods to a language that you don’t know (Chickasaw)

Approaches to syntax Structuralist –Languages consist of structures –Smaller structures build up into larger structures phones, phonemes, morphemes, phrases, etc. Generative –Same structures, but add a formal production system (e.g., context free grammar) that generates only sentences that are in the language, and fails on sentences that are not in the language.

Approaches to Syntax Functionalist –Focus on how forms reflect their communicative function. Iconicity, economy –Prototypes rather than discrete categories Typological –Categorizing languages into types Corpus linguistics –Lots of counting and statistics Cognitive Grammar –Prototypes and radial categories –Embodiment –Weekly reading group lead by Nathan Schneider (LTI Ph.D. student)