Syntax. Andrew Carnie

Читать онлайн.
Название Syntax
Автор произведения Andrew Carnie
Жанр Языкознание
Серия
Издательство Языкознание
Год выпуска 0
isbn 9781119569312



Скачать книгу

4: Given that S can be neither a finite nor an infinite set, is there any way we might recast the premises, terminology, or conclusion in order not to have a circular argument and at the same time capture the intuitive insight of the claim? Explain how we might do this or why it’s impossible. Try to be creative. There is no “right” answer to this question. Hint: one might try a proof that proves that a subset of the sentences of English is infinite (and by definition the entire set of sentences in English is infinite) or one might try a proof by contradiction.

      Important notes:

      1 Your answers can be given in English prose; you do not need to give a formal mathematical answer.

      2 Do not try to look up the answer in the papers cited above. That’s just cheating! Try to work out the answers for yourself.

       CPS9. ARE INFINITE SYSTEMS REALLY UNLEARNABLE?

       [Creative and Critical Thinking; Challenge]

      In section 4.3, you saw the claim that if language is an infinite system then it must be unlearnable. In this problem set, you should aim a critical eye at the premise that infinite systems can’t be learned on the basis of the data you hear.

      While the extreme view in section 4.3 is logically true, consider the following alternative possibilities:

      1 We as humans have some kind of “cut-off mechanism” that stops considering new data after we’ve heard some threshold number of examples. If we don’t hear the crucial example after some period of time we simply assume it doesn’t exist. Rules simply can’t exist that require access to sentence types so rare that you don’t hear them before the cut-off point.

      2 We are purely statistical engines. Rare sentence types are simply ignored as “statistical noise”. We consider only those sentences that are frequent in the input when constructing our rules.

      3 Child-directed speech (motherese) is specially designed to give you precisely the kinds of data you need to construct your rule system. The child listens for very specific “triggers” or “cues” in the parental input in order to determine the rules.

      Question 1: To what extent are (a), (b), or (c) compatible with the hypothesis of Universal Grammar? If (a), (b) or (c) turned out to be true, would this mean that there was no innate grammar? Explain your answer.

      Question 2: How might you experimentally or observationally distinguish between (a), (b), (c) and the infinite input hypothesis of 4.3? What kinds of evidence would you need to tell them apart?

       CPS10. INNATENESS AND PRESCRIPTIVISM?

       [Creative and Critical Thinking; Challenge]

      Start with the assumption that i-language is an instinct. How is this an argument against using prescriptive rules?

       CPS11. LEARNING PARAMETERS: PRO-DROP

       [Critical Thinking, Data Analysis; Challenge]

      Background: Among the Indo-European languages there are two large groups of languages that pattern differently with respect to whether they require a pronoun (like he, she, it) in the subject position, or whether such pronouns can be “dropped”. For example, in both English and French, pronouns are required. Sentences without them are usually ungrammatical:

a) He left. b) *Left
c) Il est parti. (French) he is gone “He left.” d) *est parti (French)

      In languages such as Spanish and Italian, however, such pronouns are routinely omitted (1S = first person, singular):

e) Io telefono. f) Telefono. (Italian)
I call.1S call.1S
“I call (phone).” “I call.”

      Question 1: Now imagine that you are a small child learning a language. What kind of data would you need to know in order to tell if your language was “pro-drop” or not? (Hint: Does the English child hear sentences both with and without subjects? Does the Italian child? Are they listening for sentences with subjects or without them?)

      Question 2: Assume that one of the two possible settings for this parameter (either your language is pro-drop or it is not) is the “default” setting. This default setting is the version of the parameter one gets if one doesn’t hear the right kind of input. Which of the two possibilities is the default?

      Question 3: English has imperative constructions such as:

      g) Leave now!

      Why doesn’t the English child assume on the basis of such sentences that English is pro- drop?

       [Creative and Critical Thinking; Challenge]

      In the text above, we said that in order for a hypothesis to be explanatory it had to account for how the system came to be, e.g. it had to account for how children acquire the system. Discuss the following question: Does a syntactician actually have to conduct experiments with children for the hypothesis to be explanatory? Or does it suffice that their hypothesis simply make predictions about how children learn a language, for that hypothesis to be explanatory?

      Notes

      1 1. The notion that science should be the primary means of investigating linguistics has come under significant criticism by some members of indigenous communities (see for example, the opinions expressed by community members as reported in Czaykowska-Higgins 2009, the articles in Bischoff and Jany et al. 2019 and Rosborough, et al. 2017). The central idea is that by exclusively using a deductive scientific methodology in investigating their languages we are prioritizing a western European set of values on their traditions and cultures. When we as linguists work with native communities on their languages it is important that we acknowledge this perspective and think carefully about ways that our research can complement, connect to and support indigenous ways of knowing. We must also find ways in which we can be partners with these communities to help further their local agendas rather just observing their communities as objects of study and imposing our ideas upon them.

      2 2. This is a bit of an oversimplification. We really have a “chicken and the egg” problem here. You can’t know what data to study unless you have a hypothesis about what is important, and you can’t have a hypothesis unless you have some basic understanding of the data. Fortunately, as working syntacticians this philosophical conundrum is often irrelevant, as we can just jump feet- first into both the hypothesis-forming and the data-analysis at the same time.

      3 3. http://heideas.blogspot.com/2005/10/scalar-adjectives-with-arguments.html.

      4 4. Whether language constrains what abstract things we can think about (this idea is called the Sapir– Whorf hypothesis) is a matter of great debate and one that lies outside the