Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
117 views

3.1 An Example of The Scientific Method As Applied To Syntax

The document provides an overview of generative grammar and Chomsky's theory. It discusses: 1) Syntax is the study of sentence structure in the mind and how sound maps to meaning. 2) Chomsky's generative grammar theory models syntax and has evolved over time but aims to describe how language is acquired. 3) The scientific method involves observing data, forming generalizations/hypotheses, and testing against more data using techniques like acceptability judgments of speakers. The goal is an explanatorily adequate theory of syntax.

Uploaded by

Ahmad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
117 views

3.1 An Example of The Scientific Method As Applied To Syntax

The document provides an overview of generative grammar and Chomsky's theory. It discusses: 1) Syntax is the study of sentence structure in the mind and how sound maps to meaning. 2) Chomsky's generative grammar theory models syntax and has evolved over time but aims to describe how language is acquired. 3) The scientific method involves observing data, forming generalizations/hypotheses, and testing against more data using techniques like acceptability judgments of speakers. The goal is an explanatorily adequate theory of syntax.

Uploaded by

Ahmad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Lecture Handout

Chapter 1: Generative Grammar

1. SYNTAX AS A COGNITIVE SCIENCE

The perspective (point of view) we are taking in the study of syntax is psychological (or
cognitive). Therefore, syntax is the study of the organization of sentence structure in the
mind. A sentence is, therefore, defined as a hierarchically organized structure of words that
maps sound to meaning and vice versa.

2. MODELING SYNTAX

The dominant theory of syntax is due to Noam Chomsky and his colleagues, starting in the
mid 1950s and continuing to this day. This theory, which has had many different names
through its development (Transformational Grammar (TG), Transformational Generative
Grammar, Standard Theory, Extended Standard Theory, Government and Binding Theory
(GB), Principles and Parameters approach (P&P) and Minimalism (MP)), is often given the
blanket name Generative Grammar.

3. SYNTAX AS SCIENCE – THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

 The scientific methods involves (1) observing some data; (2) making some
generalizations; (3) developing a hypothesis; and (4) testing against more data.
 In syntax, hypotheses are called rules, and the group of hypotheses that describe a
language’s syntax is called a grammar.
 There are two types of rules:
Prescriptive rules prescribe how we should speak according to some standard.
Descriptive rules describe how we actually speak.
We focus on descriptive rules.

 Falsifiability of a hypothesis (Predictions)


• A hypothesis must make predictions.
• To see whether a hypothesis is correct you look for the prediction that will prove the
hypothesis wrong.
• If the piece of evidence that would prove the hypothesis wrong is true, then the
hypothesis must be revised.

3.1 An Example of the Scientific Method as Applied to Syntax:

A syntactician first observes the following data (sentences 1-3) related to the use of
anaphor in English (Anaphor: A noun that refers back to a previously mentioned
noun: “self” nouns.):

1) John loves himself

2) Mary loves herself

3) John and Mary love themselves


Generalization: The form of the "X-self" seems to be dependent upon the gender
and number of the noun it refers to.

1
Hypothesis: Anaphors (Xself) agree with the noun they refer to in number and
gender.
Tested against more data such as: *Mary loves myself, the hypothesis gets revised as
follows:
Revised Hypothesis: Anaphors (Xself) agree with the noun they refer to in person,
number

3.2 Sources of Data


• Corpora of Spoken & Written Language
• Collections of recorded real world speech
• Telephone recordings (LDC)
• Newspapers, Books, Magazines
• Folk tales etc recorded in the field.
• The Web

Do Corpora contain the information necessary to falsify a hypothesis?

Sometimes they do, but more often they don’t!


The reason? Often the sentence that will prove a hypothesis wrong is an
unacceptable one. Although corpora might contain speech errors, they rarely include
many of the kinds of unacceptability that could falsify our hypotheses. They don’t
contain negative information (such as what sentences are unacceptable), and they can
never contain all the sentences of a language.

We need to access our mental knowledge (a.k.a. competence) about sentences. We


use a special experimental technique for tapping our syntactic knowledge. This
technique is called the acceptability judgment.

Syntactic vs. Semantic Judgments

• Syntactic judgments concern the FORM of a sentence


*Where do you wonder if he lives?

• Semantic judgments are about the MEANING of a sentence.


#Colorless green ideas sleep furiously
# My toothbrush is pregnant

 Performance vs. Competence

Chomsky makes a distinction between competence and performance. When we speak or


listen, we are performing the act of creating a piece of language output. This performance can
be interrupted by all sorts of extraneous factors: we can be distracted or bored; we can cough
or mumble our words; we can forget what we had previously heard; the noise of the bus
driving past can blot out a crucial word. Performance refers to the kinds of language that are
actually produced and heard. Competence, by contrast, refers to what we know about our
language; it is unimpeded by external factors.

2
4. WHERE DO THE RULES COME FROM?

4.1 Learning vs. Acquisition


Cognitive scientists make a distinction in how we get conscious and subconscious knowledge.
Conscious knowledge is learned. Subconscious knowledge is acquired. Chemistry is
learned. Languages are acquired

We are primarily interested in how people acquire the rules of their language. In the next
section, we will argue that not all rules of grammar are acquired, however. Some facts about
Language seem to be built into our brains, or innate.

4.2 Innateness: Language as an Instinct

 Chomsky's proposal is that Language is an instinct. Many parts of Language are built
in, or innate. Much of Language is an ability hard-wired into our brains by our genes.

 There are very good reasons to believe, however, that a human facility for Language
(perhaps in the form of a “Language organ” in the brain) is innate. Chomsky calls this
facility Universal Grammar (or UG).

 Note that Chomsky distinguishes between particular languages (a.k.a “language”)


and the ability to speak a language (a.k.a “Language”). • The ability to acquire a
language is innate, particular languages are acquired using that innate ability.

What follows in sections 4.3 & 4.4 are two primary arguments for Chomsky's Universal
Grammar (or UG)

4.3 The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition


This can be informally summarized as follows:
 It is (apparently) impossible to learn the rule(s) governing a system until you have
ALL the data.
 Language is infinite & creative: you can never hear all the relevant data. (It is
impossible to know if you have just coincidentally missed hearing the crucial fact)
 Therefore: The basic building blocks of language cannot be learned or acquired.
Instead they must be innate (an instinct)

4.4 Other Arguments for UG


Another argument for UG is the fact that we know things about our language that we’ve never
been exposed to.

To sum up

Two arguments for the existence of UG are as follows:

1) Language is infinite: We produce sentences we’ve never heard before

2) We know things about our language that we’ve never been exposed to.

3
4.5 Explaining Language Variation

One objection to Chomsky's proposal is How can language be an instinct if languages


differ?

Chomsky's Proposal: Languages differ primarily in terms of what words are used, and in a set
number of “parameters”. Chomsky claims that differences in the grammars of languages can
be boiled down to the setting of certain innate parameters (or switches) that select among
possible variants. Language variation thus reduces to learning the correct set of words and
selecting from a predetermined set of options. This approach is what Chomsky calls
Principles and Parameters.

5. CHOOSING AMONG THEORIES ABOUT SYNTAX


Chomsky proposes a way of evaluating grammars in terms of three levels of adequacy.

 Observationally Adequate Grammar: A grammar that accounts for all the observed
(corpus/ performance) data.

 Descriptively Adequate: Accounts for all observed data and all acceptability
judgments (competence).

 Explanatorily Adequate: Accounts for all observed data, acceptability judgments, but
also explains HOW the system arose -- accounts for language acquisition.

We aspire to Explanatorily Adequate Grammars.

You might also like