Universal Grammar

[Xunzian]

Well?

Personally, I'm for it!

[Jayson]

What do you mean by this?

Are you just talking about the running theory of universal grammar, or are you talking about the endeavor to make an universal grammar?

[objet petit a]

If we take grammar as the understanding that goes with an image, a major premisse is the universal grammar that already exists since Logic is universal in all humans.


Good enough?

[Jakob]

If we take grammar as the understanding that goes with an image, a major premisse is the universal grammar that already exists since Logic is universal in all humans.


Good enough?

I've read of some experiments done to test the universality of logic, focussing on inhabitants of rural Russian villages.
in short, the test was to ask inhabitants of the villages to solve the following type of problem:

"If all cows are white, and I have one cow, what color is my cow?"

None of the respondents would answer that the cow is white. They would say things like ''it depends what kind of cow it is'', or "brown, probably."

I do not know how far this goes to challenge the innateness of logic as grammar, but it makes clear that the method of deduction from hypothesis is not innate.

[Tab]

Hmm. Dunno. Don't think so. One of those 'sensitive to intial conditions' things. My linguistics blows really. My English grammar's good, my Turkish Grammar's reasonable, but ask me if a language is Indo-whatever and I'll just start picking my nose and rubbing it on my pants.

A lot of English idioms are body based or orientated - the "foot of the mountains", "bosom of the Earth" etc. And since we all have similar bodies I'd expect that to be a universal in whatever language. Prepositions of movement - to, from etc. - I'd expect would remain pervasive, we all move.

English is a real mongrel of a language though. There's at least three dogs in there, maybe more. Modern Turkish however, is a relatively simplified and romanized Arabic language - via the halfway house of Ottoman Turkish. I think lids of two can bang out a reasonably grammatically correct Turkish sentence, but with English it's more like four, dunno about American however.

[Only_Humean]

A lot of English idioms are body based or orientated - the "foot of the mountains", "bosom of the Earth" etc. And since we all have similar bodies I'd expect that to be a universal in whatever language. Prepositions of movement - to, from etc. - I'd expect would remain pervasive, we all move.

Prepositions are bastards, whatever language you're trying to learn. There is positional notation (as far as I know) for all languages, although not always prepositions as we know them. Some languages have other ways around that, like grammatical cases. I think prepositions in Welsh (and presumably other Celtic languages) are inflected, even.

English is a real mongrel of a language though. There's at least three dogs in there, maybe more. Modern Turkish however, is a relatively simplified and romanized Arabic language - via the halfway house of Ottoman Turkish. I think lids of two can bang out a reasonably grammatically correct Turkish sentence, but with English it's more like four, dunno about American however.

I thought Turkish was a Central Asian language? It certainly looks and sounds very different to Arabic, although I guess even so there must be a lot of Arabic and maybe Farsi all mixed in there for a laugh.

I have a Polish friend who tells me that Poles keep learning Polish grammar until they leave school - so 18, for academic types. It's apparently a hideously complicated language.

[Tab]

When Atatürk formed the republic in 1923, one of the things he did was re-vamp the language. He threw out the arabic style writing, and romanized the script. There are 29 letters, w is missing, as is q and x. Added are ş, ç, ı, ö, ü, and ğ. All the letter sounds are fixed - not changing dependent on order as in English - which makes it very easy to read.

eg. A Turk would pronounce 'Write' as "writ - ey" - or spell it as 'vrayt'

Vowel extention is done via adding ğ. Though it's more of a back-of-the-throated echo of the vowel in question.

[Jakob]

When Atatürk formed the republic in 1923, one of the things he did was re-vamp the language. He threw out the arabic style writing, and romanized the script. There are 29 letters, w is missing, as is q and x. Added are ş, ç, ı, ö, ü, and ğ. All the letter sounds are fixed - not changing dependent on order as in English - which makes it very easy to read.

eg. A Turk would pronounce 'Write' as "writ - ey" - or spell it as 'vrayt'

Vowel extention is done via adding ğ. Though it's more of a back-of-the-throated echo of the vowel in question.

That's so weird, Turkish sounds more like Icelandic than Arabic!
I was once told by a Turk that it is a combination of Ghenghis Kahns language and French.

[Tab]

Can you give me an example of icelandic..?

[Only_Humean]

Can you give me an example of icelandic..?

Go straight for the classics
http://www.sagadb.org/kormaks_saga

Icelandic is the closest language to Old Norse, like Frisian and Old English. They still have thorn and eth in the alphabet. Given an extra hundred years guaranteed life, I'd love to learn it

[Jakob]

ut rubbbik chok ogmundur verdijam kubuk ulimer djanna djak

[Jakob]

This is what I have on a recording in my phone. Especially the uks, choks djaks sound quite like Turkish to me, an illiterate in both tongues. If you say so I assume that Turkish is really a kind of Arabic, It just sounds so different.

[Tab]

'Chok' or çok in Turkish stands for 'very' or 'a lot' depending on context. What does that icelandic sentence translate as..? And what's the word order like..?

For example Turkish goes like this:

"I went to the cinema with my friends"

"Arkadaşlarımla sinemaya gittim."

(Arkadaş/lar/ım/la sinema/ya git/tim)

ie. friend-s-my-with cinema-to go+past form of 'I'

[Jakob]

Sorry dude, I couldnt tell you, I just have it recorded. All my 'knowledge' is based on being around some icelandic people a couple of times.
I was watching a Turkish film yesterday (actually German with a lot of Turkish bits in it) and I must say its not that much like Icelandic as I thought. But still, its hard to hear the link to Arabic....

[Phoebus]

If you're not using UG metaphorically and you're actually referring to linguistic theory, there are some interesting neurophysiologiocal interpretations of UG theory as not being Chomsky's static rulebook (with maybe one standard deviation of variation), but a 'rulebook' consisting of predispositions that are creatively negotiated through cultural formation.

That's all rather vague, but it intentionally so. In some departments classic UG is founded on a rather dogmatic predisposition as to its truthfulness, whereas the critics tend to approach the concept more playfully and therefore don't present the same sort of hegemonic position. What connects these nebulous ideas, or at least the ones I have encountered, is the basic idea that the basic neurological mechanisms of communication, the building blocks, are in fact not blocks at all, not present in one rigid formation (as is assumed by Chomsky's theory, at least, so I am told, never actually read him, I suspect it's more his branch rather than his personal philosophy), and that his free standing rules of generative grammar (the bits that do the technical work of correct communication) are inherently socially contextualised; the evidence for this being that there is no rule of universal grammar that remains undisputed. Some linguists even claim to have found (Dialects? Languages? Grammar structures?) lacking subjective pronouns, the first person singular, adverbial constructions... That's off the top of my head. But essentially, no definite rules. Consequently where there are common rules it must be inferred that they exist for good reason (or because of common and provocative contextual stimuli) but not that they represent an in-built psychological certainty, merely a developmental tendency.

All of this isn't really against universal grammar, it just gives one a reading of universal with a small 'u'. Personally I find it more appealing but this isn't really my field. If anyone's desperately keen I have some papers in this incredibly messy room I could dig out... somewhere. Plus the New Scientist is obsessed with attempts to refute UG (even if the accounts they present really don't) and it usually has some interesting accounts.

[Only_Humean]

Some linguists even claim to have found (Dialects? Languages? Grammar structures?) lacking subjective pronouns, the first person singular, adverbial constructions... That's off the top of my head.

Got that right... no better off here.

[matthatter]

Xunzian,

I can't really say whether or not I'd be for a universal grammar... I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

When you said "I'm for it!", all I felt comfortable assuming was that the question was asking if others are for a universal grammar (basically, of an opinion that having it would be better than not having it).

So I have a question for you, in hopes it may clarify what kind of input you're hoping for, or expecting (...maybe it seems like I'm over-analyzing it, but I don't think I'm being pedantic; I am very interested in the possibilities of this topic, but I simply can't comfortably answer/discuss the question, as I now "understand" it).

My question: Did you mean to keep the question as open ended as possible, so the thread begins with a kind of brainstorm/"think tank" of varyings pros and cons regarding using (or even the ability to have, and/or steps to make) a universal grammar?

In other words, were you generally asking if anyone thinks a universal grammar would be, or could be, ideal in/for ANY situation/condition? By "any" I don't mean applying to any of ALL (assumed as probable) situations/conditions—I don't mean "ideal in/for ALL situations". Or when you said you were "for" it, did you have a more specific question in mind?

Can you elaborate on this, and anything else that may give me a clear idea? Thanks.

[Kryptocyphe_9]

Chomsky's innatism is logical and acceptable.

However it says nothing about the surface of language, connotative meaning, interpretation, semiology, etc...

The writer, the universal intellectual, has had a place and still has place, however genealogy, discourse, power/knowledge, and the relations of power in discourse are the nouvelle vague of theory.

[Phoebus]

Chomsky's innatism is logical and acceptable.

Logical is not the same as true. As far as I'm aware, interpretations of UG have loosened out over the years to become something more like a universal capacity for forming rules of grammar, rather than a strict, inherent code. If the latter did exist, then the anthropological evidence would be more clear cut.

[Kryptocyphe_9]

Chomsky's innatism is logical and acceptable.

Logical is not the same as true. As far as I'm aware, interpretations of UG have loosened out over the years to become something more like a universal capacity for forming rules of grammar, rather than a strict, inherent code. If the latter did exist, then the anthropological evidence would be more clear cut.

Chomsky is pivotal and the seminal Syntactic Structures defined linguistics from 1957 onwards. His idea of 'transformational grammar', in which each sentence has both a 'deep structure' and surface structure' is logical, acceptable, and very useful in analysis. The idea that deep structure contains properties common to all languages which are mapped onto the surface via 'transformations' is likewise very useful.

What I particularly like about Chomsky is his Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Language and Mind in which he judges grammars and theories of grammars with 'Levels of Adequacy' according to their lucidity and effectiveness.

[Phoebus]

Well yes, he was pivotal. i'm not arguing with his impact, or importance, or the exquisite subtlety with which his ideas were formed.

I am, however, disputing that his ideas still represent the pinnacle within their own field. Bare in mind that I haven't read Chomsky for years, and not much at that, but I was, at one point, a little bit more up to date on the modern literature and

The idea that deep structure contains properties common to all languages which are mapped onto the surface via 'transformations'

Is the area of dispute, insofar as the properties of the structure have changed and commonality is no longer seen as viable. Or, to phrase it slightly better, the attribution of potentialities to an agent based on an appeal to deep structure no longer requires commonality as a test, both the conditions of verification and the capacities that arise and regarded, simply put, as much more complex.

[Kryptocyphe_9]

Chomsky's theory is non-falsifiable and his paradigm holds. Criticism of Chomsky's innatism tends to come from empirical perpectives based on the rationalism of Chomsky's approach. To a large extent empirical criticism talks past Chomsky and revolves around (as ever) a dissatisfaction with specific analytical detail which points to the comprehensive nature of deep structure and its precise link to transformational processes (which is of course being investigated scientifically, and as you rightfully pointed out, this science is incomplete).

[Philosopher8659]

I think the whole thing is quite remarkable, to speak of a Universal Grammar and all. And I mean no disrespect, as I am one of the few people in history who has discovered a universal grammar, it is just that I find it strange--all this talk of a universal grammar when one does not, more often than not, know what grammar is.

There are two branches of reasoning, Logics and Analogics, and here we have an expression of the Two-Element Metaphysics. One of these is relative and one is absolute. Logics are relative, and Analogics are absolute, therefore. Common grammar, arithmetic and algebra are in the category of logic, which means they are relative, so a universal relative is like saying an absolute difference. Now, that puts anyone with a sense of humor ROFLing.

However, I have learned that behind many fuzzy thinkers is something that can be developed into clarity-and that is the drive to conventionalize grammar. This means learning and teaching the principles of grammar period, not trying to create a new one when you have no idea how to fix the old one. Since the function of the human mind is to effect human will, and since we do this through both branches of reasoning, logics and analogics, what is being striven for is a unity of mankind. However, in this regard, adding and subtracting of human will towards any given goal is our job, I do not think we will be able to do our job until people clearly know the principles of reasoning to begin with. These principles are not taught even today. Those who made the greatest strides in this endeaver, Confucius, Plato, Euclid, the mind or minds behind the scripture, are not given their due respect.

An example of the problem today is that people actually believe they know more than they do. And, we live in an environment where every form of media is used as an attempt to get people not to do their job as mind. The first thing that needs to be done, and done globally is to teach people that as mind, they have a job to do just like any other environmental acquisition system of a living organism. They perform that job through the artifices of language, and no one, absolutely no one, can do that job for them--neither men nor gods. Secondly is to cultivate the resistence to those who are want to take mind away from men.

The only true resistence fighter in history, or as Socrates correctly stated, the only true politician in history are the men and women who promote the understanding and correct use of language. It is not the people like the Einsteins of history who, quite frankly, could not think their way out of a paper bag.

Man is learning language as part of the evolutionary process. It will not happen over night. As an evolutionary process, breeding plays an important role, perhaps more so than education. I don't know. All I do know, is that at the moment, I am less interested in dealing with people trying to build a bridge when they do not know what a bridge is, than finding a mate.

Which brings me to a point. Since language is used to effect human will, and by it we attempt to add and subtract human will, the unit of discourse in that regard is the family unit. One will notice that civilizations will rise and fall based upon units. Thus, how can one expect to unify a country, a contenent, or a world, when few even know how to effect the promotion of a single family? Get freaking real people.

Thus, one can judge the probabilty of success in these endeavors, not based on good intentions or bad reasoning, but upon a persons respect for their own words. How interested is a person in knowing if what they say is true or not? By this we can measure any man or woman, simply by how much their own words constrain their actions. This very fact is the essence of the Platonic dialogs, the key to human psychology is language. There was no greater psychologist among men, than Plato. People often think they understand what he was about, when in fact they were clueless. Take the Republic for example. The goal was to place the best of men in the worst of situations transparent to both gods and men. He did not create a utopia, he described the greatest hell he could. That is how stupid scholars have generally been. My god, men generally cannot even understand what they read and are proclaimed intelligent.

Grammar cannot be fixed until men are aware, and keenly aware of their need for it. That need, that desire is biologically based. You cannot create hunger in a digestive system that does not function. However, one can prepare the way for those who do, and will hunger. The problem is, the food is often burried by a mass of men who do not understand that their words are the very dung that hide those who really did have something to say. They cannot be faulted for this, however, no more than one can fault a baby for crying and interupting Babalon 5.

The univerality of language itself is based not upon a particular branch of reasoning, or grammar, but upon the function of language in regard to evolution. Evolution forces the adaptation of species, however, meteor impacts has taught life that this form of evolution is not reliable. We use language to predict future events so that instead of adapting to the environment, we learn to adapt the environment to us. Language is the pivatal point in how evolution is effected. This is why such puzzles as the Name of the Beast in Revelation is important, it is a desciption of mind. And it is a reason why prophecy itself is important. By it we live or die as a species. You cannot define what prophecy is without defining language itself.

The solution to that puzzle by the way is "To make our coming and going so as to turn the past into the future and to bring the future to pass." It denotes the function of the mind of man, and it is based on the evolutionary distinction between adapating to a thing, and adaptiong a thing. Being the product of mindless craft, to crafting with mind.

One might then say, philosophy did not start with "What is God?" but with "What the hell!" and has been an avoidence measure to that end.

[Sam Lowry]

What about languages like esperanto, interlingua or latino sine flexione? They should fulfil some of the needed universal or logical aspects...