Óíèâåðñàëüíàÿ ãðàììàòèêà
Êàðèì Íàçàðè Áàãà,
Àñòàðèíñêèé ôèëèàë Èñëàìñêîãî Óíèâåðñèòåòà Àçàäè, Èðàí.
Universal grammar
Karim Nazari Bagha,
Islamic
I. The Theory of Universal Grammar
A. An Overview.
The goals of this theory are to describe
language as a property of the human mind. Chomsky has said of this property: “Universal
Grammar (UG) is the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are
elements or properties of all human languages …” [Chomsky, 1976: 29].
All human beings share part of their
knowledge of language; no matter which language they speak. Universal grammar
is their common inheritance. Universal Grammar is the description of their
genetic endowment, i.e. their language.
Universal Grammar is concerned with the
internal structure of the human mind. According to UG theory the speaker (of
any language) knows a set of principles that apply to all languages.
The Theory of universal Grammar also holds
that the speaker knows parameters that vary in different languages. Acquiring
language means learning how these principles apply to a particular language,
and which value is appropriate for each parameter.
Despite the traditional linguistics which
made vague suggestion about properties of the mind, UG attempts to offer
precise statements based on specific evidence. Each principle of language that
is offered is a claim about the mind of the speaker and the nature of language
acquisition. UG tries to integrate grammar, mind and language acquisition.
B. Universal [lat. Universal 'having
general application'] (also language universal].
Grammatical universals are properties (or
hypotheses) about such properties) which are common to all human languages.
According to Greenberg (1966), the following formal and logical typology of
universals can be postulated: (a) unrestricted universals (e.g. every language
has vowels); (b) unidirectional implications between two properties (e.g. if a
language has a dual in its number system, then it also has a plural,
but not vice versa); (c) limited equivalence, which refers to bidirectional
implications between non-universal properties (e.g. if a language has a lateral
click, then it also has a dental click and vice versa); (d) statistical
universals, which have the character of quasi universals (e.g. with very few
exceptions, nasals occur in all the world's languages); (e) statistical
correlations which refer to the relations between properties (such as, if a
certain property is present, e.g. a specification of the second person is not
specified). Studies attempting to explain language universals generally assume
one of the following three basic theoretical points of departure. (a) all
languages have developed from one common language. Because all languages seem
to be subject to constant change, this explanation is usually unsatisfactory.
(b) language fulfills the same functions in all language communities, and this
has conditioned similar grammatical structures in all languages. (c) All
languages have the same biological basis in human with regard to their innate
speech ability. Points (b) and (c) are not always mutually exclusive, but may
actually complement each other. In the model going back to Noam Chomsky,
universals are the basis of the innate language acquisition device,
which enables children to learn the complex grammar of a natural language in a
very short time.
C. Universal Grammar.
In Noam Chomsky's Revised Extended Standard
Theory (= REST) of transformational grammar, universal grammar
corresponds to the genetically determined biological foundations of language
acquisition. The goal of linguistic description is to postulate general traits
and tendencies in all languages on the basis of grammars of individual
languages. These universal structures are seen in correlation with psychological
phenomena of linguistic development. The concept of universal grammar is based
on the assumption of an unmarked core grammar describing 'natural case',
which is seen as part of competence. Through maturation, i.e. actualization of
the rules and constraints in individual languages, the specific individual
grammar is developed on the basis of universal grammar.
D. Some Principles of Universal Grammar.
To see how Universal Grammar works, let us
present here some of the principles held in this theory:
1. Structure – Dependency
According to this principle, knowledge of
language relies on the structural relationships in the sentence rather than on
the sequence of items. A sentence cannot be analyzed as simply a sequence of
words but rather must be regarded as having a certain hierarchical structure.
Thus a simple sentence such as (1)
1) The boy would arrive.
Is not a sequence of four words: the, boy,
would, and, arrive. Rather each word of this sentence is structure
– dependent, that is, each word belongs to a structure of sentence. Thus
for (1) we have the following structure:
2)
In order to make the question (3):
3) Would the boy arrive?
It is not the words which get moved, but it
is the constituents AUX and NP which are getting moved. The AUX has moved to
the left of NP.
2. The Head Parameter
The principle of structure – dependency seems
common to all languages. Yet languages differ in specific ways. To see how
languages differ, take the example of head parameter, which specifies the order
of elements in a language. The Noun Phrase “the boy” has a Head “boy” and the
determiner “the”. In the same way the Verb Phrase “entered the room”, the head
is the verb “enter”.
An important way in which languages differ is
in the order of the elements within the phrase. In the English Noun Phrases,
the Head appears on the left of other elements:
4) the boy with and
umbrella
boy → head , with an umbrella →
complement
The Head “boy” appears before its
complement. Thus, English is Head-First. Japanese, on the other hand, uses Head
on the right of complement. So Japanese is Head-last. The child learning the
grammar of some particular language then simply has to find out what the
permissible order of elements is in that language. The Head Parameter admits a
limited range of alternatives: Head-First or Head Last. English sets the
Head Parameter in still another way.
3. The Projection Principle
In the standard theory there was a set of
rules called Subcategorization Rules. According to these rules “put” was
categorized as (5) below:
5) put: V, + [ - - - - - - - NP] + [- - - - - -
- - -PP]
This rule says “put” is a verb and is
subcategorized as allowing an NP and a PP coming after it in the place
specified by [ - - - -- - - -].
An example would be (6) below:
6) Put the book on the shelf.
In the standard theory there was yet another
set of rules, called Phrases Structure Rules. One of these rules was the
following
7) VP→ V(NP) (PP)
This rule says “VP consists of V and may have
NP and PP after it”.
This rule (7) seems to repeat the same
information given for the lexical entry (5) above. Since the information is
provided in the lexicon, it needs not to be stated in the syntax.
One of the aims of the theory of
Government-Binding (GB) is not to separate syntactic and lexical phenomena.
Consequently, many aspects of language that earlier linguistic models dealt
with as “syntax” are now handled as idiosyncrasies of lexical items. The syntax
is simplified and lexicon is given a heavy duty. The combination of X-bar
theory and the projection Principle welds syntax and the lexicon
together.
Thus, the information stated for the lexical
entries need not to be repeated again in the syntax. The lexical entry is said
to "project" on to the syntax. The projection principle of GB
says;
8) “The properties of lexical entries
project on to the syntax of the sentence.”
This principle has a lot of consequences. One
of these consequences is that it renders much of the system of phrase structure
rules worthless.
4. C – Selection (category selection)
In the case of verb put in the form
(5) above repeated here for ease of reference as (9) below:
9) put [- - - - - - - - -NP][- - - - - - - -
-NP]
We may say the lexical entry (put) is
projected onto the structure of the sentence. In other words, the lexical items
put, c – selects (category selects) the categories that go with it. It
selects the possible complements that may go with it.
II. Concepts of Government –Binding Theory
Chomsky in his standard theory views the
grammar of a natural language as some thing best described as a set of
interacting components. In the recent trend of linguistics called Government
–Binding theory, Chomsky brings about some radical changes to which we will
refer below:
a) Deep Structure Versus D- Structure
The only major difference between standard
theory and Government-Binding theory is that the rules of semantic component
(in the Standard Theory) now operate exclusively on Surface Structure or
S-Structure in the GB framework.
b) Terminological Changes
In the GB theory some new terms have replaced
the earlier terms in the standard theory. A chart may seem helpful:
10)
|
Standard Theory |
GB Theory |
|
a. deep structure |
D- structure |
|
b. surface structure |
S- structure |
|
c. phonological rules |
Phonetic form or PE rules |
|
d. semantic component |
Logical form or LF rules |
Thus “deep structure” in Standard Theory
corresponds to D-Structure in GB, etc.
S-Structures are the product of the application
of transformational rules to D- Structures, i.e.:
11) D-Structures ← Transformations →
S-Structures.
D-Structure is related to S-Structure by
transformations. Phonetic Form (PF) and Logical Form (LF) components both
interact S-Structure as it is shown in (12) below:
11)
X-bar syntax integrates the lexicon with the
syntax. The information given for the lexical entries such as the verb “put”,
for instance, (see No. 5 above) need not to be repeated again in the syntax.
The lexical entry is said to “project” on to the syntax. The projection
principle “projects” the characteristics of lexical entries on to the
syntax and links D-Structure to S-Structure and LF to the lexicon by specifying
the possible contexts in which a particular lexical item can occur. It has
always been recognized that there are restrictions on what words can occur in
what constructions; some verbs, for instance, are followed by Noun Phrases:
13) The boy found out the truth.
And some are not:
14) The boy disappeared.
Thus each lexical item in the language has
idiosyncratic properties of its own which are recorded in its lexical entry.
The Phonetic –Form Component is roughly the old phonological rules in
the Standard Theory. The component converts, for instance, the form {bag + s}
as {bagz}.
Within GB theory the rules of the “semantic
component” are now called LF rules (i.e. rules which determine Logical Form).
Summarizing what we have said so far, the
grammar of some language is assumed to consist of the following components:
15)
a) lexicon
b) categorical components (i.e. Phrase
Structure
rules, constrained by X-bar Theory)
c) transformational component
d) PF component
e) LF component
The rules of (a) and (b) together form the Base
and generate D-Structure; D-Structures then are mapped into PF and LF by the
rules of the PF and LF components.
C. Principles Versus Rules
In GB theory most of properties of the system
and the manner of the interaction of its subcomponents are supposed to follow
from general principles rather the rule system.
An example will make this point clear. The
phrase structure rules specify that a Noun Phrase contains a Head Noun, a Verb
Phrase contains a Verb head, a Prepositional Phrase contains a preposition
Head, etc.
Then a principle combined all these specific
rules into a principle (16) below:
16) XP - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - -
This principle reads “Every X phrase must
have an X as its Head”. Thus, a principle is universal whereas rules might be
idiosyncratic behaviors of a specific language.
References
1. Arnolds, D. et al. (eds) (1989). Essays on Grammatical Theory and Universal Grammar.
2. Bach, E. and R.T.Harms (1968). Universal in Linguistic Theory.
3. Bussman, H. (1996). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (translated
and edited by: Gregory P. Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi).
4. Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
5. Chomsky, N. (1975), Reflections on Language.
6. Chomsky, N. (1968), Language and Mind.
7. Chomsky, N. (1970), Remarks on Nominalization. In R. Jacobs and E. Rosenbaun (eds),
8. Chomsky, N. (1981), Lecture on Government and Binding.
9. Chomsky, N. (1982), Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. MIT Press,
10. Conrie, B. (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology.
11. Cook, V. (1988). Chomsky's Universal Grammar.
13. Farrokhpey, M. (1997), Universal Grammar. Tehran, Ladan Publishing Co..
14. Farrokhpey, M. (2000), Linguistics and Language.
15. Greenberg, J.H. (ed.) (1963). Universals of Language.
16. Greenberg, J.H. (ed.) (1966). Language Universals, with Special
Reference to Feature Hierarchies.
17. Greenberg, J.H. (ed.) (1986). The Role of Universals in Linguistic Explanation.
18. Hornstein, N. (1990). As Time Goes by: Tense and Universal Grammar.
19. Saleemi, A.P. (1992). Universal Grammar and Language Learnability.
20. White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition.
Ïîñòóïèëà â ðåäàêöèþ
05.10.2009 ã.