What is Universal Grammar?

In linguistics, the theory of universal grammar holds that there are certain fundamental grammatical ideas which all humans possess, without having to learn them. Universal grammar acts as a way to explain how language acquisition works in humans, by showing the most basic rules that all languages have to follow.

The basic idea of universal grammar, that there are foundational rules in common among all humans, has been around since the 13th century. In the following centuries this idea led many philosophers to try to design a perfect language from the ground up, taking into account what they felt were the core principles of all languages.

The most famous theory of the idea of a universal grammar was put forth by the linguist Noam Chomsky in the 1950s. Chomsky held that there was a universal grammar hardwired into the brain of all humans, and that all human languages had evolved on top of that universal grammar, and that children learned their native languages using the universal grammar as a support structure.

One of the main impetuses for the development of a modern theory of universal grammar is the question of how early language learners know that certain phrases are ungrammatical. Children acquire language by listening to native speakers around them. But, by virtue of being proficient speakers, native speakers don’t go around saying everything that is ungrammatical and saying it’s wrong. This is often called the Poverty of Stimulus argument, and universal grammar attempts to explain it by saying that a number of these restrictions are part of a universal grammar.

Universal grammar does not attempt to lay out many blanket statements that hold true for every single language on Earth. If it did that, after all, we would expect most languages to be roughly the same. Instead, we find an incredible range of languages. Instead, what a universal grammar seeks to do is to lay out propositions of the form, “If X is true, then Y will be true.” These structures lay out how all languages develop when faced with certain basic principles. Using these structures, students of universal grammar can attempt to state what word order a language might choose, what phonemes will be present, and other foundational traits of the language.

Another argument commonly leveled against universal grammar is that the theory itself is not actually falsifiable. Although it claims to be able to predict what new languages will be like, the sample size is small enough that when new languages are discovered the rules laid out must sometimes adapt to fit the new data. This would seem to undermine its validity as a strong predictive theory, making it more a cohesive set of observations about what we already know to be true.

DISJUNCT VS. DISJUNCTION

WHAT IS A DISJUNCT?

In English language and grammar, disjunct has a distinct meaning. It is a word or a small phrase added to a sentence that tends to show mood, opinion or emphasis in some way. Alternately, disjuncts may be a comment on what is being said or an expression from the speaker about how truthful something might be. The disjunct usually doesn’t have to be in the sentence and the sentence would be complete without it, though some specific meaning of the writer/speaker could be lost in the process.

There are many words that qualify as disjunct examples. Some words that may be disjuncts include fortunately, unfortunately, hopefully, probably, possibly, maybe, honestly, clearly, briefly, and frankly. There are number of small phrases that are disjunct phrases too and these might include: in my opinion, fortunately for you, in other words, in truth, between you and me, to my amazement, and to tell the truth. It’s easy to see that many more examples could be added and that it’s possible to generate a number of other terms and phrases that would serve as disjuncts in different kinds of sentences.

In addition to generating disjunct words or phrases, it’s fairly simple to come up with sentences that might use them. The following sentence uses a disjunct phrase to comment on the writing process:

It was, in other words, the ugliest cat I had ever seen.

Note the italicized phrase isn’t really necessary to the sentence and it could be said without it. The speaker is really commenting on his or her word choice, which may or may not be appropriate in present writing context. Sometimes it makes sense to remove a phrase that doesn’t belong and write a cleaner sentence.

Another example is the following:

Possibly, I will see you tonight.

Here the term, possibly, should remain in the sentence since it expresses doubt about the speaker’s plans. Without it, the person being addressed might seem surer that the speaker would show up that night. Qualifying potential actions is valuable to avoid misunderstanding.

On the other hand, the next example of a disjunct could be saying too much:

Honestly, I will see you tonight.

The term certainly raises the question as to whether the speaker is in the habit of lying about plans, and use of another word like definitely is not stronger than a simple statement of, “I will see you tonight.” Sometimes using these words is up to the speaker or writer’s style and a matter of discretion, but all conscientious users of the English or other languages that use disjuncts would be benefit from understanding use, so they can make informed language choices.

One matter of confusion can be the term disjunction, which is actually quite different. Disjunctions tend to be either/or statements, like this example: “You can either go to the store or to the movies.” They combine two actions, options, or others that can’t exist together. Choosing one means not choosing the other. In a way, the disjunction is the opposite of conjunction because it doesn’t join two things together; instead it joins two things that can’t be or cannot exist together, offering an element of choice.

Structural grammar

Structural grammar is an approach to the written and spoken language that focuses on the mechanics and construction of sentences. As such, structural grammar is not concerned so much with the implications of the words used to create the sentence, but with the construct of the sentence itself. This concern with sentence structure provides a basis for the creation of most written documents, and makes an assumption that what is seen on the surface is also the straightforward meaning behind the words of the sentence.

The function of structural grammar can be contrasted with that of transformational grammar. Also known as TG grammar, the transformational approach to grammar looks beneath the surface of the words used in the sentence, and seeks to identify any implied as well as expressed meanings in the arrangement of the words. TG grammar is also usually considered to be the logical progression in comprehension of the written and spoken word, taking the process of analysis one step beyond the boundaries of structural grammar.

While a grammarian may consider the essentials of both transformational and structural grammar to be more complex than these simplified explanations, most would tend to agree that structural grammar provides the framework necessary to convey ideas and thoughts from one person to another. As children, individuals master the basics of sentence construction and learn how to use specific words in a particular fashion. This allows wants and needs to be conveyed efficiently and quickly.

As adults, persons utilize structural grammar to communicate essential ideas and make definite statements regarding a variety of subjects. The sounds, selection of words, and the meaning of the collection of words will be easily understood by others who hear the structural grammar, and accepted at face value. As such, structural grammar can be understood as providing a foundation for communication that makes it possible for persons to interact without a great deal of difficulty. Because of the importance of the ability to communicate within a community, a great deal of emphasis is placed on learning proper sentence structure, making it possible to conform to community norms and be understood without confusion.

Computational linguistics

Computational linguistics is an interdisciplinary field dealing with the statistical and/or rule-based modeling of natural language from a computational perspective. This modeling is not limited to any particular field of linguistics. Traditionally, computational linguistics was usually performed by computer scientists who had specialized in the application of computers to the processing of a natural language. Computational linguists often work as members of interdisciplinary teams, including linguists (specifically trained in linguistics), language experts (persons with some level of ability in the languages relevant to a given project), and computer scientists. In general, computational linguistics draws upon the involvement of linguists, computer scientists, experts in artificial intelligence, mathematicians, logicians, philosophers, cognitive scientists, cognitive psychologists, psycholinguists, anthropologists and neuroscientists, among others.

Holonymy

Holonymy (in Greek holon = whole and onoma = name) is a semantic relation. Holonymy defines the relationship between a term denoting the whole and a term denoting a part of, or a member of, the whole. That is,

'X' is a holonym of 'Y' if Ys are parts of Xs, or

'X' is a holonym of 'Y' if Ys are members of Xs.

For example, 'tree' is a holonym of 'bark', of 'trunk' and of 'limb.'

Holonymy is the opposite of meronymy.

Metonymy

Metonymy (pronounced /mɨˈtɒnɨmi/, mi-ton-uh-mee [1]) is a figure of speech used in rhetoric in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept. For instance, "Westminster" is used as a metonym (an instance of metonymy) for the Government of the United Kingdom, because it is located there.

The words "metonymy" and "metonym" come from the Greek: μετωνυμία, metōnymía, "a change of name", from μετά, metá, "after, beyond" and -ωνυμία, -ōnymía, a suffix used to name figures of speech, from ὄνῠμα, ónyma or ὄνομα, ónoma, "name." Metonymy may also be instructively contrasted with metaphor. Both figures involve the substitution of one term for another. In metaphor, this substitution is based on some specific similarity, whereas, in metonymy, the substitution is based on some understood association (contiguity).

Meronymy

Meronymy (from the Greek words meros = part and onoma = name) is a semantic relation used in linguistics. A meronym denotes a constituent part of, or a member of something. That is,

X is a meronym of Y if Xs are parts of Y(s), or

X is a meronym of Y if Xs are members of Y(s).

For example, 'finger' is a meronym of 'hand' because a finger is part of a hand. Similarly 'wheel' is a meronym of 'automobile'.

Meronymy is the opposite of holonymy. A closely related concept is that of mereology, which specifically deals with part/whole relations and is used in logic. It is formally expressed in terms of first-order logic.

A meronym means part of a whole. A word denoting a subset of what another word denotes is a hyponym.

In knowledge representation languages, meronymy is often expressed as "part-of".

 

Interfix

Interfix is a term in linguistics and more specifically, morphology (the study of morphemes, the most basic meaningful entities in word formation). It describes an affix which is placed in between two other morphemes and does not have a semantic meaning. Unlike other affixes, like prefixes (who precede morphemes they are attached to) or suffixes (who are placed after the morpheme they are attached to), an interfix is attached to two different morphemes and thus differs from seemingly similar infix, which is inserted in the middle of one morpheme.

In English, when technical compound words are formed from non-technical roots, an -o- interfix is sometimes used, as o has come to be seen as a connecting vowel: Speed-o-meter, mile-o-meter, by analogy to tacho-meter, odo-meter, and nonsense words such as obscen-o-meter.

Allomorph

Allomorph

Allomorphs are different forms of the same morpheme, or basic unit of meaning. These can be different pronunciations or different spellings.

Example
There are three allomorphs of the morpheme -s in English. Compare the sound of the -s in ‘cats', ‘dogs' and ‘foxes'.

In the classroom
Certain allomorphs are difficult for learners to produce correctly, for example the allomorphs of the -ed regular past morpheme, which learners often do not produce correctly until higher levels. Recognition activities such as sorting words into groups according to pronunciation are useful to raise awareness.