Interesting that Haspelmath points out that the last parts of the compound are most important, and that they have a similar tree structure to sentence forms. This is very clear in languages like German, in which one can create compound nouns very easily, simply by adding two separate nouns together. Whenever this is done however, the gender of the compound noun is always the last one, it is always made clear that this is the most important word in the compound, and the properties of the compound noun reflect those of the last noun.
I found Atkins and Levin's writings on the inherent and natural differences between the uses of the different shake verbs to be quite fascinating, as it is clear that the knowledge is something that is learned through example. We are rarely taught specific rules for the usage of each specific near-synonym, it is something that we tend to pick up naturally.
Carnie's philosophy of an innate ability to learn a Universal Grammar echoes through both the papers by Atkins and Levin and the one by Slobin. Slobin speaks of the differences between V-type and S-type languages, and how they are inherently different in the way that they structure grammar, differing between a focus on the verb, or satellites of the verb. However, both types of languages are easily learnt by children, even at the same time. In fact, children show a much better rate of learning language, regardless of the structure involved. This in my mind, shows that there is evidence for a universal grammar that lies underneath the syntactical structure of sentences, as even with all the differences that Slobin and others explain in great detail, children can often learn to speak multiple languages at once.
I found Atkins and Levin's writings on the inherent and natural differences between the uses of the different shake verbs to be quite fascinating, as it is clear that the knowledge is something that is learned through example. We are rarely taught specific rules for the usage of each specific near-synonym, it is something that we tend to pick up naturally.
Carnie's philosophy of an innate ability to learn a Universal Grammar echoes through both the papers by Atkins and Levin and the one by Slobin. Slobin speaks of the differences between V-type and S-type languages, and how they are inherently different in the way that they structure grammar, differing between a focus on the verb, or satellites of the verb. However, both types of languages are easily learnt by children, even at the same time. In fact, children show a much better rate of learning language, regardless of the structure involved. This in my mind, shows that there is evidence for a universal grammar that lies underneath the syntactical structure of sentences, as even with all the differences that Slobin and others explain in great detail, children can often learn to speak multiple languages at once.
Hey Ishan,
ReplyDeleteIt's really interesting how you point out that children generally learn language more easily, regardless of all these differences in language structure that we are learning about now in class. I think kids can pick up languages quickly because of these universal grammar rules you mention, and this makes it easier later on to learn about the rules that Slobin talks about. It is definitely easier for me to analyze languages that I have already learned, and it makes me wonder about language acquisition in adults - why it is sometimes harder to learn a language than when we were younger, and whether it would be easier to just dive into a new language and start memorizing/immersing, or to actually learn about topics like s-languages and v-languages first. I've been getting more and more interested in language acquisition and I hope we discuss this in class soon!