A Response to an Article The Myth of Language Universals by Evans and Levinson - Essay Example

THE MYTH OF LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS Introduction Argument about language universals remains contentious among cognitive scientists and linguist. Proponents of the theory argue that languages have universals, which exhibit similarities. Opponents of the argument, however, dispute the stance citing that claims of universals are baseless and unproven. Evans and Levinson (2009), disagree with the viewpoint about universal language supported by proponents. In their article, they provide relevant examples to dispute claims of syntactic universals across various languages. 1. Section A Synthesis of the main claims According to Evans and Levinson (2009), there are proofs to counter claims of universals depicted in languages. They agree with the idea of the presence of various diversities in languages. Diversity in languages conforms to claims by most cognitive scientists. However, there are fundamental structural differences across various languages at all levels. According to Evans and Levinson (2009), languages rarely have a single syntactic structure that is common among them. Every aspect of languages including grammar, sound, and lexicon, shows differences. Evans and Levinson (2009), prove that propositions that demonstrate universals in grammar are misleading. Instead, different grammar and languages only show general tendencies, as opposed to strict universals based on syntactic features. According to Evans and Levinson, the argument that languages only have superficial differences is a form of misconception. The effect of ethnocentrism creates misleading viewpoints that support the theory of universal grammar in linguistics. Evans and Levinson (2009), confirm that ethnocentrism is a major factor that prompts the idea of universal grammar among most cognitive scientists. Ethnocentrism among linguists accelerates the level of misconception that all languages have uniform structures. Theorists of cognitive sciences also have a challenge of improper communication among themselves, hence the misconception that all languages have common grammar. Cognitive scientists tend to ignore some of the most essential linguistic diversity, the fact that should form part of their research. Evans and Levinson (2009), explore some of the linguistic diversity extensively neglected by cognitive scientists. In their opinion, it is possible to structure different languages at diverse levels. It is important to structure it into phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Structuring languages aids the understanding of the extent of ambiguity in claims that languages are universal. On language diversity, Evans and Levinson (2009), prove that cognitive scientists are insensible of its extent. They note that cognitive scientists cannot prove the presence of substantive universals across languages. This is because they insensible of the degree of language diversity in the entire world. Such insensibility distorts their claims of perfect research and findings. Evans and Levinson (2009), highlight counter-arguments against claims that every language possesses substantive universals. Argument by Evans and Levinson (2009), point at the degree of insensibility to language diversity among cognitive scientists as a key setback in defending their argument. According to Evans and Levinson (2009), some languages lack derivational or inflectional morphology. Noteworthy, it is either not mandatory for languages to have constituent structures or fixed arrangement of elements. Languages also have distinct semantic systems. There are an estimated seven thousand languages spoken today, globally. Evans and Levinson highlight an estimate of between five and eight thousand active languages used on a global scale. It is worth noting that there are outstanding differences in dialect among all these various languages. Diversity in language is evident across dimensions. First, languages show variations in sound inventories with some languages lacking sound systems. Second, the assumption that languages have commonalities of syllables and the consonant-vowel universal is misleading. Variations in word organizations as Evans and Levinson (2009), prove also enhance their argument against claims of universal grammar. They prove that not all languages organize their sounds into strings that create alteration of vowels and consonants. Cross-linguistic evidence shows not syntax and word-classes universals as most linguists claim (Evans & Levinson, 2009). The two authors counter the assumption that the four major word-classes are evident in all languages. The main word-classes include nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. There is a foremost controversy among linguists concerning the validity of the presence of the four word-classes across languages. Evans and Levinson prove the diversity in semantics across different languages. Their view contradicts general claims about similarities. In essence, cognitive scientists display compromised understanding of the level of language diversity. Evans and Levinson further evaluate the extent of generalizations that linguists make. The assumption that all languages are similar to English but differ only in sound systems and vocabularies are misguided, according to Evans and Levinson (2009). They dispute, using examples and explanations, the commons generalizations that languages have similar lexical categories. Evans and Levinson (2009), explore the three essential syntactic features that continue to allow the survival of universal language as a term among linguists. Diverse categories that form the basis of universal languages include commonalities in grammar, constituency, and recursion. First, they discuss the concept of grammatical subject. From Evans and Levinson’s viewpoint, grammatical subjects in languages are essential but not universal. Constituency refers to the convergence of elements of high order in language. Contrary to the assumption that all languages exhibit constituency, they do not. Constituency, instead, is just among the various methods applied in few languages to express constructions. It is noteworthy that several languages have elements of constituency but not all, therefore, it is not universal. Syntactic constituency, according to Evans and Levinson, is not common in all languages as some linguists argue to prove. Like other aspects of language, constituency is a way of marking the interrelatedness among different subjects. Although commonly applied in several languages, syntactic constituency is inapplicable in others. Any proof of universal language that relates to constituent structure is fallacious. The theory of syntactic recursion continues to attract discussions in relation to universality of languages. Syntactic recursion refers to the concept of revisiting a set of rules of grammatical output to attain a potentially vast set of output. Syntactic recursion is a well-developed concept in most languages including English and Japanese. Other languages such as Bininj Gun-work, however, rarely allow its application. In some languages, it is unavailable as Evans and Levinson proves. Claims by other scholars that syntactic recursion is a core universal feature in all languages, therefore, are misguiding. According to Evans and Levinson (2009), claims that syntactic features are universal to all languages are untrue. A commendable number of languages do not exhibit universal features in their syntax as alleged by most cognitive scientists. Diverse languages do not exhibit syntactic constituent structure and as such are not universal. 2. Section B Careful consideration of the claim that not all languages have lexical categories Evans and Levinson defend the impropriety of the claim that all languages have universals of major lexical categories. They carefully present their claims to disapprove the fallacy of lexical universals among languages using explanations and examples. According to Pinker and Bloom, as cited in Evans and Levinson (2009), languages display major lexical categories. They argue that most languages have commonalities of nouns, verbs, adjectives and prepositions. However, there are distinct counter-examples to disapprove the preposition of universal lexical categories across languages as claimed by Pinker and Bloom. Syntax universals are major claims that tend to prove the presence of universal languages. Application of the aspect of word classes or parts of speech universals to prove universal grammar is wrong. Evans and Levinson (2009), note that word classes are vital in grammar. Notably, proper application of grammatical rules depends on the formulation based on word classes. Assumptions made by cognitive scientists tend to prove that the four major word classes make languages have universal features. These include nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs as the major word classes. This, however, is invalid based on cross-linguistic evidence as proven by Evans and Levinson (2009). First, several languages lack an open adverb class. Languages such as Lao exceptionally lack adjective classes. Languages that have adjectives and adverbs exhibit differences in nouns and verbs. According to Evans and Levinson (2009), there are languages that exhibit no adverbs, others lack adjectives and maybe, some lack proper noun-verb features. Besides the four major word classes, there are other types of word-classes exhibited by some languages. These include positionals, coverbs and ideophones that are unpopular among English language users. Ideophones are word-classes that communicate feelings and situations in the event. Positionals are word classes that encode positions and forms of objects. They are significant in Mayan languages, for example. Other examples of word classes outside the major four include coverbs. Coverbs are applicable in Australian languages. They are fundamental in expressing events through combination of inflecting and open verbs. Evans and Levinson also highlight classifiers as another fundamental word class often ignored by cognitive scientists in their claims of universal languages. Classifiers encode counted objects based on their shapes and widely applied by users of in East Asian languages. Articulate examples provided the Evans and Levinson prove that word classes are not fundamentally identical across different languages. Equally, they do not have universal properties. These examples dispute the position of universal languages based on arguments of the presence of universal word classes. It is evident through the extensive variability on the organization of languages. Languages, therefore, do not exhibit similar lexical categories. Authors’ consideration of counter-arguments Evans and Levinson consider counter-arguments in defending their claims that not all languages have lexical categories. They recognize claims that mastering a language entails translation of mentalese into different words. According to Evans and Levinson, speakers of no language maintain their mentalese. They provide a definite response to counter-arguments about universals of semantics across diverse languages. In response, Evans and Levinson highlight one vital setback to the viewpoint of universal language of thought. The major setback to the viewpoint is that languages have differences based on grammar and lexicon. For instance, some languages do not have words that provide logical connectives. Some languages lack tense, other aspects and a number of them do not have pronouns. There are languages that have many verbs compared to others that have few. Identification of arguments that could be presented against the authors’ views It is possible to question Evans and Levinson’s views and claims that not all languages exhibit major lexical categories. First, Evans and Levinson (2009), do not base their study on an array of languages. This creates a situation of equal insensitivity to language diversity and, therefore, their research is questionable. They do not present sufficient data to prove their claims just as they challenge proponents of the universal language theory to do. On a further note, Evans and Levinson (2009), do not consider other parts of speech since they may exhibit similarities. Choosing only four major parts of speech, therefore, do not justify their claims. 3. Section C. Careful consideration of the authors’ discussion of the notion of subject Evans and Levinson discuss the idea of subject as vital among the emerging structural constructs of identified languages. Most linguists apply the notion of subject in a manner that manner that depicts a wide array of features. Grammatical subjects present a great idea as presented by Evans and Levinson. Although linguists consider grammatical relations in terms of subjects and objects, there exists lack of proper links between them. The notion of grammatical subject is not universal, as most linguists would put it. Grammatical subjects serve to streamline grammar. Subject relations provide effective ways to conduct a comprehensive analysis of grammar. In any language, grammatical subjects are vital in analysis. Careful consideration of the authors’ response to their argumentation Several proponents of language universals argue against Evans and Levinson’s position. Proponents of language universals dispute claims by Evans and Levinson (2009), that proof for language universals is tantamount to generalizations. Studies in response their argumentation would defend the position that universal grammar is well attainable through genes. According to Chomsky (2005), claims in support of language universals are justified. According to Chomsky’s viewpoint, there is evidence of syntactic structures among various languages. The theory of language universals, therefore, is true. Responding to claims by proponents of the universal language theory, Evans and Levinson (2009), highlight various setbacks to their research. They note ethnocentrism and language diversity insensitivity among supporters of language universals. In addition, Evans and Levinson (2009), provides examples of incompatibility among languages as proof against language universals theory. 4. Section D Global assessment of the article The hypothesis of universal grammar attracts discussion from theorists and professionals in diverse areas of study, globally. Some argue that the hypothesis is challenging to test while others tend to justify it. Theorists who tend to find a clear definition of the universal grammar hypothesis, however, lack an exact definition of the concept. In some instances, theorists tend to differ greatly based on their points of view. Proponents and opponents of the universal grammar theory both have reasons to explain their positions on the issue. According to proponents of universal grammar theory, humans have a dedicated instinct that determines the grammar exhibited in their languages. Universal grammar, according to Chomsky (2005), represents an approach to acquisition of knowledge among learners. Chomsky adopts the biolinguistic perspective to explain the universal grammar theory. The perspective defines grammar as innate to humans. Conversely, the behaviorist perspective of linguistics view language as an aspect that an individual can acquire through conditioning. According to the biolinguistic position on learning, languages are too complex for individuals to learn. This contracts behaviorists’ position that views language as easy to acquire and learn. Proponents of universal grammar theory argue that variety of languages has similar syntactic features despite instance of indirect relations. They highlight instances of grammatical syntax features that are common in most languages. As evidence to defend the universal grammar theory, proponents argue that there are similar grammar errors committed by children across diverse languages. The patterns of grammar errors are evident in English, German and other languages. Common grammar errors depict the alleged universal grammar theory in linguistics. Proponents support their viewpoint on the observations based on language acquisition among children from different languages. Proponents claim that learners cannot understand language by mere induction. Instead, learners must have innate features that complement their understanding of language. This informs the role of innate mastery of the syntactic structure of language among learners. However, there are schools of thought that tend to oppose the theory of universal grammar in linguistics. Similar to the position held by Evans and Levinson (2009), opponents of the universal grammar theory prove that universals are non-existent. Claims on universals are only justified on provision that they apply to a sample of languages as subjects of study. With nearly 7000 languages, globally, proponents of universal grammar only make mere generalizations. Inferences deduced from existing data showing do not meet the threshold to defend the theory of universal grammar. According to opponents of the theory, it is further fallacious to claim independence of universal grammar in linguistics of human nature. Conclusion The debate for and against universal grammar theory attracts argument from both proponents and opponents of the theory. Evans and Levinson (2009), dispute the generalization of universal grammar. They represent the opponents’ school of thought concerning universal languages. They address counter-arguments by proponents of universal language by highlighting appropriate examples. Evans and Levinson (2009), address concerns and propositions by supporters of universal language theory. Proponents of universal language and grammar such as Chomsky (2005), maintain their point of view, as well. References Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36 (1), 122. Evans, N. & Levinson, S. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 32, 429-492. Read More