Revisiting Subject–Object Asymmetry in the Production of Cantonese Relative Clauses: Evidence From Elicited Production in 3-Year-Olds

Emergentist approaches to language acquisition identify a core role for language-specific experience and give primacy to other factors like function and domain-general learning mechanisms in syntactic development. This directly contrasts with a nativist structurally oriented approach, which predicts that grammatical development is guided by Universal Grammar and that structural factors constrain acquisition. Cantonese relative clauses (RCs) offer a good opportunity to test these perspectives because its typologically rare properties decouple the roles of frequency and complexity in subject- and object-RCs in a way not possible in European languages. Specifically, Cantonese object RCs of the classifier type are frequently attested in children’s linguistic experience and are isomorphic to frequent and early-acquired simple SVO transitive clauses, but according to formal grammatical analyses Cantonese subject RCs are computationally less demanding to process. Thus, the two opposing theories make different predictions: the emergentist approach predicts a specific preference for object RCs of the classifier type, whereas the structurally oriented approach predicts a subject advantage. In the current study we revisited this issue. Eighty-seven monolingual Cantonese children aged between 3;2 and 3;11 (Mage: 3;6) participated in an elicited production task designed to elicit production of subject- and object- RCs. The children were very young and most of them produced only noun phrases when RCs were elicited. Those (nine children) who did produce RCs produced overwhelmingly more object RCs than subject RCs, even when animacy cues were controlled. The majority of object RCs produced were the frequent classifier-type RCs. The findings concur with our hypothesis from the emergentist perspectives that input frequency and formal and functional similarity to known structures guide acquisition.

SCIENTIFIC LINGUISTICS, A NEVER-ENDING HISTORY

1866 was a turning point in scientific linguistics when the Linguistic Society of Paris banned all papers and presentations on the origin of language. De Saussure locked up the debate with two concepts, diachrony and synchrony. I intend to examine the emergence of the hypothesis of a single origin of human articulated languages, in Africa first, and then Black Africa. The phylogenic approach of biological studies has today spread to linguistics. Sally McBrearty rejected the idea of a Neolithic revolution. Consequently, Black Africa became a major field of archaeological research. Yuval Noah Harari stating the existence of a symbolic revolution around 70,000 years ago, rejected Black Africa along with the Americas, and the Denisovans. Asia has become a major archaeological field. Julien d’Huy implements phylogenetic arborescent technique to the study of myths. The oldest form of a myth is not the origin of it. In oral civlizations some literate individual had to tell the story behind representations for the people to understand, appreciate, and remember them. I will then consider structural linguistics (Noam Chomsky & Universal Grammar). UG has never been able to develop semantics within its own system (Generative Semantics & George Lakoff). Science is always a temporarily approximate vision of what it considers. First, what any science explores is constantly evolving following phylogenic dynamics that are contained in the very objects of such scientific studies. Second, any new knowledge appearing in the field concerned causes a complete restructuration of what we knew before.

The Beauty of Deep Structure

This chapter charts the rise of Noam Chomsky’s Transformational-Generative Grammar, from its cornerstone role in the cognitive revolution up to its widely heralded realization in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. That realization featured the development of an evocative concept, Deep Structure, a brilliant nexus of meaning and structure that integrates seamlessly with Chomsky’s companion idea, Universal Grammar, the notion that all languages share a critical, genetically encoded core. At a technical level, Deep Structure concentrated meaning because of the Katz-Postal Principle, stipulating that transformations cannot change meaning. Transformations rearrange structure while keeping meaning stable. The appeal of Deep Structure and Universal Grammar helped Transformational Grammar propagate rapidly into language classrooms, literary studies, stylistics, and computer science, gave massive impetus to the emergence of psycholinguistics, attracted substantial military and educational funding, and featured prominently in Chomsky’s meteoric intellectual stardom.

Generative Semantics 1: The Model

This chapter follows the emergence of Generative Semantics from the Transformational Grammar developments codified in Noam Chomsky’s Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. It was on George Lakoff’s mind from before Aspects but it only achieved the rhetorical, sociological, and theoretical conditions to thrive with that codification. Generative Semantics looked like a natural extension of Transformational Grammar, rooting itself in the semantic subsoil of Deep Structure and aligning closely with Universal Grammar. But that subsoil quickly proved to be less fertile than it had seemed, so Generative Semantics imported concepts from logic and philosophy of language; and Universal Grammar proved less substantial than it had seemed, so Generative Semantics solidified it with a Universal Base hypothesis. The resulting model was an extraordinarily elegant theory in which language passed through a homogeneous system of rules from thought and meaning to structure and expression, but it contained multiple seeds, both attitudinal and technical, of a challenge to Chomsky’s work.

Chomsky Agonistes

This chapter provides an overview of Noam Chomsky’s current linguistic framework, the Minimalist Program, and the evolutionary milieu in which it is now mostly plied, including the linguistic implications of FOXP2, often called “the language gene” in popular media. The chapter also tackles the most touchy and slippery psychobiographical issue in the field of linguistics over the course of Chomsky’s lengthy and influential career: his rhetorical tactics, especially in connection with the truth. Chomsky has been widely accused of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and, in George Lakoff’s terms “fighting dirty,” as well as being venerated and defended just as widely. I examine that claim with respect to yet another Chomskyan tempest, the dispute over Daniel Everett’s claim that the language Pirahã does not exhibit recursion, a property that seems to be required by Chomsky's Universal Grammar, and through a close reading of an exchange over the existence of grammatical rules with philosopher and early Chomsky supporter, John Searle. Finally, it sifts through Chomsky’s record and the current state of the field to speculate about Chomsky’s legacy.

Special Language Domain in Which Grammatical Rules May Be Violated Legitimately in Chinese

“Special language domain” (SLD) refers to domains or areas of language use in which linguistic rules may be violated legitimately. The SLD is similar to “free trade zones,” “special administrative regions,” and “special economic zones” in which tariff, executive, and economic regulations may be legitimately violated to an extent. Innovative use in SLD is another major resource for language evolution and language change as well as language contact and language acquisition, since some temporary and innovative forms of usage in SLD may develop beyond the SLD at a later stage to become part of the core system of linguistic rules. Focusing on relevant grammatical phenomena observed in the Chinese language, poetry in various forms, titles and slogans, and Internet language are the three major types of SLD, and their violation of linguistic rules is motivated differently. Furthermore, although core linguistic rules may be violated in SLD, the violations are still subject to certain limits and restrictions. Only some language-particular rules can be violated legitimately in SLD; the principles of Universal Grammar, applicable generally for all human languages, have to be observed even in the SLD. The study of a special language domain provides an ideal and fascinating window for linguists to understand language mechanisms, explain historical change in language, and plausibly predict the future direction of language evolution.

Universals

This chapter reviews the approach to universals in contemporary grammatical theory as expressions of Universal Grammar (UG), the human faculty of language. The view developed in this chapter is that what is universal is conceptual structure, and grammatical universals arise as a consequence of pressures to formulate constructional grammars that express conceptual structure as simply as possible. The chapter argues that the constructional approach provides a natural framework for explaining language variation and change.