|
 |
Equal amount of grammar in all languages? | ||
Tags: Difficulty | Grammar | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion | ( Topic Closed) |  |
| Raчraч Ŋuɲa Triglot Senior Member New Zealand Joined 5604 days ago 154 posts - 233 votes  Speaks: Bikol languages*, Tagalog, EnglishC1 Studies: Spanish, Russian, Japanese | Message 25 of 41 03 December 2010 at 1:46pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
I suspect the right answer, in theory, is that languages do not have the same amount of grammar. But in practice, that would be difficult to prove, as we have to list down every grammar rule for languages under comparison, and give weights to these rules.
Expressiveness of a language in meaning is not part of grammar, but of its semantics, since the rules in language A that would allow it to express an identical concept in three words what language B has as a single word can all be present as well in language B. Phonotactics, phonological alternation and prosody does not count as grammar either. Morpheme irregularity is a gray area since in certain cases, it does not affect combination rule (Example: even if French has 6 forms for être in the present indicative, I don't think is has 2x more grammar rules against English which has 3 forms for to be in that usage.) For me, grammar encompass only the set of rules on composing morphemes into words, phrases and sentences, much like building blocks (words, phrases, sentences) out of lego bricks (morphemes). The rules of building those blocks would depend on these (add what others you can think of): 1. The number of individual bricks. 2. Constraints on which bricks can be contiguous. 3. Constraints on how many bricks can go together as a group. 4. Constraints on how bricks can be ordered. 5. Constraints on when blocks of bricks can be used.
For me this is a counter-intuitive analysis. If a language has more rules (more complex), then you have less freedom to combine those building blocks. The less rules a language has, the more freedom you have. What you call "devices built into the sentence structures" are also grammar rules in themselves. If language A uses an affix and language B uses a function word, the count of their morphemes are the same, so on one level, they would have the same number of rules. But since Latin affixes have less restrictions (rules) than English function words, then English has more rules, more complex grammar, less flexible.
It doesn't mean that if you use more words, you have more grammar rules. The concept might be intricate, but the rules to connect those are the same rules to connect words with simple meanings. The number of grammar rules does not expand with the increase in intricacy of meaning.
This is a different idea altogether, and I think really faulty. You are confusing between an inherent property of language with a historically derived feature of a language. For a language to be expressive in any topic, it just have to have the needed vocabulary, and all languages are capable of vocabulary expansion. Look at your beloved examples, like English. Apparently, following your logic, it is possible to discuss nuclear physics in English but not in Tongan. But what only needs to be done for Tongan to be expressive is either (a) borrow those English words so they become Tongan words, or (b) coin new Tongan words out of existing words or completely new words, then it becomes expressive. I think you should start investigating the etymology of English words so you can rid yourself of cultural snobbery. Edited by Raчraч Ŋuɲa on 03 December 2010 at 1:53pm 6 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Gusutafu Senior Member Sweden Joined 5307 days ago 655 posts - 1039 votes Speaks: Swedish* | Message 26 of 41 03 December 2010 at 3:33pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
Is this a competition in Madmans Syllogisms? If so, you win. Your argument is basically: *Creoles are the simplest languages *Creoles are made up of different languages *English has been influenced by foreign languages *English is a simple language This is one of the most insane things I've ever seen in these forums. Since you even state yourself the reason why Creoles are simple, viz. they only serve the limited purpose of getting things done, you refute your own proof. Or would you seriously characterise English as a language that only serves a banal, pragmatic purpose? Be serious.
It is true that Japan was closed to Western trade for a time, but I'm sure you know that Japan has had very intense cultural exchanges going on with China and Korea (and by extension, India and beyond). Not that this makes any difference, my argument is not that openness or exchange makes languages sophisticated. My point was rather that if millions of literate and ambitious people communicate in a language, write books, songs and poetry in it, it will tend to become more sophisticated than a language with fewer, poorer, more pragmatic speakers.
I haven't disparaged them, I'm just saying that they are less sophisticated than for example European languages. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Splog Diglot Senior Member Czech Republic anthonylauder.c Joined 5455 days ago 1062 posts - 3263 votes Speaks: English*, Czech Studies: Mandarin | Message 27 of 41 03 December 2010 at 4:11pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
All languages are born infinite, but some are more infinite than others ;-) 5 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5167 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 28 of 41 03 December 2010 at 4:50pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
|
We are making a lot of assumptions about the simplicity or complexity of certain languages we know little about. Who here speaks both Inuktitut AND Tok Pisin? Moreover, we agree that we have no true method of measuring grammatical complexity, so we are arguing about hunches, beliefs and impressions.
I think everyone agrees that on the face of it, polysynthetic languages like Inuktitut or Cree appear to show more complexity than creole or pidgin languages, or perhaps even monosyllabic languages like Mandarin. However, some people contend that deeper analysis should reveal that seeming complexity underlies simplicity in other areas and that conversely, simplicity implies complexity in other areas. Let’s play devil’s advocate and suppose that languages that appear simple or complex actually do have simpler and more complex grammars. Pidgins and creoles arise from complex intercultural contexts, where trade and exchanges abound, whereas a polysythetic language like Inuktitut is the language of relatively few people scattered over a large territory, leading a relatively simple lifestyle with little (up until recently, at least) intercultural interaction. Are we not forced to conclude that grammatical complexity is NOT linked to the complexity of its social or cultural context? Claiming that English is more grammatically complex than Tok Pisin because English is used by an evolved society is incoherent. Yes, languages that are used on different continents and across various cultures may very well present more variety and richness (eg. English, French, Spanish, etc.), but that’s not necessarily reflected in the grammar. If anything, influence from other languages and a strong influx of second language speakers should tend to simplify the grammar. If those speakers use less grammar, and if they do influence the language somehow, then it can’t possibly make the grammar more complex. So, does English have a simpler grammar than Cherokee or Cree? Is Tok Pisin grammatically simpler than Japanese? If one is to make such claims, then it follows that complexity is NOT linked to the complexity of the social or cultural context the languages are used in. So IF some languages indeed have more complex grammar, it doesn’t have anything to do with the level of education or evolution of the societies that use them. 5 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 5797 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 29 of 41 03 December 2010 at 4:51pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
I was defining a spectrum, not a dichotomy. At the simplest end you have pidgins (not creoles), then creoles. I was not suggesting that Japanese was a truly isolated language, but that it was more isolated than English or French.
But you are also making the assumption that poor people are "more pragmatic", which isn't the case. Creativity is not a luxury that is afforded only to the rich. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Lucas Pentaglot Groupie Switzerland Joined 4953 days ago 85 posts - 130 votes Speaks: French*, English, German, Italian, Russian Studies: Mandarin | Message 30 of 41 03 December 2010 at 5:05pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
|
Grammar is the study of the constitutive elements of a language (Grevisse).
But when you learn a language (especially indoeuropean languages), you are focused on morphology (and syntax), then you consider grammar as "morpho-syntax" and forget that all the rest is part of the grammar too! The syntax is never hard in itself, it's only the difference between the syntax of your language that makes it hard...so a lot of people think "morphology" when you're speaking about grammar. That's why a lot of people say that "chinese grammar is easy" or "russian grammar is hard"... In conlusion I'd say that of course "every language has the same amount of grammar, only in different ways", it was obvious for me, but... only if you consider that grammar is everything you have to know about a language, and not only morphology! :) 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| CaucusWolf Senior Member United States Joined 5058 days ago 191 posts - 234 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Arabic (Written), Japanese | Message 31 of 41 03 December 2010 at 11:41pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
Was it really China, Japan etc that was Isolated or was it Europe. China was basically in the year 3000 when everyone else was in the Dark Ages. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| leosmith Senior Member United States Joined 6336 days ago 2365 posts - 3804 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Tagalog | Message 32 of 41 04 December 2010 at 1:36am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
You have an interesting definition of insane. But I found what he said much more sane than
3 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
