PLINS101 Knowledge of Language: Reading: Adger, 2003, ch.1. And/or Radford, 2004, ch.1 Smith, 2005
PLINS101 Knowledge of Language: Reading: Adger, 2003, ch.1. And/or Radford, 2004, ch.1 Smith, 2005
PLINS101 Knowledge of Language: Reading: Adger, 2003, ch.1. And/or Radford, 2004, ch.1 Smith, 2005
KNOWLEDGE OF LANGUAGE
Reading: Adger, 2003, ch.1. and/or Radford, 2004, ch.1; Smith, 2005.
Noise can stop you hearing me, hence understanding me, it doesn’t affect your
knowledge of English. This difference is known as the competence/performance distinction;
the contrast between your knowledge of language and your use of that knowledge on particular
occasions.
Imagine a stroke (CVA) victim rendered speechless. What has s/he lost? Competence
or performance? Language or speech? Are these the same? Imagine a new-born child. What
does s/he have to acquire to be able to speak and understand English, or any other human
language?
1a. NVS: “It’s raining today” 1b. Fred: “It’s raining today”
1c. Pierre: “il pleut aujourd’hui” 1d. Hans: “Es regnet heute”
(1a, b) are two ‘utterances’ of the same ‘sentence’, and express the same ‘proposition’
(something that can be true or false). If said at the same time and place (1a, b) will both be true
(or false) together. If (1a) is said yesterday and again today (by me) it may be true one day and
false the next. (1c, d) also express the same proposition (in French and German), but are
obviously not the same sentence. So ‘utterance’, ‘sentence’ and ‘proposition’ all need to be kept
distinct.
2. Mistakes.
If your knowledge of language wasn't rule governed how would you know that this example
wrong was? (An asterisk [*] preceding an example means that it is ungrammatical).
a. Has John ever been to Antarctica?
John hasn’t ever been to Antarctica
If John has ever been to Antarctica, he’ll like penguins
*John has ever been to Antarctica
b. I speak fluent English *I speak English fluent
I speak English fluently *I speak fluently English.
c. *Why you can’t say it like this?
Why you can’t say it like this is mysterious
Why can’t you say it like this? (You can!)
The set of rules we know constitutes, by definition, our grammar. Linguistics is in the
first instance about grammars rather than about ‘languages’ in the traditional use of this term,
and in particular about how children can acquire their first grammar (and vocabulary). The
distinction between 'grammar' and 'language' in this sense is often referred to as a distinction
between 'I-Language' and 'E-Language': between what is Internal to the Individual’s head and
what is External to the head.
Linguistics is NOT 'prescriptive'; it is 'descriptive', in that it attempts to describe the
facts of language - of any language - rigorously, and then provide explanations for why the
facts should be as they are. The aim of describing any language – all languages - means that
linguists make universal claims: our theories must be adequate for the description of every
possible (human) language. One kind of explanation for why our knowledge of language is the
way it is is that much of it is genetically determined. We all speak ‘human’ - for Martians,
human (in the form of Arabic, Bengali, Chinese … Xhosa, Yoruba and Zulu) is just one
language with lots of dialects.
Our linguistic knowledge, our competence, interacts with our non-linguistic knowledge
in complex ways. In principle they are separable, so someone who utters the examples in (4):
is likely to be in need of psychiatric help (or vocabulary drill) rather than remedial grammar
lessons.
5a. I've been reading a book about evolution during the last ten days
b. I've been reading a book about evolution during the last ten million years
The rest of this course is devoted to suggesting particular hypotheses about our competence and
finding evidence for them.
NVS – 4.10.2005