English Syntax & Universal Grammar 1

CHAPTER 1

LINGUISTICS AS A SCIENCE OF THE MIND

1.1. What is linguistics?

We will start with a basic question before we delve deeper into the subject of syntax. What
is linguistics?

Although many answers are possible, we will adopt the answer in (1):

(1) What is Linguistics?

Linguistics is the scientific study of language.

In our definition in (1) there are two words that require further discussion: scientific and
language.

What do we mean when we say that linguistics is the "scientific" study of language?
What do we mean by "scientific"? We mean that we apply the scientific method in our
research. What is the scientific method about? The scientific method is the way we proceed
in our study. As in all sciences, we follow the following steps in our linguistic research:

(2) The scientific method:

(a) collect data

(b) analyze the data
(c) make a hypothesis
(d) provide evidence for our hypothesis
(e) make predictions
(f) verify the predictions
(g) revise or reject the hypothesis if necessary
(h) test the hypothesis again

As we can see, linguistics, and in particular theoretical linguistics, is not any different from
the way that physical scientists proceed with their research.
2 Héctor Campos & Bùi Huỳnh Thủy Thương

Now that we understand "scientific" in our definition in (1), let us tackle a more difficult
question. What do we mean when we say the scientific study of "language"? To understand
what we mean by "language" in (1), we need to differentiate two kinds of language: the
External Language (E-Language) and the Internal Language (I-Language). Many
languages have two words for for these two concepts. So Spanish, for instance, translates E-
language as lengua, while I-language is lenguaje. In his classic work On Language (1836),
Wilhem von Humboldt distinguished between energeia (energy) and ergon (work).
According to Humboldt, the creative ability we have in language is energeia (Tätigkeit,
Erzeugung) while what we produce thanks to this ability is ergon (Werk, Erzeugtes).
Ferdinand de Saussure in his Cours de linguistique générale (1916) defines langue as the
internal system while parole is the external system. In early transformational grammar this
difference was captured by the difference between competence (equivalent to I-Language)
and performance (equivalent to E-Language). The diagram in (3) shows the two different
types of languages:

(3)

EXTERNAL LANGUAGE
(E-Language)
INTERNAL LANGUAGE
(I-Language)

"competence" "performance"

The External Languageor E-Language is what we can hear, what we produce, what we
can record, transcribe, etc. It has a physical reality. The Internal Language or I-
Language, on the other hand, is the system that we have in our minds which allows us to
produce that external language. I-Language is our "knowledge of language" that allows
us to create our E-Language. What are some of the differences between I-Language and
E-Language?

(a) E-Language is external, I-Language is internal. Thus while our E-Language has
a physical reality, our I-Language is internal to the mind.

(b) E-Language is infinite, I-Language is finite. Notice that there is no such a thing
as "the longest sentence in the world". This is because we can always create longer
sentences. If my friend Joe has created a sentence with 100 words, I can always create a
new longer sentence with 101 words (or more!), if I have a good enough memory to
remember what I was saying! Thus we say that E-Language is (potentially) infinite. I-
Language, on the other hand, is finite, or a child would never be able to learn a language.
 English Syntax & Universal Grammar 3

We see that our I-Language consists of a finite set of rules that children are able to
learn, which allows them to produce an infinite number of sentences as their E-
Language.

(c) I-Language is individual. Each human being, regardless of intelligence or gender,

will have his/her own system of I-language.

(d) I-Language is unconscious. We do not know why we know what we know (we
will see examples of our linguistic knowledge in section 3 of this chapter). We just know
what to do when we talk.

(e) I-Language in intensional, E-Language is extensional. Let us take an example to

understand the difference between "extensional" and "intensional". Imagine that my friend
Tuoi speaks a strange mathematical language. Her sentences are {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ..}, that is,
her sentences consist of only even numbers. The numbers she says and which I can collect
for my study constitute the "extension". The "intension", on the other hand, is the formula,
the system that makes my friend produce that particular extension of even numbers. We
could say that the "intension" or formula in her mind is "(2 x Y), where Y is the set of
natural numbers bigger than 0". Thus E-Language is what we produce (extension), while I-
Language is the system that allows us to produce that E-Language (intension).

Since we have distinguished two kinds of Language, which one is the one that we linguists
want to study: I-Language or E-Language?

Our task as theoretical linguists is to create a model for the I-Language. Imagine I have
an old fashioned mechanical clock. It tells time accurately. I want to know how it can tell
time. I can open the clock, take it apart and I can understand how it works. Now imagine
that I have a calculator. The calculator can add accurately all the time (provided I enter the
numbers correctly). I want to know how the calculator can do that. I open the calculator but
I can find no numbers, no addition or rule for addition inside. All I can find is wires, chips,
etc. Similarly with language. When we talk we use verbs, noun, verb phrases, sentences. I
want to know how this works, so I (illegally) open someone's head and all I can find is a
brain. Will I find noun phrases and sentences in the brain? No, because language, as
addition in my calculator, is a "program", it does not have any physical reality. So how can
we create a model for I-Language if I-Language is in the mind and has no physical reality?
This is where E-Language comes into play. We study E-Language in order to create a
model for I-Language. In other words, E-Language is our "window" to our I-Language.
The Chart in (4) represents the way that we would create a model for I-Language:
4 Héctor Campos & Bùi Huỳnh Thủy Thương

(4)

EXTERNAL LANGUAGE
(E-Language)
INTERNAL LANGUAGE
(I-Language)

"competence" "performance"

MODEL

As we can see in (4), we linguists want to create a model for I-Language. To create this
model we use evidence from E-Language. To test this model that we create, we use
evidence from E-Language. Thus I-Language is a "construct". It has no physical reality.
But it starts from and ends in our E-Language.

1.2 What are the different areas of Linguistics and where is Syntax in the big
picture?

We will divide Linguistics into two major fields: Theoretical Linguistics and Applied
Linguistics. We will look at these in turn.

1.2.1 Theoretical Linguistics or Core Linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics has six major
fields. We will divide them into the study of sound, form and meaning. These are the fields
and their subject of study:

(5) Areas of THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS

STUDY OF SOUND
(a) Phonetics: studies sounds, the way they are produced and perceived
(b) Phonology: studies sounds, processes that affect sounds, interactions among
sounds

STUDY OF FORM
(c) Morphology: studies words, the way words are formed
(d) Syntax: studies the way we combine words to form phrases and sentences
 English Syntax & Universal Grammar 5

STUDY OF MEANING
(e) Semantics: studies meaning devoid of context
(f) Pragmatics: studies meaning in context.

We consider these fields as the "core fields" (hence also the name of "core Linguistics")
because they will be the foundation for other areas of Linguistics. In this view, all the other
fields are "Applied Linguistics" because we will apply the basic notions from our core fields
to study those other fields.

1.2.2 Applied Linguistics. (6) represents some of the major fields of what we are calling
"Applied Linguistics" here.

(6) Areas of APPLIED LINGUISTICS

a. L1, L2, L3 acquisition: studies how first, second and third languages are
acquired. Sometimes also called psycholinguistics.
b. Neurolinguistics: studies the connection between brain and language
c. Computational linguistics: the brain is (like) a powerful computer. We can
test and see whether we can imitate the way the mind works by using
computers
d. Historical linguistics: studies the way languages evolve through time
e. Dialectology: studies the ways that a particular language varies across
particular geographical region.
f. Sociolinguistics: studies the relation between language and society, variables
that affect language variation, etc.
g. Forensic linguistics: language and the law

From (5) and (6), we can see that the study of syntax is part of Theoretical Linguistics.
But syntax can also be the subject of study in "Applied Linguistics". We may study how we
learn to use the present tense, for instance, in our first, second or third language (we would
be in the field of Language Acquisition). We may study what areas of the brain are affected
when we use different tenses, when we use regular and irregular forms (now we would be
in the field of Neuro-linguistics). We may simulate a program to see how a computer can
learn verbal paradigms of regular and irregular verbs (we would be in the field of
computational linguistics), etc. To do solid work in "Applied Linguistics" we must have a
solid knowledge of the theoretical field we are trying to investigate. Of course the applied
fields will also have their own methods and principles which we need to master in order to
become solid researchers in any of the fields in (6). So, it is actually harder to be an applied
linguist than a theoretical linguist since an applied linguist would actually need to master (at
least) two fields to be a solid linguist.
6 Héctor Campos & Bùi Huỳnh Thủy Thương

1.3 Where is Linguistics in relation to other sciences?

Since our goal is to create a model of our knowledge of language in the mind, linguistics is
part of psychology, which is the science that studies behavior and mind. Since the mind is a
human characteristic, psychology is part of biology, which is the study of living things,
including humans. And biology is part of physics, which is the mother of all sciences and
concerns itself with the study of all matter. The chart in (7) summarizes our conception of
Linguistics within the sciences:

(7)

Linguistics

Psychology

Biology

Physics

Since Linguistics is a part of physics and biology, it is no wonder that linguistics follows the
scientific method as its research methodology.

1.4 An example of the scientific method in Linguistics

Imagine you are presented with the following data from Spanish and are asked to find the
rule that allows us to form the present tense for singular pronouns:

(8) CANTAR -to sing SALTAR -to jump

Canto -I sing Salto -I jump
Cantas -You sing Saltas -You jump
Canta -He/she/it sings Salta -He/she/it jumps

Looking at the data in (8) we observe that both cantar 'to sing' and saltar 'to jump' take the
same endings for the same person. These endings are: -o, -as, -a. Thus we are ready to
make a hypothesis: -o, -as, -a are the endings for the present tense of singular verbs in
 English Syntax & Universal Grammar 7

Spanish. This sequence of endings is what we call a verbal paradigm. Thus we have a
hypothesis for the verbal paradigm for the present tense of singular verbs in Spanish! How
can we test our hypothesis? We can go and get more data from our speakers (or from our
sources). Imagine we get the new data (9):

(9) AMAR -to love COMER -to eat

Amo -I love Como -I eat
Amas -You love Comes -You eat
Ama -He/she/it loves Come -He/she/it eats

Does our hypothesis for this verbal paradigm work? It works very well for AMAR 'to love',
which takes the same endings as CANTAR 'to sing' and SALTAR 'to jump' in (8). But our
hypothesis fails with COMER, although it does work for the first person singular (I) when I
say 'I eat'.

Given the data with COMER 'to eat', we are forced to modify our hypothesis. But
immediately we see a way out!! CANTAR 'to sing', SALTAR 'to jump' and AMAR 'to love'
all end in –AR, while COMER 'to eat' ends in –ER. So we may hypothesize that there are
two classes of verbs: those that end in –AR, which take the endings –o, -as, -a and those
that end in –ER, which take the endings –o, -es, -e.

To test our revised hypothesis, we go and collect more data and now we get the following
new data:

(10) BEBER -to drink PERDER -to lose

Bebo -I drink Pierdo -I lose
Bebes -You drink Pierdes -You lose
Bebe -He/she/it drinks Pierde -He/she/it loses

We see that our hypothesis works. Both verbs show the paradigm we predicted, namely, -o,
-es, -e since they are verbs that end in –ER. But now we have a new dilemma. While all the
previous verbs keep the original stem (cant-, salt-, am-, com-, beb-) in front of the endings
we discovered, perd- changes to pierd-. So now we need to find out why perder undergoes
that stem change. Notice that, given our data so far, we cannot conclude that verbs that
include an -e- in the stem undergo dipthongization because dipthongization does not happen
with BEBER 'to drink'.

Trying to discover what is happening with PERDER in (10), we collect more data and we
get:
8 Héctor Campos & Bùi Huỳnh Thủy Thương

(11) ESCRIBIR -to write SENTIR -to feel

Escribo -I write Siento -I feel
Escribes You write Sientes -you feel
Escribe -He/she/it writes Siente -He/she/it feels

These new data complicate our hypothesis further, because we can now see that verbs
ending in –IR take the same paradigm as those ending in –ER. And we found another verb
that undergoes a stem change, sent- becomes sient-, the same way that perd- becomes
pierd-.

These few examples should give you a feeling for how the scientific method works. Starting
with some basic data, we come up with a hypothesis. We test this hypothesis against some
further data and we see that our hypothesis does not explain all the cases. We revise the
hypothesis, check against further data again and keep on finding further problems.

They say that a scientist (hence linguists are included) is like a person who is walking with
his/her arms full of oranges (the scientist wants to collect oranges). Happy with the oranges
in his/her arms, he/she sees some oranges on the floor. Since he/she has defined his/her task
as collecting oranges, he/she bends down to pick the oranges on the floor, picks them up,
but then some oranges fall from his/her arms to the floor. And so on. The point is that there
will always be oranges on the floor. A better theory is the one that leaves fewer oranges on
the floor. Oranges represent facts in our story. Thus in science, we will always have facts
in search of an explanation. The better theory will be the one that is able to explain more
facts. When two theories explain the same facts, we will pick the theory that is simpler, the
one that has less machinery to account for the data. This is what we call Occam's razor.
Occam's razor is as important in Linguistics as it is in the natural sciences.

1.5 What do we know about syntax before studying this book?

Modern Theoretical Linguistics starts from what is known as Plato's paradox:

(12) Plato's Paradox

How come we know so much with so little evidence?

In this section we will show that you know a lot about syntax even before you start
studying it!

(a) We recognize grammaticality. Consider the examples in (13) and (14):

 English Syntax & Universal Grammar 9

(13) a. John eats rice.

b. *John rice eats.

(14) John-wa gohan-o tabemasu. (Japanese)

John-subject rice-object eats

We say that English is an SVO language. This means that the unmarked word order in
English is Subject (S) > Verb (V) > Object (O). In (13a), we follow this order, so the
sentence is grammatical. In (13b), we have used the order SOV, so the sentence is
ungrammatical (we represent ungrammatical sentences by using an asterisk "*" in front of
the sentence). However, in Japanese, this order is grammatical, as we can see in (14). All
speakers of English and Japanese recognize (13a) and (14) as grammatical. Plato's paradox
asks us: How did we learn this? Who taught us that this is the rule? Who taught us the
notions of subject, verb, object? So here we have a challenge for the theory of Universal
Grammar that we will be studying in this course: How can we account for the contradictory
data in (13) and (14)? How can our system explain English and Japanese which exhibit
different grammatical word orders? We will start exploring this issue in Chapter 3.

(b) We recognize non-sensical sentences as different from ungrammatical sentences.

Consider the example in (15), a famous Chomsky sentence used to prove the autonomy of
syntax in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures:

(15) Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

We know that (15) is grammatically correct (as opposed to 14b), but (15) does not
make sense!

This is similar to what we observe on (16):

(16)

(16) "looks" like a normal object, the same way that (15) "sounds" like a normal sentence.
But we cannot make sense out of (15) and (16).

How can we recognize non-sensical objects? We cannot claim that something is non-
sensical because we had never heard it or seen it before! We listen to new ideas and see new
objects all the time. And yet we know when something is non-sensical as opposed to
ungrammatical.
10 Héctor Campos & Bùi Huỳnh Thủy Thương

(c) We recognize ambiguity. Consider the example in (17):

(17) the old Vietnamese teacher

a. the teacher is old and from Vietnam
b. the teacher is old and teaches Vietnamese
c. the teacher teaches old Vietnamese
d. the teacher used to teach Vietnamese
e. the person is old, from Vietnam and used to teach

The simple noun phrase in (17) is 5 times ambiguous! If we think about it carefully, we will
get the five possible readings listed in (17). How did we learn that this structure was
ambiguous? Compare the noun phrase in (17) with the one in (18):

(18) the old Vietnamese man

The structure in (18) is not ambiguous, although we have only changed the final noun.
Plato's paradox asks us how we learned linguistic ambiguity! This is similar to what
happens in our minds when we observe visual ambiguity. Look at the pictures in (19):

(19)

What do you see in the picture on the left? You may see two black faces looking at each
other or a white vase. It is a bit harder to see the ambiguity in the picture on the right: it can
either be an old woman (ugly, with a big nose, dressed in rags) or a young woman
(beautiful, with a tiny nose, big eyelashes, very elegant). Similar to what we saw with
language we may apply Plato's paradox here: Who taught us that these pictures were
ambiguous? The answer is simple, and we would give the same answer for the linguistic
ambiguity in (17). Nobody taught us. We just know the answer! Our internal linguistic
and visual systems give us the answer.
 English Syntax & Universal Grammar 11

It is interesting to see that we talk about "learning to talk" but we would never talk about
"learning to see". Yet both processes are similar. Given the appropriate environment, we
automatically see, the same way that given the appropriate environment, we can talk.

This is the reason that linguists view language as an "organ", no different from vision.

(d) We can perceive invisible elements. Consider the examples in (19):

(19) a. Tuoi appeared to Huong [ ] to know the answer.

b. Tuoi appealed to Huong [ ] to know the answer.

In the examples in (19) we have changed the verb appeared to appealed, that is, we have
changed one sound. Yet the way we interpret the invisible element marked as "[ ]" in (19) is
different. In (19a) Tuoi may know the answer while in (19b), Huong may know the answer.
It is obvious from the examples in (19) that there is no element [ ] in front of the verb to
know and yet our minds interpret a noun phrase there. Plato's paradox comes up again: How
did we learn to understand these invisible elements?

The same can also be observed in our visual system. Consider the picture in (20). How
many triangles can you see in (20)?

(20)

Everybody can clearly "see" two triangles. But the triangle with white borders is actually an
illusion. It is not there, the same way that Tuoi and Huong are not in front of the infinitive in
(19). Our visual system makes us see two triangles in (20), the same way that our linguistic
system makes us understand that Tuoi or Huong may know the answer in (19). How did we
learn that? Well, it is clear that we did not learn that anywhere. We just know the answer!

(e) Finally let us look at some of the limits of our linguistic system. Consider the
sentences in (21):
12 Héctor Campos & Bùi Huỳnh Thủy Thương

(21) a. Quani thinks that hei is smart.

b. *Hei thinks that Quani is smart.

In (21a) he may refer to Quan although it can also refer to someone else mentioned in
discourse. We say that Quan and he are coreferent. We indicate coreference by using the
same subindex "i" on both Quan and he. We say that Quan is the pronoun's antecedent. In
(21b), on the other hand, he cannot refer to Quan. We may think that this is due to the fact
that the antecedent must precede the pronoun, but this suspicion is quickly proved wrong
when we consider sentences like (22), where the pronoun or possessive precedes the
antecedent and yet both the pronoun he and the possessive his can take Quan as their
antecedent:

(22) a. When hei arrived, Quani cooked dinner.

b. Hisi mother thinks that Quani is smart.

How did we learn that (21a) is possible but (21b) is not? Yet more curious, let us try the
sentences in (21) in Vietnamese:

(23) a. Quâni nghĩ [mình]i rất thông minh.

b. *[Mình]i nghĩ Quâni rất thông minh.

We observe exactly the same behavior as English in (21), only in (21a) can the pronoun
mình 'he/self' take Quân as its antecedent. In (23b) this relation is blocked, just as it is
blocked in English (21b). How did English and Vietnamese speakers decide to have the
same constraint on coreference as in (21)? If we check this pair of sentences in many
languages we will see that it is also impossible. Why do many, if not all, languages have the
same constraint? Where does this constraint come from? Who taught us that we cannot get
coreference in (21b), but it is possible to get it in (21a) and in (22)? The answer is that
nobody taught us. We just know the answer!!

As we can see from the examples in this section, we know more than we are aware of and
we cannot really explain how we acquired this knowledge. We just know that certain
combinations or relations are possible while others are not. This is similar to what happens
with our visual system: nobody taught us to see, we did not "learn" to see, we just see!

Perhaps we can find a clue to solve Plato's paradox when we look at how children acquire
a language. So we turn to language acquisition in our next section.

1.6 The logical problem of language acquisition

As we saw in the previous section, we "know" far more than we have been taught.
Language acquisition also presents us with Plato's paradox, as we will see in this section.
 English Syntax & Universal Grammar 13

There are some interesting facts about language acquisition which should make us think of
Plato's paradox once again.

(a) Children get incorrect and incomplete data, yet they are able to ignore or filter out
those facts and still come up with the correct linguistic system. When children hear a
language they hear incomplete sentences, slips of the tongue, etc. and yet, they are able
to figure out the correct system for a particular language. How is this possible? Imagine
that we are trying to learn to play chess by watching two people play but the players
have agreed that from time to time they will make a wrong move. These wrong moves
would considerably complicate our task of learning to play chess and, in fact, we may
not be able to distinguish the correct from the incorrect moves. So we would never learn
to play chess correctly! Imagine a similar situation with language, where the possible
combinations are much more complex than chess moves. Unless there is an internal
system guiding the child, language acquisition would be impossible.

(b) Children typically get simplified data from parents and siblings, yet they are able to
come up with the correct grammatical system. How is this possible? Again, an internal
system seems to be pushing the development.

(c) Children, no matter the language they are acquiring, go through similar
developmental stages in their language acquisition. How is it possible that a child
acquiring Vietnamese should go through similar stages as a child learning English?
Again, it must be the case that an internal system is guiding the child in the process of
acquiring a language.

(d) What role does correction play when children learn a language? It plays minimal to
no role at all! We have all probably seen parents or siblings correcting babies trying to
speak and yet the baby keeps on repeating the same mistake until one day the baby
magically produces the correct form. Again, there seems to be an internal system that
allows children to produce the correct form or structure at a particular point in
their development.1

(e) The strongest argument for an internal system comes from what is known as the
poverty of stimulus argument. Imagine I present you with the first numbers of
sequence of numbers that I have in my mind: {1, 2, 3, ...} and I ask you to tell me what
you think the next number in the sequence will be. You will probably automatically say
that "4" is the next number in the sequence. This is because you probably thought that
the intension or formula I had in my mind was X+1, where X= {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} (if you
1
You can watch a fun video about the role of correction when learning a language in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtWacGVBdD8.
14 Héctor Campos & Bùi Huỳnh Thủy Thương

did not think of the formula, your mind did it automatically for you!). You will probably
be very surprised and disappointed to find out that the next number I had in my mind
was actually "10" (!) because the formula I had in my mind was [(X-3)*(X-2)*(X-1)] +
X = Y where x > 0. When X has the value 1, 2 or 3, the result will always be the same as
X (try doing the math!). But when I take X=4, the result will actually be "10". So the
sequence I had in my mind was actually {0, 1, 2, 3, 10, 29, 66, ...}.

Let us apply this example to language acquisition now. Why did you think that "4" was the
next number in the sequence? Because you had only encountered the first 4 elements of the
sequence {0, 1, 2, 3, ..}. Had you encountered the next number in the sequence, namely
"10", then you would have known that I actually had a more complex intension than the one
you thought of. So this problem applies directly to language acquisition. The child hears
very limited evidence (and as we saw in (a,b) above, and many times the evidence is
defective), and yet the child is able to come up with the correct system. How is this
possible? Again, language acquisition would be impossible if the child were to do this
without the help of an internal system.

1.7. Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar

We saw in the previous section that Language Acquisition seems to be guided by an

internal system. This internal mechanism that facilitates language acquisition in children is
what Chomsky has labeled the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). One important
component of this LAD is UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR.

Universal Grammar is the set of Principles and Parameters that makes language
acquisition possible. We may think of a Principle as a light switch which we may turn on
(+) or off (-):

(24)
+
-
Let us take the principle known as the Pro-drop Principle (also called pro-drop
Parameteror Silent Subject parameter). This principle accounts for languages that have
optional subjects versus languages that don't. Compare English and Spanish in (25):

(25) a. I visit Vietnam in the summer.

b. (Yo) visito Vietnam en el verano.
(I) visit Vietnam in the summer
 English Syntax & Universal Grammar 15

As we can see in (25), the subject is optional in Spanish (we only use it when we want to
emphasize the subject). In English, on the other hand, the subject is obligatory. Thus the
Silent Subject Principle has a (+) value in Spanish (since subjects can silent) while it has a
(-) value in English. The child will not be able to fix this parameter until the child is
exposed to the language. Thus Universal Grammar provides the child with a Principle and
an open Parameter; exposure to the language will allow the child to fix the parameter as
(+) or (-), depending on the language.

(26)

+
- -
Silent Subject Principle Silent Subject Principle
English Spanish

Consider now Vietnamese and compare it with English:

(27) a. - Khiêm đến chưa? b. - Has Khiem come yet?

- Dạ, đến rồi. - Yes, he has.

As we can see in (27a), Vietnamese allows us to drop the subject but, different from
Spanish in (25b), in Vietnamese this is possible only when the context provides us with
enough information so as to be able to drop the subject. Notice that in English this is
impossible, as shown in (27b).

Vietnamese can also drop objects if the context is clear:

(28) a. - Hà gặp Quân chưa? b. - Has Ha met Quan yet?

- Dạ, gặp rồi. - Yeah, she met him already.

As we can see in (28), both the subject and the object can be dropped in Vietnamese
provided the context allows us to identify them. In (28b) we see that this is impossible in
English. Thus if we have a principle like "drop subject/object if context is clear", English
would have a negative value (-) for this principle while Vietnamese would have a positive
value (+). The Chart in (29) shows the values for the principle "drop subject/object in
context" for the three languages discussed in this section:
16 Héctor Campos & Bùi Huỳnh Thủy Thương

(29)

- -
Drop Subject/ Drop Subject/ Drop Subject/
Object in Object in Object in
context context context

English Vietnamese Spanish

In this course we will explore the principles of Universal Grammar that make English
possible. Although we will concentrate on English, we will discuss other languages to see
how we would account for languages that differ from English. The challenge for Universal
Grammar is to propose principles that will be narrow enough so as not to overgenerate and
produce structures that do not exist. On the other hand, our system must be wide or flexible
enough to allow us to explain the rich variety that is found in different languages.

To conclude this introductory chapter, we must insist that what we are proposing here is just
a model. There is a famous quote attributed to the biologist Thomas H. Huxley (1825-
1895):

There is no sadder sight in the world than to see a beautiful theory killed by
a brutal fact.

Fortunately (for theoreticians), facts do not kill theories, but better theories kill defective
theories. In science there is no truth. Every proposal must be subject to further scrutiny.
The model we propose in this book is not the "truth" about English syntax. It is a working
model of a very limited part of our syntactic knowledge of the English language.

With the due precaution in place, we are ready to start exploring the Syntax of English and
Universal Grammar.

Enjoy the adventure!

 English Syntax & Universal Grammar 17

PRACTICE

I. Answer the following questions briefly:

1. What do we mean when we say that linguistics is the "scientific" study of language?
2. Why do we need to distinguish I-Language from E-Language?
3. What are some of the differences between I-Language and E-Language?
4. What do we mean when we say that I-Language is "intensional"?
5. Why do we say that (theoretical) linguistics is a branch of psychology?
6. Why do we divide linguistics into "Core linguistics" and "Applied linguistics"?
7. Mention some of the fields in each of these areas.
8. Give original examples of Plato's paradox as it applies to syntax.
9. Why did the chapter compare visual ambiguity with syntactic ambiguity?
10. What is the function of the LAD? Is the LAD the same as Universal Grammar?

II. Watch Caroline Heycock's video "Prescriptive and Descriptive rules" (in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq5g82Kx8c4&index=1&list=PLNRhI4Cc_QmvBzE
BJFiOUfmMR4ew9TFwO), then answer the following questions:
1. What are some of the differences between a "prescriptive rule" and a "descriptive rule".
Give two examples of each.
2. Discuss the use of the word "law" in the following phrases:
a. laws of a country
b. laws of nature/physics
How do they relate to the prescriptive and descriptive rules you defined in Question 1
above?
3. How can we gather "evidence" for our descriptive rules?
4. Give original examples for the following descriptive rules discussed in the video:
a. coordinate structure constraint
b. that-trace effect
c. tough constructions
5. Consider the following sentences in Vietnamese:
a. Bài này rất khó hiểu.
b. Quân ham ăn.
c. Anh ấy rất khó ngủ.
d. Anh ấy rất dễ làm người khác buồn.
Translate the sentences above into English. Are these adjectives best analyzed as "easy" or
"eager" tough-constructions? What are some differences between English and Vietnamese?