Editor for this issue: Ann Dizdar <dizdar
tam2000.tamu.edu>
It is now quite some time since I made my remarks on Fritz Newmeyer's posting about grammaticalization, and many people have said things about the compatibility or incompatibility of grammaticalization theory and the Chomskyan paradigm. At this point, I would just like to say that I agree with David Pesetsky and others that one may accept the general Chomskyan approach without excluding the possibility of UG-external explanations; on the other hand, I think time will show that such explanations, in particular those having to do with diachronic processes such as grammaticalization, cannot just play the marginal role they have had so far in Chomskyan theory but must obtain a central and integrated place in the theory of grammar. Personally, I have always found it plausible that there is a fairly rich genetically determined component in language; I think, however, that simply postulating a "universal grammar" in our heads does not explain very much. As Martin Haspelmath notes, > Research in >grammaticalization shows that to a large extent, the way grammars are >structured results from the way they are shaped in diachronic >processes of grammaticalization. But like some other discussants, I also am afraid of attempts to reduce everything to a question of "language use". It is important not to forget that in order to use a language we have to learn it, and I think it is a challenge for any theory that the results of the diachronic processes of grammaticalization belong to those parts of language that pose very severe problems when we try to learn a second language - problems that have been used as primary arguments for postulating an innate component in grammar. Perhaps what we witness here is the outcome of a process of "coevolution" - humans have developed in such a way that we are (as small children) prepared to learn precisely those structures that tend to develop diachronically. But now I am of course just speculating... Oesten Dahl (Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden)Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Dear list: This discussion has been very interesting, with useful contributions from both professionals and amateurs. As one of each, depending on your point of view (Ph. D. in Linguistics, long-time resident and potzer [but near-native] learner of Spanish in Mexico), I'd like to give some more anecdotal evidence. I also lived 3 years in Poland, where I could converse fluently near the end, although I have to point out that my understanding ability was way behind my speaking ability (after all, I could pick my own vocabulary). (Of course, my wife would claim that this is also true for English.) When I first began hanging around with my future wife, a native Spanish speaker, we always spoke English, another of her native languages. One day she took me home to meet her family, where they were mostly speaking in Spanish. Unusually for me, I just sat there listening, and was able to detect how to use the hesitation marker 'este', despite having virtually no knowledge of Spanish at that time. So I tried to answer one of her parents in Spanish, which was of course in typically atrocious language-learner-beginner form, except for the communicatively adequate use of 'este', which amazed and delighted all. The point here is that Waruno, I believe, was right--a little intonation and a couple of well-chosen polite phrases (eg, 'prosze, pani/u' in Polish) can go a long way, if not toward an impression of native-speakerhood, then toward an acceptance of your speech. I first began using Spanish on a daily basis in Argentina, so I deliberately modified my incipient pronunciation to the Argentine Spanish model, thinking that, when someday my Spanish became a little less nonnative, I would be mistaken for a native Argentine, rather than simply a nonnative speaker. When we later moved to Mexico, I continued this strategy, which colors my Spanish to this day. Unfortunately, I did not realize until it was too late that, although (especially academic) Mexicans have a lot against 'gringos', Argentines suffer an even worse reputation among Mexicans, so that my prescient strategy has gone for naught, or rather has had the opposite of the intended effect. The moral, at least if you're like me and not a particularly outstanding language learner (_very_ different, as has been pointed out, from being an outstanding 'student' in general) is that it helps a lot to be outgoing and to try to be perceptive of language use. I suspect that this latter factor is the basis for the relative success of the so-called 'communicative approaches' in 2nd lg learning. Jim James L. Fidelholtz e-mail: jfidelMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuesiu.cen.buap.mx A'rea de Ciencias del Lenguaje or: jfidel
cca.pue.udlap.mx Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Me'xico