Feuille D/'exercices I
P. Schlenker - Introduction à la Linguistique - ENS
Introduction à la Linguistique - ENS 2004
Feuille d'Exercices - I
[P. Schlenker - schlenke@humnet.ucla.edu]
Exercise 1
French [Level II]
Consider the following paradigm:
(i) a. On
mange
we-colloquial eat
'We are eating'
b. Nous
mangeons
we-formal
eat
'We are eating'
(ii) a. Pierre mange rien
Pierre eats nothing
b. Pierre ne mange rien
Pierre not eats nothing
1. What is the difference between the conditions of use of (ia) and (ib)? (iia) and (iib)?
2. Based on the preceding data, can you explain why for many French speakers there is a sharp contrast
between (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) [the * indicates that a sentence 'sounds odd', i.e. is ungrammatical in a
descriptive sense]?
(iii)a. On
mange rien.
we
eat
nothing
'We eat nothing'
b. Nous ne mangeons rien
we not eat
nothing
'We eat nothing'
c. *Nous mangeons rien
we
eat
nothing
'We eat nothing'
Answer:
P. Schlenker - Ling 1 - Introduction to Language
2
Exercise 2
[Level I]
Consider the following passage due to R. Jackendoff:
"Bird species differ radically in how they learn their songs. In some species, such as the cuckoo, the song is
entirely innate. (It had better be: cuckoos lay their eggs in other birds' nests, so baby cuckoos do not grow up
hearing parental cuckoo songs.) In other species, such as the bullfinch, the song appears to be entirely learned:
a young bullfinch raised in a cage with a canary will end up singing the canary's song.
More interesting are the species where there is an interplay of innate and learned characteristics.
Chaffinches reared in isolation from birth sing only a rudimentary song. It is necessary for these birds to hear
other chaffinches sing in order to acquire the full detail of the song. Acquisition goes on over a period of about
ten months. If a chaffinch is isolated somewhere along the way until after it is ten months old, its song remains
in its intermediate state, and no amount of exposure after the age of ten months helps the bird learn more."
Question: Can you think of a phenomenon in human language that makes it similar to the acquisition of its
song by the chaffinch?
Answer:
Exercise 3
[Level II]
Consider the following remarks by Ray Jackendoff:
"Imagine we're listening for the very first time to some tune, say 'Happy Birthday', and let's compare this
experience with hearing the same tune played upside down and backwards. Even on the first hearing, we will
surely recognize the former tune as a coherent tune, and we'll probably be able to hum along after hearing it a
couple of times. But the latter (let's call it 'Yadhtrib Yppah') will sound odd, like a bunch of senseless notes,
and it will be pretty tough to hum along with. What accounts for these radically different reactions?
The difference is that 'Happy Birthday' conforms to patterns of music that we are familiar with, and
'Yadhtrib Yppah' doesn't: its rhythm feels all irregular, its melody doesn't seem to go anywhere, and its ending
doesn't sound like an ending. But what are these patterns? They can't be memories of specific pieces of music
we've heard, because by hypothesis we've never heard either of these particular tunes. Rather, the patterns are
commonalities we've extracted from pieces we've heard.
P. Schlenker - Ling 1 - Introduction to Language
3
Knowing these patterns enables us to do other things too. For instance, even on a first hearing of 'Happy
Birthday', we may well be able to notice it if the performer plays wrong notes. Why? Because (some) wrong
notes violate the melodic or harmonic patterns that we associate with this style of music. Or consider listening
to a jazz arrangement of a familiar tune, in which each of the players takes a chorus. They don't play the literal.
notes of the tune - it wouldn't be jazz if they did. Rather, they play something that is related to the tune in
harmony, rhythm, and melodic structure. We can recognize these relationships (to a greater or lesser degree,
depending on the style of jazz they're playing). How? Evidently by intuitively extracting and comparing the
patterns of the original tune and the solo choruses.
What does 'intuitively' mean here? It means that we don't carry out these comparisons consciously. All we
consciously register is 'Oh, yes, it fits' or 'Something odd is going on'. Without some study of music theory, the
patterns themselves are unconscious'. "
PART I
Question: In what respects is the knowledge that one has of music similar to the knowledge that one has of
language?
Answer:
PART II
Ray Jackendoff continues:
'Musical styles aren't as universal as a lot of people think. For instance, people who have been exposed only to
American popular music will be hard put to understand what is going on in Indian ragas, or ceremonial
Japanese gagku, or Bulgarian folk dances. They may have a pleasant (or unpleasant!) overall impression. But
everything will sound more or less strange. Not only won't they be able to hum along with the music, they may
not even be able to tap their foot to it. They won't be able to tell whether mistakes are being made, and they
won't be able to tell what parts of the music are variations on what other parts'
Question: Can you think of similar facts in the domain of language?
Answer:
P. Schlenker - Ling 1 - Introduction to Language
4
PART III
What hypothesis about the acquisition of musical intuitions could Jackendoff's discussion suggest?
Answer:
Exercise 4
[Level I]
Consider the following data from Spanish:
(A) Conjugation
'to buy' [present tense]
comprar
1st person singular
compro
2nd person singular
compras
3rd person singular
compra
1st person plural
compramos
2nd person plural
compráis
3rd person plural
compran
(B) Examples
(1)
a. Maria
compra un coche
Maria
buys
a car
'Maria is buying a car'
b. Compra
un
coche
buys
a
car
'She (or he) is buying a car'
c. Compra
un
coche Maria
buys
a
car
Maria
'Maria is buying a car'
P. Schlenker - Ling 1 - Introduction to Language
5
Question 1. How is the Null Subject Parameter set in Spanish?
Answer:
Question 2. (A) below is grammatical in Spanish (note that the word a appears because whom is the object of
saw; similarly a appears in (B) because Juan is the object of saw. You may assume that a is not the source of
any ungrammaticality in these examples). Given the theory that was developed in class, should one predict
that (B) is grammatical as well?
Answer:
(A)
¿A
quién dijiste
que
Juan
vio?
particle
whom you-plural-said
that
Juan saw?
'Who did you say that Juan saw?'
(B)
¿Quién
dijiste
que
vio
a
Juan?
Who you-plural-said
that
saw
particle Juan?
Intended: 'Who did you say that saw Juan?'
Exercise 5
Two Arabic Dialects [Level II]
Consider the following dialects of Arabic:
A. Levantine Arabic
(1)
Fariid kaal
inn
ha
ishtarat
l-fustaan.
Fariid said
that
she
bought
the-dress
‘Fariid said that she bought the dress’
(2)
*Fariid
kaal
inn
ishtarat
l-fustaan.
Fariid
said
that
bought
the-dress
(3)
Fariid kaal
innu
l-bnt ishtarat
l-fustaan
Fariid said
that the-girl bought
the-dress
‘Fariid said that the girl bought the dress'
(4)
*Fariid
kaal
innu
ishtarat l-fustaan
l-bnt
Fariid
said
that bought the-dress
the girl
P. Schlenker - Ling 1 - Introduction to Language
6
B. Bani Hassan Arabic
(5)
al-binit
gaalat innu
ishtarat
al-libaas
the-girl
said
that
bought
the-dress
'The girl said that she bought the dress'
(6)
Fariid
gaal
innu ishtarat
al-binit
al-libaas
Fariid
said
that
bought
the-girl
the-dress
‘Fariid said that the girl bought the dress'
Question 1. What is the setting of the Null Subject Parameter in Levantine Arabic? Be explicit, i.e. say
whether the Null Subject Parameter is set as in English or as in Italian, and motivate your answer.
Answer:
Question 2. What is the setting of the Null Subject Parameter in Bani Hassan Arabic? Be explicit, i.e. say
whether the Null Subject Parameter is set as in English or as in Italian, and motivate your answer. PROVIDE
TWO ARGUMENTS FOR YOUR ANSWER
Answer:
Question 3. Exactly one of the sentences in (7) and (8) is ungrammatical. Which one is it likely to be? Be sure
to motivate your answer based on (i) and (ii).
Answer:
-Levantine Arabic:
(7)
ayy
bint
Fariid kaal
inn
ishtarat
l-fustaan?
which girl
Fariid said
that
bought
the dress
Intended: 'Which girl did Fariid say bought the dress?
-Bani Hassan Arabic:
(8)
wayy binit
Fariid gaal
innu
ishtarat
al-libaas?
which girl
Fariid said
that
bought
the-dress
P. Schlenker - Ling 1 - Introduction to Language
7
Intended: 'Which girl did Fariid say bought the dress'
Question 4.
Consider again the Arabic dialect of Bani Hassan. In (9) you may see that the word for 'who' can in fact take
two different forms, min or miin. These forms are not possible in the same environments, however:
(9)
a. min ∂arab miin
Who
hit who
'Who hit who?'
b. *miin ∂arab miin
Who hit who
c. *min ∂arab min
Who hit who
d. *miin ∂arab min
Who hit who
(10)
a. min istara wuss?
Who bought what
'Who bought what?'
b. *miin istara wuss?
Who bought what
c. wuss istara miin?
What bought who
'Who bought what?'
d. *wuss istara min?
What bought who
'Who bought what?'
With the data in (9) and especially (10) in mind, consider the following contrasts. Do they refute or do they
confirm the hypothesis discussed in the Lecture Notes I concerning the relation between Property 3 and
Property 4? Be sure to motivate your answer.
(11)
a. miin Fariid gaal innu kisar al-bee∂a?
Who Fariid said that broke the-egg?
'Who did Fariid say broke the egg?'
b. *min Fariid gaal innu kisar al-bee∂a?
Who Fariid said that broke the-egg?
Answer:
P. Schlenker - Ling 1 - Introduction to Language
8
Exercise 6
[Level III]
In Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, the philosopher Saul Kripke writes:
"I, like almost all English speakers, use the word 'plus' and the symbol '+' to denote a well-known
mathematical function, addition. The function is defined for all pairs of positive integers. By means of my
external symbolic representation and my internal mental representation, I 'grasp' the rule for addition. One
point is crucial to my 'grasp' of this rule. Although I myself have computed only finitely many sums in the
past, the rule determines my answer for indefinitely many new sums that I have never previously considered.
This is the whole point of the notion that in learning to add I grasp a rule: my past intentions regarding addition
determine a unique answer for indefinitely many new cases in the future.
Let me suppose, for example, that '68 + 57' is a computation that I have never performed before. Since I have
performed - even silently to myself, let alone in my publicly observable behavior - only finitely many
computations in the past, such an example surely exists. In fact, the same finitude guarantees that there is an
example exceeding, in both its arguments, all previous computations. I shall assume in what follows that '68 +
57' serves for this purpose as well.
I perform the computation, obtaining, of course, the answer '125'. I am confident, perhaps after checking my
work, that '125' is the correct answer. It is correct both in the arithmetical sense that 125 is the sum of 68 and
57, and in the metalinguistic sense that 'plus' as I intended to use that word in the past, denoted a function
which, when applied to the numbers I called '68' and '57', yields the value 125.
Now suppose that I encounter a bizarre skeptic. This skeptic questions my certainty about my answer, in what
I just called the 'metalinguistic' sense. Perhaps, he suggests, as I used the term 'plus' in the past, the answer I
intended for '68+57' should have been '5'! Of course the skeptic's suggestion is obviously insane. My initial
response to such a suggestion might be that the challenger should go back to school and learn to add. Let the
challenger, however, continue. After all, he says, if I am now so confident that, as I used the symbol '+', my
intention was that '68+57' should turn out to denote 125, this cannot be because I explicitly gave myself
instructions that 125 is the result of performing the addition in this particular instance. By hypothesis, I did no
such thing. But of course the idea is that, in this new instance, I should apply the very same function or rule
that I applied so many times in the past. But who is to say what function this was? In the past I gave myself
only a finite number of examples instantiating this function. All, we have supposed, involved numbers smaller
than 57. So perhaps in the past I used 'plus' and '+' to denote a function which I will call 'quus' and symbolize
by '<'. It is defined by:
x<y = x+y, if x, y < 57
=5 otherwise.
Who is to say that this is not the function I previously meant by '+'?
The skeptic claims (or feigns to claim) that I am now misinterpreting my own previous usage. By 'plus', he
says, I always meant quus; now, under the influence of some insane frenzy, or a bout of LSD, I have come to
misinterpret my own previous usage.
Ridiculous and fantastic though it is, the skeptic's hypothesis is not logically impossible. To see this,
assume the common sense hypothesis that by '+' I did mean addition. Then it would be possible, though
surprising, that under the influence of a momentary 'high', I should misinterpret all my past uses of the plus
sign as symbolizing the quus function, and proceed, in conflict with my previous linguistic intentions, to
computer 68 plus 57 as 5. (...) The skeptic is proposing that I have made a mistake precisely of this kind, but
with a plus and quus reversed.'
(from: Saul Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, Harvard University Press, 1982, pp. 7-9)
P. Schlenker - Ling 1 - Introduction to Language
9
Question 1. In what way is Kripke's argument about addition similar to Chomsky's 'argument from the poverty
of the stimulus' about language?
Answer:
Question 2. Chomsky's 'argument from the poverty of the stimulus' was crucially based on the observation that
children are not given explicit instruction about the rules of language. Does Kripke's argument rest on the same
assumption? Motivate your answer.
Answer:
