538
edits
Syntax: Difference between revisions
add a note
(add a note) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Syntax''' is the linguistic study of how words combine to form sentences. (To linguists, "syntax" is a subset of "grammar", and grammar also includes things like the study of valid word forms.) | '''Syntax''' is the linguistic study of how words combine to form sentences. (To linguists, "syntax" is a subset of "grammar", and grammar also includes things like the study of valid word forms.) | ||
There are many broad theories of how syntax arises, rooted in philosophical questions. Why are humans so good at language? How do humans acquire language so quickly, and why do they make some kinds of mistakes but not others? And how do these theories apply to conlangs like Toaq, anyway? | |||
<blockquote>'''Note:''' You can [https://toaq.net/TwE/00/ learn Toaq] without ever caring about the stuff in this article, just like you can learn English without being a linguist. But Toaq's author (and its tinkerers) like to play in the space where conlanging and Chomskyan linguistics meet. Okay, on with the show!</blockquote> | |||
== Generative grammar and loglangs == | == Generative grammar and loglangs == | ||
One theory of syntax is called '''generativism'''. It posits that the human brain has an innate faculty for grammar, which places certain restrictions on the parameters of human languages. We can imagine a '''universal grammar''' "generated" by this innate faculty. There have been decades of efforts to describe this universal grammar, and show that human languages all over the world adhere to it in some sense. For example, human languages tend to have noun phrases and verb phrases. | |||
This theory is not without criticism: there's little neurological evidence for an innate "language device". However, generativism has also been very successful in explaining natural language syntax and semantics at many levels. If we can describe Toaq's syntax in these same terms, we can be certain that it ''is'' a human language, rather than merely a way to "speak out loud" an unnatural mathematical or logical structure. | This theory is not without criticism: there's little neurological evidence for an innate "language device". However, generativism has also been very successful in explaining natural language syntax and semantics at many levels. If we can describe Toaq's syntax in these same terms, we can be certain that it ''is'' a human language, rather than merely a way to "speak out loud" an unnatural mathematical or logical structure. | ||