Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim  The Grammar and the Lexicon
The Grammar and the lexicon of a particular language go opposite directions. The more the vocabulary grows the easier the grammar will be. Do you agree? Isn't it happening to English? |
There isn't a clear-cut answer to your question. One question that pops in my mind is: what is
easy grammar (in a lingua franqua)? Easy to whom, or easier than what? Is English grammar easier than French? Language and culture are interdependent, a French beginner interprets the English language through their own culture-based grammatical patterns, and the 'easiness/simplicity' of the English grammar could be exactly what poses difficulties to their understanding. This is why expressing the English future through the present tense is often an issue with learners of English. Likewise, a whole complex phrase could be used by a foreigner to translate one single English word, such as 'pride'.
Arguably, the relationship between grammar and lexikon, as between thought and language, is a symbiotic one. Let's exclude cultural influences and see this symbiosis as stemming from within one and the same culture, since language is a culture construct. In this case, a word's semantic value depends on the convergence between modifiers, determinent, syntax and so on (ex: 'he wore black', 'the black' , 'black-market'...). A grammatical pattern is, in turn, vaucuous without the significance embedded in nouns. Words alone often make little to no sense without flexible grammatical structures, which sometimes make up for the absence of a particular word or phrase due to the "grammatical ambiguity" in language. In other words, with few words one can express deep thought and convey various meanings for the sentence as a whole (ex: 'Do you play cards' - can mean different things). There is always an answer to the limitation of language - when words are not enough, grammar often compensates for that lack, and viceversa. A famous linguist, Whorf ,was amazed that the Hopi language has no words for past, present, and future. However, they have a sense for the continuum of time despite having no words to specifically describe past, present, and future.
Not to mention the aesthetic answer to the limitation of language (tropes such as: 'time is money' - with three words you say a lot). Also, a single word's semantic field can be expanded in various ways (conversion and so on) to meet our need for expression. So, how can we readily infer that the expansion of the E lexikon is imperative for an effective communication?
With English becoming the medium of expression in a worldwide "society", both grammar and lexikon are subject to change: different grammar patterns converge, new words will be coined, borrowed from other cultures, other words will become obsolete. Just like with dialects in a language, culture-based grammatical distinctions may have a more or less strong impact on the English language, on the way the word is
thought of - and on the evolution of grammar. My question is: is English going to be one single worldwide language, or will it develop into a medley of Englishes (English for trading purposes, English.com, youth English, local Englishes or 'dialects' based on national particularities). How is this going to affect the grammar and lexikon of the English language as we know it? On the other hand, there can be considerable social pressure on people worldwide to conform to the 'standard' English dialect. People can have trouble getting jobs, get poorer marks in school, etc. all because they speak a different dialect, and people judge them harshly because of their speech. Black English, for instance, has the "double negatives" and the "missing be" (zero copula) - which are major but stubborn deviations from the mainstream E grammar.
The need for individuality of expression makes models and rules impossible. As it is now, OED (the Oxford English Dictionary) is losing ground, and other (American?) linguistic institutions come to the fore.
I know, Dr. Jamshid, that you believe in the dictatorship of the majority.
How are these social phenomena going to affect the evolution of E grammar and lexikon in the long run, across generations?