1.1-1.5 and 2.1-2.7 exercises
1.1 A policeman is called to the home of someone who was killed. He thinks the criminal is
probably a robber who was caught by the owner of the house because there have been a
series of robberies in the neighbourhood. The policeman takes photographs of the victim and
the surroundings, questions the family, and looks for fingerprints. The family tells him several
valuable items are missing. He finds fingerprints of a well-known thief who is later arrested.
i. What is the policeman’s hypothesis in relation to the crime?
- The policeman’s hypothesis in relation to the crime is that the robber which the
homeowner caught committed the crime.
ii. What is the basis for the hypothesis?
- The basis of the hypothesis is that there have been multiple robberies in the
neighbourhood and that there are several valuable items missing from the family’s
home.
iii. What methodology did he use to solve the crime?
- The policeman used this methodology:
- he took photographs of the victim and the surroundings
- he questioned the family
- he looked for fingerprints
iv. What evidence did he find?
- The policeman found the fingerprints of the well know thief.
v. Did the evidence support his hypothesis?
- Yes, the evidence supported the policeman’s hypothesis Having the thief’s fingerprints
was strong evidence that he was the one that committed.
1.2 In Italian, unlike in English, it is not necessary to always express the subject of a sentence
(the person who does the action). A researcher wants to know how often two-year-old
children acquiring Italian in normal circumstances omit subjects. Other linguists have found
that English children omit subjects about 30 percent of the time. The researcher therefore
predicts that Italian children will also omit subjects this often. She records several two-year-
old Italian children speaking to their caretakers. She finds that the children omit subject's 90
percent of the time. She concludes that this is due to the
underlying grammar of Italian, which allows speakers to drop the subject.
i. What is the researcher’s hypothesis?
- The researcher's hypothesis is that Italian children learning Italian in normal circumstances
will omit subject's 30 percent of the time just like English children.
ii. What is the basis for this hypothesis?
- The basis of the hypothesis is that other linguistics have fund English children omit
subjects about 30 percent of the time.
, iii. What methodology did the researcher use?
- The researcher used this methodology:
-she recorded several two years old Italian children speaking to their caretakers.
- she counted the number of times the children omitted subjects.
iv. Did the evidence support her hypothesis?
- No, the evidence did not support the researcher’s hypothesis. She found that the the
children omitted subject's 90 percent of the time, which is higher than the 30 percent that she
had predicted.
v. What was her explanation for the results?
- The researcher explained the results she got because they were due to the underlying
grammar of Italian, which allows speakers to drop the subject.
1.3 Imagine you are a linguist conducting a study of Inuktitut, a language spoken by the Inuit
in the Canadian north. You want to know if Inuktitut, as it is spoken today, is like Italian, a
language in which you can omit subjects, or like English, in which you can’t. Inuktitut is in
intense contact with English. Research has shown that contact with another language may
lead to grammatical changes.
i. What do you think your hypothesis should be? Why?
- My hypothesis should be if Inuktitut gets in contact with English, it is more prone to
omit subjects just as English speakers. But if it is in contact with english and another language
may lead to grammatical changes.
ii. What methodology could you use to test your hypothesis it can?
- By conducting a study with Inuktitut speakers of different ages and backgrounds. Then
collecting data on their speech patterns and paying close attention on how often they
omit subjects. Also comparing this data with data on the speech patterns of Inuktitut
speakers from previous generation or with data on the speech patterns of Inuktitut
speakers living in low-contact communities with English.
1.4 Consider the lyrics to Another Brick in the Wall, a well-known song by Pink Floyd:
We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone
All in all it’s just another brick in the wall
All in all you’re just another brick in the wall.
1.If you are producing a prescriptive grammar, what could you say about these lyrics?
- if I was producing a perspective grammar I would say that some of pink Floyd’s lyrics are not
written in standard English. For example, the first two lines would be considered not
grammatically correct.
ii. If you are a linguist, how would your attitude change regarding these same lyrics?
1.1 A policeman is called to the home of someone who was killed. He thinks the criminal is
probably a robber who was caught by the owner of the house because there have been a
series of robberies in the neighbourhood. The policeman takes photographs of the victim and
the surroundings, questions the family, and looks for fingerprints. The family tells him several
valuable items are missing. He finds fingerprints of a well-known thief who is later arrested.
i. What is the policeman’s hypothesis in relation to the crime?
- The policeman’s hypothesis in relation to the crime is that the robber which the
homeowner caught committed the crime.
ii. What is the basis for the hypothesis?
- The basis of the hypothesis is that there have been multiple robberies in the
neighbourhood and that there are several valuable items missing from the family’s
home.
iii. What methodology did he use to solve the crime?
- The policeman used this methodology:
- he took photographs of the victim and the surroundings
- he questioned the family
- he looked for fingerprints
iv. What evidence did he find?
- The policeman found the fingerprints of the well know thief.
v. Did the evidence support his hypothesis?
- Yes, the evidence supported the policeman’s hypothesis Having the thief’s fingerprints
was strong evidence that he was the one that committed.
1.2 In Italian, unlike in English, it is not necessary to always express the subject of a sentence
(the person who does the action). A researcher wants to know how often two-year-old
children acquiring Italian in normal circumstances omit subjects. Other linguists have found
that English children omit subjects about 30 percent of the time. The researcher therefore
predicts that Italian children will also omit subjects this often. She records several two-year-
old Italian children speaking to their caretakers. She finds that the children omit subject's 90
percent of the time. She concludes that this is due to the
underlying grammar of Italian, which allows speakers to drop the subject.
i. What is the researcher’s hypothesis?
- The researcher's hypothesis is that Italian children learning Italian in normal circumstances
will omit subject's 30 percent of the time just like English children.
ii. What is the basis for this hypothesis?
- The basis of the hypothesis is that other linguistics have fund English children omit
subjects about 30 percent of the time.
, iii. What methodology did the researcher use?
- The researcher used this methodology:
-she recorded several two years old Italian children speaking to their caretakers.
- she counted the number of times the children omitted subjects.
iv. Did the evidence support her hypothesis?
- No, the evidence did not support the researcher’s hypothesis. She found that the the
children omitted subject's 90 percent of the time, which is higher than the 30 percent that she
had predicted.
v. What was her explanation for the results?
- The researcher explained the results she got because they were due to the underlying
grammar of Italian, which allows speakers to drop the subject.
1.3 Imagine you are a linguist conducting a study of Inuktitut, a language spoken by the Inuit
in the Canadian north. You want to know if Inuktitut, as it is spoken today, is like Italian, a
language in which you can omit subjects, or like English, in which you can’t. Inuktitut is in
intense contact with English. Research has shown that contact with another language may
lead to grammatical changes.
i. What do you think your hypothesis should be? Why?
- My hypothesis should be if Inuktitut gets in contact with English, it is more prone to
omit subjects just as English speakers. But if it is in contact with english and another language
may lead to grammatical changes.
ii. What methodology could you use to test your hypothesis it can?
- By conducting a study with Inuktitut speakers of different ages and backgrounds. Then
collecting data on their speech patterns and paying close attention on how often they
omit subjects. Also comparing this data with data on the speech patterns of Inuktitut
speakers from previous generation or with data on the speech patterns of Inuktitut
speakers living in low-contact communities with English.
1.4 Consider the lyrics to Another Brick in the Wall, a well-known song by Pink Floyd:
We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone
All in all it’s just another brick in the wall
All in all you’re just another brick in the wall.
1.If you are producing a prescriptive grammar, what could you say about these lyrics?
- if I was producing a perspective grammar I would say that some of pink Floyd’s lyrics are not
written in standard English. For example, the first two lines would be considered not
grammatically correct.
ii. If you are a linguist, how would your attitude change regarding these same lyrics?
