Is English Grammar Based on Logic? Debunking Myths and Exploring Arbitrariness
The question of whether English grammar is logically structured is often a topic of debate among linguists and language enthusiasts. This essay aims to investigate the relationship between English grammar and logic by exploring the nature of language symbols and grammatical rules, debunking misconceptions, and understanding the arbitrariness inherent in language systems.
The Nature of Language Symbols
Language symbols, including words, are not inherently logical. The relationship between a symbol and the concept it represents is largely arbitrary. For example, why the sound “POOH” is associated with a feeling of relief, as mentioned, is arbitrary. There is no logical necessity for the sound "dog" to refer to a canine animal, or for "Hund" to be a better symbol for a dog than "dog." These symbols are chosen based on historical and cultural contexts rather than any underlying logical structure.
The Arbitrariness of Grammar Rules
Just as the symbols in language are arbitrary, so too are the grammatical rules that govern how these symbols are used. Consider the word order in sentences. Whether a sentence follows a Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) structure or a Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) structure, the choice is arbitrary. There is no inherent superiority to one order over another. The same goes for different grammatical systems. The German case system, for instance, is no more or less logical than the Latin case system or the Old English system. Each system is constrained by cognitive factors, but the specific rules within these constraints are arbitrary.
Language and Symbolism
The concept of "one if by land and two if by sea" is not more logical than "two if by land and one if by sea." The logic in language lies not in the symbols themselves but in their usage and meaning. The connection between symbols and their meanings is arbitrary. Without a predetermined system, the choice of symbols is influenced by cultural and historical contexts, making the logic of language more about convention than inherent rationality.
Take the example of Lojban and Loglan, artificial languages designed to follow symbolic logic. While these languages aim to create a logical framework, they are still subject to the fundamental arbitrariness of symbols and grammatical rules. The success of these languages on a scale comparable to natural languages like English remains limited, further highlighting the arbitrary nature of most languages.
Conclusion
English grammar, like any other natural language, is not based on a universal logico-mathematical system but rather on a complex interplay of arbitrariness, cultural conventions, and cognitive constraints. While language systems may impose certain rules, these rules are not inherently linked to logic. Instead, they reflect the unique histories and cultures of the languages they represent.