Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorUse of Counterexamples

Linguist: Certain structuralist theorists maintain that in any grammatically complete natural language, the basic word order of a declarative sentence must place the subject before the object in order to ensure the unambiguous assignment of syntactic roles. However, this theoretical constraint is unwarranted. In Hixkaryana, a naturally evolved language spoken in the Amazon basin, the standard sentence structure places the object first, followed by the verb, and finally the subject, yet native speakers communicate complex syntactic roles without any ambiguity.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the linguist's argument by the reference to the standard sentence structure of Hixkaryana?

  1. It is presented as a specific counterexample intended to falsify a universal principle advanced by certain structuralist theorists.Cevap
  2. B
    It is the main conclusion of the linguist's argument, which is supported by the observation that native speakers can assign syntactic roles clearly.
  3. C
    It is cited as evidence to establish that most naturally evolved languages do not require the subject to precede the object.
  4. D
    It provides contextual background information necessary to understand why structuralist theorists are concerned with word order constraints.
  5. E
    It functions as an example that, contrary to the linguist's intent, actually reinforces the structuralists' assertion regarding syntactic complexity.

Cevap

The statement functions as a specific counterexample intended to falsify a universal principle advanced by certain structuralist theorists.
The correct answer accurately maps the logical structure of the stimulus. The structuralists make a universal claim (that a specific word order must be present in 'any' language). The linguist introduces Hixkaryana as a single, concrete instance where this rule does not apply, yet the intended outcome (clarity) is still achieved. In formal logic, providing a specific instance that violates a universal claim is known as offering a counterexample.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the opposing viewpoint.
Structuralist theorists claim that 'in any grammatically complete natural language', subject must precede object to avoid ambiguity.
Understanding the target of the author's argument is crucial for determining how subsequent evidence is used.
2
Identify the linguist's main conclusion.
The linguist concludes that 'this theoretical constraint is unwarranted.'
Separating the main conclusion from the premises prevents confusing the structural role of the argument's components.
3
Analyze the nature of the evidence provided.
The linguist introduces Hixkaryana, a single language that violates the 'subject before object' rule but still achieves unambiguous communication.
To classify the evidence, we must recognize that a single exception is being used against a universal ('in any') claim.
4
Determine the logical function of the statement.
The evidence acts as a counterexample to disprove the absolute rule proposed by the structuralists.
This directly matches the definition of a counterexample in logical reasoning.

Anahtar Kavram

Use of Counterexamples
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Use of Counterexamples

Bu konudan daha fazla soru