Noam Chomsky's book Syntactic Structures was seminal, but I'm not sure how seminal it is these days. Maybe people have rejected certain of his concepts. I am almost certain certain of his concepts have been rejected--maybe by Lacanians. It's one of those cases in which someone at a grad school writes a thesis and then nails it to Chomsky's door in Massachusetts. There once was an ape by the name of Nim Chimsky. This ape was thought to possess the ability to generate sentences. As it turned out, though, it was all a sham. The scientist in charge of Nim said it was a sham and that Nim made sentences by rote. He wasn't using the kind of intelligence we believe homo sapiens to be in charge of. Of which we are in charge. So Nim wasn't real. I once tried to write about a fictional Nim. Since my Nim was fictional, I had to change his name. So I changed it to Gnome Chimpskly. See? I had the gall to add the "p" where the previous scientist didn't. What's more, I added that "l," making the creature's name even more whimsical. There was also once a shame horse. He was called Clever Hans. People thought Clever Hans could count and tell time by the sun. Really, though, he couldn't. The trainer had taught his pet to notice certain ways that he, the trainer, tensed muscles in his body. So Hans was a sham, too. What's funny is that "clever"--in the world of horses--does not have anything to do with intelligence. Just quality. (Look it up in Strunk&White if you don't believe me. Those boys, S&E, love those kinds of distinctions.) Hans was a good horse, but he wasn't smart. A.L.Ex also once existed, but now he's dead. Alex stands for Avian Language Experiment. This thing was a bird, an African gray parrot, that people thought was smart. (If I had written "who people thought was smart," then, with that simple relative pronoun "who," I would have implied that I, too, thought Alex was smart. I would have implied this in that "who" is the pronoun used for humans, while "that" and "which" are the ones reserved for inanimates or unsapiens.) They thought Alex was smart--no, intelligent--because he could identify blocks of certain colors and shapes. He also had a vocabulary of a few hundred words, and they thought he could use those words. Some budgerigars--little yellow birds--have been known to have vocabs of upwards of 2000 words. The thing, though, is that these birds cannot use their words in any sort of context. For a while, there were all sorts of contests in England in which people would pit their Budgies against other Budgies and see which ones could say the most words. And the winner would get a recording contract with Parlophone. And those records sold big! But those budgies couldn't use language, while some thought that Alex--though he knew only a few hundred words--could use them in context. For example, if he wanted a nut, he could say, "Want a nut." And if he wanted a banana, he could say, "Want a nanner." If you proffered him a nut when he had really asked for a banana, he would insist, "Want a nut." So I had Gnome Chimpskly, though I don't remember what his story was about. The first line in Chomsky's intro to Syntactic Structures goes:
"Syntax is the study of the principles by which sentences are constructed in particular languages."
The subject of this sentence is "Syntax." This subject is abstract and has no volition. It is a described subject. The main verb here is "to be"--that is, "is." The simple subject complement here--or the predicate nominative (Niminative!) is the study. "the" is a determiner or the definite article. "study" is an abstract noun. "of the principles" is a prepositional phrase that acts as an adjective in that it provides more information about the previous noun, "study." "of" is the preposition--or the head of the prep phrase. "the principles" is a noun phrase--or the object of the prep. "by which sentences are constructed in particular languages" is another prep phrase that acts as an adjective. It modifies the preceding noun, "principles."
Or maybe I've gotten a little confused? I always don't know what to do with these "by which" things--or "for whiches" or "from whiches." "by" is a preposition. "which" is a relative proform that also acts as a subordinate clause marker. If this clause were to be straightened out, then, really, "which" would serve as an adjective--that is, it modifies "principles." I could straighten it by saying, "sentences are constructed in particular languages by which principles." Yes. That is how that works. Ha! Nim! Hans. "sentences" is the subject of the subordinate clause. "are constructed" is the main verb. It is in passive voice. I could therefore ask, "Constructed by whoooom, Nim?" "in particular languages" is another prep phrase, but this one does not serve as an adjective. No, it does the work of an adverb in that it modifies the verb "are constructed."
The first sentence of Syntactic Structures is highly modified--especially by prep phrases. The main verbs are also a bit weak in that one is stative ("to be") and the other is in the passive voice.
I should write a sentence like that one. First, I need an abstract noun.
No comments:
Post a Comment