The second sentence of Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures is this:
Syntactic investigation of a given language has as its goal the construction of a grammar that can be viewed as a device of some sort for producing the sentences of the language under analysis."
The entire Noun Phrase, the complete subject of this sentence is "Syntactic investigation of a given language."
Syntactic: this is an adjective that modifies "investigation"
investigation: this is the simple subject of the sentence. An investigation is a noun, but, more specifically, I would have to say that this noun is abstract. An investigation is an idea, an abstraction of something. We have archaeological investigations and Sherlockian investigations--all sorts of them.
of a given language: this is a prepositional phrase that modifies "investigation." So this investigation has been modified on both sides--once by "Syntactic" and now by this prep phrase. "of" is the head of the prep phrase. "a" is the indefinite article and a determiner of a noun. "given" is a past participial that functions as and adjective. It modifies "language." "language" is the simple object of the preposition. Though language feels like something we all have a handle on--we can almost touch it with out tongues--I will say that language is an abstract noun. A chair is concrete, but a language--even a given one--or an aria is an abstract thing. It does not really exist in a concrete way.
has: this looks like the main verb to me. So this is a little odd. Here, C is saying that an investigation can have something, can own something. I have a language. An investigation has something.
as its goal: this is a prep. phrase that modifies the main verb ("has"). "as" is the head of the prep phrase. "its" is a genitive determiner. "goal" is the object of the prep and is an abstract noun.
the construction of a grammar that can be viewed as a device of some sort for producing the sentences of the language under analysis: this is long and, I think, is the direct object of the main verb ("has"). So, really, the Investigation has This. It has this long piece of language. I don't see how this makes sense. How can an investigation have a construction? "the construction" is the simple direct object of the verb. "of a grammar" is a prep phrase that serves as an adjective in that it provides more info about the preceding noun--"construction." "that can be viewed" is a relative clause that functions as an adjective. It gives more info about the word "grammar." "that can be viewed" is in the passive voice. It is a clause that has no real subject. Viewed by whom? Anyone can view, or the "who" that does the viewing is not important, so this is an excellent use of the passive voice. The passive voice is used well here. Used by whom? "as a device" is a prep phrase that works as an adverb. It modifies the preceding passive verb. "of some sort" is a prep phrase that modifies "device." "for producing the sentences" is another prep phrase that also modifies "device." "of the language" is a prep phrase that modifies "sentences." "under analysis" is a prep phrase the modifies "language." But I'd also like to say that it could modify "sentences," too. This brings up a problem of the Part and the Whole.
Chomsky, in this sentence, makes an Investigation have a strange thing. Also, Chomsky again uses passive voice and a lot of prep phrases. His prep phrases interlock in odd--not quite direct--ways because of the Parts and Wholes he's discussing.
1 comment:
Your misconstruction above illustrates why machine comprehension of natural language was, at that time, very much a far-away dream, and is still far from being realized.
"Syntactic investigation of a given language has as its goal the construction of a grammar that can be viewed as a device of some sort for producing the sentences of the language under analysis."
Yes, Chomsky is saying that an abstraction "has as its goal" an action. But any speaker of that language will recognize that abstractions do not have goals: that it is we sentient entities that have goals, and may ascribe them to the abstraction if we have in some way identified ourselves with that abstraction [as Chomsky had good reason to have done].
So, in an effort to assist mechanical comprehension [whether done by machine or allegedly sentient entity], one may re-phrase without using idiomatic expressions [or the dread passive voice].
"My [our, if you wish] goal for syntactic investigation of a given language is that we may, by performing said investigation, produce the information and tools that will enable us to construct a grammar that will in turn enable us to produce the sentences of the language under analysis."
This sentence has too much of the first person in it to allow someone with Chomsky's training and background to utter it without squirming at least internally. One may prefer to make such statements in the hope that a large number of the audience would naturally agree with him; hence the Dread Passive Voice.
In addition, more idiomatic constructs, while perhaps decreasing the precision one would like in a mechanically deconstructable sentence, do allow humans [in this case] to read through the sentence and get a better "feel" for the author's thoughts. In this case, the connotations hidden within the language tell us that Chomsky feels that syntactic investigation is a directed action with a goal, and not just random puttering about for fun. He feels that the produced grammar should become a device, capable of automatic sentence generation. Not only that, but he feels that this is not just his feelings, but should be stated as a truism of the natural world. None of this is conveyed in my re-statement of the denotations of the phrases.
I also feel that my re-statement is more clumsy than Chomsky's original phrasing. Chomsky was a very effective writer. He may still be, for all I know: I haven't read anything he has written lately.
I hope that this helps. Seeing that this has not been re-visited since last Spring, you may have finished that semester and moved on.
OBTW, attention to spelling and grammar helps in any dissertation or diatribe on the use of language. ;-)
Post a Comment