New Insights into Language Through the Study of Syntax

I was intrigued by the part of Carnie’s article where he talks about the proof of Universal Grammar (UG). In particular, I thought it was so interesting when Carnie described how you can produce and understand sentences you have never heard before. He states, “For example, I can practically guarantee that you have never hear the following sentence: 12) The dancing chorus-line of elephants broke my television set.” This fact that you can produce and understand sentences that you have never heard before is support for premise (i) of the proof for Universal Grammar, that is, the idea that “a human facility for Language is innate.” I  definitely had never heard that specific sentence about the elephants before, yet I knew its meaning. Carnie calls this the “magic of syntax”: “The magic of syntax is that it can generate forms that have never been produced before.” To me this means that language must have an innate and unlearnable quality because, if  it didn’t, we would have to have heard and memorized every sentence to know their meanings. Like Carnie says, “You have no way of knowing for sure if you have heard all the relevant data until you have heard them all. In an infinite system you can’t hear them all, even if you were to hear 1 sentence every 10 seconds for your entire life.” To me, this means that because we don’t hear every single sentence that is possible in the universe, yet we still become confident with the use of complicated syntax, we must rely on an innate quality of language for our speech. 

Also, this quality of producing forms that have never been produced before has implications for writing and speaking in general. It allows writers to develop their own unique styles that delight readers/listeners because the language is new and exciting. I think it is very exciting to know that language is infinite and therefore I have the potential to produce language that other’s have not heard before and will therefore find intriguing. 

I also found Carnie’s description of the intersection between different parts of speech fascinating. For example he gives the example sentence “The destruction of the city bothered the Mongols.” Then he goes on to say, “The meaning of destruction is not [his italics] a “person, place, or thing. It is an action. By semantic criteria, this word should be a verb. But in fact, native speakers unanimously identify it as a noun.” He gives other examples, such as how the word “sincerity” is used in a sentence as an adjective yet it is a noun; “assassination” is used in a sentence as an action, yet is is a noun; and “Tuscon” refers to a location, which is usually attributed to a preposition, but it is used in a sentence as a noun. I had never thought of the fact that Parts of Speech are really interchangeable/not defined and this opened my eyes to the complexity of syntax.