Syntax, Observations, and the Science of Language

In these three chapters, Carnie leads us deeper into the world of syntax and language. Chapter one introduces us to the science of approaching syntax and grammar. The scientific method is used repeatedly to form the underlying “rules” of syntax. Chapter two delineates the many different parts of speech and vocab words that are necessary to understand the rest of the book.  Chapter three actually starts the main content of the book with how sentences are constituents organized into hierarchies.

I personally enjoyed the first chapter the most out of the three. When I first read “Syntax As Science, The Scientific Method,” I immediately had a flashback to sixth grade science class where we learned how to use the scientific method to create hypotheses on how much water it took a plant to grow or how long it took for ice to melt. However, something in this context felt a bit odd. There were no numbers or statistics involved like back in sixth grade, just words. How could the scientific method be applied to non-science topics? It soon became clear to me through chapter one that syntax is a science just like biology and chemistry.

There are three steps to the scientific method in the syntax context. The three steps are gather and observe data, make generalizations, and develop hypotheses. For example, the author puts the scientific method to use when he explores the relationship between anaphors and antecedents. Through a series of sentences, Carnie observes and gathers data and creates the generalization that the anaphor and antecedent must agree in gender. From this, the formal hypothesis that anaphors must have an antecedent and must agree in gender can be formed. However, as Carnie points out, the hypothesis does not work in all situations. Through some more rounds of the scientific method, we come to the conclusion that anaphors must have an antecedent and must agree in gender, person, and number. Hypotheses like these are the foundations of modern grammar. They are the “rules” of language that are acquired in addition to the rules that we are inherently aware of. These rules made me realize linguistics isn’t just some abstract word art, but a hard science based on data and connections.

In my previous blog, I wrote about how in Kenstowicz words that were phonetically different sounded identical to native speakers. For instance, “tents” and “tends” are obviously different, but sound the same to us. If more examples like this could be gathered, the scientific method could be performed and could lead to a hypothesis similar to the answer Kenstowicz provided in the last reading.