The first chapters of Andrew Carnie’s book are a fascinating introduction to key morphology and syntax concepts. I was particularly surprised to learn that parts of speech are determined by morphological and syntactic distribution rather than semantic meaning!
Throughout the reading I noticed a lot of intriguing parallels between sentence structure and phonetics. For example, the way we automatically switch between word meanings depending on context (as discussed on page 39) seems similar to the way that letters are mapped to different allophones depending on their context within a word. In addition, both speech and writing rely on complicated sets of rules that are applied subconsciously and are completely unknown to most speakers. This made me wonder how much overlap there is between speech and writing – when we subconsciously translate words into sounds, are we using the same mental faculties that allow us to subconsciously apply the rules of language to sounds and derive meaning from them? Like the rules of language, the rules of phonetics are unknown to most writers/readers and are so powerful that they alter our perception – a word’s spelling can cause us to perceive multiple allophones as the same phoneme or perceive the exact same phoneme as different allophones depending on context. Furthermore, there is an incredible amount of similar subconscious pre-processing occurring in both speech and writing. However, speech is much, much older than writing, and writing is not innate like speech is. Could speech and writing be neurologically similar despite this fundamental difference?
One part of the reading I had questions about was the proof in chapter 1 that syntax is unlearnable, and, more generally, the difference between learning and acquiring that is described briefly in section 4.1. The proof of unlearnability states that syntax is an unlearnable system because syntax rules can create an infinite number of correct sentences through processes such as recursion. However, it seems like that recursive property should also allow us to learn (rather than acquire) syntax. Chapter 3 discusses how sentences are broken down into their constituents by recursively applying a set of detailed rules. These rules apply to any layer of the constituent hierarchy, so why don’t they enable us to understand all of the recursively constructed sentences that the proof of language unlearnability uses as examples of why infinite systems are unlearnable?
I really liked what you said about the overlap between speech and writing. I often find that when I'm reading if I "speak" the words in my head while I'm reading I read a lot slower then if I simply read and actively try not to speak the words in my head. Similarly once I realize that I am "speaking" the words in my head I have a hard time dealing with NOT "speaking" them in my head. (Also this typically only happens when I'm reading for school, for some reason when I read for pleasure this doesn't happen. I think it has to do with the notion of having a time constraint while reading). This makes me think that I have an easier time understanding syntax in writing, but maybe its the opposite, IDK but its something I'd love to know more about and I'm glad you brought it up.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you brought up speaking words in your head as you're reading or writing. I took a speed reading course that emphasized not saying the words in one's head while reading, since it slowed you down to the rate at which you can pronounce the words. I often catch myself mentally pronouncing the words while I read and need to stop myself–I wonder how those two methods of reading would look under an fMRI machine. I also wonder about people who are able to read many words (or even lines) simultaneously and how syntax affects their understanding. It seems like they would place less of a weight on syntax and follow something closer to the 'bag of words' model. It'd be interesting to look into that more.
ReplyDeleteThe speaking and writing insight of yours and the question about whether they're neurologically similar intrigues me. My guess is that there are simultaneously significant neurological similarities and differences between the two examples. The concept of forming a sentence in my mind in order for me to write it strikes me as very natural and similar to formulating language. However, the process of bringing it into the physical world seems different and distinct. If we look at how children learn to write, they don't struggle with coming up with meaning to put to the page any more than they struggle with devising sentences to say. However, they will struggle for years with correctly forming characters, spelling words, and learning other formal rules of writing - which don't click quite as naturally as rules for language.
ReplyDelete