The Science of Lingustics and the Usefulness of Incorrect Grammar

In this work, Andrew Carnie addresses some of the most critical aspects of syntax and sentence structure. He begins by going over the basics of generative grammar. He considers the innate and learned aspects of Language (not to be confused with language) and also covers how linguists utilize the scientific method to systematically generate the hypotheses or rules governing grammar. In his other chapters, he goes more into detail about the aspects of each part of speech and also specifies how linguistics use hierarchical trees to group words and phrases into constituents.

I thought that this reading possessed several very interesting points; first of all, I thought that Carnie’s discussion of the common perception of Language as a science presented an intriguing area of discussion. This related to my own thoughts about linguistics as I came into this class, as I categorized it as my “humanities” class of the quarter. However, after several weeks, I’ve realized that the many of the topics we have seen in class and in readings (ie. the heavily biological descriptions of Gussenhoven and the rule-filled work of Kenstowicz) effectively categorize this class as a scientific course. The rules that Carnie presents governing constituency and hierarchical trees only serve to strengthen my newfound realization, as he details the systematic approach needed to completely understand syntax and language.

The idea of studying poor forms of language, instead of solely focusing on grammatically correct corpuses or the discussions of native speakers, also seemed unusual to me. I recognize that grammatically accurate works may not be able to expose the weaknesses or flaws of current hypotheses; for example, in sports, officials often create rules after new, unanticipated flaws in the current system appear. On a related note in AI and language detection, Siri learns over repeated mistakes and explicit corrections by the user to distinguish common patterns in her commands. Yet, Carnie also discusses how people learn to speak through constant interaction with others; in these cases, it would be dangerous for individuals to accidentally adopt incorrect uses of grammar. As a general pattern, it seems like studying the “poor” uses of language should be reserved for those who have already developed their blueprint of universal generative grammar.

Lastly, I found it thought-provoking that I could understand a completely nonsensical statement. Carnie presented a sentence with completely fictitious words, but I could still distinguish the parts of speech and the general syntax of the statement. Without thinking too deeply about the patterns of each part of speech, I quickly identified the type of word and the role that the word played in the overall sentence. In my last blog post, I discussed the importance of context, or the placement of words in relation to one another. I experimented briefly with Siri and found that a sense of logical ordering and expected context enabled the AI to more accurately recognize the word and autocorrect any misheard portions. Similarly, without seeing the whole structure of the statement, I wouldn’t have been able to distinguish the part of speech of many of the elements in the sentence.

Overall, I thought that Carnie’s work had a unique structure that led from the general background of generative grammar to more specific rules of constituency. I found it interesting how his writing style reflected his view of language as more of a descriptive art, and how the structure of his book mirrored the scientific method.