NAME: Deepa Vinayaka Keni

ROLL NO: 2101016

COLLEGE: N L Dalmia Degree College
PAPER: Structure Of Modern English

Assignment: Syntax – Making Sentences Understandable

Abstract: In this topic we’re going to talk about how the sentences are formed and can differ
the meaning or the outcome by the way it is used or stated. We’re going to discuss about the
three levels of syntax that are stated by Noam Chomsky and how they’re related and
dependent on each other. It goes from the basic level to deeper levels. These concepts are
fundamental to understand how language are constructed and how meaning is conveyed
through sentence.

Analysis
The word “Syntax” comes originally from the Greek word which means “putting together or
arrangement.” Syntax is how we put words together in a sentence in order to make that
sentence make sense. It is how we organize different classes of words like nouns verbs
adverbs adjectives and put them in a position or in an order around each other so that it is
understandable. It is used to make a sentence grammatically correct and meaningful. It was
introduced by Noam Chomsky as a part of transformational grammar. In earlier approaches,
there was an attempt to produce an accurate description of the ‘sequence or ordering’
“arrangement” of elements in the linear structure of sentence. In more recent attempts, to
analyze structure, there has been a greater focus on the ‘underlying rule system’ that we used
to produce or “generate” sentence.
It can be broken down into three levels that are surface syntax, deep syntax, and structural
ambiguity. They are dependent on each other in some way.

Surface syntax is the base where the words are arranged in a proper grammatical order for
it to make sense. This can even be observable and noticeable. It tells the meaning of the text
in an easy way because its direct and surfaced. It is the most basic and easy way that helps to
make meaning of a sentence. However, it differs from language to language. Every language
has their own way of structuring the sentence grammatically, and its right. No formation and
combination of a phrase or sentence in a specific language which doesn’t fit into other
language rules is wrong. In English, mostly the formation of a sentence properly is subject +
verb + object, whereas in modern standard Arabic, they use verb + subject + object, and, in
Hindi and Japanese, they prefer to put the verb at the end leading it to subject + object + verb.
But, using the proper order in a specific language is acceptable or the readers or the people
may find it a little hard to understand.
Example: in English: “I bought colorful clothes” where the subject that is “I” following the
verb “bought” ending with the object “colorful clothes” is a proper formed and stated
sentence. Whereas, in Hindi: “mene rangeen kapde laaye” where the subject “mene” is a
subject followed by an object “rangeen kapde” ending with a verb “laaye” is correctly
arranged.

Next is deep syntax where Noam Chomsky states that this refers to concepts, thoughts,
ideas, and feelings. It consists of words and phrases from surface syntax as it’s the base. The
surface syntax if combined makes a deep syntax. Deep structure is concerned with meaning.
It is what you wish to express. It is also the ‘abstract structure’ which allows to know what
the sentence means. It does focus on grammar but more on the outcome that people will think
about. Semantic interpretation occurs at deep structure. It represents a sentence’s most basic
units of explanation. Its often unlooked or not given much importance when it’s in structure
syntax.
Example: “I bought colorful clothes” it can develop multiple deep connections and questions
like “how many clothes?” “Which types?” “What color?” “Did I throw out my old clothes?”
“Why did I buy them?” another example can be the same sentence but in passive form
“colorful clothes were bought by me” where the two surface syntax sentences “colorful
clothes were bought” “bought by me” and actions are combined in a single sentence.

Lastly, structural ambiguity, also known as syntactic ambiguity or grammatical ambiguity,

is the presence of two or more possible interpretation for a piece of written or spoken
language because of the way the words and phrases are organized. It is not something that
one strives for in a clear conversation, however, it does have its uses. One of the most
entertaining is when double meanings are applied for comedic purpose. Ignoring the real and
actual context of a phrase and making an alternative meaning often gets people liking and
laughing on it. Just like its uses, it also can be misused or been led to misunderstandings. If
one is not good at the choice of their words and not properly constructed, it can confuse the
readers. When the author goes on with their sentence thinking the listeners or the readers will
get it, but they actually don’t. it can even happen that the author wanted to say something else
but the readers interpreted it in a wrong way.
Example: “I bought colorful clothes” multiple meanings can be made out of this, like, the
basic “I just bought some colorful clothes” or “I was having mixed emotions like the clothes I
bought had mixed colors” or “I was coming out” or “I just wanted to try something new” or
“it was for an event and I was going to wear them just this once” and many more.
Another example can be of a well-known poem “I Know a Man” by ‘Robert Creeley’ that is
“As I sd to my
friend, because I am
always talking,-John, I

sd, which was not his

name, the darkness sur-
rounds us, what

can we do against
 it, or else, shall we &
why not, buy a goddamn big car,

drive, he sd, for

christ’s sake, look
out where yr going.”

This poem can be interpreted in many ways. Some of the interpretations can be, “there was a
friend of the poet in the passenger seat and the poet was talking to him but the poet couldn’t
remember his name because of his short term memory or because the poet had many friends
so it was hard to remember his name or the passenger named “john” was his new friend”
another interpretation can be “the poet was intoxicated and was imagining things and was just
talking rubbish to an empty seat that’s why he didn’t even know the passengers name
correctly” or “the passenger named “john” was someone the poet knew and maybe he died
and the poet was imagining him” or “the person named “john” is a ghostly figure and he was
someone who might’ve died in a car accident at that place and was helping the poet focus and
guiding him to pay attention to the road” or “the poet had split personality and was having an
inner conflict and his subconscious self was helping him stay awake and focus on his
driving” or “the poet runs a taxi and “john” is a passenger so he couldn’t remember his
name”.

Bibliography: