When we
were discussing syntax in class, I was sure we would touch on the sentence
“Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” since it is the classic sentence used
to talk about English syntax, so common that it is very cliché. The sentence
shows that English syntax rules can be very misleading, a fact that was
explored in Noam Chomsky’s popular 1957 book, Syntactic Structures. Chomsky used “Colorless green ideas sleep
furiously” to show that even sentences with correct “logical form” can be
nonsensical.
Many people
have tried, and successfully found ways to use this sentence in a way that
makes sense.
However,
Most “acceptable” uses of this sentence are in poems, for example,
“It can only be the thought of
verdure to come, which prompts us in the autumn to buy these dormant white
lumps of vegetable matter covered by a brown papery skin, and lovingly to plant
them and care for them. It is a marvel to me that under this cover they are
laboring unseen at such a rate within to give us the sudden awesome beauty of
spring flowering bulbs. While winter reigns the earth reposes but these
colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”
The impact
of this sentence was so large because Chomsky “challenged the popular concept
of structuralism” by showing and arguing that linguists should study native
speakers’ unconscious understanding of language, and not the syntax or the
language they produce. I found a lot of differing opinions on whether the Chomsky
sentence is really meaningless. In fact,
many philosophers say that the sentence is simple to understand—they argue that
the sentence is not just meaningful but also true. They interpret Chomsky’s
sentence as saying that every idea that is both colorless and green and does a
certain thing: sleep in a furious way.
That is, any and every colorless green idea sleeps furiously. They interpret this as: if something is a colorless green idea, then it sleeps furiously.
So, in order for the sentence to be false
There would need to be a counterexample—they believe that the only way his
sentence is false is if there is a colorless green idea that does not sleep furiously. Philosophers use
this argument to show that even nonsensical, but syntactically sound sentences
can be “true.”
The overarching
importance of the sentence and why it has been so widely discussed, why it auto-fills
in Google, and why I am writing this blog post is because Chomsky proved that probabilistic models of grammar are
inadequate, Leila showed us her research work that attempts to predict the
semantics of a word based on what the object is, and she mentioned her model is
not a deterministic model. Similarly, Chomsky showed that there can never be a
completely deterministic model for semantics, and syntax in particular cannot be used for
creating such a model. I think that a good model can be created; just due to
the fact that technology is advancing incredibly fast, and we already have
artificial intelligence such as Siri.
I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Sometimes I do read figures of speech that make me feel something special that I cannot put into words. The sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" I could definitely make some sense of and write something about in my English class. The repeated 's' sounds and the beautiful way words are put together in this phrase are impressive and seem to hint at some more profound idea that transcends the principles of the physical world.
ReplyDeleteHowever I found the philosophers' argument alluded to in your blog very unsustainable. The way I was taught in philosophy class is that there are 3 types of claims: deductive, inductive, and nonsense. On the surface, "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is for sure a nonsense statement. Using logic to argue that the opposite cannot be proven is quite futile.
"An invisible unicorn ran across Wilbur Field yesterday."
Well, since no one can prove the contrary (the unicorn is by definition invisible), does that make my statement true?
This line of logic is quite self-defeating. I think, yes, Chomsky's phrase is nonsensical but it's meant as figure of speech to describe something that we can make sense of.
I also am siding with Joseph in that the argument the philosophers are making cannot be considered a sustainable way to argue that specific nonsense sentences can be seen as logical or "true". That also leaves us to discuss the idea of truth in these situations. While there might be a sense of truth in that the sentence can in fact be understood or have a determined meaning, it does not fit with the sense of reality that most people know. That is to say, just because we can conceptualize the idea of a colorless green idea that happens to sleep furiously does not mean that we will ever encounter such a thing. Or that such a thing is even attainable according to the laws of the universe that we understand. Leaving me to question why it even matters that a philosopher declared that sentence to be "true" when it is only true in a theoretical sense.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally I want to make a quick counter comment to the idea that according to Chomsky there should only be a study of the unconscious language processing of native speakers. From any sort of philosophical, psychological or scientific process that simply cannot happen in a way that will allow us to truly understand how we consciously form language.
There are statements that are vacuously true (statements that are true because something does not exist). For example, "Unicorns are purple" is true because unicorns do not exist. I think philosophers say that "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is true because it is vacuously true- since colorless green ideas don't exist, they sleep furiously. Like the blog mentions, if something is a colorless green idea, then it sleeps furiously. It's always vacuously true!
ReplyDeleteIn CS103, we claim statements are vacuously true so that we can prove some fascinating theorems (especially through proof by induction). Therefore, I think it makes sense to claim "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" as a true statement. I'm sure doing that may lead to some awesome linguistic insights!
This reminds me of our discussions on descriptive versus prescriptive grammar--like the phrase "ain't no," is there meaning and correctness, even if, by one standard or another, it is or isn't correct?
ReplyDeleteI liked that you brought in the poetic uses of "colorless green ideas sleep furiously." I think that even if the sentence doesn't make tons of sense from a broken down, logical standpoint, it does have impact as a piece of poetry or a part of a metaphor. Though it may not convey a particularly clear idea, it does convey a very definite feeling. In language, this can sometimes be just as important as the specific grammar of the sentence. Something that is both colorless and green, something that sleeps furiously--neither makes sense. But they do instill a feeling we can try to describe.
I was about to talk about vacuous truths until I saw that Sophia had already mentioned them. As there are no colorless green ideas, then all colorless green ideas do indeed sleep furiously. That being said, this doesn't make this a logical statement.
ReplyDeleteLooking back at CS, a syntax error means something is not grammatically correct. You forgot a bracket, you have too much whitespace, you forgot a semi-colon. Then, there are semantic errors. This is an issue with the statement AFTER it has been parsed and been found to be grammatically correct. This is an issue with what the statement really means (or doesn't mean).
To me, it seems that, while "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is syntactically valid, semantically, it doesn't really work.
I have really enjoyed both Sophia's and Sarai's comments about vacuous truths. As they touched upon, vacuous truths are an essential part of abstract mathematical theory as touched upon in classes such as 103. So in this case, I agree, the sentence is a valid sentence. However, I think we must venture to ask what is the point of language and sentences. I think the obvious answer is that it is used to communicate with one another about a specific states of the world. Thus, if one were to adhere to this use of language I find that it makes the sentence pragmatically irrelevant as it fails to communicate anything tangible/important about the world around us. Nonetheless, philosophically it is still valid and something interesting to think about. As Sarai, said it highlights the difference between syntax and semantics. Which is more important when deciding whether a sentence is valid. I think both are, and Chomsky's example highlights this.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Joseph and Derek that simply not being able to prove the contrary of a statement does not make a sentence necessarily true. While doing some research on this idea of syntax vs. semantics, I came across a quite fascinating sentence: “Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.” When I first read this, I could not believe this sentence made grammatical sense. But I later found out that in this sentence, three meanings of the word “buffalo” are being used: the city Buffalo in New York, the animal buffalo, and the verb buffalo which can mean to hunt buffalo, or to outwit, or deceive. So, if we rewrite this sentence more clearly, it would mean something like “Buffalo from Buffalo, NY, that the Buffalo from Buffalo, NY bully, are bullying buffalo from Buffalo, NY.” So not only is this sentence grammatically correct, but it makes sense too!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jonas in that much of the determination as to the semantic value of a sentence or series of sentences comes from readers' interpretations of them. However, inherent in this ability to interpret is a common set of rules or logical guidelines that dictate how we value language. So, although "Buffalo buffalo buffalo" may work in a purely syntactical reading, the agreed upon language norms may invalidate the term in practical use, which may hold greater descriptive value to those seeking to understand language, at least on a conversational level. The idea that an individual does not seek to deceive another in language is inherent to these shared norms and underlies this issue of syntactic versus semantic understanding of language.
ReplyDeleteWhile philosophers may argue this sentence makes sense, most people would probably not. To me, that’s the thing about linguistics—we use rules to describe what people would use to communicate with each other in a daily life setting. This is what we always talk about in class—linguistics study the descriptive rules, not prescriptive. In other words, language, like its speakers, is not very logical. It’s just like people use ‘irregardless’ although it doesn’t make too much sense if we think logically.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think being able to understand why sentences makes sense can have practical value in ‘teaching machines to speak a human language’. Sentences can be syntactically ok, being logical, but can’t be understood by common people. So this leaves a question: why do people think some sentences make sense and others don’t.