3.7 Syntactical Violations

Each language has certain rules for constructing complex expressions from simple, rules of syntax. Like any rules, they can be violated, and this leads to the simplest and, as it seems, the most transparent type of meaningless.

Say, the expression “If the table is a chair” is meaningless, since the syntax requires that in the phrase “if ..., then ...” in the field of dots there were some statements, not names. The sentence "Red is color" is built in accordance with the rules. The expression “is color”, considered as a complete statement, is syntactically incorrect and, therefore, meaningless.

In artificial languages ​​of logic, the rules of syntax are formulated in such a way that they automatically eliminate senseless sequences of characters. In natural languages, the situation is more complicated. Their syntax is also designed to eliminate meaningless. Its rules define the circle of the syntactically possible and in most cases allow to detect what, breaking the rules, goes out of this circle.

In most cases, but not always. In all such languages, the rules of syntax are very vague and uncertain, and sometimes it is simply impossible to decide what else stands on the verge of their observance, and what has already passed for it.

Suppose the statement “The moon is made of green cheese” is physically impossible and, therefore, false. But syntactically, it is flawless. Regarding the statements “Rose is red and blue at the same time” or “Yellow trombone sound” it is difficult to say with certainty whether they remain within the framework of syntactically possible or not.

In addition, even compliance with the rules of syntax does not always guarantee meaningfulness. The sentence “Quadraticity drinks imagination” is, apparently, meaningless, although it does not violate any rules of the syntax of the Russian language.

The poet V. Shershenevich considered syntactical violations to be a good means of overcoming the stiffness, immobilization of the language and constructed statements like “He’s going.” Outwardly, there is a clear violation of the rules of syntax. For only the context is able to show whether the meaning is missing in this construction and whether it is so incomprehensible to the interlocutor. After all, it can be an expression of discontent with the embarrassing framework of syntax. It can emphasize some unusual or unnatural gait of the one who “walk”, or, on the contrary, similarity with the manner of walking of the speaker himself (“He walks, as I walk”), etc. If the deviation from the rules is not a simple carelessness, but has some meaning, picked up by the listener, then even this syntactically obviously impossible combination cannot be unconditionally attributed to the meaningless.

And then, there are no rules without violations. The syntax rules are important, language is impossible without them. However, communication between people is not at all a demonstration of the omnipotence and unconditional utility of these rules. Small, involuntary deviations from them in the practice of lively speech are a common phenomenon.