text:
Syntactic Structures

Syntactic Structures is an important work in linguistics by American linguist Noam Chomsky, originally published in 1957. A short monograph of about a hundred pages, it is recognized as one of the most significant and influential linguistic studies of the 20th century. It contains the now-famous sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", which Chomsky offered as an example of a grammatically correct sentence that has no discernible meaning, thus arguing for the independence of syntax (the study of sentence structures) from semantics (the study of meaning).

Based on lecture notes he had prepared for his students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the mid-1950s, Syntactic Structures was Chomsky's first book on linguistics and reflected the contemporary developments in early generative grammar. In it, Chomsky introduced his idea of a transformational generative grammar, succinctly synthesizing and integrating the concepts of transformation (pioneered by his mentor Zellig Harris, but used in a precise and integrative way by Chomsky), morphophonemic rules (introduced by Leonard Bloomfield) and an item-and-process style of grammar description (developed by Charles Hockett). Here, Chomsky's approach to syntax is fully formal (based on symbols and rules). At its base, Chomsky uses phrase structure rules, which break down sentences into smaller parts. These are combined with a new kind of rules which Chomsky called "transformations". This procedure gives rise to different sentence structures. Chomsky stated that this limited set of rules "generates" all and only the grammatical sentences of a given language, which are infinite in number (not too dissimilar to a notion introduced earlier by Danish linguist Louis Hjelmslev ). Although not explicitly stated in the book itself, this way of study was later interpreted to have valued language's innate place in the mind over language as learned behavior,

Written when Chomsky was still an unknown scholar, Syntactic Structures had a major impact on the study of knowledge, mind and mental processes, becoming an influential work in the formation of the field of cognitive science. It also significantly influenced research on computers and the brain. The importance of Syntactic Structures lies in Chomsky's persuasion for a biological perspective on language at a time when it was unusual, and in the context of formal linguistics where it was unexpected. The book led to Chomsky's eventual recognition as one of the founders of what is now known as sociobiology. Some specialists have questioned Chomsky's theory, believing it is wrong to describe language as an ideal system. They also say it gives less value to the gathering and testing of data. Nevertheless, Syntactic Structures is credited to have changed the course of linguistics in general and American linguistics in particular in the second half of the 20th century.

Background
Chomsky's interest in language started at an early age. When he was twelve, he studied Hebrew grammar under his father. He also studied Arabic in his first year at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1947, he met Zellig Harris, the founder of the college's linguistics department. Harris was an established linguist. He did research in the way laid out by American linguist Leonard Bloomfield. He let Chomsky proofread a copy of his book Methods in Structural Linguistics (1951). This is how Chomsky came to know a formal theory of linguistics. He soon decided to major in the subject.

For his thesis, Chomsky set out to apply Harris's methods to Hebrew. Following Harris's advice, he studied logic, philosophy, and mathematics. He found Harris's views on language much like Nelson Goodman's work on philosophical systems. Chomsky was also influenced by the works of W. V. O. Quine and Rudolf Carnap. Quine showed that one cannot completely verify the meaning of a statement through observations. Carnap had developed a formal theory of language. It used symbols and rules that did not refer to meaning.

From there on, Chomsky tried to build a grammar of Hebrew. Such a grammar would generate the phonetic or sound forms of sentences. To this end, he organized Harris's methods in a different way. To describe sentence forms and structures, he came up with a set of recursive rules. These are rules that refer back to themselves. He also found that there were many different ways of presenting the grammar. He tried to develop a method to measure how simple a grammar is. For this, he looked for "generalizations" among the possible sets of grammatical rules. Chomsky completed his undergraduate thesis The Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew in 1949. He then published a revised and expanded version of it as his master's thesis in 1951.

In 1951, Chomsky became a Junior Fellow at Harvard University. There, he tried to build an all-formal linguistic theory. It was a clear break with the existing tradition of language study. In 1953, Chomsky published his first paper as a scholar. In it he tried to adapt the symbol-based language of logic to describe the syntax of a human language. During his fellowship, Chomsky organized all his ideas into a huge manuscript. It was around 1,000 typewritten pages long. He gave it the title The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (LSLT).

In 1955, Chomsky found a job at MIT. He worked there as a linguist in the mechanical translation project. The same year he submitted his doctoral dissertation to the University of Pennsylvania. The university granted him a Ph.D. for his thesis Transformational Analysis. In fact, it was just the ninth chapter of LSLT.

Situatedness in linguistic theory
At the time of its publication, Syntactic Structures presented the state of the art of Zellig Harris's formal model of language analysis which is called transformational generative grammar. It can also be said to present Chomsky's version or Chomsky's theory because there is some original input on a more technical level. The central concepts of the model, however, follow from Louis Hjelmslev's book Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, which was published in 1943 in Danish and followed by an English translation by Francis J. Whitfield in 1953. The book sets up an algebraic tool for linguistic analysis which consists of terminals and inventories of all different types of linguistic units, similar to terminal and nonterminal symbols in formal grammars. First, it functions as a descriptive device, or as Hjelmslev explains it: "'We demand for example from the theory of language that it allow to describe correctly and exhaustively not only such given French text, but also all existing French texts, and not only these but also all possible and conceivable French texts.'" When this work is done to a satisfactory level, it will also become possible to predict all the grammatical sentences of a given language:

"'Thanks to the linguistic knowledge thus acquired, we will be able to construct, for the same language, all conceivable or theoretically possible texts.'"

Hjelmslev also points out that an algorithmic description of a language could generate an infinite number of products from a finite number of primitive elements: "'When we compare the inventories yielded at the various stages of the deduction, their size will usually turn out to decrease as the procedure goes on. If the text is unrestricted, i.e., capable of being prolonged through constant addition of further parts … it will be possible to register an unrestricted number of sentences'" These are logical consequences of the mathematical systems proposed by David Hilbert and Rudolf Carnap which were first adopted into linguistics by Hjelmslev whose ideas are reiterated by Chomsky:

"'The fundamental aim in the linguistic analysis of a language L is to separate the grammatical sequences which are the sentences of L from the ungrammatical sequences which are not sentences of L. The grammar of L will thus be a device that generates all of the grammatical sequences of L and none of the ungrammatical ones'"

Chomsky likewise states that a recursive device such as closed loops would allow the grammar to generate an infinite number of sentences.

There are, however, some major points of divergence from Hjelmslev's conception. Hjelmslev was a structuralist and applied mathematical models to Ferdinand de Saussure's concept of language as an interactive system of meaning and form. Although the Bloomfieldian school of early to mid-20th century linguists were nicknamed 'American structuralists', they essentially rejected the basic tenets of structuralism: that linguistic form is explained through meaning, and that linguistics belongs to the domain of sociology.

Instead, the idea of language endorsed by Leonard Bloomfield and his followers derived from William Wundt's mentalistic psychology which was replaced by behavioural psychology in Bloomfield's 1933 book Language. This led to the separation of syntax from semantics as not an observable link in a stimulus–response chain. Chomsky, like Harris and other American linguists, agreed that there is no causal link from semantics to syntax.

Despite the paradigm shift, American linguists maintained Wundt's syntactic analysis which entails the placement of the grammatical object into the verb phrase. They believed that languages should be analysed based on how native speakers feel is right. How to translate this idea into a scientific statement remained a vexing issue in American linguistics for decades. Harris and Rulon Wells justified analyzing the object as part of the verb phrase per 'economy'; but this term, again, merely suggested the perceived 'easiness' of the practice.

In Syntactic Structures, Chomsky changes the meaning of Hjelmslev's principle of arbitrariness which meant that the generative calculus is merely a tool for the linguist and not a structure in reality. David Lightfoot however points out in his introduction to the second edition that there were few points of true interest in Syntactic Structures itself, and the eventual interpretations that the rules or structures are 'cognitive', innate, or biological would have been made elsewhere, especially in the context of a debate between Chomsky and the advocates of behaviorism. But decades later, Chomsky makes the clear statement that syntactic structures, including the object as a dependent of the verb phrase, are caused by a genetic mutation in humans.

Publication
In 1955, Chomsky had a doctorate in linguistics. Even so, he struggled at first to publish his theory and views on language. He offered the manuscript of The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (LSLT) for publication. But MIT's Technology Press refused to publish it. He also saw a paper promptly rejected by the academic linguistics journal WORD. So he remained an outsider to the field of linguistics. His reviews and articles at the time were mostly published in non-linguistic journals.

Mouton & Co. was a Dutch publishing house based in The Hague. They had gained academic reputation by publishing works on Slavic Studies since 1954. Particularly, they had published works by linguists Nicolaas Van Wijk and Roman Jakobson. Soon they started a new series called Janua Linguarum or the "Gate of Languages." It was intended to be a series of "small monographs" on general linguistics. The first volume of the Janua Linguarum series was written by Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle. It was called Fundamentals of Language, published in 1956. Chomsky had already met Jakobson, a professor at Harvard University, during his fellowship years. Halle was Chomsky's graduate classmate at Harvard and then a close colleague at MIT. In 1956, Chomsky and Halle collaborated to write an article on phonology, published in a festschrift for Jakobson. The festschrift was published by Mouton in 1956.

Cornelis van Schooneveld was the editor of the Janua Linguarum series at Mouton. He was a Dutch linguist and a direct student of Jakobson. He was looking for monographs to publish for his series. Consequently, he visited Chomsky at MIT in 1956. With Morris Halle's (and possibly Jakobson's) mediation, Chomsky showed van Schooneveld his notes for his introductory linguistics course for undergraduate students. Van Schooneveld took an interest in them. He offered to publish an elaborate version of them at Mouton, to which Chomsky agreed.

Chomsky then prepared a manuscript of the right size (no longer than 120 pages) that would fit the series. After revising an earlier manuscript, Chomsky sent a final version in the first week of August in 1956 to van Schooneveld. The editor had Chomsky rename the book's title to Syntactic Structures for commercial purposes. The book was also pre-ordered in big numbers by MIT. These gave more incentives to Mouton to publish the book. Mouton finally published Chomsky's monograph titled Syntactic Structures in the second week of February 1957.

Soon after the book's first publication, Bernard Bloch, editor of the prestigious journal Language, gave linguist Robert Benjamin Lees, a colleague of Chomsky's at MIT, the opportunity to write a review of the book. Lees's very positive essay-length review appeared in the July–September 1957 issue of Language. This early but influential review made Syntactic Structures visible on the linguistic research landscape. Shortly thereafter the book created a putative "revolution" in the discipline. Later, some linguists began to question whether this was really a revolutionary breakthrough. A critical and elaborate account is given in Chomskyan (R)evolutions. Although Frederick Newmeyer states that "the publication of Syntactic structures has had profound effects, both intellectually for the study of language and sociologically for the field of linguistic", John R. Searle, three decades after his original review, wrote that "Judged by the objectives stated in the original manifestoes, the revolution has not succeeded. Something else may have succeeded, or may eventually succeed, but the goals of the original revolution have been altered and in a sense abandoned." As for LSLT, it would be 17 more years before it saw publication.

Syntactic Structures was the fourth book in the Janua Linguarum series. It was the series's bestselling book. It was reprinted 13 times until 1978. In 1962, a Russian translation by Konstantin Ivanovich Babisky, titled Синтакси́ческие структу́ры (Sintaksychyeskiye Struktury), was published in Moscow. In 1963, Yasuo Isamu wrote a Japanese translation of the book, named Bunpō no kōzō (文法の構造). In 1969, a French translation by Michel Braudeau, titled Structures Syntaxiques, was published by Éditions du Seuil in Paris. In 1973, Mouton published a German translation by Klaus-Peter Lange, titled Strukturen der Syntax. The book has also been translated into Korean, Spanish, Italian, Czech, Serbo-Croatian and Swedish languages.

Goals of syntactic investigation
In Syntactic Structures, Chomsky tries to construct a "formalized theory of linguistic structure". He places emphasis on "rigorous formulations" and "precisely constructed models". In the first chapter of the book, he gives a definition of human language syntax. He then talks about the goals of syntactic study. For Chomsky, a linguist's goal is to build a grammar of a language. He defines grammar as a device which produces all the sentences of the language under study. Secondly, a linguist must find the abstract concepts beneath grammars to develop a general method. This method would help select the best possible device or grammar for any language given its corpus. Finally, a linguistic theory must give a satisfactory description of all the levels of language analysis. Examples of these levels include sounds, words and sentence structures.

Grammaticality
The second chapter is titled "The Independence of Grammar". In it, Chomsky states that a language is "a set ... of sentences, each finite in length and constructed out of a finite set of elements". A linguist should separate the "grammatical sequences" or sentences of a language from the "ungrammatical sequences". By a "grammatical" sentence Chomsky means a sentence that is intuitively "acceptable to a native speaker". It is a sentence pronounced with a "normal sentence intonation". It is also "recall[ed] much more quickly" and "learn[ed] much more easily".

Chomsky then analyzes further about the basis of "grammaticality." He shows three ways that do not determine whether a sentence is grammatical or not. First, a grammatical sentence need not be included in a corpus. Secondly, it need not be meaningful. Finally, it does not have to be statistically probable. Chomsky shows all three points using a nonsensical sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." He writes that the sentence is instinctively "grammatical" to a native English speaker. But it is not included in any known corpus at the time and is neither meaningful nor statistically probable.

Chomsky concludes that "grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning." He adds that "probabilistic models give no particular insight into some of the basic problems of syntactic structure."

Carnap's influence
British linguist Marcus Tomalin stated that a version of "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" was suggested decades earlier by Rudolf Carnap. This German philosopher offered in 1934 the pseudo-sentence "Piroten karulieren elatisch". According to American linguist Reese Heitner, Carnap's sentence showed the autonomy of both syntactic and phonological structures.

Grammar models and transformations
In the third chapter titled "An Elementary Linguistic Theory", Chomsky tries to determine what sort of device or model gives an adequate account of a given set of "grammatical" sentences. Chomsky hypothesizes that this device has to be finite instead of infinite. He then considers finite state grammar, a communication theoretic model which treats language as a Markov process. Then in the fourth chapter titled "Phrase Structure", he discusses phrase structure grammar, a model based on immediate constituent analysis. In the fifth chapter titled "Limitations of Phrase Structure Description", he claims to show that both these models are inadequate for the purpose of linguistic description. As a solution, he introduces transformational generative grammar (TGG), "a more powerful model ... that might remedy these inadequacies." Chomsky's transformational grammar has three parts: phrase structure rules, transformational rules and morphophonemic rules. The phrase structure rules are used for expanding grammatical categories and for substitutions. These yield a string of morphemes. A transformational rule "operates on a given string ... with a given constituent structure and converts it into a new string with a new derived constituent structure." It "may rearrange strings or may add or delete morphemes." Transformational rules are of two kinds: obligatory or optional. Obligatory transformations applied on the "terminal strings" of the grammar produce the "kernel of the language". Kernel sentences are simple, active, declarative and affirmative sentences. To produce passive, negative, interrogative or complex sentences, one or more optional transformation rules must be applied in a particular order to the kernel sentences. At the final stage of the grammar, morphophonemic rules convert a string of words into a string of phonemes. Chomsky then applies this idea of transformational rules in the English auxiliary verb system.

Borrowing of terminology
In Syntactic Structures, the term "transformation" was borrowed from the works of Zellig Harris. Harris was Chomsky's initial mentor. Harris used the term "transformation" to describe equivalence relations between sentences of a language. By contrast, Chomsky's used the term to describe a formal rule applied to underlying structures of sentences.

Chomsky also borrowed the term "generative" from a previous work of mathematician Emil Post. Post wanted to "mechanically [derive] inferences from an initial axiomatic sentence". Chomsky applied Post's work on logical inference to describe sets of strings (sequence of letters or sounds) of a human language. When he says a finite set of rules "generate" (i.e. "recursively enumerate" ) the set of potentially infinite number of sentences of a particular human language, he means that they provide an explicit, structural description of those sentences.

Justification of grammars
In the sixth chapter titled "On the Goals of Linguistic Theory", Chomsky writes that his "fundamental concern" is "the problem of justification of grammars". He draws parallels between the theory of language and theories in physical sciences. He compares a finite corpus of utterances of a particular language to "observations". He likens grammatical rules to "laws" which are stated in terms of "hypothetical constructs" such as phonemes, phrases, etc. According to Chomsky, the criteria for the "justification of grammars" are "external conditions of adequacy", the "condition of generality" and "simplicity". To choose the best possible grammar for a given corpus of a given language, Chomsky shows his preference for the "evaluation procedure" (which uses the aforementioned criteria). He rejects the "discovery procedure" (employed in structural linguistics and supposed to automatically and mechanically produce the correct grammar of a language from a corpus ). He also dismisses the "decision procedure" (supposed to automatically choose the best grammar for a language from a set of competing grammars). Chomsky thus shows preference for "explanatory depth" with some "empirical inadequacies" over the pursuit of very detailed empirical coverage of all data.

Application of transformational grammar in English
In the seventh chapter titled "Some Transformations in English", Chomsky strictly applies his just-proposed transformation-based approach on some aspects of English. He treats at length the formation of English negative passive sentences, yes-no and wh- interrogative sentences, etc. He claims in the end that transformational analysis can describe "a wide variety of ... distinct phenomena" in English grammar in a "simple", "natural" and "orderly" way.

Constructional homonymity and distinct levels of linguistic analysis
In the eighth chapter titled "The explanatory power of linguistic theory", Chomsky writes a linguistic theory cannot content itself by just generating valid grammatical sentences. It also has to account for other structural phenomena at different levels of linguistic representation. At a certain linguistic level, there can be two items which can be understood having different meanings but they are structurally indistinguishable within that level. This is called a "constructional homonymity" [sic]. The relevant ambiguity can be resolved by establishing a higher level of linguistic analysis. At this higher level, the two items can be clearly shown having two different structural interpretations. In this way, constructional homonymities at the phonemic level can be resolved by establishing the level of morphology, and so forth. One of the motivations of establishing a distinct, higher level of linguistic analysis is, then, to explain the structural ambiguity due to the constructional homonymities at a lower level. On the other hand, each linguistic level also captures some structural similarities within the level that are not explained in lower levels. Chomsky uses this argument as well to motivate the establishment of distinct levels of linguistic analysis.

Chomsky then shows that a grammar which analyzes sentences up to the phrase structure level contains many constructional homonymities at the phrase structure level where the resulting ambiguities need to be explained at a higher level. Then he shows how his newly invented "transformational level" can naturally and successfully function as that higher level. He further claims that any phrase structure grammar which cannot explain these ambiguities as successfully as transformational grammar does must be considered "inadequate".

Role of semantics in syntax
In the ninth chapter titled "Syntax and Semantics", Chomsky reminds that his analysis so far has been "completely formal and non-semantic." He then offers many counterexamples to refute some common linguistic assertions about grammar's reliance on meaning. He concludes that the correspondence between meaning and grammatical form is "imperfect", "inexact" and "vague." Consequently, it is "relatively useless" to use meaning "as a basis for grammatical description". To support his point, Chomsky considers a similar relation between semantics and phonology. He shows that in order to build a theory of phonemic distinction based on meaning would entail "complex", "exhaustive" and "laborious investigation" of an "immense", "vast corpus". By contrast, phonemic distinctness can be easily explained in a "straightforward" way and in "completely non-semantic terms" with the help of "pair tests". Chomsky also claims that a strictly formal, non-semantic framework of syntactic theory might ultimately be useful to support a parallel independent semantic theory.

Rhetorical style
Randy Allen Harris, a specialist of the rhetoric of science, writes that Syntactic Structures "appeals calmly and insistently to a new conception" of linguistic science. He finds the book "lucid, convincing, syntactically daring, the calm voice of reason ... [speaking] directly to the imagination and ambition of the entire field." It also bridged the "rhetorical gulf" to make the message of The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (a highly abstract, mathematically dense, and "forbiddingly technical" work) more palatable to the wider field of linguists. In a more detailed examination of the book, Harris finds Chomsky's argumentation in Syntactic Structures "multilayered and compelling". Chomsky not only makes a logical appeal (i.e. logos) to a highly formalized model of language, but also appeals explicitly and tacitly to the ethos of science.

In particular, Chomsky's analysis of the complex English auxiliary verb system in Syntactic Structures had great rhetorical effect. It combined simple phrase structure rules with a simple transformational rule. This treatment was based entirely on formal simplicity. Various linguists have described it as "beautiful", "powerful", "elegant", "revealing", "insightful", "beguiling" and "ingenious". According to American linguist Frederick Newmeyer, this particular analysis won many "supporters for Chomsky" and "immediately led to some linguists' proposing generative-transformational analysis of particular phenomena". According to British linguist E. Keith Brown, "the elegance and insightfulness of this account was instantly recognized, and this was an important factor in ensuring the initial success of the transformational way of looking at syntax." American linguist Mark Aronoff wrote that this "beautiful analysis and description of some very striking facts was the rhetorical weapon that drove the acceptance of [Chomsky's] theory". He added that in Chomsky's treatment of English verbs, "the convergence of theory and analysis provide a description of facts so convincing that it changed the entire field".

Raymond Oenbring, a doctorate in the rhetoric of science, thinks that Chomsky "overstates the novelty" of transformational rules. He "seems to take all the credit for them" even though a version of them had already been introduced by Zellig Harris in a previous work. He writes that Chomsky himself was "cautious" to "display deference" to prevailing linguistic research. His enthusiastic followers such as Lees were, by contrast, much more "confrontational". They sought to drive a "rhetorical wedge" between Chomsky's work and that of post-Bloomfieldians (i.e. American linguists in the 1940s et 1950s), arguing that the latter does not qualify as linguistic "science".

Impact on linguistics
In an early review of the book, American structural linguist Charles F. Voegelin wrote that Syntactic Structures posed a fundamental challenge to the established way of doing linguistic research. He stated that it had the potential to accomplish "a Copernican revolution" within linguistics. Another American linguist Martin Joos called the Chomskyan brand of linguistic theory a "heresy" within the Bloomfieldian tradition. These early remarks proved to be prescient. American linguist Paul Postal commented in 1964 that most of the "syntactic conceptions prevalent in the United States" were "versions of the theory of phrase structure grammars in the sense of Chomsky". By 1965, linguists were saying that Syntactic Structures had "mark[ed] an epoch", had a "startling impact" and created a Kuhnian "revolution". British linguist John Lyons wrote in 1966 that "no work has had a greater influence upon the current linguistic theory than Chomsky's Syntactic Structures." British historian of linguistics R. H. Robins wrote in 1967 that the publication of Chomsky's Syntactic Structures was "probably the most radical and important change in direction in descriptive linguistics and in linguistic theory that has taken place in recent years".

Another historian of linguistics Frederick Newmeyer considers Syntactic Structures "revolutionary" for two reasons. Firstly, it showed that a formal yet non-empiricist theory of language was possible. Chomsky demonstrated this possibility in a practical sense by formally treating a fragment of English grammar. Secondly, it put syntax at the center of the theory of language. Syntax was recognized as the focal point of language production, in which a finite set of rules can produce an infinite number of sentences. Subsequently, morphology (i.e. the study of structure and formation of words) and phonology (i.e. the study of organization of sounds in languages) were relegated in importance.

American linguist Norbert Hornstein wrote that before Syntactic Structures, linguistic research was overly preoccupied with creating hierarchies and categories of all observable language data. One of the "lasting contributions" of Syntactic Structures is that it shifted the linguistic research methodology to abstract, rationalist theory-making based on contacts with data, which is the "common scientific practice".

Impact on other disciplines
The generative grammar of Syntactic Structures heralded Chomsky's mentalist perspective in linguistic analysis. Shortly after its publication, in 1959, Chomsky wrote a critical review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Skinner had presented the acquisition of human language in terms of conditioned responses to outside stimuli and reinforcement. Chomsky opposed this behaviorist model. He argued that humans produce language using separate syntactic and semantic components inside the mind. He presented the generative grammar as a coherent abstract description of this underlying psycholinguistic reality. Chomsky's argument had a forceful impact on psycholinguistic research. It changed the course of the discipline in the following years. Syntactic Structures initiated an interdisciplinary dialog between philosophers of language and linguists. American philosopher John Searle called it a "remarkable intellectual achievement" of its time. He compared the book "to the work of Keynes or Freud". He credited it with producing not only a "revolution in linguistics", but also having a "revolutionary effect" on "philosophy and psychology". Chomsky and Willard Van Orman Quine, a stridently anti-mentalistic philosopher of language, debated many times on the merit of Chomsky's linguistic theories. Many philosophers supported Chomsky's idea that natural languages are innate and syntactically rule-governed. They also believed in the existence of rules in the human mind which bind meanings to utterances. The investigation of these rules started a new era in philosophical semantics. With its formal and logical treatment of language, Syntactic Structures also brought linguistics and the new field of computer science closer together. Computer scientist Donald Knuth (winner of the Turing Award) recounted that he read Syntactic Structures in 1961 and was influenced by it. Chomsky's "Three models" paper, published a year prior to the Syntactic Structures and containing many of its ideas, was crucial to the development of the theory of formal languages within computer science. In 2011, a group of French neuroscientists conducted research to verify if actual brain mechanisms worked in the way that Chomsky suggested in Syntactic Structures. The results suggested that specific regions of the brain handle syntactic information in an abstract way. These are independent from other brain regions that handle semantic information. Moreover, the brain analyzes not just mere strings of words, but hierarchical structures of constituents. These observations validated the theoretical claims of Chomsky in Syntactic Structures.
 * Psychology
 * Philosophy
 * Computer science
 * Neuroscience

In 2015, neuroscientists at New York University conducted experiments to verify if the human brain uses "hierarchical structure building" for processing languages. They measured the magnetic and electric activities in the brains of participants. The results showed that "[human] brains distinctly tracked three components of the phrases they heard." This  "[reflected] a hierarchy in our neural processing of linguistic structures: words, phrases, and then sentences—at the same time." These results bore out Chomsky's hypothesis in Syntactic Structures of an "internal grammar mechanism" inside the brain.

Criticisms
In his 1964 presidential address to the Linguistic Society of America, American linguist Charles Hockett considered Syntactic Structures one of "only four major breakthroughs in modern linguistics". But he rapidly turned into a fierce critic of Chomskyan linguistics. By 1966, Hockett rejected "[Chomsky's] frame of reference in almost every detail". In his 1968 book The State of the Art, Hockett writes that Chomsky's main fallacy is that he treats language as a formal, well-defined, stable system and proceeds from this idealized abstraction. Hockett believes such an idealization is not possible. He claims that there is no empirical evidence that our language faculty is, in reality, a well-defined underlying system. The sources that give rise to language faculty in humans, e.g. physical genetic transmission and cultural transmission, are themselves poorly defined. Hockett also opposed Chomsky's hypothesis that syntax is completely independent of the study of meaning. Contrary to Hockett, British linguist Geoffrey Sampson thought that Chomsky's assumptions about a well-defined grammaticality are "[justified] in practice." It brought syntax "within the purview of scientific description". He considers it a "great positive contribution to the discipline". However, he maintains that Chomsky's linguistics is overly "intuition-based". For him, it relies too much on native speakers' subjective introspective judgments about their own language. Consequently, language data empirically observed by impersonal third parties are given less importance. According to Sampson, Syntactic Structures largely owes its good fortune of becoming the dominant theoretical paradigm in the following years to the charisma of Chomsky's intellect. Sampson writes that there are many references in Syntactic Structures to Chomsky's own The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (LSLT) in matters regarding the formal underpinnings of Chomsky's approach, but LSLT was not widely available in print for decades. Nevertheless, Sampson's argument runs, Syntactic Structures, albeit "sketchy", derived its "aura of respectability" from LSLT lurking in the background. In turn, the acceptance of Chomsky's future works rested on the success of Syntactic Structures. In the view of British-American linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum, Syntactic Structures boldly claims that "it is impossible, not just difficult" for finite-state devices to generate all grammatical sentences of English, and then alludes to LSLT for the "rigorous proof" of this. But in reality, LSLT does not contain a valid, convincing proof dismissing finite-state devices. Pullum also remarks that the "originality" of Syntactic Structures is "highly overstated". For him, it "does not properly credit the earlier literature on which it draws". He shows in detail how the approach in Syntactic Structures goes directly back to the work of the mathematical logician Emil Post on formalizing proof. But "few linguists are aware of this, because Post's papers are not cited." Pullum adds that the use of formal axiomatic systems to generate probable sentences in language in a top-down manner was first proposed by Zellig Harris in 1947, ten years before the publication of Syntactic Structures. This is downplayed in Syntactic Structures. In 1982, Pullum and another British linguist Gerald Gazdar argued that Chomsky's criticisms of context-free phrase structure grammar in Syntactic Structures are either mathematically flawed or based on incorrect assessments of the empirical data. They stated that a purely phrase structure treatment of grammar can explain linguistic phenomena better than one that uses transformations.
 * Erroneous idealization
 * Non-empiricism
 * Influence of The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory
 * Originality
 * Necessity of transformations

Honors
In 2000, University of Minnesota's Center for Cognitive Sciences compiled a list of the 100 most influential works in cognitive science from the 20th century. In total, 305 scholarly works and one movie were nominated via the internet. Syntactic Structures was ranked number one on this list, marking it as the most influential work of cognitive science of the century.

Syntactic Structures was included in The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written, a book on intellectual history by British literary critic and biographer Martin Seymour-Smith published in 1998.

Syntactic Structures was also featured in a list of 100 best English language non-fiction books since 1923 picked by the American weekly magazine Time.

title: Syntactic Structures


text:
Kamchatka earthquakes

Many major earthquakes have occurred in the region of the Kamchatka Peninsula in far eastern Russia. Events in 1737, 1923 and 1952, were megathrust earthquakes and caused tsunamis. There are many more earthquakes and tsunamis originating from the region.

Tectonic setting
The southern part of the Kamchatka peninsula lies above the convergent plate margin where the Pacific Plate is subducting beneath the Okhotsk Plate along the line of the Kuril–Kamchatka Trench. The rate of convergence between the two plates is about 86 mm per year. Earthquakes are generated by rupture along the megathrust boundary between the two plates, within the descending Pacific Plate and within the overriding Okhotsk Plate. The northern part of the peninsula lies away from the convergent boundaries of the Kuril–Kamchatka Trench and the Aleutian Trench but across the boundary between two blocks within the North American Plate, the Kolyma-Chukotka and Bering Sea microplates. This boundary accommodates both active shortening and right lateral strike-slip across a series of large SW–NE trending faults.

1737 earthquake
The epicentre of the 1737 earthquake was located at 52.5°N, 159.5°W. This earthquake occurred at a depth of 40 km (25 miles). A magnitude of 8.3 Ms (9.0Mw) has been estimated.

1841 earthquake
An earthquake of estimated magnitude 9.0, with an epicenter just offshore, which triggered a large tsunami.

1923 earthquakes
On February 3, 1923, an estimated magnitude 8.3–8.5 Mw earthquake with an approximate location of 54°N, 161°W triggered a 25-foot tsunami that caused considerable damage in Kamchatka, with a reported 3 deaths. The tsunami was still 6 meters (20 feet) high when it reached Hawaii, causing at least one fatality. There was another earthquake and tsunami in April 1923, which caused locally high tsunami runup near Ust' Kamchatsk, leaving a deposit studied by Minoura and others.

1952 earthquake
The main earthquake struck at 16:58 GMT (November 5, 04:58 local time) on November 4, 1952. Initially assigned a magnitude of 8.2, the quake was revised to 9.0 Mw in later years. A large tsunami resulted, causing destruction and loss of life around the Kamchatka peninsula and the Kuril Islands. Hawaii was also struck, with estimated damage of up to US$1 million and livestock losses, but no human casualties were recorded. Japan reported no casualties or damage. The tsunami reached as far as Alaska, Chile, and New Zealand.

The hypocentre was located at 52.75°N, 159.5°W, at a depth of 30 km (18.6 miles). The length of the subduction zone rupture was 600 km (373 miles). Aftershocks were recorded in an area of approximately 247,000 km2 (90,367 square miles), at depths of between 40 and 60 km (25 and 37 miles). A recent analysis of the tsunami runup distribution based on historical and geological records give some indication as to the slip distribution of the rupture.

1959 earthquake
A magnitude 8.0 earthquake occurred on May 4, at a hypocentral depth  of 20 km, with a maximum felt intensity of VIII MSK.

2006 earthquake
The region of Koryak Autonomous Okrug was struck by an 7.6 earthquake on April 20 (April 21 local time). It was followed by a large number of aftershocks, including two of 6.6. This was a reverse faulting event along the boundary between two microplates within the North American Plate. The event caused a 140 km long zone of surface rupture.

2020 earthquake
The 7.5 earthquake occurred on March 25. The earthquake was the largest to occur in Russia since the 2013 Okhotsk Sea earthquake. It was initially reported as 7.8, before being downgraded to 7.5.

This shock was a result of near-trench intraplate compressional faulting within the descending Pacific Plate. The epicenter was in the area of the large-slip region of the 1952 Severo-Kurilsk earthquake, which was an M 9.0 megathrust event. Large compressional activity is more common before, and long after, major compressional events along coupled zones, suggesting interplate strain accumulation.

In Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, 285 miles (460km) away from the epicenter the intensity was felt at 5, objects were falling in buildings and people ran out into the street for safety.

A tsunami warning was issued immediately after the earthquake. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre initially said hazardous tsunami waves were possible within 1,000km of the earthquake’s epicentre. It said earthquakes of this strength in the past had caused tsunamis far from the epicentre. A tsunami of about 0.5 m struck Kamchatka.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Kamchatka earthquakes


text:
Summer of '42

Summer of '42 is a 1971 American coming-of-age film directed by Robert Mulligan, and starring Jennifer O'Neill, Gary Grimes, Jerry Houser, and Christopher Norris. Based on the memoirs of screenwriter Herman "Hermie" Raucher, it follows a teenage boy who, during the summer of 1942 on Nantucket Island, embarks on a one-sided romance with a young woman, Dorothy, whose husband has gone off to fight in World War II. The film was a commercial and critical success and was nominated for four Academy Awards, winning for Best Original Score for Michel Legrand.

Raucher's novelization of his screenplay of the same name was released prior to the film and became a runaway bestseller, to the point that audiences lost sight of the fact that the book was an adaptation of the film and not vice versa. Though a pop culture phenomenon in the first half of the 1970s, the novelization went out of print and slipped into obscurity throughout the next two decades until an off Broadway adaptation in 2001 brought it back into the public light and prompted Barnes & Noble to acquire the publishing rights to the book. The film was followed by a sequel, Class of '44, also written by Raucher, with lead actors Grimes, Houser, and Conant reprising their roles.

Plot
In the summer of 1942 on Nantucket Island, 15-year-old "Hermie" and his friends – jock Oscy and introverted nerd Benjie – are hanging out on the beach. They spot a young soldier carrying his new bride into a house and are struck by her beauty.

They continue spending afternoons on the beach, where their thoughts turn to sex. All of them are virgins: Oscy is obsessed with the act of sex, while Hermie develops romantic interest in the bride, whose husband he spots leaving the island on a water taxi one morning. Later that day, Hermie sees her outside the market struggling with grocery bags. He offers to aid her in carrying the bags home, which she accepts, and in this way, gets to meet her.

Meanwhile, Oscy and Hermie become convinced they know everything necessary to lose their virginity. They test this by going to the cinema and picking up a trio of high-school girls. Oscy stakes out Miriam, "giving" Hermie her less attractive friend, Aggie, and leaving Benjie with Gloria, a heavyset girl with dental braces. Frightened by the immediacy of sex, Benjie runs off. The other two girls initially refuse to go in without Benji's would-be date, but she says to go without her, then leaves herself. The war bride, who is also at the movies, sees Hermie in line and asks him if he can help her move some boxes that Thursday. During the film, Oscy attempts to put the moves on Miriam, eventually making out with her. Hermie succeeds with Aggie, who allows him to grope what he thinks is her breast; Oscy later points out that Hermie was fondling her arm.

On Thursday, Hermie helps the bride move boxes into her attic, and she thanks him with a kiss on the forehead. Later, in preparation for a marshmallow roast on the beach with Aggie and Miriam, Hermie goes to the drugstore and hilariously builds up the nerve to ask the druggist for condoms (or "rubbers," as they were known in the '40s). That night, Hermie roasts marshmallows with Aggie while Oscy has sex with Miriam behind the dune bushes. Oscy is doing so well, he comes up and asks Hermie for some of his condoms. Aggie, wondering what is going on, walks over to Oscy and Miriam, sees them having sex, and runs home, upset.

The next day, Hermie comes across the bride sitting outside her house, writing to her husband. Hermie offers to keep her company that night, and she accepts. Hermie says she never got her name, and she replies her name is Dorothy. Later, Hermie runs into Oscy, who relates that Miriam's appendix burst and she has been rushed to the mainland. When Oscy asks about Dorothy and makes crude comments, Hermie rebukes him for his crassness.

When Hermie gets to Dorothy’s house, he finds it strangely dark and quiet. He sees a bottle of whiskey, several cigarette butts in an ashtray, a record player spinning at the end of a record, and a telegram on the table. Dorothy's husband is dead, his plane shot down over France. Dorothy comes out of her bedroom with tears on her face, says hello, and "I don't look very good, do I?" Hermie replies with, "I think you do." Dorothy then walks into the kitchen and begins washing dishes. Hermie says to her, "I'm sorry." Dorothy stops what she's doing, turns to face Hermie, turns on the record player, and invites him to dance with her. They dance, both with tears on their faces. They kiss and embrace, then move to the bedroom where she draws him into bed and gently makes love with him. Afterward, Dorothy withdraws to the porch. Hermie approaches her, and she says, "Good night, Hermie." He responds with "Good night," then leaves, his last image of Dorothy being of her leaning against the railing as she smokes a cigarette and stares into the night.

The next day, Hermie and Oscy reconcile, with Oscy informing Hermie that Miriam will recover. Hermie goes back to Dorothy's house only to learn she has left the island. She has left behind a letter for Hermie wherein she expresses her hopes that Hermie understands she must go home, assures him she will never forget him, and hopes he will be spared from life's senseless tragedies.

In voiceover, the adult Hermie recounts that he never saw Dorothy again, nor did he learn what became of her. He continues with the notion that kids were different back then, and it took a little longer for them to figure things out. We learn he has rejoined his two friends with a rundown of that summer's events: four raids on the Coast Guard station, five movies, and nine days of rain. He concludes with, "Benjie broke his watch, Oscy gave up the harmonica, and in a very special way, I lost Hermie. Forever."

Cast

 * Jennifer O'Neill as Dorothy
 * Gary Grimes as Hermie
 * Jerry Houser as Oscy
 * Oliver Conant as Benjie
 * Katherine Allentuck as Aggie
 * Christopher Norris as Miriam
 * Lou Frizzell as druggist

Director Robert Mulligan provided uncredited voiceover narration as the older Hermie. Maureen Stapleton provided the voice for Sophie, Hermie's mother, and film stuntman Walter Scott appears uncredited as Dorothy's husband.

Basis and development
The film (and subsequent novel) were memoirs written by Herman Raucher; they detailed the events in his life over the course of the summer he spent on Nantucket Island in 1942 when he was fourteen years old. Originally, the film was meant to be a tribute to his friend Oscar "Oscy" Seltzer, an Army medic killed in the Korean War. Seltzer was shot dead on a battlefield in Korea while tending to a wounded man; this happened on Raucher's birthday, and consequently, Raucher has not celebrated a birthday since. While writing the screenplay, Raucher realized that despite growing up with Oscy and having bonded with him through their formative years, the two had never really had any meaningful conversations or known one another on a more personal level.

Instead, Raucher decided to focus on the first major adult experience of his life, that of falling in love for the first time. The woman (named Dorothy, like her screen counterpart) was a fellow vacationer on the island whom the 14-year-old Raucher had befriended one day when he helped her carry groceries home; he became a friend of her and her husband and helped her with chores after her husband was called to fight in World War II. On the night memorialized in the film, Raucher randomly came to visit her, unaware his arrival was just minutes after she received notification of her husband's death. She was confused and upset, had been drinking heavily, and repeatedly called Raucher by her husband's name. Although both ultimately disrobed, contrary to popular perception, sexual intercourse did not occur. Raucher admitted this in a 2002 interview, saying it was mostly holding, but in the movie "We let you think what you want."

The next morning, Raucher discovered that she had left the island, leaving behind a note for him (which is read at the end of the film and reproduced in the book). He never saw her again; his last "encounter" with her, recounted on an episode of The Mike Douglas Show, came after the film's release in 1971, when she was one of over a dozen women who wrote letters to Raucher claiming to be "his" Dorothy. Raucher recognized the "real" Dorothy's handwriting, and she confirmed her identity by making references to certain events only she could have known about. She told Raucher that she had lived for years with the guilt that she had potentially traumatized him and ruined his life. She told Raucher that she was glad he turned out all right, and that they had best not re-visit the past.

In a 2002 Scripps Treasure Coast Publishing interview, Raucher lamented never hearing from her again and expressed his hope that she was still alive. Raucher's novelization of the screenplay, with the dedication, "To those I love, past and present," serves more as the tribute to Seltzer that he had intended the film to be, with the focus of the book being more on the two boys' relationship than Raucher's relationship with Dorothy. Consequently, the book also mentions Seltzer's death, which is absent from the film adaptation.

An error in both the book and film centers on the movie Now, Voyager. They go to a movie theater to see the movie in the "summer of '42". However, the film was released nationally in the U.S. on October 31, 1942, with an October 22 premiere in New York City, so it would have been impossible to see the movie that summer.

Raucher wrote the film script in the 1950s during his tenure as a television writer, but "couldn't give it away." In the 1960s, he met Robert Mulligan, best known for directing To Kill a Mockingbird. Raucher showed Mulligan the script, and Mulligan took it to Warner Bros., where Mulligan argued the film could be shot for the relatively low price of $1 million, and Warner approved it. They had so little faith in the film becoming a box-office success, though, they shied from paying Raucher outright for the script, instead promising him ten percent of the gross.

Casting
When casting for the role of Dorothy, Warner Bros. declined to audition any actresses younger than the age of 30; Jennifer O'Neill's agent, who had developed a fondness for the script, convinced the studio to audition his client, who was only 22 at the time. O'Neill auditioned for the role, albeit hesitantly, not wanting to perform any nude scenes. O'Neill got the role and Mulligan agreed to find a way to make the film work without blatant nudity.

Filming
Though set on the east coast, Summer of '42 was filmed in Northern California, largely in Fort Bragg and Mendocino. Shooting took place over eight weeks, during which O'Neill was sequestered from the three boys cast as "The Terrible Trio," in order to ensure that they did not become close and ruin the sense of awkwardness and distance that their characters felt towards Dorothy. Production ran smoothly, finishing on schedule.

After production, Warner Bros., still wary about the film only being a minor success, asked Raucher to adapt his script into a book. Raucher wrote it in three weeks, and Warner Bros. released it prior to the film to build interest in the story. The book quickly became a national bestseller, so that when trailers premiered in theaters, the film was billed as being "based on the national bestseller," despite the film having been completed first. Ultimately, the book became one of the best-selling novels of the first half of the 1970s, requiring 23 reprints between 1971 and 1974 to keep up with customer demand.

Box office
The film became a blockbuster upon its release, grossing over $32 million, making it one of the most successful films of 1971, with an expense-to-profit ratio of 1:32; beyond that, it is estimated video rentals and purchases in the United States since the 1980s have produced an additional $20.5 million. On this point, Raucher said in May 2002 that his ten percent of the gross, in addition to royalties from book sales, "has paid bills ever since."

Critical response
Summer of '42 received positive reviews. The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 79% approval rating based on 24 reviews, with an average rating of 6.73/10.

In The Guardian, Derek Malcolm wrote Summer of '42 "is one of those rare films you can't help liking simply for its aspirations, which are so honest and open-minded." He concluded, "You could, I suppose, view it as a deeply romantic film full of a specifically American yearning for the purity of pubescence. You could also view it more simply as an ingratiating comedy about latent sexuality. Either way you can't doubt its charm and sheer professionalism, even if the pace is slack at times."

Vincent Canby of The New York Times expressed that Hermie's encounter with Dorothy is "a good deal more common in novels and screenplays (and in the Hermie-like fantasies of middle-aged writers) than in real life", but praised the film's "reticent quality of its romanticism" and its actors. Canby concluded the "foreground is mostly accurate, in which sexual panic and fist fights and nose bleeds are treated with the great comic respect they deserve."

Some critics were critical of the film's nostalgic framework. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times said the film is undercut by its rose-tinted nostalgic tone, writing, "Nostalgia is used as a distancing device -- to keep us safely insulated from the boy's immediate grief, love, and passion." Ebert noted the film is "beautifully produced and photographed", but lacked more of a perspective on Hermie's experiences and how it changed him. Variety wrote, "The emotional and sexual awakening of teenagers is a dramatic staple. Robert Mulligan’s Summer of '42 has a large amount of charm and tenderness; it also has little dramatic economy and much eye-exhausting photography which translates to forced and artificial emphasis on a strungout story."

Home media
Warner Bros. Home Entertainment first released the film on VHS in 1984. It was released on DVD by Warner in 2002. The Warner Archive Collection reissued the DVD in 2014, followed by a Blu-ray release in 2017.

Soundtrack
The film's soundtrack consists almost entirely of compositions by Michel Legrand, many of which are variants upon "The Summer Knows", the film's theme. Lyrics are by Marilyn and Alan Bergman. Because the complete score runs just under 17 minutes, only the first and eighth tracks on the album are from Summer of '42; the rest of the music is taken from Legrand's score for 1969's The Picasso Summer.

Main theme "Summer of '42" won a Grammy Award at 14th edition held in 1972 for Best Instrumental Composition.

In addition to Legrand's scoring, the film also features the song "Hold Tight" by The Andrews Sisters and the theme from Now, Voyager. On the Billboard 200, it debuted on November 9, 1971 and peaked at #52 on November 20, 1971.

In 2014 Intrada Records released Summer of '42 and The Picasso Summer on a limited-edition two-disc set, with the entire score for the former and the original album presentation of the latter (dubbed "The Picasso Suite") on disc 1, and the complete score for The Picasso Summer on disc 2.

Warner Bros. Publications released a sheet music folio, Summer of '42 & Other Hits of the Forties, which contains the movie theme and 34 other unrelated songs.

Music
Legrand's theme song for the film, "The Summer Knows", has since become a pop standard, being recorded by such artists as Peter Nero (who had a charting hit with his 1971 version), Biddu (1975 international chart hit), Tony Bennett, Frank Sinatra, Sarah Vaughan, Andy Williams, Jonny Fair, Scott Walker, Elis Regina, Jackie Evancho, Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans, Toots Thielemans, George Benson, Roger Williams, and Barbra Streisand.

The 1973 song "Summer (The First Time)" by Bobby Goldsboro has almost exactly the same subject and apparent setting, although there is no direct credited link. Bryan Adams has, however, credited the film as being a partial inspiration for his 1985 hit "Summer of '69".

Garth Brooks' 1993 hit "That Summer" features a similar story of a coming-of-age male in a romance with an older female.

Chart history

 * Roger Williams

 * Peter Nero

 * Biddu Orchestra

Legacy
In the years since the film's release, Warner Bros. has attempted to buy back Raucher's ten percent of the film as well as his rights to the story so it could be remade; Raucher has consistently declined. The 1988 film Stealing Home has numerous similarities to both Summer of '42 and Class of '44, with several incidents (most notably a subplot dealing with the premature death of the protagonist's father and the protagonist's response to it) appearing to have been directly lifted from Raucher's own life; Jennifer O'Neill stated in 2002 she believes Home was an attempted remake of Summer.

Filmmaker Stanley Kubrick cited it as one of his favorite films of all time, and featured it in a scene in The Shining (1980), during which the character of Wendy Torrance watches the film on television. Director Quentin Tarantino is also an admirer of it, and declared it "one of the best movies of the ’70s."

Sequel
In 1973, the film was followed by Class of '44, a slice-of-life film made up of vignettes about Herman Raucher and Oscar Seltzer's experiences in college. Class of '44 involves the boys facing army service in the last year of World War II. The only crew member from Summer of '42 to return to the project was Raucher himself, who wrote the script; a new director and composer were brought in to replace Mulligan and Legrand. Of the four principal cast members of Summer of '42, only Jerry Houser and Gary Grimes returned for prominent roles, with Oliver Conant making two brief appearances totaling less than two minutes of screen time. Jennifer O'Neill did not appear in the film at all, nor was the character of Dorothy mentioned.

The film met with poor critical reviews; the only three reviews available at Rotten Tomatoes are resoundingly negative, with Channel 4 calling it "a big disappointment," and The New York Times stating "The only things worth attention in 'Class of '44' are the period details," and Class of '44' seems less like a movie than 95 minutes of animated wallpaper."

Off-Broadway musical
In 2001, Raucher consented to the film being made into an off Broadway musical play. He was on hand opening night, giving the cast a pep talk which he concluded, "We've now done it every possible way – except go out and piss it in the snow!" The play met with positive critical and fan response, and was endorsed by Raucher himself, but the play was forced to close down in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Nevertheless, the play was enough to spark interest in the film and book with a new generation, prompting Warner to re-issue the book (which had since gone out of print, along with all of Raucher's other works) for sale with Barnes & Noble's online bookstore, and to restore the film and release it on DVD. The musical has since been performed across the country, at venues such as Kalliope Stage in Cleveland Heights, Ohio in 2004 (directed by Paul Gurgol) and Mill Mountain Theatre in Roanoke, Virginia, (directed by Jere Hodgin and choreographed by Bernard Monroe), and was subsequently recorded as a concert by the York Theatre Company in 2006.

Alternative sequel
In 2002, O'Neill claimed to have obtained the rights to make a sequel to Summer of '42, based on a short story she wrote. This story took place in an alternate reality where Herman Raucher had a son and divorced his wife, went back to Nantucket in 1962 with a still-living Oscar Seltzer, encountered Dorothy again and married her. As of 2017, this project – which O'Neill had hoped to produce with Lifetime television – had not been realized. It is unknown if O'Neill is still attempting to get it produced or if Raucher consented to its production.

title: Summer of '42


text:
Al Wefaq

Al-Wefaq National Islamic Society (جمعية الوفاق الوطني الإسلامية; Jam'īyat al-Wifāq al-Waṭanī al-Islāmīyah), sometimes shortened to simply Al-Wefaq, was a Shi'a Bahraini political party, that operates clandestinely after being ordered by the highest court in Bahrain to be dissolved and liquidated. Although from 2006 to 2011 it was by far the single largest party in the Bahraini legislature, with 18 representatives in the 40-member Bahraini parliament, it was often outvoted by coalition blocs of opposition Sunni parties and independent MPs reflecting gerrymandering of electoral districts. On 27 February 2011, the 18 Al-Wefaq members of parliament submitted letters of resignation to protest regime violence against pro-reform Bahraini protestors.

Al Wefaq's religious orientation is Shi'a and it is led by a cleric, Ali Salman. The party is close to a Shi'a clerical body in Bahrain, the Islamic Scholars Council, which describes Al Wefaq as the 'Bloc of Believers'. In 2006, the pro-government English newspaper Gulf Daily News alleged that al Wefaq had only 1,500 active members, although Al Wefaq itself claims to have 80,000 members and a leaked diplomatic briefing from the US Embassy in Bahrain described Al Wefaq as the largest political society in Bahrain in terms of membership.

Al Wefaq boycotted the 2002 general election, the first parliamentary elections held in the country since 1973, claiming that the 2002 constitution gave too much power to the unelected upper house, the Consultative Council of Bahrain, whose members are directly appointed by the King. In the 2006 election Al Wefaq received the backing of the Islamic Scholars Council which helped it win seventeen of the eighteen seats it contested. In the 2010 election, they increased their representation by one seat, winning all the constituencies they contested, to take 18 of the 40 available parliamentary seats. Following the 2011 Arab Spring, Al-Wefaq and other opposition groups boycotted the 2014 election.

On 17 July 2016, Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television and international print media reported that Bahrain's highest court dissolved al-Wefaq and liquidated the group's funds. The decision was condemned by the U.S. State Department.

History
A number of Al Wefaq's leaders returned to Bahrain under the reform process initiated by King Hamad when he inherited the throne and pardoned all the political activists of the 1990s political unrest. Its leadership backed King Hamad's National Charter for political reforms after the King assured the country's leading opposition clerics, through a signed statement in the house of a leading religious figure, Sayed Alawi al-Ghuraifi, that only the elected chamber of parliament would have legislative power, as stipulated by the 1973 Constitution.

However the Al Wefaq leadership withdrew support when the ruling regime later announced the 2002 Constitution which mandated a chamber, appointed directly by the King, that would have the same legislative power the elected chamber has. Al Wefaq boycotted the 2002 parliamentary election, with three other political societies: the former Maoist National Democratic Action Society, Baath affiliated Nationalist Democratic Rally Society and Islamic Action Society. Opposition political groups accused the King of unilaterally enacting the constitution though such an important document requiring multilateral agreement in order to be binding. However Al-Wefaq did put forward candidates for the municipal elections that occurred in the same year as they believed that municipal candidates will deal with servicing issues rather than politics which should not be affected much by the changes made in 2002 Constitution.

The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Tom Malinowski, on a visit to Bahrain in July 2014 was ordered to leave the country after meeting with members of Al-Wefaq. The United States issued a statement reaffirming its support for Bahrain but maintained it was normal diplomatic protocol for its representatives to meet with opposition parties.

General Conference
The regulatory organ which has the supreme authority, and modifies the statute, and elects the Secretary-General, his deputy, and the members of the Consultative Council, and the arbitral tribunal.

General Secretariat
It is the executive body of the society which is responsible for making the policies, plans & political guidelines & their execution, and taking decisions on the current issues unless it require a decision to be made by the general conference.

The Current general secretary is shaikh Ali Salman.

Arbitral tribunal
It is a council, which resolves the disputes and disagreements related to the internal activities of the society.

Consultative Council
Its responsibility is to oversee & appraise the performance of General Secretariat and to give reviews about performance levels.

Activities Finance
It is stated in the society's statute the following as means of finance acceptable by law:
 * Membership annual fees
 * Earnings and benefits resulting from the investment of its funds
 * Grants from the state
 * Donations & contributions

above all of this, Al Wefaq has taken a decision prior to 2006 elections mandates all its MPs to contribute 20% of the basic salary toward the society. Basic salary for MPs is 2000 BHD per month thus annual MPs contribution to society amount is $230,000 which forms the biggest portion of society's budget.

Bahrain Youth Center
Being the youth wing of the society, the center is concerned with the issues of youth generation related to politics, social & student affairs. When it was established, the first president was Matar Matar who lately became MP for Al Wefaq.

Presence in the country

 * Hamad Town
 * Al Zinj
 * Al Qufool

Political ideology
As with any religious party in the world, Al Wefaq has had to address the relationship between spiritual and secular authority. On the contentious issue of reform of Bahrain's family laws, Al Wefaq stated in October 2005 that neither elected MPs nor the government has the authority to change the law because these institutions could 'misinterpret the word of God'. Instead, Al Wefaq insisted that the right to legislate on issues relating to women and families is solely that of religious leaders.

Further, the society's legislators argued that the political landscape in the country, where electoral districts are drawn to reflect wishes of the authorities, could not guarantee future non-interference by the authorities for modify the law to meet their agenda. There have been some differences among western analysts as to the role played by ideology in Al Wefaq's agenda: according to Dr Toby Jones of Swarthmore College, "Al Wefaq does not espouse a specific ideological vision"; while Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations has described Al Wefaq's policies towards women as "outrageous".

In a show of strength against a demonstration by women's rights activists, on 9 November 2005 Al Wefaq jointly organised with clerics a much larger counter demonstration against the Supreme Council for Women's (secular women organization) campaign for the introduction of a personal status law.

MPs from the society (and the main opposition group) walked out of the Bahrain parliament on 8 May 2007 in protest after their request for a corruption investigation of State Minister of Cabinet Affairs Sheikh Ahmed bin Ateyatalla Al Khalifa, a member of the royal family, was denied. The forty-member lower chamber dismissed the motion as only nineteen lawmakers voted in favor of the investigation, two votes short of the majority needed. Ever since entering into the 2006 parliament, Al Wefaq had undertaken steps to go after individuals widely accused wrongdoing activities such as financial and administrative corruption and discriminatory practices.

2002 elections boycott
Al Wefaq boycotted the 2002 general election, the first parliamentary elections held in the country since 1973, for many reasons including :

 * 1) that the 2002 constitution came with sole discretion of King Hamad where he made major changes to the constitution of 1973 without voting on it by Bahraini citizens.
 * 2) the unelected upper house, the Consultative Council of Bahrain, has been given similar powers to the elected Parliament Council although its members are directly appointed by the King.
 * 3) Unfair distribution of population among Electoral district by which in some cases the vote of one citizen in an Electoral district is equal to the vote of 16 citizen in another district.

2006 elections
Al Wefaq announced that it would reverse its elections boycott and participate in the 2006 parliamentary election. The party hoped to win 12–14 seats in the poll to take place in November 2006. The party has denied that it will not field any women candidates, dismissing the allegations as "pure speculation". Along with Salafists, such as Ali Mattar, the party objects to the government's ban on candidates using religious sermons to promote their election campaigns. A noted religious figure from Al Wefaq, Jassim Al Khayat, has commented: "The ban is senseless because the mosque, as an integral part of people's daily lives, has always been close to the political scene."

Salafist MP Jassim Al Saeedi campaigned to get the party banned from standing in the poll on the grounds that the party did not recognize the 2002 Constitution. When his demands were rejected by the government, Mr Saeedi accused the Minister of Justice, Dr Mohammed Al Sitri, of being the party's 'front man' and acting as their 'lawyer'. Mr Saeedi told Dr Al Sitri during a session of parliament: "It seems they chose you to be their front man, because you are defending them well."

The parliamentary election campaigns of Al Wefaq members put many of the current hot issues in the political scene to the surface. For example, Al Wefaq extensively used the Bandargate scandal in its campaigns and promised to question and punish those responsible for it. Moreover, Al Wefaq raised serious concerns over the election results and questioned many aspects of the election process. Indeed, accusations of fraud as well as the lack of transparency were raised shortly before the start of elections.

17 out of 18 candidates from Al Wefaq won the 2006 parliamentary elections. 62% of Bahraini voters voted for Al Wefaq and they hold 42.5% of the seats in the elected chamber of the parliament (out of a total of 40 seats) making them the strongest political party in Bahrain in terms of the number of supporters and representatives in the elected chamber of the parliament. In addition, Al-Wefaq backed liberal candidate secured another seat.

2010 elections
Following a wave of arrests prior to the election, Al Wefaq won at least 18 of the 40 seats to the lower house. Though representing 45% of the seats, the legislators had secured 64% of the popular vote. The difference reflects gerrymandering of electoral districts in the absence of universal principle of one person one vote. Voters in five districts won by Al Wefaq independently surpassed the number of voters in five other districts collectively.

Incumbent MPs who succeeded achieving landslide victories in 2010 parliamentary elections were:

 * Khalil Al-Marzooq
 * Abduljalil Khalil
 * Jawad Fairooz

Withdrawal of the parliament bloc in 2011
On 18 February 2011, Al Wefaq pulled its parliament bloc which consists of 18 MPs out of total 40 MPs following the killing of two protesters by the Bahraini police during the Bahrain uprising.

title: Al Wefaq


text:
Pedro María de Anaya

Pedro Bernardino María de Anaya y Álvarez (20 May 1794 – 21 March 1854) was a Mexican soldier who served twice as interim president of Mexico during the Mexican-American War. Inbetween presidencies, he directly participated in the fighting as an officer, distinguishing himself at the Battle of Churubusco.

Early life
Pedro Maria Anaya was born in the town of Huichapam in 1794 and began his military career in June 1811, joining the Regiment of Tres Villas as a cadet when the Mexican War of Independence had already begun. He had reached the rank of captain by 1819, and initially fought on the side of the Spanish, having fought in twenty battles as part of his hometown company the Dragoons of Sierra Gorda, when he decided to switch sides on June 20, 1821 to join Agustin de Iturbide’s Plan of Iguala. He was assigned to march with General Vicente Filísola to Guatemala, and in 1823 was promoted to squadron commander, and five years later was a lieutenant colonel. During the presidency of Valentin Gomez Farias he was promoted to brigadier general for having been loyal to the liberal party. After this Anaya occupied civilian posts, including a stint as administrator of the postal service.

Under President Jose Joaquin Herrera he was appointed Minister of War from August to December 1845, during a time when war ministers were repeatedly resigning due to fears of going against the popular sentiments favoring a war with the United States as opposed to President Herrera’s more moderate course. After the fall of the Herrera government in December, 1845, Anaya retired from publics, as he was against President Mariano Paredes’ policies. When Gomez Farias returned to the presidency in 1847, Anaya was president of the congress and he signed Gomez Farias’ controversial wartime decree nationalizing church lands.

First presidency
When the Revolt of the Polkos subsequently broke out, Anaya stood behind Gomez Farias, but Santa Anna arrived to moderate a solution between the two factions and deposed Gomez Farias, Anaya was chosen as the interim president while Santa Anna went to deal with the American expeditionary force that had landed at Veracruz.

Anaya was authorized by congress to place the capital under a state of siege and he had to work very hard to fight the provincialism that served as an obstacle against a united war effort, with states resisting to contribute as much as they could, and making alliances with each other. After the Battle of Cerro Gordo in which the Americans broke through the defenses on the way to Mexico City, congress gave the president extraordinary faculties, without giving him the faculty to make a peace treaty on his own, or to alienate any portion of national territory, and anyone who now attempted to negotiate with the Americans was declared a traitor. A commission was set up to continue the task of legislation in the case that congress was unable to continue in its duties. On April 2, Anaya convoked a junta in which he to resolve the issue on whether to defend the capital in case there was not a reasonable chance of winning. All of the supply and budget issues were expounded and the cabinet endorsed guerrilla warfare. When Santa Anna returned to the capital, Anaya passed the presidency down to him.

Battle of Churubusco
Anaya then joined the military to help the war effort. At the head of a brigade, he took part in the defense of the Convent of Churubusco. He managed to repulse an entire enemy column, and he suffered burns after an explosion of artillery, he finally surrendered under orders, and fell prisoner. When General Anaya was asked by General Twiggs to surrender his ammunition after the end of the battle, he famously remarked, "If I had any ammunition, you would not be here". After the armistice was signed between Santa Anna and Winfield Scott, he was released. As the government of Mexico, including the congress moved to Queretaro, Anaya was once again named president.

Second presidency
Upon assuming the presidency for the second time, he proclaimed his support for the federal system and his hope that it was the only one fit to deal with such a perilous situation, and that to innovate with political systems at the time would be to turn over Mexico to its enemies. He assured that the security of people and property would be sacrosanct. He had to take military precautions because of a rumor that American troops under Scott would continue their march towards San Luis Potosi. Congress meanwhile proclaimed that nobody under any public post could appropriate private property, the free cultivation of tobacco was permitted, it attempted to dissolve the general-commandancies, and Aguascalientes was designated as new seat of government in case the Americans took Queretaro. There were a few deputies that did not wish to negotiate with the Americans if they wished to annex any territory, but a lack of quorum caused the sessions to end prematurely. The budget problems, the lack of arms, and loss of the capital proved to be far too demoralizing to continue the war effort.

The legislature of the State of Mexico asked the government not to make a peace settlement before hearing the opinions of each state in the republic, and two commissioners were named by each state legislature, with the powers granted by each, to form a commission and decide the best course of action. The governor of San Luis Potosi, Ramon Adame, declared his support for the continuance of the war, and protested against any peace settlement. Guerilla warfare however threatened to afflict Mexicans themselves and President Anaya made a show of force with sixteen thousand troops at his command. Various governors ultimately did gather at Queretaro without being able to agree upon a course of action. The legislature of Chihuahua suggested that the United States take the sparsely populated northern areas, the home of many Indian tribes that were raiding Mexican settlements, and then help secure the frontier, fighting against the sale of plunder, and also help prevent the sale of arms to the Indians.

The government of Anaya continued with financial difficulties, in large part because relinquishing the tobacco monopoly deprived the government of a large portion of revenue. In accordance with the decree that named Anaya interim president, his term was to cease on January 8, 1848. He handed the government over at this point and took over the post of Minister of War, faithfully following the policies of President Peña y Peña. After the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the government returned to Mexico City.

Later life
Anaya continued in the post of Minister of War during the presidency of Mariano Arista and continued with President Ceballos for only three days, resigning out of disagreement with the course of events, as yet another coup was bringing Santa Anna back to power. The restored Santa Anna nonetheless made Anaya the postmaster, and it was at this post that Anaya would die on March 21, 1854, in consequence of a violent attack of pneumonia that killed him within hours.

title: Pedro María de Anaya


text:
Talk:Mickey Morandini

VfD
On April 11, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Votes for deletion/Mickey Morandini for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 06:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Toughest hitter Greg Maddux has ever faced?
In this clip of an Atlanta Braves telecast (http://atlanta.braves.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200907175595045&c_id=atl), future Hall of Famer Greg Maddux cites Morandini as the toughest hitter he ever faced. Is this worth citing/possible to cite in this article? He did hit .344 against him in his career.MichaelProcton (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look into it. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 11:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mickey Morandini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505144303/http://www.thebaseballcube.com/lists/unassistedtp.shtml to http://www.thebaseballcube.com/lists/unassistedtp.shtml
 * Added tag to http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1004280/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mickey Morandini


text: User talk:64.32.251.226

title: User talk:64.32.251.226