你見過哪些極品論文?

問題描述:比如馬拉松審稿,數千作者之類。
, , ,
胖驍:

science上今年的paper,掃描狗的大腦發現狗是用左腦處理語言而不是人類一樣使用右腦。結果最近發現人是躺著檢測狗是趴著檢測,所以。。。搞反了。。。(轉自朋友圈)


talich:

Sarunas Raudys 有篇數學的,好像從投到發至少有 5 年。不過找不到是哪篇了,不提也罷。

James D. McCawley 當年這篇
“English sentences without overt grammatical subject”
沒有經 peer-review 正式發表,但廣為引用,算是經典吧。

ENGLISH SENTENCES
WITHOUT
OVERT GRAMMATICAL SUBJECTS

by Quang Phuc Dong

South Hanoi Institute of
Technology

There is an extensive
literature
dealing with English imperative sentences. As is well known, these
sentences
have no overt grammatical subject:

(1) Close the door.

There is general agreement
among
scholars that these sentences have deep structures involving an
underlying
subject you which is deleted by a transformation.

There is a widespread
misconception
that utterances such as:

(2) Fuck you.

which also appear to have the
form of a transitive verb followed by a noun phrase and preceded by no
overt subject, are also imperative. This paper will study the syntax of
sentences such as (2). While it will offer only a tentative conjecture
as to what the deep structure of sentences such as (2) is, it will at
least
demonstrate conclusively that they are not imperatives.

One characteristic of
sentences
such as (2), which–as has been often noted–is an anomaly if they are
analyzed as imperatives, is the absence of reflexivization; while

(3) *Assert you.

is ungrammatical, (2) is not.
There are many other anomalies which are not so widely recognized.
While
there are a large number of structures in which imperatives appear
either
embedded in a matrix or with various adjuncts:

(4) I said to close the door.

(5) Don’t close the door.

(6) Do close the door.

(7) Please close the door.

(8) Close the door, won’t you?

(9) Go close the door.

(10) Close the door or I’ll
take away your teddy-bear.

(11) Close the door and I’ll
give you a dollar.

there are no such sentences
corresponding to (2):

(12) *I said to fuck you.

(13) *Don’t fuck you.

(14) *Do fuck you.

(15) *Please fuck you.

(16) *Fuck you, won’t you?

(17) *Go fuck you.

(18) *Fuck you or I’ll take
away your teddy-bear.

(19) *Fuck you and I’ll give
you a dollar.

Further, while ordinary
imperatives
can be conjoined with each other, they cannot be conjoined with (2):

(20) Wash the dishes and sweep
the floor.

(21) *Wash the dishes and fuck
you.

(22) *Fuck you and wash the
dishes.

Similarly, sentences such
as
(20) can be reduced to sentences with a conjoined verb if the two
conjuncts
differ only in the verb; however, the fuck of (2) may not
appear
in such a construction:

(23) Clean and press these
pants.

(24) *Describe and fuck
communism.

Likewise, there are
sentences
containing the word fuck which are ambiguous between a meaning
parallel
to (1) and a meaning parallel to (2):

(25) Fuck Lyndon Johnson.

This sentence can be
interpreted
either as an admonition to copulate with Lyndon Johnson or as an
epithet
indicating disapproval of that individual but conveying no instruction
to engage in sexual relations with him. When sentences with the
embeddings
and adjuncts of (4) to (11) and (20) are formed, the resulting
sentences
allow only the former of these readings:

(12a) I said to fuck Lyndon
Johnson.

(13a) Don’t fuck Lyndon
Johnson.

(14a) Do fuck Lyndon Johnson.

(15a) Please fuck Lyndon
Johnson.

(16a) Fuck Lyndon Johnson,
won’t
you?

(17a) Go fuck Lyndon Johnson.

(18a) Fuck Lyndon Johnson or
I’ll take away your teddy-bear.

(19a) Fuck Lyndon Johnson and
I’ll give you a dollar.

(20a) Fuck Lyndon Johnson and
wash the dishes.

Consideration of these
examples
makes it fairly clear that the fuck of (12a)-(20a) (henceforth fuck1)
and the fuck of (2) (henceforth fuck2) are
two
distinct homophonous lexical items. These two lexical items have
totally
different selectional restrictions, as is shown by the examples:

(26) Fuck these irregular
verbs.

(27) *John fucked these
irregular
verbs.

(28) Fuck communism.

(29) *John fucked communism.

Moreover, fuck2
has a peculiar restriction on the determiner of the following noun
phrase,
a restriction not shared by fuck1, namely that the
determiner
must be either definite or generic:

(30) Fuck these seven
irregular
verbs.

(31) Fuck irregular verbs.

(32) Fuck all irregular verbs.

(33) *Fuck seven irregular
verbs.

(34) *Fuck any irregular verb.

but

(35) Fuck seven old ladies by
midnight or I’ll take away your teddy-bear.

(36) Fuck any old lady you see.

(the latter two involving fuck1).
It should be noted that the word “generic” must be interpreted in a
sense
such that all is generic (cf. example (32)) but each is
not:

(37) *Fuck each irregular verb.

Indeed, substitution into
the
frame “Fuck____irregular verb(s)” is an excellent diagnostic test for
genericness.
As example (35) makes clear, the two fucks also differ in their
potential for co-occurring with adverbial elements; while (35) is
normal,

(38) *Fuck you by midnight.

is not. Moreover, note the
examples:

(39) Fuck my sister tomorrow
afternoon.

(40) *Fuck these irregular
verbs
tomorrow afternoon.

(41) Fuck my sister on the
sofa.

(42) *Fuck communism on the
sofa.

(43) Fuck my sister carefully.

(44) *Fuck complex symbols
carefully.

Evidently, fuck2 does
not allow any adverbial elements at all
. This restriction suggests
that fuck2 not only is distinct from fuck1
but indeed is not even a verb. Chomsky observes that the adverbial
elements
of (39)-(42) are outside of the verb phrase and that only elements
within
the verb phrase play a role in strict subcategorization of verbs. That
principle would clearly be violated if fuck2 were a
verb.
While the “principle of strictly local subcategorization” proposed by
Chomsky
is in fact not valid in precisely that form, the fact remains that no
case
has been reported of any English morpheme which is unambiguously a verb
and which allows no adverbial elements whatever. Since the only reason
which has ever been proposed for analyzing fuck2 as
a
verb is its appearance in a construction (that of (2)) which
superficially
resembles an imperative but in fact is not, one must conclude that
there
is in fact not a scrap of evidence in favor of assigning fuck2
to the class “verb”, and indeed, assigning it to that class would force
the recognition of an anomalous subclass of verbs which violate
otherwise
completely valid generalizations about “verbs”.

If fuck2
is
not a verb, then what is it? To make some headway towards answering
this
question, let us consider the following expressions, which have much in
common with (2):

(45) Damn Lyndon Johnson.

(46) Shit on Lyndon Johnson.

(47) To hell with Lyndon
Johnson.

(48) Hooray for Christine
Keeler.

These expressions likewise
exclude
adverbial elements and require the following noun phrase to be definite
or generic:

(49) Damn those irregular
verbs.

(50) *Damn those irregular
verbs
tomorrow.

(51) *Damn seven irregular
verbs.

(52) Shit on all irregular
verbs.

(53) *Shit on each irregular
verb.

(54) *Hooray for an irregular
verb last night.

Only rarely have hypotheses
been
advanced as to the deep structure of expressions such as (45)-(48). One
hypotheses has been that (45) has an underlying subject God,
which
is deleted. However, this proposal is untenable since it would exclude
the completely acceptable sentence

(55) Damn God.

and imply the grammaticality
of the non-sentence

(56) *Damn Himself.

It is interesting that in
this
respect goddam works exactly like damn:

(57) Goddam God.

(58) *Goddam Himself.

While the assumption of a
deleted
subject, God, has semantic plausibility in the case of
sentences
such as (46) and (2), such an analysis must be rejected for the same
reason
as in the case of damn, namely, the grammaticality of

(59) Fuck God.

(60) Shit on God.

and the ungrammaticality of

(61) *Fuck Himself.

(62) *Shit on Himself.

Consider now the semantics
of
fuck2,
damn,
to
hell with
, shit on,
hooray for, etc. A sentence consisting
of one of these items plus a noun-phrase has neither declarative nor
interrogative
nor imperative meaning; one can neither deny nor answer nor comply with
such an utterance. These utterances simply express a favorable or
unfavorable
attitude on the part of the speaker towards the thing or things denoted
by the noun-phrase. The fact that they have such a semantic
interpretation
explains the restriction on the determiner of the noun-phrase; the
noun-phrase
must specify a thing or class of things in order for the utterance to
be
semantically interpretable.

Note further the
possibility
of using most of the words in question without any following
noun-phrase:

(64) Fuck!

(65) Damn!

(66) Shit!

(67) Hooray!

These sentences indicate
the
attitude in question but do not specify what object that attitude is
directed
towards by the speaker.

The fact that sentences of
the
form fuck2 plus NP are not known to be validly
analyzable
as NP + VP in deep structure, the fact that they are not embeddable in
any sentences, and the fact that they allow none of the adjuncts which
all other sentences allow, makes highly plausible the hypothesis that
they
should not even be analyzed as sentences–that the category “utterance”
be divided into two subcategories, “sentence” and “epithet” (the latter
class including utterances such as (2), (46) and (64)), that only
“sentence”
and not “epithet” be embeddable within an utterance, that “epithet”
involve
a lexical category of “quasi-verbs” (this category consisting of fuck2,
shit
on
, etc.), that there be a phrase-structure rule

Epithet –> Quasi-verb NP

and that “Quasi-verb” appear
in no other phrase-structure rule.

In closing, I should
mention
certain problems which I have not dealt with and which the reader
should
be aware of. First, there is the matter of stress in “epithets”. I know
of no non-ad-hoc treatment of the stress difference between

(78) Fuck you.

(79) Damn you.

Moreover, quasi-verbs have
a
tendency to take primary stress. Stress may disambiguate (63) (although
the distinction is lost when contrastive stress is placed on the NP):

(80) Shit on the carpet. (=
Fuck2 the carpet.)

(81) Shit on the carpet. (=
Defecate on the carpet.)

A second matter which
deserves
a full treatment is the process of historical change whereby normal
lexical
items become quasi-verbs. I conjecture that fuck2
arose
historically from fuck1, although the paucity of
citations
of fuck makes the philological validation of this conjecture
difficult.
However, it is clearly no accident that many quasi-verbs are
homophonous
with normal morphemes.

South Hanoi Institute of
Technology

Revised version, Feb. 5, 1967

WE SUPPORT OUR BOYS IN
THE
U.S. EMBASSY, SAIGON.


呆蛙:

畢業答辯時候,學院里出過一個荒唐事。
一個男生上網抄了一篇論文,作為自己的畢業論文去答辯了,他分到的是院長,院長拿過他的論文一看:這不我寫的嘛。


菜阿倫:

一次烏龍收穫兩篇Science
手動滑稽ପ(⑅ˊᵕˋ⑅)ଓ
去年某團隊在《Science》發表研究,用磁共振成像(MRI)技術,掃描狗的大腦結果發現,與人類不同,狗是用左腦處理語言的。
就在今年,該團隊再次在《Science》發表文章,只不過這次是一份勘誤聲明,他們發現,在MRI進行實驗時,人是躺著進去的,而狗卻是趴著進去的,所以左右腦搞反了ヽ( ຶ▮ ຶ)ノ!!!
他們發布了如下勘誤聲明:

在這份聲明中,他們這樣說:「在《犬的詞匯處理神經機制》中,在分析狗的大腦結果時,不小心把左右方向弄反了。這是由分析MRI圖像坐標系時,一個疏忽引發的,具體來講,因為在MRI掃描器中,人和狗的身體姿態是不同的。這個疏忽並不影響這篇論文的主要結論。HTML和PDF版本已經訂正過了。」
這個,額,感覺是不是有點囧,「姿態是不同的」,我的理解,是不是像下面這樣:

突然莫名戳中笑點✧⁺⸜(๑˙▾˙๑)⸝⁺✧
狗狗表示很無辜:你們連我躺著進入還是趴著進入都傻傻搞不清,我還能說什麼呢,這個鍋我不背!自從其他狗狗得知我是左腦處理語言,它們都不願意跟我一起玩了 ◔̯◔ 哼
—————————分割線———————
在PubMed 庫中,這篇論文摘要最初是這樣的:

現在Science 官網摘要已經更新成這樣:

在摘要中去掉了left 和right ( ´ρ`)
幸好沒被其他團隊早一步發現,不然就糗大了
~( ´•︵•` )~


小快俠:

全世界範圍內的確不乏眾多奇葩極品論文,近年來在大陸也頻繁可見,足見大陸學者集智慧與幽默於一身的功力。

一篇博士學位論文《八角茴香對鹵雞肉揮發性風味的影響極其作用機制》突然走紅網路,引起網民熱議。
八角、鹵雞肉……看似跟學術完全不搭界,又毫無理論感可言,可就是如此不起眼的一些東西,卻成為重要的學術研究對象。
八角茴香(簡稱八角)與鹵雞肉之間的關系,居然被寫成了一篇8萬字的博士學位論文。 陝西師范大學的女博士孫靈霞的博士論文《八角茴香對鹵雞肉揮發性風味的影響極其作用機制》經陝師大官方微博發布後成為網友熱議的話題。這得用多少只雞才能成就一篇博士論文?不少網友稱:「不愧是陝西吃飯大學,一道鹵雞都能研究的這么專業」,而這篇論文也被贊為最美味的論文。

發表迴響