Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 471–504 | Cite as

Natural languages and context-free languages

  • Geoffrey K. Pullum
  • Gerald Gazdar

Conclusions

Notice that this paper has not claimed that all natural languages are CFL's. What it has shown is that every published argument purporting to demonstrate the non-context-freeness of some natural language is invalid, either formally or empirically or both.18 Whether non-context-free characteristics can be found in the stringset of some natural language remains an open question, just as it was a quarter century ago.

Whether the question is ultimately answered in the negative or the affirmative, there will be interesting further questions to ask. If it turns out that natural languages are indeed always CFL's, it will be reasonable to ask whether this helps to explain why speakers apparently recognize so quickly whether a presented utterance corresponds to a grammatical sentence or not, and to associate structural and semantic details with it. It might also be reasonable to speculate about the explanation for the universally context-free character of the languages used by humans, and to wonder whether evolutionary biological factors are implicated in some way (Sampson (1979) could be read in this light). And naturally, it will be reasonable to pursue the program put forward by Gazdar (1981, in press) to see to what extent CFL-inducing grammatical devices can be exploited to yield insightful descriptions of natural languages that capture generalizations in revealing ways.

If a human language that is not a CFL is proved to exist, on the other hand, a different question will be raised: give the non-context-free character of human languages in general, why has this property been so hard to demonstrate that it has taken over twenty-five years to bring it to light since the issue was first explicitly posed? If human languages do not have to be CFL's, why do so many (most?) of them come so close to having the property of context-freeness? And, since the CFL's certainly constitute a very broad class of mathematically natural and computationally tractable languages, what property of human beings or their communicative or cognitive needs is it that has caused some linguistic communities to reach beyond the boundaries of this class in the course of evolving a linguistic system?

Either way, we shall be interested to see our initial question resolved, and further questions raised. One cautionary word should be said, however, about the implications (or lack of them) that the answer will have for grammatical studies. Chomsky has repeatedly stated that he does not see weak generative capacity as a theme of central importance in the theory of grammar, and we agree. It is very far from being the case that the recent resurgence of interest in exploring the potential of CF-PSG or equivalent systems will, or should, be halted dead in its tracks by the discovery (if it is ever forthcoming) that some natural language is not a CFL. In the area of parsing, for instance, it seems possible that natural languages are not only parsed on the basis of constituent structure such as a CF-PSG would assign, but are parsed as if they were finite state languages (see Langendoen (1975) and Church (1980) for discussion along these lines). That is, precisely those construction-types that figure in the various proofs that English is not an FSL appear to cause massive difficulty in the human processing system; the sentences crucial to the proofs are for the most part unprocessable unless they are extremely short (yet the arguments for English not being and FSL only go through if length is not an issue). This means that in practice properties of finite state grammars are still of great potential importance to linguistic theory despite the fact that they do not provide the framework for defining the total class of grammatical sentences. The same would almost certannly be true of CF-PSG's if they were shown to be inadequate in a similar sense. It is highly unlikely that the advances made so far in far in phrase structure description could be nullified by a discovery about weak generative capacity. Moreover, there are known to be numerous ways in which the power of CF-PSG's can be marginally enhanced to permit, for example, xx languages to be generated without allowing anything like the full class of recursively enumerable or even context-sensitive languages (see Hopcroft and Ullmann (1979), Chapter 14) for an introduction to this topic, noting especially Figure 14.7 on p. 393. The obvious thing to do if natural languages were ever shown not to be CFL's in the general case would be to start exploring such minimal enhancements of expressive power to determine exactly what natural languages call for in this regard and how it could be effectively but parsimoniously provided in a way that closely modelled human linguistic capacities.

In the meantime, it seems reasonable to assume that the natural languages are a proper subset of the infinite-cardinality CFL's until such time as they are validly shown not to be.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AhoA. V. and J. D.Ullmann: 1972, The Theory of Parsing, Translation and Compiling, Volume I: Parsing (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey).Google Scholar
  2. AhoA. V. and J. D.Ullmann: 1973, The Theory of Parsing, Translation and Compiling, Volume II: Translation and Compiling (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey).Google Scholar
  3. AkmajianA. and F.Heny: 1975, An Introduction to the Principles of Transformational Syntax (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.).Google Scholar
  4. AllertonD. J.: 1980, Essentials of Grammatical Theory (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London).Google Scholar
  5. BachE.: 1974, Syntactic Theory (Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York).Google Scholar
  6. Bar-HillelY. and E.Shamir: 1960, ‘Finite State Languages: Formal Representations and Adequacy Problems’, reprinted in Y. Bar-Hillel (1964), Language and Information (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.), pp. 87–98.Google Scholar
  7. BonvillainN.: 1974, ‘Noun Incorporation in Mohawk’, in M. K.Foster (ed.), Papers from the 1972 Conference on Iroquoian Research (National Museum of Man, Ottawa, Canada), pp. 18–26.Google Scholar
  8. Bonvillain, N. and B. Francis: 1980, ‘The Bear and the Fox, in Akwesasne Mohawk’, in Mithun and Woodbury (eds.), pp. 77–95.Google Scholar
  9. BresnanJ. W.: 1976, ‘Evidence for a Theory of Unbounded Transformations’, Linguistic Analysis 2, 353–393.Google Scholar
  10. BresnanJ. W.: 1978, ‘A Realistic Transformational Grammar’, in M.Halle, J. W.Bresnan, and G. A.Miller (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.).Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N.: 1956, ‘Three Models for the Description of Language’, I.R.E. Transactions on Information Theory, Volume IT-2, Proceedings of the Symposium on Information Theory, September, pp. 113–123.Google Scholar
  12. ChomskyN.: 1963, ‘Formal Properties of Grammars’, in R. D.Luce, R. R.Bush, and E.Galanter (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Volume II (John Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
  13. ChomskyN.: 1977, ‘On Wh-Movement’, in P.Culicover, T.Wasow, and A.Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.).Google Scholar
  14. ChomskyN.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding (Foris, Dordrecht).Google Scholar
  15. Church, K. W.: 1980, On Memory Limitations in Natural Language Processing, MSc Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  16. CornulierB.de: 1973, ‘But If “Respectively” Meant Something?’, Papers in Linguistics 6, 131–134.Google Scholar
  17. CulicoverP. W.: 1976, Syntax (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
  18. DalyR. T.: 1974, Applications of the Mathematical Theory of Linguistics (Mouton, The Hague).Google Scholar
  19. ElsterJ.: 1978, Logic and Society: Contradictions and Possible Worlds (John Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
  20. FidelholtzJ.: 1975, Review of J. Kimball, The Formal Theory of Grammar, Language 51, 493–499.Google Scholar
  21. FodorJ. A.: 1975, The Language of Thought (Thomas Crowell, New York).Google Scholar
  22. FromkinV. and R.Rodman: 1978, An Introduction to Language, Second Edition (Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York).Google Scholar
  23. GazdarG.: 1980, ‘A Phrase Structure Syntax for Comparative Clauses’, in T.Hoekstra, H.van derHulst and M.Moortgat (eds), Lexical Grammar (Foris Publications, Dordrecht), pp. 165–179.Google Scholar
  24. GazdarG.: 1981, ‘Unbounded Dependencies and Coordinate Structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 155–184.Google Scholar
  25. Gazdar G.: (in press). ‘Phrase Structure Grammar’, in P. Jacobson and G. K. Pullum (eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland).Google Scholar
  26. GazdarG., G. K.Pullum, and I. A.Sag: 1981, Auxiliaries and Related Phenomena in a Restrictive Theory of Grammar (Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Ind.).Google Scholar
  27. GreenG. M.: 1971, ‘Unspeakable Sentences, Book I’, Linguistic Inquiry 2, 560.Google Scholar
  28. GrinderJ. T. and S. H.Elgin: 1973, Guide to Transformational Grammar (Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York).Google Scholar
  29. HintonG.: 1978, ‘Respectively Reconsidered’, Pragmatics Microfiche 3.3, 912–914.Google Scholar
  30. HopcroftJ. and J. D.Ullmann: 1979, Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.).Google Scholar
  31. HurfordJ. R.: 1980, ‘Generative Growing Pains’, Lingua 50, 117–153.Google Scholar
  32. HuybregtsM. A. C.: 1976, ‘Overlapping Dependencies in Dutch’, Utrecht Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 24–65.Google Scholar
  33. JohnsonD. E. and P. M.Postal: 1980, Arc Pair Grammar (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.).Google Scholar
  34. KimballJ.: 1973, The Formal Theory of Grammar (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey).Google Scholar
  35. LangendoenD. T.: 1975, ‘Finite State Parsing of Phrase-Structure Languages and the Status of Readjustment Rules in the Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 6, 533–554.Google Scholar
  36. LangendoenD. T.: 1977, ‘On the Inadequacy of Type-3 and Type-2 Grammars for Human Languages’, in P. J.Hopper (ed.), Studies in Descriptive and Historical Linguistics: Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann (John Benjamin, Amsterdam, Holland), pp. 159–171.Google Scholar
  37. LangendoenD. T. (1981), ‘The Generative Capacity of Word-formation Components’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 320–322.Google Scholar
  38. LeveltW. J. M.: 1974, Formal Grammars in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics, Volume II: Applications in Linguistic Theory (Mouton, The Hague, Holland).Google Scholar
  39. LounsburyF.: 1953, Oneida Verb Morphology (Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 48, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.).Google Scholar
  40. McCawleyJ. D.: 1968, ‘The Role of Semantics in a Grammar’, in E.Bach and R. T.Harms (eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory (Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York).Google Scholar
  41. Michelson, K.: 1980, ‘Mohawk Text: The Edge of the Forest revisited’, in Mithun and Woodbury (eds.), pp. 26–40.Google Scholar
  42. MithunM. and H.Woodbury (eds.): 1980, Northern Iroquoian Texts (IJAL Native American Texts Series, No. 4) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago/University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Mich.).Google Scholar
  43. PinkerS.: 1979, ‘Formal Models of Language Learning’ Cognition 7, 217–283.Google Scholar
  44. Postal, P. M.: 1962, Some Syntactic Rules in Mohawk, Doctoral Dissertation (Yale University, New Haven, Conn.; Published by Garland, New York, 1979).Google Scholar
  45. PostalP. M.: 1964, ‘Limitations of Phrase Structure Grammars’, in J. A.Fodor and J. J.Katz (eds.), The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs N.J.), pp. 137–151.Google Scholar
  46. ReichP. A.: 1969, ‘The Finiteness of Natural Language’, Language 45, 831–843.Google Scholar
  47. SampsonG.: 1975, The Form of Language (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London).Google Scholar
  48. SampsonG.: 1979, ‘A Non-Nativist Account of Language Universals’, Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 99–104.Google Scholar
  49. SelkirkE. O.: 1977, ‘Some Remarks on Noun Phrase Structure’, in P. W.Culicover, T.Wasow and A.Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax (Academic Press, New York), pp. 285–316.Google Scholar
  50. Wachtel, T.: 1981, ‘Sex and the Single Pronoun’, unpublished paper (University of Warsaw).Google Scholar
  51. WinogradT.: 1972, Understanding Natural Language (Academic Press, New York). Also Cognitive Psychology 3, No. 1 (1972).Google Scholar
  52. WoodburyH.: 1975, ‘Onondaga Noun Incorporation: Notes on the Interdependence of Syntax and Semantics’, International Journal of American Linguistics 41, 10–20.Google Scholar
  53. ZaenenA.: 1979, ‘Infinitival Complements in Dutch’, Papers from the Fifteenth Regional Meeting (Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Ill.), pp. 378–389.Google Scholar
  54. ZwickyA. M.: 1963, ‘Some Languages That Are Not Context-free’, Quarterly Progress Report of the Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT, 70, 290–293.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Co 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey K. Pullum
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gerald Gazdar
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaUSA
  2. 2.University of SussexBringtonEngland

Personalised recommendations