Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 277–296 | Cite as

On the Mathematical Foundations of Syntactic Structures

Article

Abstract

Chomsky’s highly influential Syntactic Structures (SS) has been much praised its originality, explicitness, and relevance for subsequent cognitive science. Such claims are greatly overstated. SS contains no proof that English is beyond the power of finite state description (it is not clear that Chomsky ever gave a sound mathematical argument for that claim). The approach advocated by SS springs directly out of 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. Chomsky’s extensions to Post’s systems are not clearly defined, and the arguments for their necessity are weak. Linguists have also overlooked Post’s proofs of the first two theorems about effects of rule format restrictions on generative capacity, published more than ten years before SS was published.

Keywords

Generative grammar Transformations Emil Post Formalization Proof theory Mathematical logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bever T. G., Fodor J. A., Garrett M. (1968) A formal limitation of associationism. In: Dixon T. R., Horton D. L. (eds) Verbal behavior and general behavior theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 582–585Google Scholar
  2. Borsley R. D. (2003) Against ConjP. Lingua 115: 461–482Google Scholar
  3. Brainerd W. S., Landweber L. H. (1974) Theory of computation. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnap, R. (1934). Logische Syntax der Sprache. Julius Springer, Vienna, translated as The Logical Syntax of Language, Kegan Paul, 1937.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1956a). The logical structure of linguistic theory. MIT Library, Cambridge, MA, microfilmed; revised version of a 1955 unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1956b). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory IT-2, 113–123, reprinted with substantive revisions in Luce, Bush & Galanter (1965), 105–124.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky N. (1957) Syntactic structures. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1959). On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control 2, 137–167, reprinted in Luce, Bush & Galanter (1965, 125–155; citation to original is incorrect).Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. (1961). On the notion ‘rule of grammar’. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium in Applied Mathematics (pp. 6–24). American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, reprinted with slight revision in Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz (Eds.), The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, 155–210 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (1962). Explanatory models in linguistics. In: E. Nagel, P. Suppes & A. Tarski (Eds.) Logic, Methodology and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress (pp. 528–550), Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N. (1975). The logical structure of linguistic theory. Plenum, New York, published version of Chomsky (1956).Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky N., Miller G.A. (1963) Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In: Luce R.D., Bush R.R., Galanter E. (eds) Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (Vol. II). John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 269–321Google Scholar
  14. Daly R. T. (1974) Applications of the mathematical theory of linguistics. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, M. (1994a). Emil L. Post: His life and work. In Davis 1994b, xi–xxviii.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, M. (Ed.) (1994b). Solvability, provability, definability: The collected works of Emil L. Post. Birkhäuser, Boston.Google Scholar
  17. Firth J. R. (1957) Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Fitch W. T., Hauser M. D. (2004) Computational constraints on syntactic processing in nonhuman primates. Science 303: 377–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gazdar G. (1981) Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 155–184Google Scholar
  20. Gazdar G. (1982) Phrase structure grammar. In: Jacobson P., Pullum G.K. (eds) The nature of syntactic representation. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 131–186Google Scholar
  21. Gazdar G., Pullum G. K., Sag I. A. (1982) Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar. Language 58: 591–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harman G. (1963) Generative grammars without transformation rules. Language 39: 597–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris Z. S. (1951) Methods in structural linguistics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison M. (1978) Introduction to formal language theory. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. Huddleston R., Pullum G. K. (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Joos, M. (eds) (1957) Readings in linguistics I: The development of descriptive linguistics in America since 1925. (1st ed.). American Council of Learned Societies, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Lasnik H. (2000) Syntactic structures revisited: Contemporary lectures on classic transformational theory. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Lees R. B. (1957) Review of Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures. Language 33: 375–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lightfoot, D. (2002). Introduction. In Noam Chomsky, syntactic structures, 2nd edn., v–xviii. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  30. Luce R.D., Bush R.R., Galanter E. (1965) Readings in mathematical psychology, Vol. II. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyons J. (1970) Chomsky. Fontana, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Newmeyer F. J. (1986) Has there been a ‘Chomskyan revolution’ in linguistics?. Language 62(1): 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Partee, B. H., ter Meulen, A., Wall, R. E. (1993). Mathematical methods in linguistics, corrected first edn. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  34. Pelletier F. J. (1980) The generative power of rule orderings in formal grammars. Linguistics 18(1/2 (227/228)): 17–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pereira F. (2000) Formal grammar and information theory: Together again?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 358(1769): 1239–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peters P. S., Ritchie R. W. (1971) On restricting the base component of transformational grammars. Information and Control 18: 483–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peters P. S., Ritchie R. W. (1973) On the generative power of transformational grammars. Information Sciences 6: 49–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Philological Society (1957). Studies in linguistic analysis. Philological Society, Oxford.Google Scholar
  39. Post, E. (1921). Introduction to a general theory of elementary propositions. American Journal of Mathematics 43, 163–185, reprinted in Jan van Heijenoort, Ed., From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1967, 264–283.Google Scholar
  40. Post, E., (1943). Formal reductions of the general combinatory decision problem. American Journal of Mathematics 65, 197–215, reprinted in Davis 1994b, 442–460.Google Scholar
  41. Post, E., (1944). Recursively enumerable sets of positive integers and their decision problems. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 50, 284–316, reprinted in Davis 1994b, 461–494.Google Scholar
  42. Post, E., (1947). Recursive unsolvability of a problem of Thue. Journal of Symbolic Logic 12, 1–11, reprinted in Davis 1994b, 503–513.Google Scholar
  43. Postal P. M. (1971) Crossover phenomena. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Pullum G. K., Scholz B. C. (2007) Systematicity and natural language syntax. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7: 375–402Google Scholar
  45. Pullum G. K., Scholz B. C. (2009) For universals (but not finite-state learning), visit the zoo. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 466–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Putnam, H. (1961). Some issues in the theory of grammar. In: R. Jakobson (Ed.) Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, no. 12 in Proceedings of symposia in applied mathematics (pp. 25–42). American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar
  47. Rogers, J. (1999). The descriptive complexity of generalized local sets. In: H. P. Kolb, U. Mönnich (Eds.) The mathematics of syntactic structure: Trees and their logics, no. 44 in studies in generative grammar (pp. 21–40). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  48. Rogers, J., Pullum, G. K. (2010). Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. In this issue.Google Scholar
  49. Rogers, Jr. H. (1967) The theory of recursive functions and effective computability. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosenbloom P. (1950) The Elements of Mathematical Logic. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, duplicated version published in 1968 by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN. Later published in book form as Infinite Syntax! (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986).Google Scholar
  52. Sampson, G. (1979). What was transformational grammar? Lingua 48, 355–378, reprinted in Empirical linguistics, Continuum, 2001.Google Scholar
  53. Scholz B. C., Pullum G. K. (2007) Tracking the origins of transformational generative grammar. Journal of Linguistics 43: 701–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Seuren P. (2009) Concerning the roots of transformational generative grammar. Historiographia Linguistica 36(1): 97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skinner B. F. (1957) Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Svenonius L. (1957) Review of ‘Three models for the description of language’ by Noam Chomsky. Journal of Symbolic Logic 23: 71–72Google Scholar
  57. Thue, A. (1914). Probleme über Veränderungen von Zeichenreihen nach gegebenen Regeln. In: Skrifter utgit av Videnskapsselskapet i Kristiana, I, no. 10 in Matematisk-naturvidenskabelig klasse, Norske Videnskaps-Akademi, Oslo.Google Scholar
  58. Tomalin M. (2006) Linguistics and the formal sciences. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Urquhart A. (2009) Emil Post. In: Gabbay D.M., Woods J. (eds) Handbook of the history of logic, Volume 5: Logic from Russell to Church. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 617–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations