Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Argument or no argument?

Abstract

We examine an argument for the non-context-freeness of English that has received virtually no discussion in the literature. It is based on adjuncts of the form ‘X or no X’, where X is a nominal. The construction has been held to exemplify unbounded syntactic reduplication. We argue that although the argument can be made in a mathematically valid form, its empirical basis is not claimed unbounded syntactic identity between nominals does not always hold in attested cases, and second, an understanding of the semantics of the construction removes the necessity of making reference to any syntactic reduplication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bresnan J.W., Kaplan R.M., Peters P.S., Zaenen A. (1982). Cross-serial dependencies in Dutch. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 613-635

  2. Chomsky N. (1963). Formal properties of grammars. In: Luce R.D., Bush R.R., Galanter E. (eds) Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. II). New York, John Wiley

  3. Culy C. (1985). The complexity of the vocabulary of Bambara. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 345-351

  4. Dalrymple M., Kehler A. (1995). On the constraints imposed by respectively. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 531-536

  5. Daly R.T. (1974). Applications of the mathematical theory of linguistics. The Hague, Mouton

  6. Dayal, V. (1997). Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In Proceedings of SALT VII(pp. 99-116). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  7. Gawron, J. M. (2001). Universal concessive conditionals and alternative NPs in English. In C. Condoravdi & G. R. de Lavalette (Eds.), Logical perspectives on language and information. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  8. Geurts B. (2005). Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410

  9. Harkema H. (2001). A characterization of minimalist languages. In: de Groote P., Morrill G., Retoré C. (eds) Logical aspects of computational linguistics: 4th international conference. Berlin, Springer Verlag, pp. 193–211

  10. Higginbotham J. (1984). English is not a context-free language. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 119–126

  11. Higginbotham J. (1985). Reply to Pullum. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 298–304

  12. Hopcroft J.E., Ullman J.D. (1979). Introduction automata theory, languages, and computation. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley

  13. Huddleston R., Pullum G.K. et al. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

  14. Izvorski R. (2000). Free adjunct free relatives. In Billerey R., Lillehaugen B.D. (eds) Proceedings of the 19th West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Press, pp. 232–245

  15. Kobele, G. M., & Michaelis, J. (2005). Two type 0-variants of minimalist grammars. Presented at the 2005 FG-MoL (Formal Grammars/Mathematics of Language) FG-MoL ’05: The 10th conference on formal grammar and the 9th meeting on mathematics of language. University of Edinburgh. Proceedings to be published by CSLI Publications, Stanford, California.

  16. Manaster-Ramer, A. (1986). Copying in natural languages, context-freeness, and queue grammars. In Proceedings of the 24th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 85–89). New York: Columbia University.

  17. Manaster-Ramer A. (1991). Vacuity. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 339–348

  18. Michaelis J. (2001). Transforming linear context-free rewriting systems into minimalist grammars. In: de Groote P., Morrill G., Retoré C. (eds) Logical aspects of computational linguistics: 4th international conference, LACL ’01. Berlin, Springer Verlag, pp. 228–244

  19. Pelletier F.J. (1988). Vacuous relatives and the (non-)context-freeness of English. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 255–260

  20. Potts C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford, Oxford University Press

  21. Pullum G.K., Gazdar G. (1982). Natural languages and context-free languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 471–504

  22. Pullum G.K. (1985). Such that clauses and the context-freeness of English. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 291–298

  23. Shieber S. (1985). Evidence against the context-freeness of human language. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 333–343

  24. Simons M. (2001). Disjunction and alternativeness. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 597–619

  25. Stabler E.P. (1997). Derivational minimalism. In: Retoré C. (eds) Logical aspects of computational linguistics: LACL ’96. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp. 68–95

  26. Ullian J. (1966). Failure of a conjecture about context-free languages. Information and Control 9: 61–65

  27. Zimmermann T.E. (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290

  28. Zwicky A.M., Sadock J.M. (1985). A note on xy languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 229–236

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Geoffrey K. Pullum.

Additional information

The first author’s interest in this topic was sparked many years ago, when Robert Berwick brought to his attention the observations of Alexis Manaster-Ramer. Gerald Gazdar, Uwe Mönnich, James MoRogers, Stuart Shieber and Alia Sperling have supplied useful ideas in conversation and in comments on an earlier draft. Versions of this paper were presented at MIT in May 2005 and at University College London in September 2005, and the members of both audiences are thanked for their valuable discussion. The work of Pullum on this paper was partially supported by a fellowship at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pullum, G.K., Rawlins, K. Argument or no argument?. Linguist and Philos 30, 277–287 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-007-9013-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Formal language theory
  • Context-freeness
  • Syntax
  • Reduplication
  • English
  • Computational linguistics
  • Linguistic engineering
  • Semantics
  • Corpus linguistics
  • Conventional implicature
  • Expressive epithets