Advertisement

Evidence Against the Context-Freeness of Natural Language

  • Stuart M. Shieber
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 33)

Abstract

In searching for universal constraints on the class of natural languages, linguists have investigated a number of formal properties, including that of context-freeness. Soon after Chomsky’s categorization of languages into his well-known hierarchy (Chomsky, 1963), the common conception of the context-free class of languages as a tool for describing natural languages was that it was too restrictive a class — interpreted strongly (as a way of characterizing structure sets) and even weakly (as a way of characterizing string sets).

Keywords

Natural Language Regular Language Computational Linguistics Subordinate Clause Defense Advance Research Project Agency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bresnan, J., R. M. Kaplan, S. Peters, and A. Zaenen: 1982, ‘Cross-Serial Dependencies in Dutch’, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 613–635.Google Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N.: 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, pp. 323–418.Google Scholar
  3. Culy, C. D.: 1983, ‘An Extension of Phrase Structure Rules and its Application to Natural Language’, Master’s thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, California (May).Google Scholar
  4. Culy, C. D.: 1985, ‘The Complexity of the Vocabulary of Bambara’, Linguistics and Philosophy 8, pp. 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gazdar, G.: 1982, ‘Phrase Structure Grammar’, in P. Jacobson and G. K. Pullum (eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Gazdar, G. J. M. and G. K. Pullum: 1982, ‘Natural Languages and Context-Free Languages’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 469–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Higginbotham, J.: 1984, ‘English is not a Context-Free Language’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 119–126.Google Scholar
  8. Hopcroft, J. E. and J. D. Ullman: 1979, Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Joshi, A. K.: 1983, ‘How Much Context-Sensitivity is Required to Provide Reasonable Structural Descriptions: Tree Adjoining Grammars’, to appear in D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky (eds.), Natural Language Processing: Psycholinguistic, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  10. Postal, P. and T. Langendoen: 1985, ‘English and the Class of Context-Free Languages’, Computational Linguistics 10, 177–181.Google Scholar
  11. Pullum, G. K.: 1985, ‘On Two Recent Attempts to Show that English is Not a CFL’, Computational Linguistics 10, 182–186.Google Scholar
  12. Rosenthal, R.: 1966, Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research, Appelton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Thompson, H.: 1983, ‘Cross Serial Dependencies: A Low-Power Parseable Extension to GPSG’, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts (15–17 June).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart M. Shieber

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations