Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:42:37.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Arguments Against the Empirical Adequacy of Finite State Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Richard Daly
Richard Daly*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the first part of this paper, two arguments, one by Chomsky, and one by Bar-Hillel and Shamir, are examined in detail and rejected. Both arguments purport to show that the structure of English precludes its having a finite state grammar which correctly enumerates just the well formed sentences of English.

In the latter part of the paper I consider the problem of supporting claims about the structure and properties of a natural language when no grammar for the language has yet been accepted.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 1972 , pp. 461 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 by The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article is the third chapter of the book, Applications of the Mathematical Theory of Linguistics, to be published by Mouton and Company, The Hague (Janus Linguarum series).

References

REFERENCES

[1] Bar-Hillel, Y. and Shamir, E. “Finite State Languages.” The Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel 8F (1960): 155–166. Reprinted in Bar-Hillel, Y., Language and Information. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1964: 87–98.Google Scholar
[2] Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1965.Google Scholar
[3] Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Chomsky, N. “Three Models for the Description of Language.” I.R.E. Transactions on Information Theory. IT-2/3 (1956): 113–124. Reprinted with corrections in Readings in Mathematical Psychology, vol. 2. Edited by R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter. New York: John Wiley, 1965.Google Scholar
[5] Ginsburg, S. The Mathematical Theory of Context Free Languages. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.Google Scholar
[6] Postal, P. “Limitations of Phrase Structure Grammar.” The Structure of Language. Edited by Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964: 137–154.Google Scholar