Article View: sci.lang
Article #2610Re: Syntactical *definition* of English
From: Jay Kim
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1988 12:12
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1988 12:12
10 lines
1013 bytes
1013 bytes
> <<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<***>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>> Clay Bond wrote: > a CFL is not going to describe English. Could you tell us a convincing evidence for this? If you are going to bring up 50's argument based on a long-distant dependency, I would recommend you to read first Gerald Gazdar (1982) Phrase structure grammar. In Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 131-186.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2516@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!uhccux!jkimReferences:
<726@wsccs.UUCP> <6946@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <3349@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <14076@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!uhccux!jkim From: jkim@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Jay Kim) Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Syntactical *definition* of English Summary: English is not a context-free language (CFL). Could you back it up more? Message-ID: <2516@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Date: 22 Oct 88 12:12:14 GMT References: <726@wsccs.UUCP> <6946@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <3349@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <14076@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Organization: University of Hawaii Lines: 9