| { |
| "paper_id": "C65-1019", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:12:24.242674Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "Va~rious devices for the imp rovement of phrase structure grammars (PSG) have been suggested recently.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "C65-1019", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Va~rious devices for the imp rovement of phrase structure grammars (PSG) have been suggested recently.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "NoChomsky has argued that a PSG is not suff_ icient to generate all the grammatical sent_ ences of a language (Chomsky 1957:3~ ff.).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Mey 3 O. Introduction", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Recently, this conceotion of PSG has been criticized as being too primitive (Yngve 1960 :445a, Harman 1963 , and several", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 76, |
| "end": 87, |
| "text": "(Yngve 1960", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 88, |
| "end": 106, |
| "text": ":445a, Harman 1963", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Mey 3 O. Introduction", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "ways of improving such a grammar have been suggested: a PDS has been connected with a PSG (Yngve 1960 (Yngve , 1961 (Yngve , 1962 ; the use of subscript notation has been recommended to", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 90, |
| "end": 101, |
| "text": "(Yngve 1960", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 102, |
| "end": 115, |
| "text": "(Yngve , 1961", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 116, |
| "end": 129, |
| "text": "(Yngve , 1962", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Mey 3 O. Introduction", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "give PSG a fair chance in competition with TG (Harman 1963 (Yngve 1960:448a) , the solution ~ffered to this particular problem implies a wider claim, namely, that \"any shortcomings /of PSG, JM/ can be overcome\" (Ib.:445a). Accordingly, I will discuss be_ low not only the problem of DC, but also the more general one of structure in a PSG/PDS. Let further ~ be the subscript for right hand side symbols of GR i. The rest of the operation is then performed as routine counting on GRi. , 3 i being set at 2 (the first symbol has already been taken care of). There should, of course, be a proviso for the symbol \"...\" itself, so that it will not be copied onto the TM taoe.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 43, |
| "end": 58, |
| "text": "TG (Harman 1963", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 59, |
| "end": 76, |
| "text": "(Yngve 1960:448a)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Mey 3 O. Introduction", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The method as described here will work neatly even in those cases where DC are \"nested~ that is, if the expansion of some DC turns out to be another DC (and so on, at least theoretical_ ly). As an example, one may try out the doubly discontinuous as far as the corner, where all the necessary rules are sDeclfied by Yngve himself (1960:449a ).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 330, |
| "end": 340, |
| "text": "(1960:449a", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Mey 3 O. Introduction", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "An implicit assumption throughout the descrip_ tion of the mechanism is that DC can be repres_ ented by the simple formula A --> B + 9,o + C. sequence (as already Saussure has remarked), it", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Mey 3 O. Introduction", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "has not yet been shown how this linearity is to be interpreted in human speech production: I think it is only weakly relevant, that is to ssy, linearity alone will never suffice to", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Mey 3 O. Introduction", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "give a complete picture of the speech event.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Mey 3 O. Introduction", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For a full_fledged description of speech I suppose the assumption that we speak in senten_ cesra ther than in words will have many advant_ ages. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Mey 3 O. Introduction", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "An Introduction to Trans_ formational Grammars t Ne,~' York etc", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "E", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Bach", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1959, |
| "venue": "Bierwisch 1964:M.Bierwisch, Auf~aben und Form der Grnmmatik (Preorint IId Internatio_ nal Symposium", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky 1957: Chomsky 1961: Chomsky 1962: ]larman 1963: Harris 1962: Hays 1964: Hockett 1959: Bach 1964: E.Bach, An Introduction to Trans_ formational Grammars t Ne,~' York etc., 1964 Bierwisch 1964:M.Bierwisch, Auf~aben und Form der Grnmmatik (Preorint IId Internatio_ nal Symposium \"Zeichen und System der Sprache, Magdeburg, Germany, Seotember 1964)", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "Dwight LoBolin~er, Addenda to the Comparison of Inequality in Spanish Lg", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": 1953, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "29", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "62--68", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Bolinger 1953: Dwight LoBolin~er, Addenda to the Comparison of Inequality in Spanish Lg. 29 (1953), 62_6\u00b0", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Syntactic Structures The Hague", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Aochomsky", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1957, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "N.AoChomsky, Syntactic Structures The Hague,1957", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "On the Notion Rule of Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Id", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1961, |
| "venue": "Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, ~SAM XII", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Id., On the Notion Rule of Grammar, in: Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, ~SAM XII (1961), 6_24, Providence, RoI., 1961", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Approach to Syntax", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Id", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1958, |
| "venue": "ThiFd Texas Confersnce on Problems of Linguistic A/~aiysis", |
| "volume": "196", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "124--58", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Id., A Transformational Approach to Syntax, in: ThiFd Texas Confersnce on Problems of Linguistic A/~aiysis (1958), Austin, Tex., 196~, 124_58", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Generative Grammar without Transformation Rules: A De_ fense for Phrase Structure Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "I", |
| "middle": [ |
| "I" |
| ], |
| "last": "Gilbert", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Harman", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1963, |
| "venue": "Lg", |
| "volume": "39", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "597--616", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Gilbert II.Harman, Generative Grammar without Transformation Rules: A De_ fense for Phrase Structure Grammar, Lg. 39 (1963), 597_616", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Dependency Theory: A Formalism and some observations", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "David", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Gohays", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1964, |
| "venue": "Lg", |
| "volume": "40", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "511--536", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "David GoHays, Dependency Theory: A Formalism and some observations, Lg 40 (1964), 511_25", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "A Course in Modern Linguistics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Charles", |
| "middle": [ |
| "F" |
| ], |
| "last": "Hockett", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Charles F.Hockett, A Course in Modern Linguistics, Ne~, York, 1959", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "1o2o DC and PDS The crucial step in the derivation of DC by the automaton (for a full description, see Yngve 1960:448_9) is the question asked: Does the right half of the grammar rule in question (GRi) contain the symbol \"...\" ? (where \".. o\" stands for \"discontinuity in rewriting the symbol on the left hand side of the rule\") If the answer is Yes, we have to roll out the temporary memory (TM) ta~e one space (in a flow chart, one woul~ sym_ bolize this by the index notation 1 --I --> i, where 1 stands for \"leftmost\": \"rolling in\" tape would then be indicated by 1 + \u2022 --> i, see Fig. ~). During this operation, the original content of TM 1 (the leftmost loca_ Mey 5 tion of TM) has to be kept in place, that is, the blank has to occur after the original TM 1 (on the right side, if the tape is thought of as moving from the left, see Fig\u00b0 ~). If, how_ ever, the answer is No, we have to make sure that we have space for all the symbols on the right hand side of the rule and roll out tape accordingly. Let ~ be the number of symbols on the right hand side of GRi: then we can symbolize the rolling out by the index formula i --(n --~ the first symbol always goes to the computing register.", |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "fixed to the constituent by means of a sub_ script, or on the basis of a rule contained so_ mewhere else in the grammar. The essential is that ~eration proceeds from left to right, and one symbol is F)roduced at a time. (See discuss_ ion above, 1.2). To Drove the other half of the assertion male above, I will try to give an answer to the two_ MeT 20 fold question about representation of struct_ ure. Let's go back to the elementary example of the optional T , and try to imagine how this q is handled in a PSG/S. The main difference be_ tween PSG and TG is that the rules in PSG oper_ ate on symbols, in TG on strings of symbols. When I put a subscript on a symbol that is part of a string, and I want to mark off a struct_ ure that is based on several symbols occurring in a certain order, I will have to mark a Ii the symbols of my string in the same way, and this way of :~larking must be unique, i.e. de_ fine a unique path through the rules. This path may, in due course, require additions, deletions, permutations and the like. Now, in TG these op_ erations are carried out after the PS deriv&tion has been completed. In PSG/S, ho~Tever, the cleavage between affirmative and interrogative sentences occurs already in the third rule, where $2 is expanded into NP + VP, VP + NP, respectively(omitting the subscripts", |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF2": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "NP8 --> Sl/CLAUSE. TYPE:NOMINALIZATION, SUBJ. INo GENITIVE, B, C ,D,E, Z,Y, ERASEoOTHERS This means that all the subscripts originally found on NP8 are to be deleted; the new sub_ scripts deal exclusively with the derivation of the embedded clause (as can easily be veri_ fled from the rules of the PSG/S as given in the Appendix of the article). 1~'hereas TG keeps track of the chan~es to be made by means of a structural description of the pair of kernel sentences involved, together with a formula for sh~/ctural change, in PSG/S we have only a con_ stituent NP to be expanded by means of DS rules\u00b0 How this NP fits into the stmucture of the ori_ ginal kernel sentence (being essentially its path through the PS derivation) can be fo] low_ ed in .nSG by tracing back the nodes of the tree representation.In PSG/S, this path is marked by the subscriots added to the NP in question.Now, all this information is struck from the record by the removal of the subscripts in ac,:ordance with the instruction ERASE OTHERS\u00b0 ~struCtural descri!)tion of the sentence as a whole is not available: the expansion of NP8 destroyed our bridge back to the original So It is as if we ha~een expanding a constituent while forgetting what it was we were expanding. models discussed here, the first one (PSG/PDS) has not actually been proposed as a full_scale grammatical mo:Iel, but I have tried to show that the implications of the claim that any shorgcomings of PSG can be ow:rcome lead to difficulties of about the same nature as those encountered in the second molel (PSG/S). Descriptive adequacy is not attained in those cases where structural descriptions are rele_ vant for the operation of the rules: neither PSG/PDS nor PSG/S permits one structural descr_ iption to be carried over into another. As one will have noticed, the argument in both cases runs a lon~ the same lines. Moreover, of the several devices proposed by Har:~an to boost the .)ower of PSG, the deletion rule was explicitly rejected on the ground that it would add too much power to the ~rammaro On the other hand, the use of subscripts, no matter how carefully chosen, will not help enlarge the descriptive Dower oi\" the gramm,~r (Harman 1963:605) enough to account for all the grammatical sentences of the language. Thus, one_level grammars like the ones discussed above will not attain explanatory adequacy in any case, and in some cases not even descriptive adequacy. \"Dieser Versuch /namely, the defense of phrase structure, JM/ verfehlt den entscheidenden Punkt abet in zweifacher }{insicht: Erstens uberschreiten die Regeln Harmans die Kapazitat einer PSGo Und zweitens losen such sie nicht das Problem einer geigneten Zuordnung yon Stammbaumen.\" (I~ierwisch 1964: que sabe FIG. 2. DISCONTINUOUS ~IULTIPLE CONSTITUENPS", |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF0": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "text": "). i. PSG/PDS l.lo PSG and DC The problem of the so_called discontinuous sonstituents (for a detailed treatment, see Wells 1947:96 ff.) has always been a crux in IC analysis. One of the drawbacks of PSG as described by Chomsky, is that it is not able to handle these constituents in a way that satisfies both the formal criteria of the grammar and the intuitive feeling that call and up in, e.g., I called him u~, belong to_ gether and should be treated accordingly in the analysis. Chomsky, in his discussion of ), but, he adds, \"...fairly serious difficulties arise in any systematic attempt to pursue this course.\" An attempt in this direction is described by V.Yngve in several articles (see especially Yngve 1960); a lthough the presence of DC is the most annoying of the complications under the PSG model", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>Mey 4</td></tr><tr><td>1957:41</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">PSG limitations,</td><td colspan=\"2\">admits the possibility of</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">\"extending the notions of phrase structure</td></tr><tr><td>to account</td><td colspan=\"2\">for discontinuities\"</td><td>(Chomsky</td></tr></table>", |
| "html": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF1": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "text": "It follows that there are two cases that cannot", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Mey 7</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">one can be symbolized The question is: will it generate all, and by A --> B + ... + C +</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">... + D (\"mul~ple discontinuous only, the grammatical sentences of a fang_ constituents\");</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">this reduces easily to double discontinuity uage? I will try to answer this question in</td><td>by</td></tr><tr><td>a</td><td colspan=\"4\">suitable the next paragraph. manipulation</td><td colspan=\"2\">of the inout rules.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">The other case could be labeled \"discontinu_</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">ous multiple 1.3. Limitations constituents\": of PSG/PD ~</td><td>formula A --> B +</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">C + ..o + D (or some variation</td><td>on this theme),</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">which would imply that the blank has to occur Although the model as proposed by Yngve in its</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">two spaces from leftmost original form only uses the PDS technique to ins~ad of one. Foll_</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">owing the instructions solve a minor problem in syntactic analysis given by Yngve we would</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">not obtain the right string of symbols in this by the machine, the scope and use of PDS are</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">case (as examples, by no means limited to this particular pro_ one may try: He's not that</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">bin a fool, or: As nice a little parlor as ever blem of DC (For a detailed discussion, see</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">you did see, or the Soanish Oettinger 1961:126_7). The elegancy and sim_ sentence: Habla mas</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">de lo que sabe 'He talks more than what he knows' plicity of PDS algorithms make them well_</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">(Bolinger suited for procedures of automatic syntactic 1957:63), where common sense would</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">prefer the analyses analysis of languages. that bi~ ... fool, as nice</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">\u2022 .. ~arlor, mas de ... que</td><td>(</td><td>see diagrams</td><td>in</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Fig. 2), thus pre3erving</td><td colspan=\"2\">analogy with construc_</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">tions like such a fool etc. The program could</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">be accommodmted</td><td colspan=\"4\">to perform this by combining</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">a counting</td><td colspan=\"2\">operation</td><td colspan=\"3\">with the check on \"</td><td>o.o</td><td>\"</td><td>,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">whereafter</td><td colspan=\"3\">the continuous</td><td/><td>part of GRi's right</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">hand side could be thrown in with the non_DC</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">rules. Derivation</td><td colspan=\"4\">being different,</td><td>there would</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">be no interference</td><td colspan=\"3\">from constructions</td><td>like</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">that big fool, that are treated</td><td>in the normal</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">way by the machine.</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">A device like the one described</td><td>here will,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">within its obvious</td><td colspan=\"3\">limitations,</td><td>be able to</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">randomly</td><td>generate</td><td colspan=\"3\">sentences</td><td>that are for the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">most part quite grammatical (Yngve 1962:70).</td></tr></table>", |
| "html": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF2": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "text": "Iis second assumption for the model(1960: 445) is that \"the model should share with the human speaker o.. the prooerty that words are {~roduced one at a time in the proper time se_ quence, that is, in left_to,right order ...\" (the first assumption, vim. that any shortcom_ ings of the PS model can be overcome, has Dart_ 1y been dealt with above, and will be treated at length in the second half of this paper).", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>Mey 8 Mey 9 Mey I0 Mey ii Mey 12 Mey 13</td></tr><tr><td>not only of the current derivatlonal steps, procedure described by Harris for keeping Thus, structure in a sufficiently powerful There is another way out of the difficulties have a sort of limited depth, i.e. the number both isosceles is true is obvious isn't clear\"</td></tr><tr><td>but also of the \"left_overs\" from earlier track of nested constructions (\"incurrence PSG is not only a matter of specifying the that have been sketched in this section: phrase_ of regressive nodes is bound by more or less (Yngve 1960:458b) are as ungrammatical in</td></tr><tr><td>steps. This is exactly what a PDS can do, and discharge of requirements\", Harris 1962: right rules, but also of choosing the right structurizing at different levels, these being the same uoper limit as that for human memory's written as they are in spoken English. Of</td></tr><tr><td>and the ~roblems in connection with this 53). The reason why the machine is able to rules and combining them at the right places. kept together by the representation relation simultaneous storage caoacity. course Yngve is perfectly right in attribut_</td></tr><tr><td>technique are, as shown above in the case handle DC is that this \"nesting\" occurs in There is still another factor that we have (see Sgall 1964b). This solution is based on Now, I think that the analogy between the two ing the difference between the above non_</td></tr><tr><td>of the so_called discontinuous multiple one level, so that the symbols involved can left out of consideration so far: the order_ a somewhat different interprd~tion of PSG kinds of \"storage\" should not be overstressed. grammatical (deep regressiv~ that_clause and</td></tr><tr><td>constituents, are mainly technical (provid_ be uniquely determined as belonging to the ing of the rules. Yngve states that any order functions (not only syntactic, but also semant_ It rests primarily on the tacit assumption its grammatical (progressive) counterpart:</td></tr><tr><td>ing indexes etc.) The linear character of the memory, however, same dimension of analysis. Where \"surface structure\" is explained only will do: an alphabetical order may be conven_ that the model should, or could, be considered \"It isn't clear that it is obvious that it ic rules az'e included); a PDS is coupled with lent (1960:445)o NOW this has two consequen_ the PSG of the lowest level. A detailed dis_ as a more or less true_to_life representation is true that they are both isosceles\" to ex_</td></tr><tr><td>together with the finite state oroperties of by underlying \"deed structure\" (Hockett 1959: cusslon of this system will have to wait for of human linguistic activity. As I have remark_ cess depth. So, there is a depth limitation</td></tr><tr><td>the model itself give rise to a~other problem 246 ff.), the machine will not be able to carry more details, but it seems that grammars based ed before, this supposition is altogether and this limitation is gramatically relevant.</td></tr><tr><td>that seems unsolvable under the following ass_ out the analysis correctly. The structure that on dependency relations have received too groundless, and will at best hamper an exola_ But this linguistically fruitful concept should</td></tr><tr><td>umptions for our machine: a finite number of underlies a symbol X 1 may be bound up with a little attention so far (for a compalison of nation of such activity in truly linguistic not be confounded with hypotheses from des_</td></tr><tr><td>states, a linear temporary memory, and a special PS derivation, so that rules concern_ IC and dependency theories, see Hays 1964: terms. A remark made by Yn{~ve in this connect_ criptive psychology.</td></tr><tr><td>transition from one state into anether by one_ symbol inout. The problem is the following: ing structures like, say, X 1 + X 2 + X~ will be ambiguous in their a~plication. One could Besides, ion may clarify the issue. Yngve says (1960: That the claim for descriptive similarity be_ 519_22)o 452b; see also 1961:135_6 for an even more ex_ tween psychology and linguistics is latent in</td></tr><tr><td>given any internal state of th~achine place restrictions (in Harris' sense) on (one that is ordering of the rules is indispensable in 1.4. Grammar and psycholqgy plicit commitment): Yngve's model can be seen from another instan_</td></tr><tr><td>Common to all PDS techniques is the fact that information stored in this way only is access_ ible in accordance with the formula \"last in, first out\". Being essentially a linear array of information (Oettinger 1961:i04), the user (the machine) will not be able to draw on other information than is given by the leftmost sym_ bol in a left_to_right production (the temDo_ determined by more than one symbol simultane_ ousiy, will the supplementary device of a PDS be able to suDply the necessary instructions to the machine that are not contained in the current symbol? The answer is in the negative, precisely be_ cause the memory is linear, and there is no \"look_up\" for items in the memory\u00b0 What is stor_ ed in the memory can only be brought up to the surface by something outside the memory itself, of) the symbols, thus creating a multiple path through the derivation, possibly combined with a cycling device: this is what the subscriot technique does, see 2.4 for a detailed discuss_ ion. Some of the difficulties are removed in this way, but others persist, like those cases where pairs of symbol formulae are involved (the so_called \"~eneralized transformations\" of early TG, Chomsky 1957:113); this point is also discussed below. While placing too many restr_ cases where complicated high_level structural descriptions are involved: thus an immediate derivation of each non_terminal symbol all the way down to word level would not be permitted in any kind of PSG, not even the most context_ sensitive ones. Being es~entially context_free, Yngve's grammar will 6~enerate what is usually called \"kernel sentences\" (Chomsky 1963:152): unambiguous derivation of more complex struct_ urea (derived sentences) will only be feasible Referring to experiments performed by G.Ao Mill~r, Yngve establishes an analogy between has a limited capacity, just like the temporary mem_ \"The depth limitation does not apply to algebra, for example, because it is not a spoken langua_ ge. The user has paper available for tempmrary storage . \" But so has the user of any other language, e.g, human everyday sooken language. The fact that we do not use paper actually when speaking has nothing to do with greater or lesser depth of sentences (or, if it does, the depth differences occur only to one side, namely that of decreas_ ce. ]This restriction, I think, on a model (or a rary memory tape in Yngve's machine, see Fig.l). that is, I have to create an \"expectancy\" that ictions on the symbols has serious disadvant_ under a careful specification of the order in ory of Yngve's machine. One of the conditions ing depth). One could pursue this analogy ad ab_ grammar, insofar as the grammar is based on Since, on the one hand, the machine output is is specific for each item in the PDS. Only ages (some of which will be discussed in sect_ which the rules have to apply (as an example, to be put on a flawless handling of \"deep\" surdum by assuming two kinds of depth, one un_ the model) is unnecessary and self_contradict_ past control (what is Drinted, is no longer under these conditions the state of the machine ion 2 of this paper), it certainly exceeds the cf. the discussion of w__hh_transformations as constructions is that the storage capacity is limited, for written languages, and one limited, ory. It is unnecessary, since the model should available to the machine for inspection) and, on the other hand, the internal state of the input symbol, one has to keep careful account ory (Yngve 1960:~49). This is essentially the makes the in~ere~ting observation that senten_ sentences of the type: \"That that that they are machine is entirely determined by the current can be defined as determined by the current symbol plus the oontents of the temporary mem_ capacity of the model as described by Yngve: his rules are all of the context_ free form. depending on the interrogative transformation for spoken languages. The results would be dis_ only copy relevant traits in the speech pro_ not exceeded by the number of symbols to be in Chomsky 1963:140). developed later on. In this connection Yngve astrous for any description of any language: duction of the individual; and even though it</td></tr><tr><td>ces and constructions in general actually do</td></tr></table>", |
| "html": null |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
