| { |
| "paper_id": "J90-1005", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T02:54:31.910391Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "LETTER TO THE EDITOR", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "In his review in Computational Linguistics (15,1) of Manaster-Ramer 1987, Barron Brainerd states that Definition 9 of my contribution to this volume is circular, thereby rendering the definiendum ill-defined. I believe this criticism to be without foundation. The crucial part of the definition in question is as follows: Lo;] denotes the set of all and only those strings Z for which it is the case that for any property pj distinct from REFERENCE Manaster-Ramer, A. 1987. Mathematics of Language. Benjamins, Amsterdam.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "J90-1005", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "In his review in Computational Linguistics (15,1) of Manaster-Ramer 1987, Barron Brainerd states that Definition 9 of my contribution to this volume is circular, thereby rendering the definiendum ill-defined. I believe this criticism to be without foundation. The crucial part of the definition in question is as follows: Lo;] denotes the set of all and only those strings Z for which it is the case that for any property pj distinct from REFERENCE Manaster-Ramer, A. 1987. Mathematics of Language. Benjamins, Amsterdam.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "p,, z E I pjl A [p,] iff there is a dependency chain containing Pi and pj. I suspect that the appearance of circularity is due to the presence of the definiendum in the body of the definition, but this need not be pernicious (it is not, for example, in a properly formulated recursive definition); nor, I submit, is it in the present case. From parts of the theory developed earlier in the paper it follows that every ungrammatical string possesses multiple etiological properties if there is more than one such property given the rules of the language; suppose then that for some e.p. p; possessed by a string Z there is a dependency chain consisting ofpt and every e.p. ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 16, |
| "end": 20, |
| "text": "[p,]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": {}, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "TABREF0": { |
| "num": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>Michael B. Kac</td></tr><tr><td>Department of Linguistics</td></tr><tr><td>University of Minnesota</td></tr><tr><td>Minneapolis, MN 55455</td></tr></table>", |
| "html": null, |
| "text": "pj ~e Pi such that Z E Ipipjl. According to the definition, Z E I pj[ A [Pt] whence Z E [Pi]; by contrast, if there is no such chain, then Z is not in Ipjl A [p,]; further, since Ip, pjl C_ Ipjl (by Definitions 7 and 8), Z is in Ipjl and hence not in [Pi]. Thus, [p~.] is well-defined after all.", |
| "type_str": "table" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
