This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
Ling 726: Mathematical Linguistics, Lec 13 (revised Nov 4): Are NLs Finitestate?
V. Borschev and B. Partee, November 2, 2004 p. 1
Lecture 13. Are Natural Languages finitestate languages? (and
other questions)
0. Review.
......................................................................................................................................................................
1
1. Inadequacy of Type 3 grammars for natural languages: Classic examples .
..............................................................
2
2. Issues raised in Hauser and Fitch’s work.
..................................................................................................................
4
Reading
: Section 17.3 of PtMW: Regular Languages. pp. 471480.
Especially in connection with Marc Hauser’s work:
(See links in WHISC of September 23:
http://people.umass.edu/potts/whisc/whisc2004923.html#hauser
.)
•
Marc D. Hauser, Noam Chomsky, and W. Tecumseh Fitch. 2002.
The faculty of
language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?
Science
298(5598):15691579,
22 November.
•
Thomas Bever and Mario Montalbetti. 2002.
Noam's ark
.
Science
298(5598):15651566,
22 November.
•
Mark Liberman. September 3, 2003.
. Linguist List 15.2450.
•
W. Tecumseh Fitch and Mark D. Hauser. 2004.
Computational constraints on syntactic
processing in a nonhuman primate
.
Science Magazine
303(5656):377380, 16 January.
•
Pierre Perruchet and Arnaud Rey. 2004.
Does the mastery of centerembedded linguistic
structures distinguish humans from nonhuman primates?
To appear in the
Psychonomic
Bulletin and Review
.
•
Mark Liberman. January 16, 2004.
Language in humans and monkeys
. Language Log.
•
Mark Liberman. January 16, 2004.
Hi Lo Hi Lo, it's off to formal language theory we go
.
Language Log.
•
Mark Liberman. August 31, 2004.
Humans contextfree, monkeys finitestate?
Apparently not
. Language Log.
•
Greg Kochanski. 2004.
Is a phrase structure grammar the important difference between
humans and monkeys?
A comment on 'Computational constraints on syntactic processing
in a nonhuman primate'.
•
Ray Jackendoff and Steven Pinker. In press.
The faculty of language: What's special
about it?
Cognition
.
0. Review.
First, let’s do on the board three finitestate automata that will be relevant to the ensuing
discussion.
1.
(ab)
n
, i.e. {(ab)
n
 n>0}
(This is the language the tamarin monkeys reportedly learned.)
2.
{ab, aabb, aaabbb, aaaabbbb}
(This is a finite sublanguage of the nonfinitestate language
a
n
b
n
. )
3.
aA*a
∪
bA*b , where A = {a,b}, i.e. the set of all strings of a’s and b’s of length
≥
2 which
begin and end with the same symbol.
(This is a finitestate language with some longdistance
dependency, but no centerembedding, showing that we have to separate those issues.)
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document Ling 726: Mathematical Linguistics, Lec 13 (revised Nov 4): Are NLs Finitestate?
V. Borschev and B. Partee, November 2, 2004 p. 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up
to
access the rest of the document.
This note was uploaded on 02/22/2012 for the course LINGUIST 726 taught by Professor Partee during the Spring '07 term at UMass (Amherst).
 Spring '07
 Partee

Click to edit the document details