Lecture 13 revised Are NLs Finite-state

Lecture 13 revised Are NLs Finite-state - Ling 726:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ling 726: Mathematical Linguistics, Lec 13 (revised Nov 4): Are NLs Finite-state? V. Borschev and B. Partee, November 2, 2004 p. 1 Lecture 13. Are Natural Languages finite-state 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. 471-480. Especially in connection with Marc Hauser’s work: (See links in WHISC of September 23: http://people.umass.edu/potts/whisc/whisc-2004-9-23.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):1569-1579, 22 November. Thomas Bever and Mario Montalbetti. 2002. Noam's ark . Science 298(5598):1565-1566, 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):377-380, 16 January. Pierre Perruchet and Arnaud Rey. 2004. Does the mastery of center-embedded 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 context-free, monkeys finite-state? 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 finite-state 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 non-finite-state 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 finite-state language with some long-distance dependency, but no center-embedding, showing that we have to separate those issues.)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Ling 726: Mathematical Linguistics, Lec 13 (revised Nov 4): Are NLs Finite-state? V. Borschev and B. Partee, November 2, 2004 p. 2
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
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).

Page1 / 6

Lecture 13 revised Are NLs Finite-state - Ling 726:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online