Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-5bvrz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T12:57:33.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coordinate Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

D. Terence Langendoen
D. Terence Langendoen*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona and National Science Foundation
*
National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1125 Arlington, VA 22230 [dlangend@nsf.gov]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chomsky (1959a) presented an algorithm for constructing a finite transducer that is strongly equivalent to a Chomsky-normal-form context-free grammar for all sentences generated by that grammar with up to any specified finite degree of center embedding. This article presents a new solution using a variety of COORDINATE GRAMMAR to assign nonembedding (paratactic) structures strongly equivalent to those assigned by an embedding grammar, which can in turn be directly computed by a finite transducer. It proposes that the bound on center embedding is really a consequence of a bound on alternation between right and left embedding, called here ZIGZAG EMBEDDING. Coordinate grammars can also be used to assign nonembedding structures equivalent to those with up to any specified finite degree of coordinate embedding (the occurrence of a coordinate structure as a member of a coordinate structure of the same type). It concludes that coordinate grammars or the finite transducers strongly equivalent to them are psychologically real, and that the existence of a finite bound on the degree of zigzag and coordinate embedding is a consequence of the increasing size and complexity of such grammars or transducers as the bound increases.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 84 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 691 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bever, Thomas G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the development of language, ed. by Hayes, John R., 279–352. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959a. On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control 2.137–67. [Reprinted in Readings in mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter, 125–55. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959b. A note on phrase-structure grammars. Information and Control 2.393–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Formal properties of grammars. In Luce et al., 323–418.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Miller, George A.. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Luce et al., 269–321.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Krauwer, Steven, and Tombe, Louis des. 1979. Transducers and grammars as theories of language. Theoretical Linguistics 8.173–201.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1961. Structural descriptions for sentences generated by non-self-embedding constituent-structure grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT SB thesis.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1975. Finite-state parsing of phrase-structure languages and the status of readjustment rules in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 6.533–54.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1976. On the weak generative capacity of infinite grammars. CUNYForum 1.13–24.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1979. On the assignment of constituent structures to the sentences generated by a transformational grammar. CUNYForum 8.1–32.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1998. Limitations on embedding in coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27.235–59.10.1023/A:1023254200679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 2003. Merge. Formal approaches to functional phenomena: In honor of Eloise Jelinek, ed. by Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi, and Willie, Mary, 307–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence, McDaniel, Dana; and Langsam, Yedidyah. 1989. Preposition-phrase attachment in noun phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18.533–48.10.1007/BF01067157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R.; and Galanter, Eugene (eds.) 1963. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Miller, George A., and Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In Luce et al., 419–91.Google Scholar
Nederhof, Mark-Jan. 2000. Practical experiments with regular approximation of context-free languages. Computational Linguistics 26.17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearlmutter, Neal J., and Gibson, Edward. 2001. Recency in verb phrase attachment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27.574–90.Google ScholarPubMed