Topic
Chomsky hierarchy
About: Chomsky hierarchy is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 601 publications have been published within this topic receiving 31067 citations. The topic is also known as: Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Book•
12 Nov 2013TL;DR: The authors The Settling of a Language and the Whorf Hypothesis of Relativism or a Universal Theory is a testbed for Grammatical Theories, and it has been used for grammatical theories in language and cognition.
Abstract: Introduction 1 The Settling of a Language 2 The Whorf Hypothesis 3 Relativism or a Universal Theory? 4 What Does Language have to do With Logic and Mathematics? 5 A Testbed for Grammatical Theories 6 The Chomsky Hierarchy in Perspective 7 Reflexivity and Identity in Language and Cognition 8 The Generalized Logic Hierarchy and its Cognitive Implications 9 The Intensionalization of Extensions Bibliography Index
21 citations
TL;DR: This work considers a certain type of language inequations involving language operations and observes that, by varying the parameters of such an inequation, it can define families of codes such as prefix and infix, as well as families of error-detecting languages.
21 citations
21 citations
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, reaction automata with string acceptors with multiset manipulation as a computing mechanism have been proposed, and it has been shown that these automata are computationally Turing universal.
21 citations
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: The case against Chomsky is based on two principal claims as mentioned in this paper : 1) that we can separate the study of linguistic competence from its outputs: only the latter belongs to linguistic inquiry; and 2) Chomsky's account of a speaker's competence as consisiting in the mental representation of rules of a grammar for his language is mistaken.
Abstract: In his latest book, Michael Devitt rejects Chomsky’s mentalist conception of linguistics. The case against Chomsky is based on two principal claims. First, that we can separate the study of linguistic competence from the study of its outputs: only the latter belongs to linguistic inquiry. Second, Chomsky’s account of a speaker’s competence as consisiting in the mental representation of rules of a grammar for his language is mistaken. I shall argue, fi rst, that Devitt fails to make a case for separating the study of outputs from the study of competence, and second, that Devitt mis-characterises Chomsky’s account of competence, and so his objections miss their target. Chomsky’s own views come close to a denial that speaker’s have knowledge of their language. But a satisfactory account of what speakers are able to do will need to ascribe them linguistic knowledge that they use to speak and understand. I shall explore a conception of speaker’s knowledge of language that confi rms Chomsky’s mentalist view of linguistics but which is immune to Devitt’s criticisms.
21 citations