Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    No genuine depth-4 center-embedding has ever occurred in ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Center-embedding in natural language grammar should not be regarded as grammatical beyond depth 3 (depth 2 for spoken language)

    No genuine depth-4 center-embedding has ever occurred in naturally composed text

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    A grammar should stay close to what performance data can confirmCenter-embedding in natural language grammar should not be regarded as grammatic...Depth-3 center-embeddings are vanishingly rare in naturally composed text

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Depth-3 center-embeddings are vanishingly rare in naturally composed t...85%Deep center-embedding constructions are extraordinarily difficult to p...74%Center-embedding in natural language grammar should not be regarded as...68%Proposed counterexamples to compositionality in natural language can b...65%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: linguistics
    View source passageHide passage
    The claim that English is not accepted by any finite-state automaton can only be supported by showing that every grammar for English has center- embedding to an unbounded depth (see Levelt 2008: 20–23 for an exposition and proof of the relevant theorem, originally from Chomsky 1959). But even depth-3 center-embedding of clauses (a clause interrupting a clause that itself interrupts a clause) is in practice extraordinarily hard to process. Hardly anyone can readily understand even semantically pl

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective