Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T17:18:43.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Finiteness of Natural Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Peter A. Reich
Peter A. Reich*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fallacious reasoning has led transformationalists to conclude that natural language cannot be produced by a finite state device. An alternate argument is proposed, based on a distinction between two types of generative mechanisms: iteration and recursion to a depth of one. A device which employs these mechanisms is a finite state device; and this paper contends that such a device is adequate to describe the data of natural language, including English embedded relative clauses. The proposed solution also handles multiple-branching constructions such as are found in coordination, and describes the intonation pattern of sentences containing strings of relative clauses.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , December 1969, pp. 831 - 843
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 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

Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1967. Review of The structure of language, ed. by J. Fodor and J. Katz. Lg. 43.526–50.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G., Fodor, Jerry A.; and Garrett, Merrill. 1968. A formal limitation of associationism. Verbal behavior and general behavior theory, ed. by Dixon, Theodore R. and Horton, David L., 582–85. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. Three models for the description of language. I.R.E. Transactions on Information Theory IT-2, 113–24.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntatic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Marks, Lawrence E. 1968. Scaling of grammaticalness of self-embedded English sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 7.965–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, George A. 1962. Some psychological studies of grammar, American Psychologist 17.748–62.10.1037/h0044708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1964. Limitations of phrase structure grammars. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, J. and Katz, J., 137–51. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice- Hall.Google Scholar
Reich, Peter A. 1968a. The relational network simulator. New Haven: Linguistic Automation Project, Yale University.Google Scholar
Reich, Peter A.. 1968b. The English auxiliaries: a relational network description. New Haven: Linguistic Automation Project, Yale University.Google Scholar
Yngve, Victor H. 1960. A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 104.444–66.Google Scholar