<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C65-1019">
  <Title>PUSHDOWN STORES AND SUBSCRIPTS</Title>
  <Section position="1" start_page="19" end_page="19" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
PUSHDOWN STORES AND SUBSCRIPTS
Abstract
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Va~rious devices for the imp rovement of phrase structure grammars (PSG) have been suggested recently. In particular, the PSG model with a pushdown store (PSG/PDS) a s described by VoYngve, and the PSG with subscripts (PSG/S) as described by G oHarman are considered.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> It is contended that such devices, even if they may do away with some of the difficul_ ties of PSG, do not contain sufficient gene_ rative power to produce the structurally corn_ plicated sentences that are generated by other gramma rs (e.g., of transformational type).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The handling of multiple disco,Ltinuous con_ stituents (DC) in PSG/PDS, as well as the use of :leletion rules in PSC./S is examined and criticized. It is shown that the improvements on PSG will not allow the grammar to generate a ii the sentences of the language that a trans_ formational grammar (TG) does; moreovdr, the improvements on PSG a re obtained only at the cost of introducing too much power at the PS level, so that the improved gr;~mmars in some cases will exceed the requirem@nts of the de_ scription, i.e. generate non_grammatical sent_ ences.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Mey 3 O. Introduction NoChomsky has argued that a PSG is not suff_ icient to generate all the grammatical sent_ ences of a language (Chomsky 1957:3~ ff.).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Recently, this conceotion of PSG has been criticized as being too primitive (Yngve 1960:445a, Harman 1963:604 fro), and several ways of improving such a grammar have been suggested: a PDS has been connected with a PSG (Yngve 1960, 1961, 1962); the use of subscript notation has been recommended to give PSG a fair chance in competition with TG (Harman 1963).</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="2" start_page="19" end_page="19" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
i. PSG/PDS
l.lo PSG and DC
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The problem of the so_called discontinuous sonstituents (for a detailed treatment, see Wells 1947:96 ff.) has always been a crux in IC analysis. One of the drawbacks of PSG as described by Chomsky, is that it is not able to handle these constituents in a way that satisfies both the formal criteria of the grammar and the intuitive feeling that call and up in, e.g., I called him u~, belong to_ gether and should be treated accordingly in the analysis. Chomsky, in his discussion of PSG limitations, admits the possibility of &amp;quot;extending the notions of phrase structure to account for discontinuities&amp;quot; (Chomsky Mey 4 1957:41), but, he adds, &amp;quot;...fairly serious difficulties arise in any systematic attempt to pursue this course.&amp;quot; An attempt in this direction is described by V.Yngve in several articles (see especially Yngve 1960); a lthough the presence of DC is the most annoying of the complications under the PSG model (Yngve 1960:448a), the solution ~ffered to this particular problem implies a wider claim, namely, that &amp;quot;any shortcomings /of PSG, JM/ can be overcome&amp;quot; (Ib.:445a). Accordingly, I will discuss be_ low not only the problem of DC, but also the more general one of structure in a PSG/PDS.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>