19
1965 I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Conference
on C o m p u t a t i o n a l
Linguistics
PUSHDOWN
STORES AND S U B S C R I P T S
Jacob Mey
Lingvistisk
Institutt
Universitetet
PoBo
1012,
Oslo
3,
i 0slo
Blindern,
Norway.
t-~,,%% \
,,,.o.,tt<><~/
' -_Si"
Mey 2
PUSHDOWN
STORES
AND
SUBSCRIPTS
Abstract
Va~rious
devices
for
structure
grammars
recently.
In
a pushdown
VoYngve,
as
described
It
is
(PSG)
the
the
may
do
away
ties
of
PSG,
do
not
power
to
produce
plicated
gramma
The
sentences
rs
(e.g.,
handling
stituents
of
with
other
transformational
on
not
sentences
formational
improvements
cost
of
level,
cases
will
scription,
ences.
well
is
examined
that
the
the
grammar
the
language
(TG)
does;
on P S G
a re
obtained
that
the
exceed
i.e.
too
much
improved
the
con_
as
the
use
and
improvements
to
generate
that
a trans_
moreovdr,
power
only
at
gr;~mmars
requirem@nts
generate
type).
as
grammar
introducing
so
of
by
disco,Ltinuous
shown
allow
gene_
generated
It
the
sufficient
are
criticized.
a ii
difficul_
corn_
i n PSC./S
will
the
if
structurally
rules
PSG
even
the
in P S G / P D S ,
is
by
considered.
of
contain
of m u l t i p l e
(DC)
:leletion
of
with
(PSG/S)
devices,
some
that
PSG m o d e l
are
such
phrase
suggested
subscripts
by G oHarman
they
been
of
a s described
PSG w i t h
that
rovement
have
(PSG/PDS)
contended
rative
imp
particular,
store
and
the
the
at
the
in
of
non_grammatical
the
PS
some
the
de_
sent_
Mey
O.
Introduction
NoChomsky
icient
ences
has
argued
to g e n e r a t e
of
all
this
as b e i n g
1960:445a,
Harman
(Chomsky
too
such
suggested:
a PDS
has
PSG
1960,
1961,
subscript
give
PSG
notation
a fair
TG
(Harman
i.
PSG/PDS
l.lo
PSG
of
analysis.
chance
the
and
several
have
the
been
with
use
in c o m p e t i t i o n
a
of
recommended
so_called
ff.)
One
has
to
with
to h a n d l e
these
satisfies
both
and
up in,
and
the
limitations,
to a c c o u n t
is that
formal
I called
should
PSG
always
intuitive
e.g.,
analysis.
for
been
admits
notions
a crux
of PSG
a way
criteria
of
in
as
able
that
the
feeling
that c a l l
him
belong
in his
the
of
see
it is not
in
be t r e a t e d
Chomsky,
the
treatment,
constituents
the
the
"extending
discontinuous
of the d r a w b a c k s
by C h o m s k y ,
gether
been
been
(Yngve
connected
1962);
has
described
and
fro),
a grammar
been
ff.).
has
primitive
(for a d e t a i l e d
1947:96
grammar
1957:3~
sent_
and DC
sonstituents
IC
suff_
1963).
problem
Wells
is not
of P S G
1963:604
of i m p r o v i n g
(Yngve
a PSG
the g r a m m a t i c a l
conceotion
criticized
ways
that
a language
Recently,
The
3
u~,
to_
accordingly
in
discussion
of
possibility
phrase
discontinuities"
of
structure
(Chomsky
Mey
1957:41),
but,
difficulties
to p u r s u e
this
An a t t e m p t
V.Yngve
Yngve
in any s y s t e m a t i c
in s e v e r a l
is the m o s t
articles
a lthough
annoying
the P S G m o d e l
solution
implies
~ffered
a wider
shortcomings
(Ib.:445a).
l o w not
the
is d e s c r i b e d
(see
(Yngve
to this
claim,
/ o f PSG,
1960:448a),
particular
namely,
Accordingly,
1o2o
DC
be_
also
the
in a P S G / P D S .
and P D S
crucial
step
the a u t o m a t o n
in the d e r i v a t i o n
the r i g h t
is the q u e s t i o n
half
(GRi)
contain
the
to roll
out
space
symbol
on the
I f the a n s w e r
the
temporary
left
for
"leftmost":
~).
During
original
content
side
we have
sym_
1 stands
see Fig.
in
one w o u l ~
index n o t a t i o n
indicated
?
ta~e
the
t h e n be
hand
in
(TM)
by
would
"..."
is Yes,
memory
(in a f l o w chart,
this
rule
for " d i s c o n t i n u i t y
symbol
of the r u l e " )
the
see
asked:
of the g r a m m a r
".. o" s t a n d s
rewriting
of DC by
(for a full d e s c r i p t i o n ,
1960:448_9)
question
tape
overcome"
but
of s t r u c t u r e
where
"any
of DC,
one
bolize
problem
discuss
general
one
the
I will
more
(where
that
JM/ c a n be
problem
Does
of DC
of the c o m p l i c a t i o n s
the
Yngve
by
especially
presence
only
The
attempt
course."
in this d i r e c t i o n
1960);
under
"...fairly s e r i o u s
he adds,
arise
4
1 - - I --> i,
"rolling
in"
b y 1 + • --> i,
this operation,
the
of T M 1 (the l e f t m o s t
loca_
Mey 5
tion
of TM)
the
blank
(on
the
has
has
to be k e p t
to
right
side,
as m o v i n g
from
ever,
answer
that
the
we
right
have
hand
occur
the
side
if the
is No,
of
rule
hand
right
symbolize
the
rolling
i -- (n -- ~
to the
Let
side
is
computing
then
been
that
The
method
is,
be
in
if the
another
ly).
As
2
of).
for
the
not
be
cases
(and
the
rules
ented
It
of
by
on the
out
tape
symbols
we
can
formula
always
goes
of
are
of
right
the
"..."
here
operation
the T M
are
some DC
at
of c o u r s e ,
itself,
will
DC
the
hand
on G R i . ,
3
has a l r e a d y
symbol
onto
one m a y
as
for
taoe.
work
neatly
"nested~
turns
least
try
so
out
to
theoretical_
out
the d o u b l y
corner,
sDeclfied
that
where
all
by Yngve
(1960:449a).
implicit
tion
how_
sure
index
should,
symbol
so on,
as f a r
An
If,
of
counting
first
where
discontinuous
himself
rest
copied
an e x a m p l e ,
necessary
of
symbol
There
expansion
DC
roll
the
routine
as d e s c r i b e d
those
~).
then
subscript
(the
it w i l l
even
the
set
a proviso
thought
symbols
and
by
first
as
care
TM 1
to m a k e
number
out
performed
taken
the
of GRi:
of G R i. T h e
at
original
register.
~ be
symbols
i being
be
the
further
the
side
is,
is
we have
the
on
that
see Fig°
all
Let ~ be
the
tape
for
accordingly.
the
after
left,
space
in place,
assumption
the m e c h a n i s m
the
follows
simple
that
throughout
is t h a t
formula
there
are
DC
A -->
two
the d e s c r i p _
c a n be
B
cases
+
9,o
that
repres_
+
C.
cannot
Mey
be
handled
directly
one
can
be
...
+ D
("mul~ple
this
a
symbolized
reduces
other
ous
multiple
C +
..o
case
+ D
spaces
not
(as
you
did
2),
tions
be
mas
thus
like
such
a fool
to
a counting
operation
whereafter
the
side
rules.
be
that
way
could
be
being
big
by
within
fool,
the
randomly
part
that
are
we
...
that
as
ever
Habla
what
he
mas
knows'
sense
would
fool,
as
by
construc_
could
combining
check
on
"
of G R i ' s
in w i t h
the
different,
o.o
"
the
obvious
generate
quite
one
non_DC
constructions
described
would
like
the
limitations,
sentences
grammatical
that
here
be
normal
(Yngve
will,
able
are
,
right
there
in
nice
in
program
treated
this
not
with
this
the
in
diagrams
The
would
machine.
like
its
from
Foll_
parlor
than
part
thrown
interference
A device
most
continuous
Derivation
no
with
one.
He's
analogy
perform
occur
symbols
(see
etc.
theme),
to
sentence:
that b i ~
pre3erving
this
has
common
que
rules.
Yngve
try:
more
by
A --> B +
of
by
of
Soanish
...
on
a little
where
de
accommodmted
hand
may
talks
analyses
• .. ~ a r l o r ,
Fig.
'He
1957:63),
the
string
+
"discontinu_
ins~ad
nice
the
inout
blank
given
one
As
or
sabe
(Bolinger
prefer
right
or:
see,
lo q u e
the
formula
the
+ C
discontinuity
variation
leftmost
...
first
constituents");
labeled
that
examples,
a fool,
of
be
some
imply
the
bin
de
(or
the
A --> B +
double
instructions
obtain
case
to
could
from
the
machine:
constituents":
would
owing
by
manipulation
The
two
the
discontinuous
easily
suitable
which
by
6
for
to
the
1962:70).
Mey
The
question
is:
only,
the
uage?
I will
the next
1.3.
try
original
form
b y no m e a n s
of P D S
to this
a detailed
to all P D S
stored
out".
Being
(the m a c h i n e )
information
past
some
make
to
are
pro_
see
and
them
in
this
with
sim_
well_
syntactic
not
control
to
on the
other
machine
is
is g i v e n
hand,
(what
is
the
one
formula
by
"last
the
for
to k e e p
on o t h e r
(the
see
temDo_
Fig.l).
state
is
longer
inspection)
by
sym_
output
is no
internal
user
leftmost
machine,
Drinted,
in,
array
to d r a w
the
that
access_
a linear
able
determined
has
is
the m a c h i n e
the m a c h i n e
hand,
only
production
one
fact
1961:i04),
in Y n g v e ' s
entirely
symbol,
way
the
be
limitations.
is the
essentially
will
tape
on the
inherent
(Oettinger
than
memory
available
input
elegancy
of a u t o m a t i c
in a l e f t _ t o _ r i g h t
Since,
of PDS
discussion,
techniques
in a c c o r d a n c e
rary
use
its
analysis
particular
The
algorithms
however,
of i n f o r m a t i o n
bol
technique
and
scope
in
of l a n g u a g e s .
are,
first
the P D S
the
procedures
information
ible
in
by Yngve
in s y n t a c t i c
(For
for
Common
a fang_
question
problem
1961:126_7).
Oettinger
analysis
uses
limited
of DC
There
this
as p r o p o s e d
only
the m a c h i n e ,
suited
of
and
of P S G / P D ~
model
a minor
plicity
all,
paragraph.
the
blem
sentences
to a n s w e r
Limitations
solve
it g e n e r a t e
grammatical
Although
by
will
7
and,
of the
the
current
careful
account
Mey 8
not
only
of the
current
but
also
of
"left_overs"
steps.
and
This
the
the
is
are,
ing
indexes
The
linear
together
that
umptions
states,
symbol
from
be
able
to
the
one
The
the
machine
memory
memory
the
surface
by
state
than
(provid_
a~other
the
memory,
into
problem
ass_
number
and
of
a
anether
is the
by
one_
following:
of t h ~ a c h i n e
symbol
not
of
following
a finite
one
are
however,
oroperties
is
that
simultane_
device
the n e c e s s a r y
of a P D S
instructions
contained
is,
items
I have
specific
these
for
linear,
in the
can
only
in the
symbol
plus
the
memory°
is no
What
up
the m e m o r y
the
in the PDS.
state
as d e t e r m i n e d
1960:~49).
be_
is
stor_
to
the
itself,
an " e x p e c t a n c y "
item
oontents
there
be b r o u g h t
to c r e a t e
each
precisely
and
outside
conditions
defined
(Yngve
is
negative,
something
c a n be
ory
to
under
problem
is in the
ed
under
rise
state
that
for
is
multiple
memory,
supplementary
"look_up"
that
case
symbol?
the
in
this
in the
state
temporary
suDply
answer
cause
give
by m o r e
to
current
finite
internal
will
with
technical
our m a c h i n e :
inout.
ousiy,
The
the
a linear
determined
can do,
above
of the
unsolvable
for
any
a PDS
etc.)
itself
transition
earlier
discontinuous
character
seems
given
as s h o w n
are m a i n l y
with
model
what
steps,
from
in c o n n e c t i o n
so_called
constituents,
the
exactly
~roblems
technique
of
the
derivatlonal
by
of the
This
that
Only
of the m a c h i n e
the
current
temporary
is e s s e n t i a l l y
mem_
the
Mey 9
procedure
track
and
of n e s t e d
discharge
53).
The
handle
one
be
described
level,
that
by underlying
ff.),
out
the
ing
be
"deed
analysis
like,
symbols,
technique
does,
ion.
Some
of
this
way,
but
TG,
ictions
ages
ion
on
(some
rules
of
is w h a t
for
While
symbols
has
One
a
could
on
(one
a multiple
path
combined
the
are
like
are
with
subscriot
discuss_
removed
in
those
cases
involved
of
transformations"
this
placing
will
that
concern_
a detailed
formulae
1957:113);
of w h i c h
2 of this
capacity
his
the
rules
possibly
"~eneralized
below.
to c a r r y
up w i t h
sense)
persist,
of s y m b o l
1959:
X 1 + X 2 + X~ w i l l
creating
2.4
only
structure
a~plication.
this
others
Chomsky
discussed
can
to the
able
bound
(in H a r r i s '
see
be
The
the d i f f i c u l t i e s
so_called
early
in
(Hockett
not
be
say,
the d e r i v a t i o n ,
pairs
occurs
explained
so that
thus
device:
(the
will
in t h e i r
a cycling
where
is
X 1 may
restrictions
through
to
involved
structure"
PS d e r i v a t i o n ,
the
able
as b e l o n g i n g
correctly.
a symbol
ambiguous
of)
symbols
structure"
structures
place
"nesting"
the
the m a c h i n e
underlies
special
this
is
1962:
of a n a l y s i s .
"surface
246
Harris
the m a c h i n e
determined
dimension
Where
why
keeping
("incurrence
requirements",
so that
uniquely
same
of
is
for
constructions
reason
DC
by Harris
too
serious
point
many
is also
restr_
disadvant_
be d i s c u s s e d
in sect_
paper),
it c e r t a i n l y
exceeds
the m o d e l
as d e s c r i b e d
b y Yngve:
are
all
of the
context_
free
the
form.
Mey
Thus,
PSG
structure
is not
only
right
rules,
rules
and
There
is
left
ing
of
a matter
but
will
do:
lent
(1960:445)o
ces:
first,
haps
only
oriented
are
all
a minor
into
derivation
down
any
are
drawback
all
ones.
may
two
the
of
1964:53)
high_level
thus
an
even
the
most
es~entially
6~enerate
all
permitted
context_
context_free,
(Chomsky
1963:152):
will
complex
only
which
the
have
(as
apply
be
the
struct_
feasible
order
interrogative
in
an example,
of w__hh_transformations
1963:140).
the
is u s u a l l y
of
in C h o m s k y
in
what
of m o r e
to
of
. Besides,
symbol
be
sentences)
(per_
immediate
not
not
run
structural
would
sentences"
on the
to be
accuracy)
specification
depending
consequen_
low_level
non_terminal
level
discussion
conven_
advantages
a careful
the
be
order
in a c o m p u t e r _
under
cf.
order_
is i n d i s p e n s a b l e
Being
rules
have
any
that
have
kinds
derivation
(derived
we
the
elegancy,
involved:
will
places.
is e x p a n d e d
second,
of PSG,
"kernel
unambiguous
urea
a symbol
complicated
grammar
called
has
rules
rules
to w o r d
sensitive
Yngve's
the
of e a c h
kind
this
right
right
that
order
the
the
so far:
rules" , Bach
of the
where
the
states
(economy,
the
descriptions
in
of
("forcing
ordering
way
NOW
analysis),
lost
cases
at
factor
Yngve
time
rules
detail
them
an a l p h a b e t i c a l
every
ordered
of c h o o s i n g
another
rules.
powerful
of s p e c i f y i n g
of c o n s i d e r a t i o n
the
through
also
combining
still
out
in a s u f f i c i e n t l y
I0
as
transformation
Mey
There
is
another
that
have
been
way
out
of the d i f f i c u l t i e s
sketched
in this
structurizing
at d i f f e r e n t
kept
together
by
(see
Sgall
1964b).
a somewhat
the
of
the
cusslon
of
this
details,
on d e p e n d e n c y
level.
it
will
seems
relations
attention
so
IC
dependency
being
relation
is b a s e d
also
semant_
is c o u p l e d
A detailed
have
that
with
dis_
to wait
for
grammars
based
have
received
(for
a compalison
far
theories,
on
of P S G
but
a PDS
system
little
and
syntactic,
phrase_
these
interprd~tion
lowest
but
levels,
solution
az'e i n c l u d e d ) ;
PSG
more
This
(not o n l y
rules
section:
representation
different
functions
ic
the
ii
too
see H a y s
of
1964:
519_22)o
1.4.
Grammar
Referring
Mill~r,
Yngve
"depth"
the
depth
of s e n t e n c e
The
more
human
than,
a t a time
In
other
limited
capacity,
of Y n g v e ' s
to be
put
not
exceeded
makes
in~ere~ting
ces
the
and
on.
constructions
and
capable
of
is not
seven
plus
references,
the
like
One
human
the
of
the
two
Yngve
brain
has
temporary
the
storage
In this
minus
see
handling
number
later
brain
brain
machine.
developed
human
between
model
just
by the
analogy
in the
words,
is that
b y G.Ao
construction
on a f l a w l e s s
constructions
an
~n the
say,
(for
ibid.).
ory
performed
establishes
of m e m o r y
(1960:452).
stvrlng
psycholqgy
to e x p e r i m e n t s
the
items
and
of
"deep"
capacity
connection
in g e n e r a l
mem_
conditions
of s y m b o l s
observation
a
that
is
to be
Yngve
senten_
actually
do
Mey
have
a sort
of l i m i t e d
of r e g r e s s i v e
the
same
nodes
uoper
limit
storage
Now,
that
kinds
It r e s t s
primarily
that
model
as
the
a more
of h u m a n
or
this
groundless,
of
terms.
A remark
ion m a y
452b;
analogy
tacit
the
or
less
memory's
made
be
is
I have
hamper
an e x o l a _
linguistic
Yngve
for
remark_
altogether
b y Yn{~ve in
1961:135_6
considered
representation
in t r u l y
issue.
two
assumption
As
at b e s t
the
overstressed.
could,
activity.
activity
also
human
be
true_to_life
the
or
between
on
supposition
clarify
see
plicit
"The
such
for
not
and w i l l
nation
that
number
caoacity.
should,
less
the
by more
should
linguistic
ed b e f o r e ,
as
the
of " s t o r a g e "
i.e.
is b o u n d
simultaneous
I think
depth,
12
this
connect_
says
(1960:
an e v e n m o r e
ex_
commitment):
depth
limitation
for
example,
because
ge.
The
has
user
does
it
paper
not
apply
is not
to
algebra,
a spoken
langua_
available
for
tempmrary
any
language,
s t o r a g e ."
But
so
has
the
user
of
human
everyday s o o k e n
we do
not
nothing
use
to do w i t h
sentences
occur
(or,
only
by
limited,
for
astrous
actually
greater
One
side,
could
assuming
for
sentences
of the
type:
"That
has
depth
of
differences
analogy
of d e p t h ,
and
results
any d e s c r i p t i o n
that
that of d e c r e a s _
this
languages,
e.g,
speaking
lesser
namely
The
fact
the d e p t h
pursue
languages.
The
when
or
two k i n d s
for w r i t t e n
spoken
language.
if it does,
to one
ing d e p t h ) .
surdum
paper
other
of any
that
one
would
ad ab_
one
un_
limited,
be d i s _
language:
that
they
are
Mey
both
isosceles
(Yngve
true
1960:458b)
written
course
ing
is
as
they
Yngve
are
are
obvious
(deep
spoken English.
Of
in
right
between
the
regressiv~
(progressive)
"It
isn't
that
depth.
So, t h e r e
is
and
this
limitation
But
this
linguistically
not
be
confounded
psychology.
That
claim
tween
Yngve's
ce.
model
that
is
human
quence,
one
o..
at
that
model
the
is,
in
first
ings
of the PS m o d e l
at
length
This
in the
insofar
model)
ory.
It
only
copy
duction
may
with
be
above,
I think,
as
the
is u n n e c e s s a r y ,
of the
true
that w o r d s
are
and
since
traits
individual;
that w o r d s
of
are
time
order
any
be
..."
has
Dart_
treated
paper).
a model
(or a
is b a s e d
on
self_contradict_
the
in the
and
se_
shortcom_
this
grammar
is u n n e c e s s a r y
relevant
the
will
on
(1960:
with
overcome,
half
in
instan_
model
proper
and
be_
latent
share
that
vim.
c a n be
second
restriction,
grammar,
the
assumption,
dealt
is
left_to,right
(the
1y b e e n
the
should
from des_
the
should
in
relevant.
another
prooerty
a time
to ex_
similarity
from
for
it
concept
linguistics
seen
and
limitation
hypotheses
assumption
"the
speaker
{~roduced
and
c a n be
]Iis s e c o n d
445)
a depth
for d e s c r i p t i v e
psychology
that
isosceles"
fruitful
with
non_
counterpart:
is g r a m a t i c a l l y
criptive
the
above
is o b v i o u s
that they are b o t h
true
cess
it
in a t t r i b u t _
that_clause
grammatical
is
clear"
in
its
clear
isn't
as u n g r a m m a t i c a l
perfectly
is
the d i f f e r e n c e
grammatical
is
13
model
speech
even
produced
should
pro_
though
it
in a l i n e a r
Hey
sequence
has
be
not
(as
already
yet
been
interpreted
think
it
shown
alone
give
a complete
suppose
the
will
than
linearity
never
of
the
that
in w o r d s
it
is
to
production:
that
of
we
have
I
to
to
event.
speech
speak
will
is
suffice
speech
description
assumption
ther
this
remarked),
relevant,
picture
a full_fledged
has
speech
is o n l y w e a k l y
linearity
cesra
how
in h u m a n
ssy,
For
Saussure
14
I
in s e n t e n _
many
advant_
ages.
Moreover,
plicate
ion
the
in the
harmon2ze
only
may
of
the
human
with
erase
symbol
or d e l e t e
tape
the
leftmost
Now,
the
limitation
hold
the
human
whereas
ured.
other
ion
may
structure
is
the
true
that
gether
a structural
absent
produces
a PDS
not
from
as its
of i t e m s
clearly
machine
does
not
storage:
produces
of h u m a n s
is
by
the
pushdown
But
there
that
are
or o t h e r
suffice.
It
description
a PSG/PDS:
output
is on r e _
number
explained
device.
that
will
196o:446).
struct_
a linear
in
arrangements
roll,
be
productions
a way
section
product_
left_to_right
such
memory
can
a left_to_right
oroducer;
memory
to
machine
to the
and m a c h i n e
speech
cases
in the
a linear
memory
the
that
(Yngve
analogy
words,
in m a n y
only
only
product_
the
is c l o s e s t
is t h a t
symbols,
In
read
du_
the m o d e l
a time:
a certain
The
should
be b r o u g h t
fact,
of h u m a n
than
explanation
In
symbol
time.
between
cannot
at
that
i.e.
I)roducing m o r e
or
model
left_to_right
speaker
one
same
of
the
the m o d e l .
memory
at the
that
property
examine
the
claim
of
are
other
structured
left_to_right
is
of c o u r s e
is not
Yngve's
a string
store
alto_
machine
symbols
Mey
containing
out
both
trees")
suffice
each
ure
and
to
from
can
the
but
above
The
question
two
of
string
be
treated
will
history
in a s i n g l e
as
in o n e _ l e v e l
also
("flattened_
This
insofar
(see
will
this
symbols.
only
be d e s c r i b e d
markers
derivational
that
1963:41),
discussion
2
terminal
"infer
string
(S~all
syntactical
Sgall
struct_
terms,
1963;
of
way"
the
cf.
1964a).
length
at
15
in
part
paper.
p so/s
2.1.
The
in
The
subscript
subscript
the
first
notation
method
place
referred
thought
to h e r e
of
is not
a s a machine
v
program
the
(even
computer
Harman
more
though
language
1963:608fn.).
general
fledged
thereby
proving
ure
no
adva
grammar"
•ubscripts
ways:
rules,
the
and,
+
o,o
that
ntage
form,
(Harman
added
to
the
to
the P S G
An
example
. The
of the
S --> S 1 / N U M B E R _ S G
second
rule:
of c o u r s e ,
gramm_
struct_
rule
case
rules
in two
restrictions
apply.
any
obedience),
1963:598).
introduce
in g e n e r a l ,
other
phrase
s:~ecify w h e r e
rule
to
a
a full_
"transformational
over
see
it has
to o f f e r
to
following
and,
in PS
~ith
is a s s e r t e d ,
second,
ictions
is
affinity
of t r a n s f o r m s t l o n a l
are
first,
COMIT
namely,
alternative,
(e.g.
close
Accordingly,
scope:
grammars
ar h a s
its
of
on
those
restr_
first
(Harman
the
obtains
A --> B/J
in
NP/NOT_WI{ --> D E T E R M I N E R
in all
rules
where
kind
1963:609),
type
e.g.
such
the
+ NOUN,
subscripts
Mey
a re
be
"lost"
a third
type
expressly
scripts
at
that
sorts
as well,
both:
introduce
More
are
adapted
latter,
Prom
rules
(IIarman 1 9 6 3 : 6 0 6 ;
Yngve
1960).
of P S G / S
about
in
perhaps
unordered
the
the
afortiori,
sequence).
following
is not
only
is one
of
the
big
rules
in a PSG,
difference
of
admission
the
also
this
2.2.
Subscripts
point
In g e n e r a l ,
will
deny
incorporating
(by m e a n s
of
devices)
of the
in
a
way
in an
seen
from
"where"
it
be_
of o r d e r i n g
1957:35).
PSG
A further
interpreta_
rules,
(Harman
that
1963:60~);
at
length
below.
And Transformations
One
some
the
differences
be d i s c u s s e d
cannot
tained
by
is
in fact,
of d e l e t i o n
f o r m A --> @
rules
"when"and
other
is
informa_
be
problem:
from
quoted
the
and TG. (0n the d i f f i c u l t y
is the
is r u l e s
by Victor
to o c c u r
as w i l l
see C h o m s k y
ru_
a'iply a rule
said
underlying
and d i s _
generation
model,
this
a notational
PSG
tions
But,
continuous
(which,
are
paFsgraphs,
tween
important
subscripts
obser_
of all
necessary
to
sub_
is on_
is the
reference
all
and w h e r e
this
suggested
in Y n g v e ' s
is not
subscripts
care
the
the
unordered:
when
contained
and
Like
are
both
will
namely,
but
take
the
Yngve
tion
can
of c o n s t itueJlts,
For
ones;
there
this
new
important
subscripts
that
t|iough
articLe,
b y old
point.
I think
even
in the
indicated
continuous.
les
do
a minor
vation
expansion.
mentioned
places
ly
during
16
the
subscripts
information
transformational
possibility
that
grammar
or
of
other
is con_
into
a
Mey
~ne_level
But
the
grammar
grammar
of P S
thus
all
and
enc~s
the
language.
too
of
little
(the
subscripts
erates
or
more,
grammatical
not
all
with
to its
PSG/S
similar
restricted
mely
3.,
S
either
the
set
choose
the
fourth
rule
(Harman
: S1,
will
the
rule
things:
rules
for
this
2 to
the
These
are
of
the
symbol
subscripts,
to
appear
in e v e r y
script
essary,
rule
is
is c o n v e y e d
by
a sentence
do
this
have
the
in the
symbol
and
for
(normal
$2
mode_
na_
rule
$2.
in
We
question,
the
+ NP/CASE_NOM,NOT_WH.
in o r d e r
(e.g.,
to c o n f o r m
we
have
from Rules
NUMBER_SG
together
with
1 and
and M O D E _ A C T ) .
the
new
ones,
symbol
from
on
(unless
a delete
cf.
below).
This
now
cannot
the
let
subscripts
that
any
be
to
already
on e v e r y
we
in_
to c h o o s e
fourth
rules
grammar,
introduced,
since
Supoose
Harman:600),
subscripts
$2
non_
wh_questions):
two
some
we
or
of e x p a n s i o n
note
added
some
this.
To
S2,
S2 --> V P / T Y P E _ Q U E S , N O T _ W H
Now,
show
o f the
resp.
concerns
if it g e n _
in a c c o r d a n c e
for n u m b e r _
second
second
without
1963:611:"...
optionally
hold
generate
well_formed.")
expansion
the
or,
generate
to H a r m a n ,
paths
it w i l l
for P S G
counterpart.
according
same
sent_
case
'are
transform
an a p p r o p r i a t e
(the
grammatical
Either
also
example
question
never
constructed
grammar
to
will
devices)
sentences
simole
we ~ a n t
the
normal
sentences
this
A very
only
it will
type.
constructed
generate
17
is c o n t a i n e d
is n e c _
information
lost,
sub_
even
that
if
Mey
it b e
as,
irrelevant
say,
easily
soon
imagine
become
allow
of
a MODE
that
,urselves
number
have
is
one
call
without
bol
and
i.c.
others,
is m e n t i o n e d
program
he w r i t t e n
out
i)uter s p a c e
able,
(cf.
the
all
needed
objection
Harman:61Ofn.:
in the
form
actual
sentences.")
The
other
be
split
i.
Can
the
of
all
the
not
met
by
multiDli_
one
can
computer
does
data
not
adding
every
time
So,
if one
a sym_
has
restrictions
and
exceed
does
of
these
programs
is far m o r e
the
subscripts,
made
"Many
if the
that
not
a
can
com_
avail_
hold
grammars
are
for generating
important.
It
can
i n t o ~¢o parts:
the
data
of the
subscript_restriction
2. W i l l
not
just
computer
question
up
does
This
of d e s c r i p t i o n .
subscripts,
subroutines,
we
(see A p p e n d i x
for
these
in
grammar
certainly
etc.,
in w h i c h
prospects
Thus,
for h u m a n s ,
the
not
in the m o r e
and
or e x p a n d e d .
as
the
if the
symbols
type
symbol.
c a n be
even
computer
through
deleting
working
kind
8 necessity
the
this
is c e r t a i n l y
simplicity
this
as
each
the g r a m m a r
rationale
of it
going
some,
of
by
increased
This
can
if we do
simple
to
(such
One
of
Harman:605).
consideratiun:
handling,
mind
frightened
article).
of e n t i a ,
conceive
of
a NP).
( even
6 subscripts
would
following
seems
to be
in q u e s t i o n
rules
comparatively
[Jut o b j e c t i o n s
cation
unwieldy
version
to H a r m a n ' s
on
rewrite
substantially
elaborate
what
symbol
of r u l e s " ,
7 of t h i s
already
the
restriction
very
"millions
rule
to
18
grammar
be
put
into
schema?
subscript_restriction
schema
not
Mey
put
more
data
The
first
into
my
question
concerns
p r e s e n t a t i o n of the
presses
grammar
fear
that
my grammar,
thus
oroducin~
grammatical
I may
(see
a distinction
make
following
as
the
a more
or
less
representation
by
PSG;
a normal
structure
of the
trees
into t r e e s )
mad
adequately
even
on
In no
on
the
case
first
proved
will
of my
Dart
assertion
and
a PSG/S
are
strongly
the
only difference
it m a k e s
a symbol
fixed
to
the
no
on the
by
not
a PSG/S.
the
constituent
else
~eration
in the
level
symbol
is
ion
above,
1.2).
the
I will
F)roduced
other
try
half
easily
of
of a r u l e
at
The
left
a time.
of the
to g i v e
(On the
1965:519).
of a r u l e
of
PSG
grammars,
whether
by means
from
be
a normal
also Hays
grammar.
proceeds
one
that
basis
mewhere
above,
perhaps
can
difference
or on the b a s i s
Drove
(how
the n o t a t i o n .
of.
script,
To
the
represented
equivalent
being
of e q u i v a l e n c e ,
pands
that
and
adequacy.
observation
fact,
serve
covered
model
(and
attain
the
In
will
is c o n c e r n d d ,
level
from
notion
I
facts
not be
observational)
explanatory
The
of the
will
are
observational
transformational
PSG/S
to
that
A PSG/S
the d e s c r i p t i v e
the
structure
by Chomsky,
far as T G
as
ex_
1962:514ff.)
assertion:
adequate
re_
other
sentences
made
descriptive
the
add
Chomsky
Adoptin~
wnnted?
the adequate
structure,
the
not
than
19
one
ex_
to be
af_
a sub_
contained
essential
to
right,
(See
to
is
and
discuss_
assertion
an a n s w e r
so_
male
the
two_
MeT
fold
question
ure.
Let's
of
the
go b a c k
optional
ate
on
When
of
symbols,
I put
that
the
is t h a t
in T G
elementary
and
symbols
on
order,
of my
this
way
fine
a unique
may,
in due
several
I will
have
be
through
course,
are
the
has
completed.
between
sentences
where
$2
occurs
same
derivations
the
rules:
two
in the
trees,
$2.
duplicated
common
is not
formationally
(see
true
related'
PS d e r i v & t i o n
third
the
rule,
VP + NP,
paths
The
through
the
of the
PSG
other
rules
above);
are
un_
and d e _
is r e d u c e d
of d e r i v a t i o n ,
the
is
moreover,
in TG,
"Sentences
to
op_
what
as d e f i n e d
that
deletions,
these
interrogative
source
path
diagrams,
many
between
sentences,
a remote
It
way,
in
de_
This
subscripts).
of t r e e
and
interrogative
+ VP,
separate
is r i g h t
In this
relationship
clara~ive
to
one
and
NP
the
i.e.
ho~Tever,
in the
into
follow
in t e r m s
necessarily
the
already
(omitting
two
left
affirmative
part
a Ii
way,
in T G
the
oper_
is
to m a r k
rules.
after
be_
occurring
additions,
In P S G / S ,
is e x p a n d e d
respectively
out
this
a struct_
unique,
require
carried
that
symbols
in the
o f :~larking m u s t
erations
cleavage
example
symbols.
off
permutations and the like. Now,
been
struct_
in P S G
of
a symbol
to m a r k
string
path
rules
strings
on
I want
is b a s e d
the
on
a subscript
a certain
the
to
of
T
and T G
a string,
ure
in
PSG
representation
, and t r y to i m a g i n e h o w
q
in a P S G / S . T h e m a i n d i f f e r e n c e
is h a n d l e d
tween
about
20
namely
are ~ r a n s _
extent
that
the
Mey
same
choice
derivations
are
made
quotes
a
from
and
lexical
c',oices
if
unless
but
it
coincide
'transformational
similarity"
in r G
made
after
ectively
earlier
this
and
1964)
here,
but
as
think,
walks
into
e.g.,
devised
to
the
In m y
show
but
Lexieal
on
the
the
choices
be
into
built
men,
sentences
that
with
could
the
be
into
like
easily
rules
made
but
(see
consideration
a PSG
com,~lex s y m b o l
prevent
reso_
symbols
that
some
is
is not
may
generative
opinion,
as
grammar.
could
The
be
I
be
man
generated
described
on
TIp.
article.)
a PSG/S
transformational
and d e s c r i b e d
such
level
(This
complex
have
in PSG
the d e r i v a t i o n ,
taken
could
both
of e x p a n s i o n ,
lexical
point;
have
"grammatical
lexical
rules.
coin_
choices
relation:
affect
of H a r m s n ' s
defined
hence
relatedness',
any other
in a c c o r d a n c e
609_10
not
are not
they
transfor_
we do
aoDlication
thus
is b e s i d e
that
in a
altogether,
cor~.ect:
Klima
well
case
this
have
common.
to d e f i n e
it is not
transformational
altogether
in
paths
choice
the
that
two
with
the
differ_
'transformational
possible
(Harman:6OS).
to do
rather
sentences
only
in the
sincle
"'transfor_
the r u l e s
unfortunately,
cide,
takes
namely:
is
Even
and
one
in a s e n s e
the
mational.
and
(Harman:608{
through
fact,
that
same
i~ossible"
oath
in
relation'
nothing
the
Chomsky's,
is,
PSG/S,
in t h e i r
related'"
(partial)
This
is m a d e
his),
mationally
ent
of r e s t r i c t i o n s
where
are
21
a grammar,
will
never
be
relationships
by
Chomsky
even
though
and
able
as
to
formally
oZhers;
it m a y
attain
Mey
a certain
an
descriptive
explanation
and
not
some
into
another
2o3.
Deletion
Another
of
the
other
in
permitted
this
however,
only
less
which
of
the
rules
One
derivate
a~ply
could
reality
say
is
rules
indeed,
use
do
with
occurs
and
the
only
should
since
rule
there
could
The
real
in
a PSG
all
the
of
motivation.
be
them
deletes,
the
such
are
a way
Z
author
is
the
very
like
limited
NP/I~H
(this
smaller
their
to
rules
by
remark
have
to
subscript
p.609,
~rammar,
rejected
in
number
advocates
I would
constituents
con_
which
PSG,
that
not.
extremely
PSG/S,
A-->
structure
should
deletion
be
(un_
a description)°
restricted
therefore
no
into
originally
the
Deletes
expanded
in
in
are
is,
altered
of
as
This
occurs,
the
gives
a I~SG ( p . 6 0 3 ) .
rule
passing,
deletes
be
in
the
no
problem
must
cannot
form
the
Harman
useless
ex,oansion
once
PSG,
in !{at;nan's
though
In
concerns
that
deletes
a highly
even
nearly
this,
trees
the
which
that
having
(9.605).
that
give
t~ansformed
1961:9)o
ex~)and
is
text_sensitive:
of
to
a deletion
may
normal
of
obviously
Whenever
In
they
chooses
is
PSG/S
in
part
symbols:
one
is
restriction
recoverable
not
in
(Chomsky
uniquely
are
precisely
that
never
a PSG
rules.
for
fact
sentence,
difficulty
reason
will
structure.
deletion
are
of
adequacy,
22
the
machine,
on w h i c h
the
a~ply.)
reason
why
(especially
a delete
a highly
cannot
be
admitted
context_sensitive
Hey
one)
is
rules
that
the
should
be
, otherwise
the
rules
it
modified
would
distinction
written
might
belonging
that
in
the
blem
is
somewhat
these
of
a sentence,
be
thought
as
to
operates
carrying
Now,
to
string)
rule
on
a string
on
into
the
that
in
we
have
by
the
In
nal
X~
rule
will
_ X4,
and
generating
carry
pretend
that
and
described
by
these
makes
so
sentences
that
not
occur.
the
criticism.
a
This
that
of
(the
the
for
The
does
not,
kernel
his
the
condi_
as
article
use
X2 _
_ X~,
already
ones
say,
transformatio_
PSG/S
as
deriv_
a string
cautious
the
the
sentence.
actual
like
be
may
non_terminal
X 3 _X 2
into
very
ones
operating,
it
in
sent_
1957:i12),
on
sentences:
grammar
that
the
rule
X 5.
Harman
fact
example,
operate
the
l~ro_
can
course
a non_grammatical
not
generate
then
x¢ay,
X 2 _ X I - X 3.
symbols
on
the
beginning
(Chomsky
"(
Suppose
moreover
that
i°
symbol following
X 3 qualifies
put
de_
orif~inally
declarative
shade
re_
context
symbols
the
and
interrogative
from
of
the
our
keep
context
the
left
a deletlon
originally
to
by
the
on
tions
completely
symbols
at
for
non_terminsl
deletion
following
(Note,
X1 _ X2 _ X3
suppose
Rtion
that
generated
it
rules
stand
be
symbolized
the
zero.)
transformational
ences
possible
simplified
so
of
be
wh_words
normally
of
alte~'ed
context.
case
words
or
operate
the
the
not_rewritten
clear:
thus
to
not
between
symbols
letion
following
23
thus
I do
Drooosed
~,,ill
sai~l,
of
deletions,
mentioned
ho~,yever,
the
will
invalidate
24
Mey
Subscripts
but
also
that
has
may
been
on a c e r t a i n
quite
another
the
put
this
deletion
matter
discussed
such
of
subscript
even
ambiguous
removal
of
perhaps
wonder
since
in m a n y
scripts
tion
the
by
the
of
endless
symbol
subscripts
preventing
symbol
on
(and
according
there
should
see K l i m a
wiping
our
scripts
to be
One
is
could
taken,
through
In
the d e r i v a _
other
c a n be
sub_
cases,
motivated
ungrammatical
"loops",
that
Thus
have
in R u l e
is e x p a n d e d
expansion
the
hand,
to be
expanded
latest
be no d i f f i c u l t y
all
1964),
we
slate,
by means
symbols,
we
in
of the
same
wish
rule
the
recursively
in T G
admitting
S not
deleting
8ol
thus
develo,)ment
can r e s t a r t
i.e.
incorporated
the
other
to the
for
by
no
into
+ VP3/AUX_HAVE,--AUY_MODAL,
in q u e s t i o n
recurslvity
offer
superfluous
the g r a m m a r .
another
If,
would
of a non_
expansions
VP3/AUX_MODAL
INFINITIVE/°..
of V P 3.
orevent
in
case
above).
the
subscript
subscript.
way
su)er_
where
from
precaution
the
re_
of sym_
m a y be
lexicon
in the
recursive
justification
the
instances
all
to
deletion
(p.609),
the
this
(see d i s c u s s i o n
i.e.
the
why
other
the d e s i r e
by
can be
is of c o u r s e
removed
superfluous
persist
removal
is
though
rewrites
the
8.1
AUX_MODAL
--AUX_MODAL,
rule
Subscripts
in R u l e
INFINITIVE
a restriction
subscripts
above).
as
in A P S G / S ,
manner
than
constituent
no
added
In
(this
fluous,
o n l y be
deleted.
moved
bols
not
excluded:
the
cycle
all
the
instruction
as a s u b s c r i p t
on
by
sub_
ERASE.0TIIERS,
the
right
Mey
hand
side
pect
a subscript
cases
into
of the
where
of
a whole
another
called
ruleo
Naturally,
this
sentence
hy m e a n s
"generalized
kind
instance
PSG/S
NP8
i~ind"
(p.613),
we
is
of w h a t
we w o u l d
occur
in
find,
embedded
early
T G was
(Chomsky
transformation
under
~g in the
among
ex_
in t h o s e
to be
transformations"
1957: 113) o T h ~ o m i n a l i z i n g
an
to
25
is
extended
others,
--> S l / C L A U S E . T Y P E : N O M I N A L I Z A T I O N ,
the
entry:
SUBJ. INo
G E N I T I V E , B, C ,D,E, Z,Y, E R A S E o O T H E R S
This
means
found
on N P 8
scripts
of
the
deal
embedded
of
clause
rules
sh~/ctural
change,
How
this NP
ginal
path
ed
NP
to be
fits
kernel
in .nSG b y
the
Now,
all
record
by
In P S G / S ,
whole
is not
destroyed
It
is
while
as
added
removal
ac,:ordance w i t h
~struCtural
back
the
available:
our b r i d g e
if we
ha~een
forgetting
what
rules°
the
ori_
its
can
be
fo] low_
the n o d e s
of
the
this
is m a r k e d
is
the
path
the
to
ERASE
expansion
the
in
OTHERS°
sentence
expanding
it was
from
subscripts
the
tree
in q u e s t i o n .
struck
of the
back
of DS
of
for
a con_
essentially
instruction
descri!)tion
kernel
only
stmucture
to the NP
of
of a
a formula
by m e a n s
information
the
with
expanded
tracing
this
pair of
in
keeps
means
we h a v e
(being
be v e r i _
as g i v e n
by
PS d e r i v a t i o n )
subscriots
derivation
in P S G / S
the
sub_
1~'hereas T G
of the
together
new
easily
to be m a d e
into
the
representation.
by
article).
sentence
through
the
can
originally
the
the P S G / S
description
involved,
with
(as
of
chan~es
sentences
stituent
subscripts
to be d e l e t e d ;
of the
the
structural
the
exclusively
Appendix
track
all
are
f r o m the
fled
the
that
as
a
of N P 8
original
So
a constituent
we w e r e
expanding.
Mey
26
2o C o n c l u s i o n
Of
the
two
(PSG/PDS)
models
has
full_scale
to
show
that
lead
as
not
actually
grammatical
that
any
discussed
the
encountered
attained
structural
PSG/PDS
nor
iption
to be
will
have
runs
a lon~
several
operation
PSG/S
carried
noticed,
the
.)ower of PSG,
much
the
on
power
use
Dower
to
will
not
language.
ones
help
oi" the gramm,~r
for
discussed
adequacy
rule
that
no
all
Thus,
On
and
not
of
structure,
Harmans
losen
Erstens
die
such
Zuordnung
49fn. ii )
Punkt
sie
yon
abet
nicht
einer
das
hand,
enough
sentences
like
of
the
explanatory
cases
not
even
/namely,
JM/ verfehlt
in zweifacher
PSGo
Problem
Stammbaumen."
too
carefully
Versuch
uberschreiten
Kapazitat
how
in s o m e
the d e f e n s e
}{insicht:
other
attain
"Dieser
entscheidenden
add
grammars
adequacy.
den
the
the d e s c r i p t i v e
descriptive
phrase
the
explicitly
1963:605)
one_level
in any case,
the
grammatical
will
one
cases
of
was
matter
(Harman
above
descr_
As
in b o t h
it w o u l d
enlarge
the
neither
b y Har:~an to b o o s t
~rammaro
subscripts,
account
the
the g r o u n d
rele_
Moreover,
the d e l e t i o n
to the
of
chosen,
proposed
are
another.
argument
lines.
those
structural
into
(PSG/S).
in
rules:
one
over
the
same
devices
rejected
permits
tried
nature
molel
descriptions
of the
as a
claim
same
is not
cases
the
the
one
ow:rcome
second
adequacy
for
be
in the
Descriptive
vant
I have
the
can
of a b o u t
first
proposed
of
of P S G
the
but
implications
to d i f f i c u l t i e s
where
been
mo:Iel,
shorgcomings
those
here,
die
Und
Regeln
zweitens
einer
(I~ierwisch
geigneten
1964:
Mey 27
References
Bach
1964:
E.Bach,
An I n t r o d u c t i o n
formational
to Trans_
G r a m m a r s t Ne,~' Y o r k e t c . ,
1964
Bierwisch
1964:M.Bierwisch,
Grnmmatik
Auf~aben und Form der
(Preorint IId Internatio_
nal Symposium "Zeichen und System
der Sprache,
Seotember
Bolinger
Magdeburg,
Germany,
1964)
1953: Dwight LoBolin~er,
Addenda
to the
Comparison of Inequality in Spanish
Lg. 29 (1953),
Chomsky 1957:
N.AoChomsky,
62_6°
Syntactic
Structures
The Hague,1957
Chomsky
1961:
Id., On the Notion Rule of Grammar,
in: Structure of Language
Mathematical
Aspects,
6_24, Providence,
Chomsky 1962:
RoI.,
1961
Approach to
of Linguistic
(1958), Austin, Tex.,
1963:
(1961),
in: ThiFd Texas Confersnce
on Problems
]larman
~SAM XII
Id., A Transformational
Syntax,
and its
A/~aiysis
196~,
124_58
Gilbert II.Harman, Generative Grammar
without T r a n s f o r m a t i o n
Rules: A De_
fense for Phrase Structure Grammar,
Lg.
Harris
1962:
39 (1963),
597_616
Zellig S.Harris,
Strin 6 Analysis of
Sentence Structure,
Hays 1964:
David GoHays, D e p e n d e n c y Theory:
A Formalism
and some observations,
Lg 40 (1964),
Hockett
1959:
The }{ague, 1962
511_25
Charles F.Hockett,
Modern Linguistics,
A Course
in
Ne~, York,
1959
Mev 28
Klima
1964:
EoSoKlima,
Current
in Generative
~rammar
A MS coDy of this
was originally
Colloquium
Prague,
put
Oettinger
on Algebraic
at my d i s p o s i t i o n
U°Sgall,
Ill.,
Praha
Sgall
1964b:
1963,
c.s.,
PoSgall,
Cesty moderni
(PreDrint
Magdeburg,
VoH.Yngve,
Society
1962:
104
Structure,
1947:
(1960),
in:
Proceed_
PhilosoDhical
444_66
in: PSAM
130_8
Random G e n e r a t i o n
Conference
on Machine
and ADplied
1962,
of English
1961 International
in:
Languages
Wells
1964)
and an Hypothesis
Sentences,
London
jazykovedy,
IId Intez'n.
Germ,,
A Model
(1961),
Ido,,
Chica_
yon Grammatkk
Id., The De~th Hypothesis,
XII
Yngve
Documentation
41_2.
ings of t~, American
1961:
and the Theory
Zum Verhaltnis
for Language
Yngve
Language
1964
Symp.,
1960:
Store,
26th Annual Meeting,
und Semantik
Yngve
Syntactic
104_29
in: A m e r i c a n
Institute,
P.Sgall
by the author.
Translation
of Grammar,
1964a:
was kindly
Automatic
(1961),
the 1764
Linguistics,
The Intermediate
in Machine
Sgall
which
and the Pushdown
in: PSAM XII
go,
0a0er,
read before
1964:A.G.Oettinger,
1963:
(in press).
Czechoslovakia,
Analysis
Sgall
developments
franslation
Language
of
Analysis,
65_81
Rulon
SoWells,
Lg 2~
(1947),
Immediate
81_117
Constituents,
Mey 29
"~OLL.IN"
I ]
l+i I+2
"ROLL.(N/T"
i--~ I
FIG.I. THE T~I~MPORA~y MEMORY
-]
th@~ big a fool
j ! ~ j
as nlce
m~s
little parlor
de Io que sabe
FIG. 2. DISCONTINUOUS ~IULTIPLE CONSTITUENPS