Three Models for the Description of Language

6 Explanatory power of linguistic theories

1. How does constructional homonymity favour phrase structure over finite-state grammars?
   The simplest phrase-structure grammar gives “they are flying planes” two derivations, matching its ambiguity; there’s no obvious motivation for two paths through any finite-state grammar.
   • Chomsky, 1956, Three Models for the Description of Language (IRE Transactions on Information Theory), §6
2. How do transformations explain the ambiguity of “the shooting of the hunters”?
   With phrase structure alone, it, “the growling of lions” and “the raising of flowers” are all the – V + ing – of – NP. Transformationally, T1 maps “lions growl” to “the growling of lions” and T2 maps “they raise flowers” to “the raising of flowers”; “hunters shoot” and “they shoot the hunters” are both kernel sentences, so “the shooting of the hunters” has two transformational origins.
   • Chomsky, 1956, Three Models for the Description of Language (IRE Transactions on Information Theory), §6
3. What overall picture of language does Chomsky end with?
   A small, possibly finite kernel of basic sentences with phrase structure, plus transformations applied to kernel sentences or earlier transforms to produce more complicated sentences, reducing the problem of understanding a sentence partly to understanding kernel sentences.
   • Chomsky, 1956, Three Models for the Description of Language (IRE Transactions on Information Theory), §6