• Forthcoming titles
      • New in paperback
      • New titles by subject
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • New serials
      • Latest issues
      • Currently in production
      • Active series
      • Other series
      • Open-access books
      • Text books & Course books
      • Dictionaries & Reference
      • By JB editor
      • Active serials
      • Other
      • By JB editor
      • Printed catalogs
      • E-book collections
      • Amsterdam (Main office)
      • Philadelphia (North American office)
      • General
      • US, Canada & Mexico
      • E-books
      • Examination & Desk Copies
      • General information
      • Access to the electronic edition
      • Special offers
      • Terms of Use
      • E-newsletter
      • Book Gazette
Article published in:
History of Linguistics 2005: Selected papers from the Tenth International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHOLS X), 1–5 September 2005, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
Edited by Douglas A. Kibbee
[Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 112] 2007
► pp. 432–440

La preuve de Gaifman: Réflexions sur la méthode de construction des grammaires catégorielles

Béatrice Godart-Wendling | CNRS, UMR 7597, Université Paris VII
In 1959, Gaifman proved that category grammars were the equivalents of phrasal grammars, so much so that they could never have the expressive power for representing the complexity of natural languages. As a consequence, no new category model was proposed for more than thirty years. Nevertheless, we are now witnessing a renaissance of the category perspective, which makes up the main syntactic current of study in formal linguistics. But the problem, which this article proposes to examine, is that contemporary category grammars continue to be subject to the limitations of Gaifman’s proof, since the increasingly complex formalisms that underlie them paradoxically elaborate according to the Lambeck syntactic calculus (1958) whose expressive power is limited to that of context-free grammars. What sense is there in refining a model that has at its core a theory that is inappropriate for representing natural language?

Article language: French

Published online: 28 November 2007
https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.112.33god
Share via FacebookShare via TwitterShare via LinkedInShare via WhatsApp
About us | Disclaimer | Privacy policy | | | | Antiquariathttps://benjamins.com