Paul M. Postal

Learn More
Preface It might seem plausible to the non-specialist who thinks about natural language (NL) that a given NL, NL x , permits one to report linguistic performances, both performances of NL x elements and those of NLs distinct from NL x. By 'reporting linguistic performances' I refer to nothing more arcane than forming statements like 'Amanda just shouted(More)
Let L range over all natural languages (NLs). For any L, one can consider two collections of strings of symbols, one consisting of all strings over the terminal vocabulary of L, call it W*(L), the other consisting of that always very proper subcollection of W*(L) consisting of all and only those members of W*(L) that are well-formed, that is, that(More)
We are reasonably convinced by the remarks in Pullum (p. 182) that the sluicing construction, on which the argument in Postal and Langendoen (p. 177) for the non-CFhood of English is based, is not, contrary to what is assumed there, subject to an intrasentential matching condition. Consequently , the argument does not go through. However, we believe that an(More)
  • 1