
In his 1956 paper ‘Three Models for the Description of Language’ Noam Chomsky posed an interesting open question: when we consider the human languages purely as sets of strings of words (henceforth stringsets), do they always fall within the class called context-free languages (CFL’s)? Chomsky declared that he did not know the answer to this question, and turned to a very different set of questions concerning relative elegance and economy of different types of description. Since 1956 various authors (Chomsky included) have attempted to provide answers in the negative, and the negative answer is now the standardly accepted one. We take up the question again in this paper, and show that it is still open, as all the arguments for the negative answer that have been provided in the literature are either empirically or formally incorrect.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 95 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
