Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Noam Chomsky

dblp:c/NChomsky · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
7ranked-venue papers
7as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
0000-0002-3632-2461ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Theory of computation · 5 · 5 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
4 papers
Automata and formal languages · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automata and formal languages
formal grammars
0.021959
On Certain Formal Properties of Grammars · Inf. Control. 1959
Three models for the description of language · IRE Trans. Inf. Theory 1956
Automata and formal languages › formal grammars
phrase structure grammars
0.021959
A Note on Phrase Structure Grammars · Inf. Control. 1959
Three models for the description of language · IRE Trans. Inf. Theory 1956
Automata and formal languages › grammar formalisms
generative capacity
0.011956
Three models for the description of language · IRE Trans. Inf. Theory 1956
Automata and formal languages › formal grammars
transformational grammars
0.011956
Three models for the description of language · IRE Trans. Inf. Theory 1956

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

finite-state markov process · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2011 Governing Board Symposium The Biology of Language in the 21st Century
Noam Chomsky, David Poeppel, Patricia S. Churchland, Elissa L. Newport
CogSci1
2007 SymposiumonMargaret Boden, Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science , Oxford (2006) two volumes
Noam Chomsky
Artif. Intell.1
1959 On Certain Formal Properties of Grammars
Noam Chomsky
Inf. Control.1
1959 A Note on Phrase Structure Grammars
Noam Chomsky
Inf. Control.1
1958 Finite State Languages
Noam Chomsky, George A. Miller
Inf. Control.1
1956 Three models for the description of language
abstract
We investigate several conceptions of linguistic structure to determine whether or not they can provide simple and "revealing" grammars that generate all of the sentences of English and only these. We find that no finite-state Markov process that produces symbols with transition from state to state can serve as an English grammar. Furthermore, the particular subclass of such processes that producen-order statistical approximations to English do not come closer, with increasingn, to matching the output of an English grammar. We formalize-the notions of "phrase structure" and show that this gives us a method for describing language which is essentially more powerful, though still representable as a rather elementary type of finite-state process. Nevertheless, it is successful only when limited to a small subset of simple sentences. We study the formal properties of a set of grammatical transformations that carry sentences with phrase structure into new sentences with derived phrase structure, showing that transformational grammars are processes of the same elementary type as phrase-structure grammars; that the grammar of English is materially simplified if phrase structure description is limited to a kernel of simple sentences from which all other sentences are constructed by repeated transformations; and that this view of linguistic structure gives a certain insight into the use and understanding of language.
Noam Chomsky
IRE Trans. Inf. Theory1
1953 Systems of Syntactic Analysis
abstract
During the past several decades, linguists have developed and applied widely techniques which enable them, to a considerable extent, to determine and state the structure of natural languages without semantic reference. It is of interest to inquire seriously into the formality of linguistic method and the adequacy of whatever part of it can be made purely formal, and to examine the possibilities of applying it, as has occasionally been suggested, to a wider range of problems. In order to pursue these aims it is first necessary to reconstruct carefully the set of procedures by which the linguist derives the statements of a linguistic grammar from the behaviour of language users, distinguishing clearly between formal and experimental in such a way that grammatical notions, appearing as definienda in a constructional system, will be formally derivable for any language from a fixed sample of linguistic material upon which the primitives of the system are experimentally defined. The present paper will be an attempt to formalize a certain part of the linguist's generalized syntax language. From another point of view, this paper is an attempt to develop an adequate notion of syntactic category within an inscriptional nominalistic framework. The inscriptional approach seems natural for linguistics, particularly in view of the fact that an adequate extension of the results of this paper will have to deal with the problem of homonymity, i.e., with a statement of the conditions under which tokens of the same type must be assigned to different syntactic classes.
Noam Chomsky
J. Symb. Log.1