English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

I. In his "Four Lectures" (1963) Mr Bar-Hillel advanced a hypothesis of "different grammars for the same language lying peacefully side by side somewhere in our brain". In recent years the writer -quite independantly from Bar-Hillel (whose "lectures" were unknown to him)came across many arguments in favour of this "non-uniqueness" hypothesis. Stylistic considerations involved were discussed in a paper read at the Semiotic Conference in Kazimlerz (Poland) in September 1966. In the following some grammatical questions are briefly sketched (the whole being presented in the writers book "Methods of Modelling and Typology of Slavic Languages" to appear in summer 1967);; 2. There are no linguistic or loglc obstacles for producing words out of morphs or simple syntactic groups (phrases) out of words or morphs by a FS (finite state) grammar. Mr Vauquois and his colleagues have already demonstrated this fact for words in their brilliant study on the use of models in mechani~ cal translation. 3. As for simple syntactic groups, one can get some insights into their structure by interpreting states on the diagramm of the FS grammar as linguistic categories (following in this a proposal by Bar-Hillel and Shamir from a work of 1960). For this the writer considers a restricted FS grammar (the diagramm of such grammar does not contain two arrows labelled by the same non-empty word). Under this restriction the distribution of non-elimlnable empty words provides for an adequate segmenting of the group. It is

Some linguistic arguments in favour of Mr Bar-Hillel's "non uniqueness" hypothesis