trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Certain natural language syntactic structures cannot be represented by BNF grammars
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
1 source for · 0 against

Peer-reviewed literature on formal language theory confirms that context-free grammars, which correspond to BNF, lack sufficient expressivity to capture certain phenomena in natural language syntax.

Evidence for · 1
2012 · cited by 47
The first part of this article gives a brief overview of the four levels of the Chomsky hierarchy, with a special emphasis on context-free and regular languages. It then recapitulates the arguments why neither regular nor context-free grammar is sufficiently expressive to capture all phenomena in the natural language syntax. In the second part, two refinements of the Chomsky hierarchy are reviewed, which are both relevant to the extant research in cognitive science: the mildly context-sensitive languages (which are located between context-free and context-sensitive languages), and the sub-regular hierarchy (which distinguishes several levels of complexity within the class of regular languages).
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:single_source:for=1+0p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Formal language theory: refining the Chomsky hierarchy.peer-reviewedno side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt