I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the systematic use of complex symbols can be defined in such a way as to impose a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. Suppose, for instance, that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is necessary to impose an interpretation on a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as a descriptive fact. On our assumptions, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier cannot be arbitrary in problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. It appears that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is unspecified with respect to the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.
see also: WikiPedia -- Chomskybot