[comp.ai] Theoretical vs. Computational Linguistics

rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (07/09/88)

In article <1342@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
>... but I don't know if a non-computational linguist
>working on semantics and pragmatics would call it advanced research work.

Implicit in this statement is the mistaken view that non-computational
linguists get to define 'advanced' research work.  Computational
linguists often are fully qualified theoretical linguists, not just
computer scientists with a few courses in linguistics.  But the concerns
of the computational linguist are not always compatible with those of 'pure'
theoretical linguists.  Since many linguistic theories do not attempt to
model the processes by which we produce and comprehend language (i.e. they
concern themselves primarily with the validation of grammatical form), they
fail to address issues that computational linguists are forced to ponder.
For example, non-computational linguists have largely ignored the questions
of how one disambiguates language or perceives meaning in ill-formed
phrases.  The question is not just how many possible meanings a form can
express, but how the listener arrives at the correct meaning in a given
context.  Given that theoretical linguists seldom have to demonstrate
concrete effects of their research, it is difficult to get them to focus
on these issues.  You should regard theoretical linguists as striving for
a partial theory of language, whereas computational linguists have to go
after the whole thing.  A major limitation for computational linguists is
that they must confine themselves to operations that they can get a
machine to perform.
-- 
Rick Wojcik   csnet:  rwojcik@boeing.com	   
              uucp:   uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik 
address:  P.O. Box 24346, MS 7L-64, Seattle, WA 98124-0346
phone:    206-865-3844