[Corpora-List] Chomsky and computational linguistics

[Mike Maxwell]

I've tried to prevent myself from replying to this, but as you can see, 
I've failed...

Terry wrote:
> You seem to be saying that because one physicist has failed, all physicists
> should give up. 

Re-read.  I did not say what physicists should do.  I did draw an 
analogy between linguists and physicists, but it was intended to go in 
the opposite direction: I'm saying that just as physicists haven't given 
up on a GUT, there's no reason to think linguists ought to give up on 
generative linguistics.

> Must we wait until Chomsky dies before declaring his project a
> failure? 
	
There are a lot of us generative linguists around who think that Chomsky 
isn't a failure, even if our theory isn't exactly the same as his.  In 
fact, I would go so far as to say that linguistics (particularly syntax) 
is light years ahead of where it would be if it weren't for Chomsky. 
Not everyone on this list would agree with that, of course.*

(Counting myself as a generative linguist is a bit of a stretch, since I 
haven't published or even done anything in that field in years; most of 
my work has been in field linguistics or computational linguistics.  But 
I am very much in sympathy with the generative approach, and with the 
central idea, which I take to be an innate 'universal grammar'.  See 
also my signature...)
-- 
	Mike Maxwell
	maxwell at umiacs.umd.edu
	"Theorists...have merely to lock themselves in a room
	with a blackboard and coffee maker to conduct their business."
	--Bruce A. Schumm, Deep Down Things

*Hyperbole :-)

_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora