Prevailing approaches do not have a computational lexicon

[Robert Levine]

Ash---My own sense that `computational' is used as a systematic,
rhetorically motivated malapropism for `combinatorial' in the
minimalist litany. As Shalom points out, the MP literature is bare of
actual computations, in the sense of an explicit set of steps applying
to well-defined input and yielding a fully specified
output. `Computational' is used by minimalists---just as Sokal and
Bricmont say, in their wonderful book Fashionable Nonsense, about the
abuse of of genuine science by postmodernist hacks---to give a `veneer
of rigor to their own discourse'. But really, all they mean is
combinatorics, some system for putting elements together to generate
larger elements. So far as I can tell, nothing else is intended, at
least extensionally...

cheers[???],

Bob



> Hi Ash,
>    I wonder why you are surprised by this phenomenon. There are two points
>    worth noting here. (i) It is very common for theoretical linguists
>    working in the minimalist framework to follow Chomsky in referring to
>    syntaxas "the computational component" of the grammar while assiduously avoiding
> clear specification of the computational properties of the syntactic
> operations that they posit as elements of this component. I have found
> that when pressed on this and related issues many minimalists tend to
> retreat to the claim that they are only concerned with a theory of
> competence, and so they are not responsible for a computational account of
> the grammar, which they assign to impelmentation or performance. The
> question remains, then, in what sense they are describing syntax as a
> computational component of the grammar. (ii) The widespread lack of
> awareness (indifference?) to work going on in other theoretical frameworks
> and to research in computational linguistics is legion, and it has been
> noted many times. From my own experience in these matters I have found
> that regardless of how often one raises these questions, it has little
> impact on working practise in large areas of the field. It is probably
> best simply to set them aside in order avoid pointless irritation and to
> use the time to pursue productive research. Regards.                               Shalom