Computational Linguistics and Generative Linguistics: The Triumph of Hope over Experience

Proceedings of the EACL 2009 Workshop on the Interaction between Linguistics and Computational Linguistics, pages 12–21, Athens, Greece, 30 March, 2009. c⃝2009 Association for Computational Linguistics Computational Linguistics and Generative Linguistics: The Triumph of Hope over Experience Geoffrey K. Pullum School of Philosophy, Psychology, and Language Sciences University of Edinburgh gpullum@ling.ed.ac.ul Abstract It is remarkable if any relationship at all persists between computational linguists (CL) and that part of general linguis- tics comprising the mainstream of MIT transformational-generative (TG) theoreti- cal syntax. If the lines are still open, it rep- resents something of a tribute to CL prac- titioners’ tolerance — a triumph of hope and goodwill over the experience of abuse — because the TG community has shown considerable hostility toward CL and ev- erything it stands for over the past fifty years. I offer some brief historical notes, and hint at prospects for a better basis for collaboration in the future. 1 Introduction The theme of this workshop is the interaction be- tween computational linguistics (CL) and general linguistics. The organizers ask whether it has it been virtuous, vicious, or vacuous. They use only three of the rather extraordinary number of v-initial adjectives. Is the relationship vital, valu- able, venturesome, visionary, versatile, and vi- brant? Or vague, variable, verbose, and sometimes vexatious? Has it perhaps been merely vestigial and vicarious, with hardly any general linguists really participating? Or vain, venal, vaporous, vir- ginal, volatile, and voguish, yet vulnerable, a re- lationship at risk? Or would the best description use adjectives like vengeful, venomous, vilifica- tory, villainous, vindictive, violent, vitriolic, vo- ciferous, and vulpine? I will argue that at least with respect to that part of general linguistics comprising the mainstream of American theoretical syntax, it would be quite remarkable if any relationship with computational linguistics (CL) had thrived. It would represent (as Samuel Johnson remarked cynically, and wrongly, about second marriages) a triumph of hope over experience. It seems to me that the relation- ship that could have been was at least somewhat blighted by the negative and defensive stance that MIT-influenced transformational-generative (TG) syntacticians have adopted on a diverse array of topics highly relevant to CL. There was never any need for such attitudes. And at the conclusion of these brief remarks I will suggest a basis for thinking that relations could be much more satisfactory in the future. But I think it is worth taking a sober look at the half-century of history from 1959 to 2009, during which al- most everything about the course of theoretical syntax, at least in the USA, where I worked dur- ing the latter half of the period, has been tacitly guided by a single line of thinking. ‘Generative grammar’ is commonly used to denote it, but that will not do. First, ‘generative grammar’ is often used to mean ‘MIT-influenced transformational- generative grammar’. For that I will use the ab- breviation TG. And second, it is sometimes (in- correctly) claimed that ‘generative’ means noth- ing more or less than ‘explicit’ …

Content truncated to 500 words