Author Topic: The Royal Court of Linguistics  (Read 3280 times)

Armin

  • Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
    • View Profile
The Royal Court of Linguistics
« on: 2007-09-18 16:05:30 »
Something I just came across. Lauri Karttunen writes (2003):
Quote
Computational phonology and morphology have a curious non-relationship with “real” linguistics extending back to more than three decades. Time after time, from Johnson to Eisner, including Kaplan and Kay, Koskenniemi, myself, Beesley, Kiraz, and others, the computational knights have presented themselves at the Royal Court of Linguistics, rushed up to the Princess of Phonology and Morphology in great exitement to deliver the same message “Dear Princess. I have wonderful news for you: You are not
like some of your NP-complete sisters. You are regular. You are rational. You are finite-state. Please marry me. Together we can do great things.” And time after time, the put-down response from the Princess has been the same: “Not interested. You do not understand Theory. Go away you geek.”
The source as pdf

For one thing, it's great what you can write if you are a well-established scientist. If I put anything like this in my thesis, it'll be rejected. For the other thing, this is a general problem I have experienced in all fields of (computational) linguistics. Have I taken my minor subject too serious? It appears to me that general and computational linguistics are two seperate fields.

I am posting this under "General Linguistics", such as not to contemplate this among CLers, but to keep CL represented at the "Royal Court of Linguistics", and the issue open to your discussion. (And if the Linguistics now ask: "What's NP-complete? Regular? Rational? Finite-state?" then that's exactly the point.) I'd like to hear some linguists' point of view as well. (Okay, you avoid forums and internet communication...)
« Last Edit: 2007-09-18 16:23:16 by Armin »

Laura

  • Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 472
    • View Profile
Re: The Royal Court of Linguistics
« Reply #1 on: 2007-09-18 19:30:25 »
Poor knights!  :'(