Please look closely at these standards. Asking a theory to recognize acceptable
and unacceptable sentences, actives and passives and so on is NOT controversial
nor theory specific. These are very ordinary demands that MUST be placed on any
theory of syntax. I am sure most people have assumed that every theory could
handle them.
>> 2) those who do not mention this theory in their research
proposals, grant
>> applications, publications and so on are guilty of negligence (and could be
>> sued if there are grants, contracts, jobs, or other such items of material
>> value at stake and where the offerer of these jobs, grants, etc has reason
>> to expect that the applicant is an expert in his field and is providing an
>> accurate picture of the competitive environment).
>
>What theory? As I understand it, the "theory" behind the parser is not
published. It
>would require greater abilities than I possess to write exposition about a
theory
>which is hidden from me.
Point taken. Please replace "this theory" with "these tools."
>
>> In addition, computational
>> linguistics departments who do not mention these tools or use tools of this
>> calibre are remiss in their duty to present the full range of available
>> materials to their students.
>
>I thought the idea of a course in Computational Linguistics was to train
students in
>writing custom language technology products (and in a thorough
understanding of all
>the flavors of linguistic theory), not in the use of a particular Windows
program.
I am just referring to the need for a mention of extant materials.
>> 3) All current theories of syntax such as Chomsky's latest or even
>> older versions of his theory HPSG, LFG, etc. should all be relegated to the
>> scrap heap of "wannabe" systems until such time as they have been worked out
>> in sufficient detail to allow the creation of programs that can execute their
>> algorithms to the degree required by the above standards.
>
>Because the study of syntactic competence is identical to the study of parsing
>performance?
Something like that, yes... Take a look at the rules of theories of syntax
that exist and then ask yourself if they can be implemented in a programming
langauge. The answer invariably is yes. Then take a look at the theories
themselves and ask yourself why this theory of the structure of language
(if it has indeed worked through all the problems) cannot meet the very
basic standards that I have proposed. Again. PLEASE do not reject those
standards out of hand. Look at them closely and ask yourself if there is
any theory of syntax that should be excused from them.
Phil Bralich
Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D.
President and CEO
Ergo Linguistic Technologies
2800 Woodlawn Drive, Suite 175
Honolulu, HI 96822
Tel: (808)539-3920
Fax: (808)539-3924