Timeline for What has NLP/CL brought to the table of pencil-and-paper linguistics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 11, 2011 at 5:38 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackLinguist/status/123633473905893376 | ||
| Sep 24, 2011 at 3:28 | answer | added | Fred M. | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 18, 2011 at 15:11 | answer | added | Ethan | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 18, 2011 at 8:46 | comment | added | hippietrail | @Alan: Perhaps we could narrow the question to make it more like a "yes/no with examples" question rather than a "give me a full list" question. Like Have NLP/CL brought anything to the table of pencil-and-paper linguistics? | |
| Sep 18, 2011 at 3:52 | answer | added | songei2f | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 17, 2011 at 13:39 | answer | added | prash♦ | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 17, 2011 at 0:16 | comment | added | Alan H. | Do you have in mind a particular area? Like phonology, syntax, morphology? The answer will differ somewhat based on what level you are interested in. And, of course, if you have in mind a particular theoretical framework, that would help as well. | |
| Sep 17, 2011 at 0:08 | comment | added | Alan H. | @hippietrail: Well, then, I think the question is much too broad for a site like this. | |
| S Sep 15, 2011 at 17:59 | history | suggested | hippietrail | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
expand acronyms, link to wikipedia articles for linguistics and computing terms, format a tiny bit
|
| Sep 15, 2011 at 8:25 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 15, 2011 at 17:59 | |||||
| Sep 15, 2011 at 8:20 | comment | added | hippietrail | I don't think @johanbev: was talking about any framework but about the entire of field(s). | |
| Sep 15, 2011 at 7:06 | answer | added | kaleissin | timeline score: 9 | |
| Sep 14, 2011 at 23:54 | comment | added | Alan H. | I think that depends immensely on which framework you are talking about. HPSG seems to be used a fair bit in CL and practitioners seem fairly sensitive to the computational tractability of their grammars. If you talk to a big HPSG person it is only a matter of time before they pull out their laptop and show you the latest HPSG parser they've been working on. Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration, but you get the idea. If you're interested more in the minimalist side, then I think there's much less interest in issues of computability, or in integrating insights from CL into the theory. | |
| Sep 14, 2011 at 23:33 | history | asked | user47 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |