Talk:Computational linguistics

message: If you folks don't mind, I'm going to make some changes to the Origins section of this article some time in the next week. I'm going to add some material about the work of David G. Hays. He led the machine translation effort at RAND back in the 50s and 60s, was one of the authors of the ALPAC report, wrote the first textbook in computational linguistics, was instrumental in founding the Association for Computational Linguistics, and the International Committee on Computational Linguistics, was the first editor of the ACL's journal and so forth. I'll be adding an article about Hays himself, then I'll link it to this article, and, as I said, make a some changes to the history section.
AI is is generally considered to have originated in 1956 with a conference at Dartmouth, where the term "artificial intelligence" was coined. MT was under-way before that time. When MT morphed into CL during the mid-60s it maintained a somewhat separate identity from AI and, so far as I know, does to this day. AI, CL, and NLP are closely related, obviously, and some researchers may consider themselves to be two or three of those, or only one. 
Bill 21:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the last decade computational methods have been applied to historical linguistics.  This article does not cover this aspect.  Really a separate article is required with a change to the title of this one to separate it. Adresia (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Do you have some sources?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dranorter (talk • contribs) 03:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This case points, imo, to the coming state of affairs: Linguistic research of various types will increasingly be presumed to use computing among its array of tools. We ought to be planning for, / gradually inching our way toward, the time when "Computational linguistics" will have become a term of mainly historical interest, and all branches of linguistics that are amenable to formal analysis of any kind will automatically be presumed to have a computational presence.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Computational Historical Linguistics

message: Is there any stub template for use in articles related to computational linguistics? I haven't found any, but I think it would be viable, if it really didn't exist. -- Sandius 20:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub template 

message: As of this time, the external link Free online introductory book on Computational Linguistics has not responded at all for several hours.  I have no way of knowing if this is temporary, but the link should be removed if this continues. 75.15.115.31 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it in the Internet Archive. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems to be working now. Dranorter (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Free online introductory book"? 

message: About the field.  Sorry couldn't resist :) Note that the decision whether to merge being discussed above does kinda of support this... prat (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humour 

message: I would vote for deleting the "counter-views" section, marked out as of questionable quality. These don't represent well-known views in the field or fields close to it, and appears to take issue with "computational theories of language" rather than the field(s) of CL. I am more an observer than scholar of CL (though I have taught courses on it), & I don't think it's accurate to see it as promulgating a "theory" that needs to be balanced with "counter-views." Most CL just says that language can be productively analyzed using some computational tools or others, and justifies this assertion with actual research results. The "counter-view" would therefore be that no, computers aren't useful in linguistic analysis, a claim for which I know neither factual nor scholarly support. CL doesn't entail any statement about the nature of language per se (although some CL practitioners certainly do have such views), and this section obscures that. Wichitalineman (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete "Counter-views" 

message: I don't think "Mathematical linguistics" should redirect to this page. If anything, "Math. Ling." is even more ill-defined, or more over-broad in use, than is the "Computational" term. The involvement of computer science in this putative subfield, under many of its apparent definitions, is at best secondary. (The mere suggestion that Mathematical ling. should redirect to Computational is reminiscent of the notion, still prevalent just a few years ago, that computing or computer programming was somehow "about" mathematics, or that a computer programmer was by definition a mathematician.)
Whoever created the redirect, I'll give you a short while to make restitution, no questions asked. Then the shaming shall begin. :~> (And no, I don't think I need to come up with a better place for "Mathematical linguistics" to (re)direct to. Redirecting here is inappropriate, in & of itself.)
--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical linguistics redirect 

message: Hi all, I’m new to editing, and I’m also apart of a class that is taking a look at language in the digital age. I hope you all don’t mind if I attempt to improve my knowledge on the field by occasionally attempting to provide useful and pertinent information. Thank you
Beardown25 (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New to Wikipedia editing 

message: At the moment, the Approaches section is very much essay-like, and less encyclopedia-style, and its prominent position in the article severely limits the usability of this page. (I guess this actually *was* an original essay, as it had been inserted as a single block.) I suggest to cut that down to 3-5 sentences per subsection, or, alternatively, rewrite from scratch, possibly taking an authoritative text book as a basis (not to copy from, but to follow its classifications). Chiarcos (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approaches 

message: As of writing (12:10 pm EST, Mon Nov 9 2020), there is a paragraph in this article which reads:
In recent days, the structural data of languages is available for several languages of the world other than English language. Computational linguistics work is in progress on Sindhi language because the structure, grammar and domain of Sindhi language is different from the other languages of the World. The computational linguistics models for English language are not suitable for Sindhi language. Viewing this, computational linguistics work on Sindhi language [27][28][29] has been started properly by developing methods, algorithms, linguistics tools (https://sindhinlp.com/), machine learning models and deep learning models since 2016 [30][31][32][33][34][35] to focus and solve the linguistics problems of Sindhi language. This work could lead to further important discoveries regarding the underlying structure of Sindhi, and could have any number of effects on the understanding of Sindhi as a language.
I hope that this paragraph clearly presents itself as being nonfactual. I would be happy to offer sources to this if need be, but to state that the language spoken in one particular region of South Asia has "structure, grammar, and domain... different from the other languages of the World" is quite obviously unverifiable, and to me smells of the same sort of linguistic supremacy propaganda we see time and time again in pseudo-academia. Indeed, if we are to believe every article which states that some given language is somehow the most 'suitable' for computational analysis – Sanskrit, Hindustani, Sindhi, Macedonian – then the speakers of the rest of the (W)orld's languages ought to put some thought into why their languages, despite being equally qualified as a method of communication to every other language in the (W)orld, are so computer unfriendly, and/or why the great computational-linguistic minds of these locales have not made the incomparable advances in syntax parsing that we would expect with such an innate advantage.
173.35.233.148 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Sindhi Language section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion