Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relevance of computer science to linguistics and vice versa

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relationship and interpenetration of computer science and linguistics are discussed. The affinity between modern linguistics and computer science is traced back to their beginnings, and related developments in the two fields are outlined. It is concluded that an interdisciplinary, or closely related, program of study in the two fields would be highly beneficial to both disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, Eds.,Universals in Linguistic Theory (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, “Universal semantics and philosophy of language: quandaries and prospects,”Substance and Structure of Language, Ed. by Jaan Puhvel (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1969), pp. 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Manfred Bierwisch, “Certain problems of semantic representations,”Foundations of Language 5, 153–184 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Manfred Bierwisch, “Semantics,” inNew Horizons in Linguistics, Ed. by John Lyons (Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1970), pp. 166–184.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. Braffort and D. Hirschberg, Eds.,Computer Programming and Formal Systems (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rudolph Carnap,Meaning and Necessity, 2nd ed. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Noam Chomsky,Syntactic Structures (Mouton & Co., The Hague, 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Noam Chomsky, “Formal properties of grammars,” inHandbook of Mathematical Psychology, Ed. by P. Luce, R. Bush, and E. Galanter (Wiley, New York, 1963), Vol. II, pp. 323–418.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Noam Chomsky,Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Noam Chomsky,Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar (Mouton & Co., The Hague, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle,The Sound Pattern of English (Harper and Row, New York, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  12. N. Chomsky and G. Miller, “Introduction to the formal analysis of natural language,” inHandbook of Mathematical Psychology, Ed. by P. Luce, R. Bush, and E. Galanter New York, 1963), Chapter 11.

  13. N. Chomsky and M. P. Schützenberger, “The algebraic theory of context-free languages,” inComputer Programming and Formal Systems, Ed. by P. Braffort and D. Hirschberg (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1963), pp. 118–161.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kenneth Mark Colby, “Simulations of belief systems,” inComputer Models of Tltought and Language, Ed. by R. C. Schank and K. M. Colby (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973), pp. 251–286.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Franklin S. Cooper, “Machine and speech,” inResearch Trends in Computational Linguistics (Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Carlos A. Cuadra, Ed.,Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 8 (ASIS, Washington, D.C., 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, Eds.,Semantics of Natural Language, 2nd ed. (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  18. H. Dudley, “Remarking speech,”J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 11(2):169–177 (1939).

    Google Scholar 

  19. H. K. Dunn and H. L. Barney, “Artificial speech in phonetics and communications,”J. Speech Hearing Res. 1:23–39 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  20. G. Fant,Acoustic Theory of Speech Production (Mouton & Co., The Hague, 1960).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jerome A. Feldman, “A formal semantics for computer oriented languages,” Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Charles J. Fillmore, “The case for case,” inUniversals in Linguistic Theory, Ed. by E. Bach and R. T. Harms (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1968), pp. 1–88.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen, Eds.,Studies in Linguistic Semantics (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. L. Flanagan,Speech Analysis, Synthesis, and Perception, (Springer, New York, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Janet Dean Fodor, “Formal linguistics and formal logic,” inNew Horizons in Linguistics, Ed. by J. Lyons (Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1970), pp. 198–214.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Morris Halle, “Prolegomena to a theory of word formation,”Linguistic Inquiry,4(1):3–16 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  27. David R. Hill, “Man-machine interaction using speech,” inAdvances in Computers, Vol. 11, Ed. by M. C. Yovits (Academic, New York, 1971), pp. 165–230.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Charles F. Hockett,A Course in Modern Linguistics (The Macmillan Co., New York, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  29. John E. Hopcroft and Jeffrey D. Ullman,Formal Languages and their Relation to Automata (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  30. L. Jakobovits and D. Steinberg, Eds.,Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, Anthropology and Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ray S. Jackendoff,Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Harry H. Josselson, “Automatic translation of language since 1960: a linguist's view,”Advances in Computers, Vol. 11, Ed. by M. C. Yovits. (Academic, New York, 1971), pp. 1–58.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jerold Katz, “Recent issues in semantic theory,”Foundations of Language 3:124–194 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jerrold J. Katz and Jerry A. Fodor, “The structure of a semantic theory,”Language 39:170–210 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jerrold J. Katz and Paul M. Postal,An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  36. W. von Kempelen, “Speaking machine,”Philips Tech. Rev. 25:48–50 (1963/64).

    Google Scholar 

  37. F. Kiefer, Ed.,Studies in Syntax and Semantics (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  38. George Lakoff, “Linguistics and natural logic,” inSemantics of Natural Language, Ed. by D. Davidson and G. Harman (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1972), pp. 545–665.

    Google Scholar 

  39. John A. N. Lee,Computer Semantics (Van Nostrand Reinhold New York, 1972).

  40. Nilo Lindgren, “Machine recognition of human language,”IEEE Spectrum 2(3): 114–136,2(4):44–59,2(5):104–116.

  41. P. Luce, R. Bush, and E. Galanter, Eds.,Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. II (Wiley, New York, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  42. John Lyons,Structural Semantics (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  43. John Lyons, Ed.,New Horizons in Linguistics (Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  44. J. D. McCawley, “The role of semantics in a grammar,” inUniversals in Linguistic Theory, Ed. by E. Bach and R. T. Harms (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1968), pp. 124–169.

    Google Scholar 

  45. J. D. McCawley, “Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar,”Foundations of Language 4:243–269 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  46. James D. McCawley, “A program for logic,” inSemantics of Natural Language, Ed. by D. Davidson and G. Harman (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1972), pp. 498–544.

    Google Scholar 

  47. I. A. Melchuk and R. D. Ravich,Avtomaticheskiy Perevod (Akad. Nauk SSSR, Moscow, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Jack Minker and Sam Rosenfield, Eds., inProc. Symp. Information Storage and Retrieval (Assoc. Comp. Mach., New York, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Marvin Minsky, Ed.,Semantic Information Processing (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Christine A. Montgomery, “Linguistics and information science,”J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1972 (May–June):195–219.

  51. J. A. Moyne, “An introduction to transformational grammars,”Int. J. Comp. Math. 2:169–181 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  52. J. A. Moyne, “The annual meeting of the ACL,”Computers and the Humanities 7(6):413–415.

  53. J. A. Moyne, “Some grammars and recognizers for formal and natural languages,” inAdvances in Information Systems Science, Vol. 5, Ed. by J. T. Tou (Plenum, New York, 1974), pp. 263–333.

    Google Scholar 

  54. E. J. Neuhold, “The formal description of programming languages,”IBM Syst. J. 10(2):86–112 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Allen Newell, “Artificial Intelligence and the concept of mind,” inComputer Models of Thought and Language, Ed. by R. C. Schank and K. M. Colby (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973), pp. 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  56. A. Newellet al., “Speech understanding systems: final report of a study group,” Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  57. James R. Newman,The World of Mathematics, Vol. 4 (Simon & Schuster, New York, 1956).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Klaus W. Otten, “Approaches to the machine recognition of conversational speech,” inAdvances in Computers, Vol. 11, Ed. by M. C. Yovits (Academic, New York, 1971), pp. 127–163.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Milos Pacak and Arnold W. Pratt, “The function of semantics in automated language processing,” inProc. Symp. Information Storage and Retrieval, Ed. by J. Minker and S. Rosenfield (Assoc. Comp. Mach, New York, 1971), pp. 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  60. M. Pacak, L. Cousineau, and W. White, “The segmentation approach to dictionary construction,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Assoc. of Canadian Pathologists (1972).

  61. A. W. Pratt and M. G. Pacak, “Identification and transformation of terminal morphemes in medical English,”Methods of Inf. in Med. (Stuttgart) 8(2):(1969).

  62. Jaan Puhvel, Ed.Substance and Structure of Language (University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  63. M. Ross Quillian, “Semantic memory,” inScientific Information Processing, Ed. by M. Minsky (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1968), pp. 227–270.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Randall Rustin, Ed.,Formal Semantics of Programming Languages (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Randall Rustin, Ed.,Natural Language Processing (Algorithmic Press, New York, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Roger C. Schank, “Identification of conceptualizations underlying natural language,” inComputer Models of Thought and Language, Ed. by R. C. Schank and K. M. Colby (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973), pp. 187–247.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Roger C. Schank and Kenneth Mark Colby,Computer Models of Thought and Language (Freeman, San Francisco, California, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Thomas A. Sebeok, Ed.,Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. III,Theoretical Foundations (Mouton & Co., The Hague, 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Sally Yeates Sedelow and Walter A. Sedelow,Language Research and the Computer (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  70. R. F. Simmons, “Some semantic structures for representing English meanings,” Tech. Rep. NL-1, Comp. Sci. Dept, University of Texas, Austin, Texas (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Robert F. Simmons, “Semantic networks: Their computation and use for understanding English sentences,” inComputer Models of Thought and Language, Ed. by R. C. Schank and K. M. Colby (Freeman, San Francsco, 1973), pp. 63–113.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Julius T. Tou, Ed.Advances in Information Systems Science, Vol. 5 (Plenum Press, New York, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  73. A. M. Turing, “Can a machine think?,”Mind 50 (1950); also inThe World of Mathematics, Ed. by J. R. Newman (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1950), pp. 2099–2123.

  74. Stephen Ullmann,Semantics (Barnes & Noble, New York, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Donald E. Walker, “Automated language processing,” inAnnual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 8, Ed. by C. A. Cuadra (ASIS, Washington, D.C., 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Uriel Weinreich, “Explorations in semantic theory,” inCurrent Trends in Linguistics, Vol. III, Ed. by T. A. Sebeok (Mouton & Co., The Hague, 1966), pp. 395–477.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Terry Winograd,Understanding Natural Language (Academic Press, New York, 1972); also inCognitive Psychology 3(1):1-191 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  78. W. A. Woods, “Transition network grammars for natural language analysis,”Comm. ACM 13(10):591–606 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Marshall C. Yovits, Ed.,Advances in Computers, Vol. 11 (Academic Press, New York, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Queens College, The City University of New York, New York

    J. A. Moyne

Authors
  1. J. A. Moyne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moyne, J.A. Relevance of computer science to linguistics and vice versa. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences 4, 265–279 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01007763

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01007763

Key words

Search

Navigation