Which articles don't need experimental results?
In all the work you are giving as examples, you are essentially developing methods. Not giving any experimental or very strong theoretical evidence that those methods do what they are supposed to do has many negative effects:


It strongly diminishes the value of your work to the extent that you may have trouble publishing work that you could otherwise publish it in a high-ranking journal. Peer reviewers may very well demand that you report on the results of applying your method to some data and may reject your paper if you have no very good arguments for not doing so.

Publishing methods without giving such evidence is the exception and usually only done, if deriving and explaining the method makes for a whole paper and applying the method is done in a follow-up paper or if the method paper and the experimental paper are better published in separate journals. And even then, there is usally some short application to (often artificial) example data in the method paper.
It makes it much less likely that people ever use your work, build upon it or cite you. If I read a paper in which the author proposes a method but fails to show any application, I would strongly suspect that this is because they can’t, which in turn hints at something being very wrong with the method. I would be very skeptical about such a method and would be much less likely to use it.
It will be harder to get funding for your work or justify that you spent your funding well.
Whether you publish it or not, applying methods is one of the best ways to learn what demands and problems occur in reality, which allows you to develop better methods.
If you repeatedly do something like this, you may obtain a bad reputation due to the above.


How bad all this is, eventually depends on your field’s openness to theoretical work and how difficult its is to apply the methods and properly evaluate them. But as far as I can tell from my limited insight into the computer-science literature, I would consider the impact to be rather strong in your case.

Given the nature of your work, I expect it to be impossible to provide convincing theoretical evidence that your methods work. For example languages are notorious for exhibiting weird behaviour and having tons of exceptions. Thus only by applying your method can you demonstrate that your it isn’t rendered useless by peculiarities or special cases you did not account for.

So, to sum it up: Yes, it may be possible to publish your methods without experimental evidence that they work, but I would strongly advise against it.

If you strongly despise experimental work, I suggest that you team up with somebody who does this work for you.