Talk:Corpus linguistics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The word "lexis" refers to the lexicon. Linguists differentiate between syntax (rules) and the lexicon (words).
In addition, the remark about intuition may have been there to reinforce the reason why people use corpus linguistics---it's a way of accounting for linguistic phenomena that relies on empirically-derived facts, not on intuition. I'll see what I can do about a re-edit.
--Allolex
I deleted the sentence "Intuition is notoriously unreliable when it comes to making judgments about language.", because, although it is true, it did not flow with the text it was situated by. In fact, I don't think it's relevant to this particular article at all, even though it is certainly a valid linguistic fact.
- One important finding of corpus linguistics is the interdependence of syntax and lexis, often referred to as lexico-grammar: words tend to occur in specific syntactic patterns, and these patterns are shared by words which share aspects of meaning as well.
Can someone tell me what is meant by the word "lexis"? Is this what American linguists would call "lexical semantics"? If so, then the sentence with the word "lexis" is claiming this: that the meaning of words and the syntactical forms in which those words find themselves are interdependent. This may or may not be true, but could someone explain how this is supported by Corpus linguistics? Do we have names of particular researchers, or particular studies?
- I'm an American with some knowledge of linguistics, and I've never heard the term. (I have heard the term "lexical semantics"; there is a class on it at my university.) Since I also don't understand what "lexis" means, or how corpus linguistics supports the interdependence of anything, and since your question has gone a long time with no reply, I'm deleting the passage. --Ryguasu 02:20 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)
though I wasn't able to find a good place to include this link http://www.spaceless.com/concord/ I think it's an important tool for archivists...
[edit] Chomsky and Corpus Linguistics
The article states: The approach runs counter to Noam Chomsky's view that real language is riddled with performance-related errors, thus requiring careful analysis of small speech samples obtained in a highly controlled laboratory setting. When did Chomsky say this and where? Do the two appoaches contradict each other or do they complete each other? --Hutschi 10:47, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Further, I would like to know what "performance" means to linguists.
[edit] Performance
"Performance" is put in contrast to "competence". Chomsky believed/believes that the language "module" of the brain could be described in terms of a predictable machinery, like a computer. The access a healthy human has to this language module in the brain is the competence. "Performance" is what you get when the processing of the language module in the brain has to go through all the intermediaries so the proper sounds actually get into the air. So the brain, having generated something to say, will pass the linguistic utterance outside the language box and it could be corrupted by memory loss, tongue/mouth/motor function imperfection, etc...So what is observable, an imperfect utterance, is not representative of the linguistic competence of the speaker. This is what Chomsky wished to capture. --Temposs 07:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted the sentence: "The core of a corpus is the derivation of a set of Part-of-speech tags, representing a formal overview of the various types of words and word-relationships in a given language." as it is not really true. Most corpora are not annotated, and deriving tags is only a minor research interest.
