<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>Cognitive Grammar/Corpus Linguistics</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Michael Barlow writes:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2><snip> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> Some thoughts:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><snip></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> 3. Langacker's Cognitive Grammar. Since this is a "maximalist",</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> "non-reductive", "bottom-up" approach to grammatical </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> description, it lends</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> itself well to corpus approaches. I can see a corpus</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> linguistics theory being built on a Cognitive Grammar framework, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> but I know that others disagree with this.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Could you elaborate on this? I also find Langacker's </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>writings very compelling; certainly his notions of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>'entrenchment' of certain constructs suggest a statistical</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>basis. It seems to me that he also provides a good bridge</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>between corpus linguistics and symbolic/knowledge-based </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>approaches. I would be interested in reading anyone who has</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>done work in this area. Are there forums where this is/has </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>been discussed? I would also like to know more about the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>nature(s) of the disagreements you mention.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Greetings from San Diego,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>- Eric Scott </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Natural Language Engineer</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Island Data Corp.</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>