[Corpora-List] Chomsky and computationnel linguistics

[Michael Maxwell]

> Lou wrote: "But let's not forget that the stuff that comes out of
> linguist's mouths, even the mouths of
> theoretical linguists, is also language!"
>
> Here I would argue that it's only language when it is used as such, ie
> talking to somebody.

And here I would simply disagree :-).  (Or else I would say that I talk to
myself--but I should be sure to add that when I argue with myself, I
always win the arguments.)

> I'm sure there are lots of sentences uttered by
> linguists in the various corpora we keep looking at, and there is
> nothing wrong with that.  But can I study aerodynamics by sitting in
> the proverbial armchair and thinking up a plane?  It's different if I
> build a model and study how it behaves in repeatable experiments.
>
> I guess it all boils down to repeatability.  My main criticism with
> the invented examples of rare events is that you cannot challenge
> them, because you can't repeat the analysis with your own data.

Exactly, except that you _can_ challenge them.  The made-up examples of
subjectless for-to sentences are testable by anyone who speaks that
dialect (and it is not an idiolect).  Which I guess is more than you can
say about certain physics experiments, which rely on a single particle
accelerator buried near Chicago or on the Switzerland-France border.  No
one else can replicate those experiments.

   Mike Maxwell
   CASL/ U MD