[Corpora-List] Chomsky and computationnel linguistics

[Oliver Mason]

> > 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).
But _how_ can you test them?  It's all subjective.  Maybe the same
person that yesterday said a sentence was acceptable has changed their
mind now and today claims it's wrong.  If you've got a corpus, then
you can at least show that a particular construction has been used.

Similarly with invented examples, how can I argue with you if you say
'well, I think X is a valid sentence'.  There is no way I can disprove
you without using unethical (and illegal) means to get you to renounce
them yourself. 'It's not valid' - 'It is!' - 'Isn't!' - 'Is!' etc...

> 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.
If I had the funding (and the expertise in physics) I could surely run
those experiments again, and would presumably get the same (or
similar) results.  I could even build another accelerator, or come up
with a different experiment that tests the same phenomenon under
investigation.

Oliver