[Corpora-List] corpus linguistics

[Rob Freeman]

Philip,

Why are you trying to impose your personal interests on a list which
patently does not agree?

Moving the discussion to another forum would inevitably mean some could not
follow, and impose inconvenience on those who did.

In any case the Corpora list is the perfect place for this discussion, which
addresses the use and significance of corpora for the study of linguistics.
Many who did not see the relevance early on have become interested as the
discussion developed.

If you don't agree you are welcome to contribute your opinion.

What is broken?

-Rob

On 9/17/07, P Resnik <psresnik at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/16/07, Rob Freeman <lists at chaoticlanguage.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps there might indeed be grounds to consider the
> > establishment of a separate corpora-announce list which would contain
> only
> > things of interest to those who do not wish to debate or be confronted
> with
> > new ideas.
>
> How incredibly insulting, as must be evident even to those in support of
> continuing the discussion in this forum.
>
> Way back in July, Steve Finch wrote:
>
> If your goal is to produce a theory of the structure of language in terms
> > of the sort of theories of syntax that Chomsky pioneered and in the
> > paradigm which he introduced ... I have seen very little evidence that
> > the sort of study that goes on in corpus linguistics has very much
> > insightful to add to that enterprise.
> >
>
> and in my reply I commented
>
> There are interesting arguments to make regarding the underlying premise
> > ("If your goal is..."), but there are also uninteresting, interminable
> > arguments and I'm not going to be the one to start us down that path.
> >
>
> Well, you can't blame me for trying.
>
> People should judge for themselves whether particular arguments being put
> forth are new or interesting, but there can be no doubt that they are
> interminable.   There is a long tradition of creating new discussion forums
> when a branch of discussion takes on a life of its own on a subtopic of
> interest.  If you are particularly interested in children's books, you can
> read rec.arts.books.children, and this suggests no value judgments at all
> about the worth of children's literature discussions relative to books in
> general. Given how easy it is these days to create and subscribe to new
> blogs and mailing lists these days, I'm totally at a loss as to why such a
> courteous and win-win solution should not be taken by those who are
> interested in continuing the discussion in question.
>
>   Philip
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20070918/98bedd42/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora