[Corpora-List] corpus linguistics

[Rob Malouf]

I suspect I speak for a large silent constituency (if not a majority)  
when I say that I've found this whole discussion almost completely  
uninteresting.  But, it's been easy enough to skim (or not) and  
delete, so I haven't been moved to complain about it.  This meta- 
discussion though has definitely risen above the threshold of  
annoyance.  If the list manager (who runs the list FOR FREE and no  
doubt has other things she'd rather be thinking about) asks someone  
to take a discussion off-line, why not just do that? It seems like a  
matter of common courtesy.  Set up a blog or a mailing list or a wiki  
or whatever -- there are lots of free options available these days --  
and have at it.

---
Rob Malouf <rmalouf at mail.sdsu.edu>
Department of Linguistics and Asian/Middle Eastern Languages
San Diego State University

On Sep 17, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Rob Freeman wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpora mailing list
> Corpora at uib.no
> http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora


_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora