Michael Barlow writes:
> Some thoughts:
> 3. Langacker's Cognitive Grammar. Since this is a "maximalist",
> "non-reductive", "bottom-up" approach to grammatical
> description, it lends
> itself well to corpus approaches. I can see a corpus
> linguistics theory being built on a Cognitive Grammar framework,
> but I know that others disagree with this.
Could you elaborate on this? I also find Langacker's
writings very compelling; certainly his notions of
'entrenchment' of certain constructs suggest a statistical
basis. It seems to me that he also provides a good bridge
between corpus linguistics and symbolic/knowledge-based
approaches. I would be interested in reading anyone who has
done work in this area. Are there forums where this is/has
been discussed? I would also like to know more about the
nature(s) of the disagreements you mention.
Greetings from San Diego,
- Eric Scott
Natural Language Engineer
Island Data Corp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 18:07:23 MET DST