this requires careful thought about confouding factors (sentences can sound better or worse depending on other sentences around them, depending on dialect, etc.)
@activitypub_fetcher
Exercitationem saepe magni est cupiditate assumenda accusantium saepe consequatur fugit amet possimus rerum quas dolores quos quisquam sapiente sit perferendis officia ad aut ut ut quibusdam quaerat autem corporis vero illum tempore et culpa rem ut ratione!
Loading...
typically, this is in the form of judgment illicitations, where a linguist uses their theory to guide the construction of a sentence that is relevant to the phenomenon, and then they get people (starting with themselves) to judge the sentence by how "good" it sounds in various ways
typically, this is in the form of judgment illicitations, where a linguist uses their theory to guide the construction of a sentence that is relevant to the phenomenon, and then they get people (starting with themselves) to judge the sentence by how "good" it sounds in various ways
typically, this is in the form of judgment illicitations, where a linguist uses their theory to guide the construction of a sentence that is relevant to the phenomenon, and then they get people (starting with themselves) to judge the sentence by how "good" it sounds in various ways
most theoretical linguistics is done not on formal written language at all, not on large corpora at all, but rather on relative small sample sizes, collected under specific methodologies meant to get extremely relevant data to the phenomenon under investigation
most theoretical linguistics is done not on formal written language at all, not on large corpora at all, but rather on relative small sample sizes, collected under specific methodologies meant to get extremely relevant data to the phenomenon under investigation
but, that's how most science is done, this shouldn't shock you. we don't merely gather up LOTS of data and then do a best fit etc etc.
no, we have some data, maybe even a very small amount, and we develop a hypothesis, and we then test that, and refine out hypothesis, etc etc
but, that's how most science is done, this shouldn't shock you. we don't merely gather up LOTS of data and then do a best fit etc etc.
no, we have some data, maybe even a very small amount, and we develop a hypothesis, and we then test that, and refine out hypothesis, etc etc
which means the value of corpus based linguistics was EXTREMELY minimal
so how was, and is, linguistics actually done? how do we get around the problems of tractability?
we DONT rely on pure empirical modelling!
which means the value of corpus based linguistics was EXTREMELY minimal
so how was, and is, linguistics actually done? how do we get around the problems of tractability?
we DONT rely on pure empirical modelling!
and this is not taking into account the fact that historically, computers were slow. i mean, REALLY slow. prior to about 2000, you could barely do any large computational work anyway, and in the 1960s and 1970s when most modern theories were being born? forget it, no one used computers at all
and this is not taking into account the fact that historically, computers were slow. i mean, REALLY slow. prior to about 2000, you could barely do any large computational work anyway, and in the 1960s and 1970s when most modern theories were being born? forget it, no one used computers at all
and most of the phenomena that linguists care about are far far more complex than what we can represent with context free grammars, and deriving THOSE is even more complicated, and basically impossible
and most of the phenomena that linguists care about are far far more complex than what we can represent with context free grammars, and deriving THOSE is even more complicated, and basically impossible
which is not to say that you can't derive SOME kind of grammar, it's just not remotely guaranteed to be correct, or even good, and is going to be very heavily driven by heuristical techniques
which is not to say that you can't derive SOME kind of grammar, it's just not remotely guaranteed to be correct, or even good, and is going to be very heavily driven by heuristical techniques
which is not to say that you can't derive SOME kind of grammar, it's just not remotely guaranteed to be correct, or even good, and is going to be very heavily driven by heuristical techniques
there's a well known proof (PROOF! as in, mathematically true, period, end of story) that given a corpus of text, deriving a context free grammar from a set of example sentences is completely intractable in all but the most trivial cases
there's a well known proof (PROOF! as in, mathematically true, period, end of story) that given a corpus of text, deriving a context free grammar from a set of example sentences is completely intractable in all but the most trivial cases
there are, in principle, more sophisticated mathematical models that we can try to create, beyond something like a markov chain, but the more complicated the model, the more difficult it is to generate
