Language is never, ever, ever random

“Language is never, ever, ever random” (Kilgarriff, 2005), not in its usage, not in its acquisition, and not in its processing. (Nick C. Ellis, 2017, p. 41)

Nick C. Ellis (2017). Cognition, Corpora, and Computing: Triangulating Research in Usage-Based Language Learning. Language Learning 67(S1), pp. 40–65

There are infinite ways of using language

Epistemological relativity, for an ELT professional, means that one accepts
that there are infinite ways of using language and that differences do not
automatically call for judgmental evaluation. (Leung, 2005: p. 138)

Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics15(2), 119-144.

Check other quotations here.

All adult linguistic categories are, ultimately, ideological constructs

[…] the very notion of “language” is a mere ideological invention. We agree that all adult linguistic categories are, ultimately, ideological constructs. However, we see inherent value in studying distinct languages and language varieties in bilingualism because of the fact that already in infancy, prior to any sociopolitical influences,
both bilingually and monolingually raised children can perceive, distinguish, and harbor strong attitudes toward different accents, regional varieties, and languages. Houwer & Ortega (2018: 3).

Houwer, A., & Ortega, L. (2018). Introduction: Learning, Using, and Unlearning More than One Language. In A. De Houwer & L. Ortega (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingualism (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 1-12). Cambridge University Press.

Check other quotations here.

Scott & Tribble (2006) on discovering pottential patterns

The second aspect is summarised in that phrase “potential patterns”. How so? The process operates in two stages. First, all the effort of a concordancer or a word-listing application goes into reducing a vast and complex object to a much simpler shape. That is, a set of 100 million words on a confusing wealth of topics in a variety of styles and produced by innumerable people for a lot of different reasons gets reduced to a mere list in alphabetical order. A rich chaos of language is reduced, it is “boiled down” to a simpler set. In the vapours that have steamed off are all the facts about who wrote the texts and what they meant.We have therefore lost a great deal in that process, and if it damaged the original texts we would never dare do it.

The advantage comes in the second stage where one examines the boiled down extract, the list of words, the concordance. It is here that something not far different from the sometimes-scorned “intuition” comes in. This is imagination. Insight. Human beings are unable to see shapes, lists, displays, or sets without insight, without seeing in them “patterns”. It seems to be a characteristic of the homo sapiens mind that it is often unable to see things “as they are” but imposes on them a tendency, a trend, a pattern. From the earliest times, the very stars in the sky have been perceived as belonging in “constellations”. This capability can come at a cost, of course: it may be easy to spot a pattern in a cloud or in a constellation and thereby build up a mistaken theory; but the point is that it is this ordinary imaginative capacity, that of seeing a pattern, which is there in all of us and which makes it possible for corpus-based methods to make a relatively large impact on language theory. For with these twin resources, namely the tools to manipulate a lot of data in many different ways and without wasting much time, combined with the power of imagination and pattern-recognition, it becomes possible to chase up patterns that seem to be there and come up with insights affecting linguistic theory itself. The tools we use generate patterns (lists, plots, colour arrangements) and it is when we see these that in some cases the pattern “jumps out” at us. In other cases we may need training to see the patterns but the endeavour is itself largely a search for pattern.

Scott, M. & Tribble, C. 2006. Textual Patterns: keyword and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (pp. 5-6).

On corpus linguistics ways

Mike Scott

Q: How much should a discourse analyst know before he or she engages in corpus work?

A: I don’t agree with the presupposition. No discourse analyst needs to know anything doing Corpus Linguistics. What they need (for either) is an open mind, a willingness to learn, to take risks, to make mistakes, to ask for help or find it for themselves. There is not just one way of slicing bread, and the CL ways of slicing it are not necessarily superior to non-CL ways.

Mike Scott, Viana, Zyngier & Barnbrook (2011: 218)