Talk:A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Category:Corpus linguistics[edit]
@Uanfala: Reading Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, which is the successor to this book, I assumed this one used the same techniques. That article says the book is "a large-scale corpus-based grammar", which seems like one of the most impressive achievements in the field of corpus linguistics. It seemed to me like all three books deserved to be categorized somewhere in Category:Corpus linguistics. Does that make sense? -- Beland (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, but is this something we'd want to reflect in the categorisation scheme? For major languages, corpora have been utilised in many contemporary grammars, most big dictionaries, and a variety of other materials. Do we want something like Category:Linguistic works that use corpus methods? Personally, I don't think such a feature is either distinctive or significant enough in each individual case to warrant taking into account when categorising, but I'm aware opinions might differ. Maybe seek input at a project talk page? (And anyway, categories should be based on sourced information). – Uanfala (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Uanfala: I added a sourced claim in the article about being based on corpuses. Actually it was already mentioned with a reference to the publication itself in Survey of English Usage. It appears this and the American Heritage Dictionary are seminal works arising from this field, so maybe they should just be in Category:Corpus linguistics on their merits even if there are lots of more recent works using the same techniques that are not there. Or maybe a subcategory for these works as you suggest would be interesting. I, for example, didn't know that dictionary-making had changed in this particular way...maybe that's an important distinction that should be reflected in categories or maybe it's a bit of trivia for dictionary. But for now I at least added them to the new section "Applications" in Corpus linguistics. I'll ask for more opinions from WikiProject Linguistics. -- Beland (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)