SHORTCUT TO MAIN SECTIONS
Home  •  About this site  •  How did we once fight corruption in colonial Hong Kong?
 •  John Sinclair's Lexical Items  •  Syndicated news  •  and more to come
 Sunday, May 20 2012 8:27pm Hongkong Time

SKIP TO     Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | References

John McHardy Sinclair's lexical items – an introduction

Add Text Here 2 (c) Floyd Anderson
Photo © Floyd Anderson

In order for us to be able to move onto our analysis with the historical news corpus (in later sections), we will first need to examine the origins of the five categories of co-selection that make up the late Birmingham University professor John McHardy Sinclair's "lexical term" (Sinclair, 2004).

Open-choice model and the idiom principle

The five categories of co-selection of a lexical term originates from Sinclair's idiom principle (1991) in which he emphasized the "non-random nature of language" as oppose to his open-choice model (also known as "slot-and filler") where he sees language as a product "of many complex choices". Sinclair described his open-choice model as "probably the normal way of seeing and describing language" (1991, p. 109). This model, in general, describes the basic restrictions on the possible choice of lexical items that can be used to syntactically fill in every "next vacancy" appearing in any given text. The model, hence, forms the basis of most uses of the grammar. On the contrary, Sinclair's idiom principle is based on the presumption that users of a language select naturally from a set of pre-constructed phrases, or idioms, as the name of the model implies. With the two theories presumably going in opposite directions, no one theory seems to be able to provide one comprehensive explanation. Statistically speaking, Erman and Warren (2000) found in their research that about 45% of all authentic text goes with the open-choice model, whereas the remaining 55% (a little more than half) belongs to the idiom principle. But this does not mean that these two models are competing against with one another. In fact, according to Sinclair's original concept, the two theories actually work hand-in-hand in which case the open-choice analysis "could be imagined as an analytical process which goes on in principle all the time, but whose results are only intermittently called for." (1991, p. 114)

In 1996 and 1998, Sinclair further expounded his idiom principle to include the five categories of co-selection that make up the lexical item, namely, the invariable core word (or core words), the obligatory semantic prosody, the optional collocation and colligation from Firth (1957), and, last but not the least, the semantic preference.

SKIP TO     Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | References





Informational sites by Raymond Cheng, PhD DPA

Commentary.com | TCMBasics.com | CheckDomain.name | OXLL.org


Copyright © 2001-2012 Wyith Ltd dba Commentary.com. All Rights Reserved. Copyright of selected news articles and logos belongs to respective news agencies. Read disclaimer.

SHORTCUT TO MAIN SECTIONS
Home  •  About this site  •  How did we once fight corruption in colonial Hong Kong?
 •  John Sinclair's Lexical Items  •  Syndicated news  •  and more to come

Contact the editor at raymond {dot} cheng {at} kellogg {dot} oxon {dot} org


Photo credits for top title bar, from left to right: Iza H (Work), Lukasz Gumowski (Blue Balls), Marcin Bania (Smiling and Naked), Lautaro Gonda (Milan Station), Jan Abt (Girl Taking a Picture), Daniel Tang (Hot Switch), Barbara Henry (Moriah Reading), Ralf Herrmann (Checkmate II), Marko Roeper (Led #4), Ian Russell (Girl in Downtown LA)

www.commentary.com | www.commentary.asia | www.commentary.hk | www.commentary.tw | www.commentary.sg

Special Alert! This is *NOT* the American Jewish Committee's Commentary Magazine! Special notice! This is not the American Jewish Committee's Commentary Magazine nor are we in any way affiliated with them. To visit AJC's magazine, please go to commentarymagazine.com instead, thank you.

This site is best viewed with Microsoft® Internet Explorer 6.0 or above, minimum 1024x768 16M color-depth resolution. Wyith Ltd dba Commentary.com and its personnel do not endorse external sites and are not responsible for the content of these websites. All external sites will open in a new browser window.




 
IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

This website is published and designed by Raymond Cheng, PhD DPA and reflects only and only his personal views and opinions in his individual capacity. It does not represent the views and opinions of his firm, employer(s), clients, or anyone else, and is not in any way sponsored or endorsed by any other thrid parties.

Please click here to read my full disclaimer
USMAN'S TECHNOLOGY BLOG  
Usman Khurshid on Mike McCune's HD Monitor with Paths Technize.net logo with Maartje van Caspel's Public Space
I am proud to announce that the Commentary.com website is now carrying the technology updates from Usman Khurshid's Technize.net. Usman is a network consultant and works in a mixed environment of Windows and Linux platforms. He likes to study about the latest advancements in computer technology and shares his views on his blog.

Click here to read Usman's tech blog
Subscribe to RSS feed
Photo © Usman Khurshid, Mike McCune, Maartje van Caspel
COMING 2012 – GLUCK ON SOCIALISM AND CHINA Asia (c) Robert Churchill
Photo © Robert Churchill

Professor Sidney Gluck (c) Sandi BachomI am honored to have obtained Professor Sidney Gluck's (right) permission to allow me to repost here some of his work and interview related to China and socialism. Professor Gluck is professor emertius at the New School University in New York. A classical Marxist, Gluck has been studying China for 60 years in history and modern development. He has lectured all over the country and still welcomes engagement at the age of 94 – photo © Sandi Bachom

COMING 2013 – COMPUTING CORPUS Active Network Hub (c) Phil Sigin-Lavdanski
Photo © Phil Sigin-Lavdanski

Oh, please do not get me wrong. This new section is not about using computers on or programming with a corpus, but rather I am currently constructing a new corpus based on the CACM, Communications of the Association for Computer Machinery, from January 2008 to date. As a professional grade ACM member since 1997, I have always been fascinated by some of the very conservative (and the sometimes very aggressive) words scientists use when they talk (or brag) about their new inventions or methodologies. How many of them actually come into real use? Could there be some insights we can possibly derive, especially from the linguistics perspective?

ADVERTISEMENT

BOOKMARK US WITH SOCIAL MEDIA

Digg it!  Share on Twitter  Add to Facebook  Bookmark on Google History Bookmark  Bookmark on Del.icio.us  Bookmark on Yahoo!  Reddit