CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 358Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationLexicography and Language Studieslinguistics and terminology studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations

Hanks, Patrick·2013·The MIT Press eBooks
DOI 10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A lexically based, corpus-driven theoretical approach to meaning in language that distinguishes between patterns of normal use and creative exploitations of norms. In Lexical Analysis, Patrick Hanks offers a wide-ranging empirical investigation of word use and meaning in language. The book fills the need for a lexically based, corpus-driven theoretical approach that will help people understand how words go together in collocational patterns and constructions to make meanings. Such an approach is now possible, Hanks writes, because of the availability of new forms of evidence (corpora, the Internet) and the development of new methods of statistical analysis and inferencing. Hanks offers a new theory of language, the Theory of Norms and Exploitations (TNE), which makes a systematic distinction between normal and abnormal usage—between rules for using words normally and rules for exploiting such norms in metaphor and other creative use of language. Using hundreds of carefully chosen citations from corpora and other texts, he shows how matching each use of a word against established contextual patterns plays a large part in determining the meaning of an utterance. His goal is to develop a coherent and practical lexically driven theory of language that takes into account the immense variability of everyday usage and that shows that this variability is rule governed rather than random. Such a theory will complement other theoretical approaches to language, including cognitive lingu…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–358 of 358

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hanks, P.
Corresponding author
Hanks, Patrick
Venue
The MIT Press eBooks
Publisher
The MIT Press
Published
2013-01-25
DOI
10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001
OpenAlex
W4206813637
Cited by
358
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3
FWCI
12.98
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The MIT Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Lexicography and Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › linguistics and terminology studies
Keywords
word meaning, collocations, construction, metaphor, linguistic variability, corpus linguistics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review