The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“There is immense scope for creativity in choosing where, and at what levels of grain, to follow the norms and where to exploit them (Hanks, 2013).”
From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Hanks, 2013
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Research Methods in Applied Linguistics
(2021) · Research methods in applied linguistics · doi:10.1075/rmal · Cited by 2,782
Corpus Use in Language Learning: A Meta‐Analysis
Boulton, A., & Cobb, T. (2017) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12224 · Cited by 635
Poudat, C., Lüngen, H., & Herzberg, L. (2013) · Studies in corpus linguistics · doi:10.1075/scl · Cited by 468
Statistical Measures for Usage‐Based Linguistics
Gries, S. T., & Ellis, N. C. (2015) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12119 · Cited by 224
The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research
Paquot, M. (2019) · Second Language Research · doi:10.1177/0267658317694221 · Cited by 175
Metadata
- Authors
- Hanks, P.
- Corresponding author
- Hanks, Patrick
- Venue
- The MIT Press eBooks
- Publisher
- The MIT Press
- Published
- 2013-01-25
- 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