1 Why do CPA? Patrick Hanks Research Institute for Information and Language Processing, University of Wolverhampton; Bristol Centre for Linguistics, University of the West of England

Meaning; collocation Analysing meaning; understanding meaning –A set of unresolved problems in linguistics –ONE CONTRIBUTION: analyse phraseology “Many meanings depend on the presence of more than word for their realization” – J.M. Sinclair Dictionaries (and WordNet) are a disappointment for software engineers and language learners –They list many “meanings” –But they don’t say how words are used 2

Aims To build an inventory of the phraseological patterns associated with (each sense of) each verb (“norms”) To relate unusual and imaginative uses to the normal uses of each word (“explotations”) –e.g. build a collection of newly created metaphors and similes 3

A discovery of corpus linguistics 85%-90% of everyday speech and writing is phraseologically “normal”. –The phraseological norms can be described and stored as models for future use. 9%-14% is unusual (creative) in some way. About 1% is uninterpretable. 4

Users (target market 1) Applications in computational linguistics –Natural language engineers –Machine translation? – Idiomatic language generation? –Message understanding? –Information extraction? Escaping the tyranny of text matching 5

Users (target market 2) Language teaching –Natural phraseology –Error correction –Prioritization and choices 6

Logical and analogical A natural language consists of a puzzling mixture of logical and analogical procedures Neglect of the analogical aspect has led to serious errors –E.g. the quest for precise definition in ontologies currently being designed for the Semantic Web In ordinary language people make new meanings by comparing one thing with another and by creating ad-hoc sets –Not merely by asserting identity –Nor by conforming exactly to conventional phraseology –Vagueness is an important principle of natural language Danger of confusing language with mathematical logic 7

We need to re-examine the relationship between language and logic The theory of norms and exploitations (TNE) argues that: Talk of an "underlying logical form" of an utterance is pernicious. What "underlies" linguistic behaviour is a set of behavioural regularities -- phraseological patterns. One of the many things that people do with these patterns is to make logics. They do other things too – notably, use language patterns for social interaction. 8

A usage-based, corpus-driven theory of language TNE research indicates that language is indeed a rule-governed system BUT: There are two sets of rules, not just one: 1.Rules for using words normally, “correctly”, boringly 2.Rules for exploiting normal patterns of word use. Exploitations include not only metaphors and similes, but ellipsis, anomalous arguments, irony, etc. etc. The two rule systems interact. Today’s exploitation may become tomorrow’s norm. –Compare Bowdle and Gentner (2005): ‘the Career of Metaphor’. The rules are probabilistic, not deterministic. Hanks, P. (2013): Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. MIT Press. 9