LINGUIST List 20.3270|
Sun Sep 27 2009
Disc: Interest in Dependency Grammar
Editor for this issue: Catherine Adams
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
Interest in Dependency Grammar
Message 1: Interest in Dependency Grammar
From: Maxwell Daniel <dan.n.maxwellgmail.com>
Subject: Interest in Dependency Grammar
E-mail this message to a friend
There seems to be a lot of interest in Dependency Grammar or Dependency
Syntax (these two names are often used synonymously), although compared to
other frameworks like Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical
Functional Grammar they are seldom mentioned on linguist list.
I thought it would be interesting to see how prominent these different
topics were on the internet and Linguist List. The below table shows the
number of hits I got for these different topics:
Linguist List Internet
Head-Driven Phrase 206 726,000
Lexical Functional Grammar 222 119,000
Dependency 114 2,2,000,000
The totals for Dependency Grammar/Syntax are the totals found for
'Dependency Grammar' and 'Dependency Syntax' separately.
It seems that the internet count gets rounded off to the nearest thousand.
Of course these two lists access everything - articles, announcements,
discussions, just bare mentions, etc.
To summarize, the first two are dominant on Linguist List, whereas the
latter is dominant on the internet.
Linguist List is the list aiming primarily at linguists, whereas the
internet has topics for everybody. Why should the interest in dependency
grammar/syntax be greater than in HPSG or LFG in the latter list, but not
the former? Could it have something to do with the fact that for the most
part only HPSG and LFG are taught at universities? And if that is true,
why should it be true, given the interest shown in dependency
grammar/syntax on the broader list?
Discipline of Linguistics
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.