Hello, all you NYT readers!
Maybe you're here because of my On Language column today ... it would be great if I had tons more corpus content here, wouldn't it? But I'm on my way to Wikimania 2007, and don't have anything worthy of a whole blog post on the subject.
There was one gee-whiz corpus bit that didn't make it into the column, though: the words widget and gadget are often considered synonyms, but they have different usage patterns in the OEC: you sell, produce, make, and create widgets, but you buy, use, and have gadgets. What that says to me is that when it's at the factory, it's a widget, but when you pick it up off the shelf at the store, it magically turns into a gadget.
While you're waiting for more content, maybe you'd like to check out the Google Video of a Word-Lover's Boot Camp I did there a couple weeks ago? (Warning: nearly an hour. Sit in the comfy chair & get yourself something to drink.)
Or, you could always give a look-see to my other blog, A Dress A Day.
I'll be back soon!
Labels: corpus, On_Language
This entry was posted by Erin, on
Sunday, July 29, 2007.
You can leave your response.
1:09 PM
Kudos. That's clearly the best "On Language" column I've ever seen. Nicely done!
11:52 AM
Erin, that's a nice piece, but you have a bit near the end that's wrong and offensive to boot.
"If you compare the patterns for the verbs coerce and compel, you see that people are compelled to testify, write, act, obey, resign, surrender and comment, but that you are coerced into prostitution, sex, pornography and treatment (the last against your will)."
That parenthetic, meant to be humorous, is pretty darn stupid. If you'd actually read the Corpus selections, and had any sense of the real-world use of the term at hand, you'd certainly know that it's not users/consumers of prostitution, sex, or pornography who are coerced, but the producers of same.
So, in the first place, your usage is in error.
In the second place, while I can see the humorous intent, it really requires a staggering level of insensitivity to jokingly imply, essentially, "Who wouldn't want to be coerced into prostitution, sex, or pornography!"
1:57 PM
Chris, the parenthetical reference refers only to treatment, not prostitution, sex, or pornography. That's what "the last" refers to: the last word, not the last clause.
That parenthetical reference is necessary because--like many other things corpus analysis has revealed--we might not necessarily think that people are commonly coerced into treatment, but we do understand (and see in the corpus) that people are commonly coerced into (performing) prostitution, sex, or pornography.
Also, there's nothing humorous about the parenthetical reference, nor do I believe was humor intended. At best it's ironic. More likely it's simply a point of clarification.
3:09 PM
Thank you so much for your delightful guest appearance in the NYT magazine--I read dozens of language-oriented blogs and books, but can't read that particular column with much interest under normal circumstances. It was a pleasant surprise.
2:04 AM
Erin, imagine my surprise and delight on seeing your column in The Santa Cruz Sentinel, my local paper. I enjoyed it thoroughly; I'm happily sharing it, too!
9:00 AM
What a great read!
It is wonderful to know that such a powerful tool is out there - but it begs the question - can normal people who aren't working for dictionaries access it? I spent a good hour looking around and couldn't find a single site (including OUP and OED) that actually offered access. Sure, they talked about the OEC, but only to show how awesome it is.
How can we laypeople see it?
11:40 AM
I've actually seen a spork used as a weapon. During my first year of teaching, I had to check the kids everyday for sporks smuggled out of the cafeteria. They had a particular way to break them that left a very sharp edge. I still shudder about it. Now, I have to go search for some spork-as-weapon humor to leave that behind.
9:11 AM
Indeed, it was wonderful to see an expert writing that column. But I'm with Tate. You imply we can get access, but I can't see how.
By the way, the Simple English Wiktionary http://simple.wiktionary.org/ should have its 2,000th entry in the next few days.
9:17 AM
Hey folks! Thanks for the nice comments ...
There's supposed to be an application form ready soon for people who want to use the OEC. I'll have more details here when I get 'em. I understand the frustration ...
In the meantime, you might want to check out some of the cool corpus stuff available at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/!
1:39 PM
Hi Erin,
Great column! I can't see the corpus (wish I could), but I suspect that "migrate" appears more often with "south" because it's so often associated with birds headed that way (in my hemisphere) for the winter. Just a thought.
2:49 AM
I really enjoyed your "On Language" piece about the Corpus. Thank you so much for tempting me with morsels from a table at which I shall never eat.
I was left puzzling over your assertion that "Obviously what goes south *must* come north". (e.a.) I guess you might have been thinking of birds, but I read it thinking of people,for whom migration is often a one-way trip. I never even thought of birds until someone mentioned it when I asked them, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that the definition I was using is "1" in the OED.
8:39 AM
I've been browsing this blog by starting at the most recent entry and working backwards in April 2008, and at this point I learn something that surprises me.
Until this moment, I've always believed that widget is a neologism of the computer age, derived from window gadget and meaning a gadget that only exists on a computer screen. That is to say, I thought "widget" = "GUI widget". I even asserted as much in passing on my blog once.
I am fairly well-educated, and it makes me wonder what section of the population has heard of the word widget outside of a computer graphics context, what section of the population shares my false understanding of the word, and to what extent the computer graphics interpretation of the word is taking over.