It seems to me that in some way the character-by-character analysis of language over-specifies the input and at the same time misses the meaning of the term "language". It makes the assumption that language is bound up in character strings, and at the same time these character strings represent all of the communicative message. Such assumptions hardly work with a corpus of signed languages.
> in the character-by-character way in which I see texts/corpora, you have clusters of referent, modifiers and links: an rml grammar, which happens as a way to organize links and frame a bit better the sense of a phrase. .... On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 3:42 AM Albretch Mueller via Corpora < corpora@list.elra.info> wrote: > "It is not like our semiosis is puncturing 'the closure of physical > reality' to any extent". > I meant to say. Sorry, that happens when you type fast. > lbrtchx > _______________________________________________ > Corpora mailing list -- corpora@list.elra.info > https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ > To unsubscribe send an email to corpora-le...@list.elra.info >
_______________________________________________ Corpora mailing list -- corpora@list.elra.info https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ To unsubscribe send an email to corpora-le...@list.elra.info
