“Philosophical discussion in the
absence of a theory is no criterion of the validity of evidence.”
-- A. N. Whitehead.
Adventure of ideas. (1933:221)
In case of an investigation or in
a disciplinary technology, empirically (irrationally speaking, i.e., speaking in a strict
non-Cartesian way)speaking, data/corpora
is the raw material (ephemeral ‘arbitrary signifiers’ in case of linguistics)
to built up a theory following inductive method.
Why, then, mere ‘corpus’ is
tagged with linguistics, an epistemological disciplinary technology?
‘Corpus’ is not tagged with
Physics, Geology, Psychology, Sociology etc (e.g., Corpus Physics or Corpus
Sociology), though they are also dealing with data!
Collection of data and arranging
them (typing?) in a digital machine do not involve any knowledge or wis(h)dom
but a special skill that needs clerical precision. Documentation, no doubt, is
a tiresome job. Utilizing a tool (a digital machine) as a repertoire, does not
necessarily entail the birth of discipline.
Ascribing static (“thetic...”,
Kristeva,1974) meaning to those entries, though needs epistemology and that can
be handled by well-established theory-based disciplines: Lexicology, Semantics,
Pragmatics etc. If we have such levels of
linguistic analysis, do we need such dubious coinage, “Corpus Linguistics”?
And each empirical discipline
needs data for further observation, experimentation and inductive
generalization (one may raise Popper’s [1934, 2009] points for refuting
Inductivism here), i.e., data is an initial part of the whole, but neither a
theory nor a praxis.
However, it is a salebrated
discipline now! Why is it so? What is
the purpose of such discipline?
My friend says, “We, the
residents of the so-called third world, are part of the data-collection
team—don’t you understand that? How dare you? You cannot be allowed to perform
theoretical plays.” (Galtung, 1980)
Bibliography
Galtung, J. 1980. True Worlds: A Transitional Perspective. New York: Free Press
Kristeva, J. 1974. Revolution in Poetic Language. (Abridged English translation) New York:
Columbia University Press, 1984.
Popper, K. 1934. The
Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge.
________.
2009. The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge
(Routledge Classics). New York: Routledge.
Whitehead, A.N. 1933. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Free Press.
