Talk:Lexis (linguistics)

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

This is a slightly altered version from a text I wrote for the Citizendium 147.88.200.144 11:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I modified this pair of sentences: "In 'Words and Rules'Steven Pinker shows this process at work with regular and irregular verbs: the former is collected and provides us with rules which can be applied to unknown words (for example, the –ed ending for past tense verbs allows us to decline the neologism “to google” into “googled”). Other patterns, the irregular verbs, are stored separately as unique items to be memorized." The new sentences: "In "Words and Rules", Steven Pinker shows this process at work with regular and irregular verbs: We collect the former, which provide us with rules we can apply to unknown words (for example, the ‑ed ending for past tense verbs allows us to decline the neologism “to google” into “googled”). Other patterns, the irregular verbs, we store separately as unique items to be memorized." fuper (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Manual of Style say anything about this? It seems like an essay-type thing, but for an encyclopedia (or encyclopædia, whichever) is this proper?

Thanks!

Lunakeet —Preceding comment was added at 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this article is biased in its point of view, addressing only functionalist/stochastic views of the lexicon. There are many reasonable views of the lexicon, and the principles that govern its construction in the formalist literature. Particularly among practitioners of HPSG and LFG. I'm not qualified to write anything about it here, but this article seems not to have a neutral POV. AndrewCarnie (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand, despite I did read the introduction. What the difference between a lexis and a

"A lexis" is not a single unit like a word/morpheme/etc. It's another word for "mental lexicon", e.g., all the words a person knows. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And what's the difference between lexis and lexicon? Malick78 (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the article there are multiple uses of the phrase 'this is no surprise' and derivatives, which is not unbiased and a neutral pov. These statements also have weird use (or lack of use) of punctuation.

...words such as "no" and "to" are not surprisingly very frequent; a word such as "controversy" much less.

In this example, "no stranger to" is a very frequent collocation; so are words such as "mysterious", "handsome", and "dark". This comes as no surprise. More interesting, however, is "no stranger to controversy". Perhaps the most interesting example, though, is the idiomatic "perfect stranger". Such a word combination could not be predicted on its own, as it does not mean "a stranger who is perfect" as we should expect.

In these examples, the grammar not particularly reader-friendly with the use of unneccassary subordinate clauses both with and without correct commas, plus repeated uses of "surprising" and "interesting" throughout this article which (at least to me) are fundamentally words denoting a non-neutral POV. I may come back and sort some of this myself when im not procrastipedia-ing but i thought i'd raise it here in the meantime incase someone actually qualified in this field wants to do so first. Jackass cooper (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]