Using Dictionaries: Pros and Cons

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/15/99 4:13:07 AM, thorinn at diku.dk wrote
in a note titled "Re: STATISTICS IN LINGUISTICS:"

<<The important thing is that this measurement must not depend on the
researcher's knowledge of the languages --- on the contrary, it should be
repeatable with consistent results by different people....

One possible protocol might be to simply hand out dictionaries to a
few undergraduates that never even heard the names of the languages
before, and letting them find as many similarities as they can. >>

In a message dated 3/15/99 5:22:43 AM, whiting at cc.helsinki.fi wrote in a
message titled " Using Dictionaries (was Re: Greek question (night?))":

<<What has been pointed out here is another pitfall of using
dictionaries to do comparative linguistics without knowing
anything about the languages that are being compared...,since
most dictionaries simply don't tell you everything that you need
to know to do comparative linguistics beyond this simplistic
level.>>

What a comparison of the two points-of-view given above might suggest is that
Statistics and Linguistics may not be precisely on the same track.

My own experience (obviously) is that even dictionaries will not inform you of
the complete "phonotactics" of a language. (Although I DID know something
about some of the languages involved in the "night" discussion, I sure didn't
know how perverse the inventors of the nominative case could be.)

Dictionaries also may not give you an accurate idea of the phonology or the
comparative phonology between two languages. (Especially in dictionaries with
generalist pronounciation guides where look-alikes versus sound-alikes don't
always separate - Irish/Welsh can really do you in if you are not careful.)
And even phonetic or historical linguistic dictionaries can REALLY ask too
much when it comes to the supposed meaning of old words.

However, the new digital dictionaries (such as the Perseus Project which
incorporates Lidell-Scott) do have one strong advantage that they share with
concordances, but perhaps do one better.  And that is they report the number
of incidences and give phonetic, syntactic, contextual and actual usage for
the meanings they report.  The incidences especially can be surprising when
compared with standard dictionaries, which not only may lack "phonotactics"
but also can assume usages and standardizations of words that don't always
stand up to a number count in text or context.

This kind of approach is I suspect where STATISTICS IN LINGUISTICS might
becomes meaningful.  And also it does not call for the abandoning of all
comparative expertise while handing out dictionaries to undergrads.

Regards,
Steve Long