[Corpora-List] Bootcamp: 'Quantitative Corpus Linguistics withR'--re Louw's endorsement

[Krishnamurthy, Ramesh]

Dear James

I have been following the discussions with great interest, and noting various references en route - so Yorick's 1996 paper is now on my list...

However, although I haven't yet read his paper, I must insert a point of information/correction at this point.
You said in your email:
(Of course, if I remember correctly,you started with the COBUILD dictionary, where the compilers had started out with a limited (?2000 word) vocabulary from which to construct definitions. Maybe you got it down to 1990 or so  ;-)> .)

I think your memory has let you down in this instance. Perhaps you meant a different learner's dictionary (eg LDOCE?).
As far as I am aware, the COBUILD dictionary did NOT start out with a limited defining vocabulary, and indeed has never adopted one.
What we did do (in the Essential Dictionary, 1988, I think) was to publish the list of words that occurred more than 10 times in the dictionary explanations (definitions).
This was done after compiling the dictionary and not before.

Best
Ramesh

Ramesh Krishnamurthy [COBUILD 1984-1997, 1998-2003]
Lecturer in English Studies, School of Languages and Social Sciences,
Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK
Tel: +44 (0)121-204-3812 ; Fax: +44 (0)121-204-3766 [Room NX08, 10th
Floor, North Wing of Main Building]
http://www.aston.ac.uk/lss/school/staff/krishnamurthyr.jsp
Director, ACORN (Aston Corpus Network project): http://acorn.aston.ac.uk/
________________________________
From: corpora-bounces at uib.no [mailto:corpora-bounces at uib.no] On Behalf Of James L. Fidelholtz
Sent: 28 August 2008 20:49
To: Yorick Wilks
Cc: corpora at uib.no
Subject: Re: [Corpora-List] Bootcamp: 'Quantitative Corpus Linguistics withR'--re Louw's endorsement

Hi, Yorick,

Grumpy (old) age or not, let me second your auto-reference (NB: *not* to self-driving cars). I learned more about semantics from your throughly lucid chapter than I ever did from studying mathematical logic, Montague, Carnap, Wittgenstein or any of the others (none of which I -- admittedly -- ever spent too much time outside of class on). A few short pages in _Electric words_ on the various types of semantic theories (which, of course, I could no longer reproduce), and I felt like I finally understood at least some of what people were always saying about meaning. BTW, I also have found very useful the book's basic approach (in my understanding, anyway) to how to do semantics computationally -- winnow out from *all* the words *actually used* in definitions in a medium-sized ('college') dictionary the ones that could be left out, using synonyms and/or paraphrase, and take the resulting 2000 or so words as a basis for a semantic theory. Now *that's* an appealing approach, especially to a formalist like me. (Of course, if I remember correctly, you started with the COBUILD dictionary, where the compilers had started out with a limited (?2000 word) vocabulary from which to construct definitions. Maybe you got it down to 1990 or so  ;-)> .)

Anyway, toss in some use of realistic semantic features, perhaps based on a thorough overview of semantic fields from the same point of view, definitely based on metaphor as an explanation for much semantic change (again, from the same feature-based point of view), and I could see a reasonable semantic theory (or at least parts of it) beginning to emerge. But that's a more extended issue.



On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Yorick Wilks <yorick at dcs.shef.ac.uk<mailto:yorick at dcs.shef.ac.uk>> wrote:
Saying "computers are deterministic" really captures nothing since von-
neumann-style machines can perfectly well have access to a
random number generator to make choices. I do try to stay out of this
duologue you are having (honestly!) but the endless autodidact
philosophy of language stuff (i.e. about what/where is meaning, if
anywhere?) does need to raise its game a bit. There are many
straightforward tutorials on the basics of the philosophy of language:
my own modest contribution (that does link philosophy directly to
corpora/linguistics etc. which most tutorials dont ) is in "Electric
Words: dictionaries, computers and meanings (MIT Press, 1996) by
Guthrie, Slator and myself-----it's not really out of date because the
basic issues dont change much. Sorry for the testy tone of this--put
it down to age!
Yorick Wilks


On 28 Aug 2008, at 17:18, Linas Vepstas wrote:
... [remainder deleted out of consideration for those who don't have gmail or other monster capacity email.]


--
James L. Fidelholtz
Posgrado en Ciencias del Lenguaje
Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades
Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, MÉXICO
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20080829/2c2426e0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora