Stephen Carlson wrote:Boyer is a good illustration of how not to do it. He uses statistics, true, but there are merely descriptive and he has no model for evaluating the results, so statements like "only 37%" are pseudo-scientific.
As I mentioned in the OP, what I am looking for is a way to compare results (of treebank queries) to known results from other sources, and Boyer provides some very helpful data for that. I'm very slowly slogging through the process of comparing one treebank to another, and both to published results.
I'm not thrilled with his statistical analysis and probabilistic approach to linguistics either, but that's not what I am using these papers for.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Though not in New Testament Greek, those interested in corpus studies should read researchers like John Sinclair, Patrick Hanks, Adam Kilgarriff, etc., who worked extensively in corpus studies of English (where the money and the big data are).
English results won't be comparable, of course, and aren't easily used for finding and correcting errors in treebanks or providing completish lists of grammatical phenomena in known sets of ancient Greek texts. That's what I'm looking for.
And big data techniques are fairly different from queries on treebanks. In the long run, exploiting more corpus linguistic techniques from these other sources would be great, but I'm not there yet. And working with a small corpus of very well known texts, we may choose somewhat different techniques than the big data folks - even if we add in everything in the TLG, we're not really talking big data.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;