Support for text analysis beyond word by word
Logos used to have resident scholars whose personal linguistic interests showed up as cutting edge features in Logos. However, we now have one linguistic feature that is woefully out of date. Any self-respecting lexical (vocabulary) study of a corpus e.g. the Bible now deals with lexical units larger than a single word e.g. bucket list, kick the bucket, … I had AI produce a list of whether the terms I knew had examples in Hebrew and Greek.
SUGGESTION: tag the text with labels for the multiword lexical units. It tells us when we have to look at a group of words rather than the individual words in order to translate the text correctly.
The AI presentation based on my list of elements - I assume Logos would use a cohesive, comprehensive list of items rather than my haphazard list:
Distinctive Features Table
Term | Compositionality | Flexibility | Meaning Type | Example(s) | Usage Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lexical Chunks | Variable | Semi-fixed | Functional | Conversational, formulaic | |
Fixed Phrases | Literal | Rigid | Transparent | Technical, formal | |
Idioms | Non-compositional | Fixed | Figurative | Informal, cultural | |
Collocations | Compositional | Semi-flexible | Conventional | General language | |
Phrasal Verbs | Variable | Separable | Contextual | Informal speech | |
Binomials | Compositional | Fixed order | Literal/Figurative | Legal, idiomatic | |
Semi-Fixed Expressions | Variable | Partial variation | Pragmatic | Conversational | |
Technical Fixed Phrases | Literal | Rigid | Domain-specific | Scientific, academic | |
Correlative Coordinators | Compositional | Fixed pairs | Grammatical | Formal writing | |
Compounds | Compositional | Fixed | Literal | General language | |
Complex Subordinators | Compositional | Fixed | Grammatical | Formal writing | |
Complex Prepositions | Compositional | Fixed | Grammatical | Formal writing | |
Prepositional Verbs | Compositional | Fixed pairing | Literal | General language | |
Clichés | Variable | Fixed | Overused | Raining cats and dogs7 | Informal, literary |
Pragmatemes | Context-bound | Fixed | Functional | For what purpose?7 | Context-specific interactions |
Key Feature Definitions
- Compositionality:
- Literal/Compositional: Meaning derived from individual words (e.g., post office).
- Non-compositional: Meaning not deducible from parts (e.g., kick the bucket).
- Flexibility:
- Rigid: No substitution allowed (e.g., Red Sea).
- Semi-flexible: Limited variation (e.g., See you later/tomorrow).
- Meaning Type:
- Functional: Used for social routines (e.g., How do you do?).
- Domain-specific: Specialized to fields like science (e.g., natural selection).
Summary of Differences
- Idioms vs. Fixed Phrases: Idioms are figurative (spill the beans), while fixed phrases are literal (Red Sea).
- Collocations vs. Compounds: Collocations are conventional pairings (make peace), while compounds merge into single units (post office).
- Phrasal vs. Prepositional Verbs: Phrasal verbs use particles altering meaning (give up), while prepositional verbs require prepositions (rely on).
- Technical Fixed Phrases: Domain-specific and rigid (solar nebula vs. general terms like good morning).
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Comments
-
Your recommendation seems … well …. Faithlife'y safe. Therefore doable. Looking at a potential search, I wonder at the amount of use? Or maybe a first step, of many.
My treatment of Logos as only my research assistant, is in the 'safe' assignments. Only by virtue of books, does it stretch very far. This AM I was in my Greek Language/Linguistics Encyclopedia (yesterday checking on some claims). But I stumbled over 'Functional Grammar' which illustrates perfectly why I don't bother too much with Logos (ignore the bolding; leftover VFs).
" Its main characteristics can be summarized as follows (Dik 19972:4–15). First, language is an instrument of social interaction; therefore, language cannot be studied outside the strategies of communication. Second, as a consequence, Linguistics must analyze and describe two types of rules: those which govern the constitution of linguistic expressions (semantic, syntactic, morphological, and phonological rules), and those which govern the patterns of verbal interaction in which these linguistic expressions are used (pragmatic rules). Third, Linguistics should not only describe linguistic facts, but, as far as possible, also explain them; therefore, linguistic description should reflect what we know of human cognitive capacities, psychological attitudes and sociological patterns."
I'm thinking about this, in my own software. I'm not sure how subjective it might be. I already have alternative-selection (author word choicing), key word switching (author-listener agreement), and alternative author-styling (largely using your above features in neurally-language).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0
