Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

tc-list text criticism of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Vinton A. Dearing
    The November issue of Literary and Linguistic Computing (vol. 12, no. 4) has two items of interest. 1. Measuring Genre Differences in Mark with Correspondence
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 12, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      The November issue of Literary and Linguistic Computing (vol. 12, no.
      4) has two items of interest.
      1. "Measuring Genre Differences in Mark with Correspondence
      Analysis," by David Mealand. This seems mostly an exellent
      example of statistical analysis--all the data are given and the
      results are fully diagrammed--but I wonder whether it is enough to
      decide that a sample size which has "worked" for others is
      satisfactory for one's own work. Also, the statistical methods are
      simply named, never explained.
      2. A review of Richard J. Finneran, ed., The Literary Text in the
      Digital Age, University of Michigan Press, 1996.
      If any listers or lurkers have explored the question of sample size
      I should be interested to know their opinions.
      Vinton A. Dearing
    • Robert B. Waltz
      ... I can t say anything about the articles cited, since I haven t seen them and don t recall ever seeing the journal. But I have noticed a terrible tendency
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 12, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, "Vinton A. Dearing" <dearing@...> wrote:

        >The November issue of Literary and Linguistic Computing (vol. 12, no.
        >4) has two items of interest.
        > 1. "Measuring Genre Differences in Mark with Correspondence
        >Analysis," by David Mealand. This seems mostly an exellent
        >example of statistical analysis--all the data are given and the
        >results are fully diagrammed--but I wonder whether it is enough to
        >decide that a sample size which has "worked" for others is
        >satisfactory for one's own work. Also, the statistical methods are
        >simply named, never explained.
        > 2. A review of Richard J. Finneran, ed., The Literary Text in the
        >Digital Age, University of Michigan Press, 1996.
        > If any listers or lurkers have explored the question of sample size
        >I should be interested to know their opinions.

        I can't say anything about the articles cited, since I haven't seen
        them and don't recall ever seeing the journal.

        But I have noticed a terrible tendency among TC professionals to use
        inadequate sample sizes. (E.g. the Alands' "Thousand Readings" use
        only three or four readings in some of the shorter Pauline Epistles.)

        The sample size one needs depends on the nature of the data one
        is trying to extract. But the Central Limit Theorem -- one of
        the basic rules of statistics -- only applies when one uses "large"
        numbers, which in practice means a minimum of thirty to fifty
        meaningful points of data.

        What this means for TCers is that if they want to determine the
        affinities of two mixed manuscripts, they need to find at least
        30 to 50 readings for which both manuscripts are unmixed (non-Byzantine).
        Even for overall affinities, they need 30-50 readings. This
        can render many results (e.g. the Alands' for the shorter books,
        but also some methods such as the Claremont Profile Method)
        invalid if they don't use enough text.

        I hope I will be able to offer more information on this subject
        at a future time.

        -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

        Robert B. Waltz
        waltzmn@...

        Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
        Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
        (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.