Skip Navigation


Literary and Linguistic Computing Advance Access originally published online on September 6, 2006
Literary and Linguistic Computing 2006 21(4):399-410; doi:10.1093/llc/fql033
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/4/399    most recent
fql033v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kretzschmar, W. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ALLC and ACH. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Art and Science in Computational Dialectology

William A. Kretzschmar, Jr

University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Correspondence: William A. Kretzschmar, Jr Department of English University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 USA. E-mail: kretzsch{at}uga.edu.
Aristotle long ago divided kinds of study into techne and episteme, which we can roughly translate into the modern terms ‘art’ and ‘science’. It is certainly the case that computational dialectologists do well with the Art (techne), in our technical construction and execution of statistical experiments, and we have two different prominent models to choose from, each one corresponding to a mode of scientific discovery, either to deductive or to inductive scientific procedure. But that in itself should not be the whole story. The Science (episteme) of computational dialectology lies in the creation of arguments from our statistical results that are appropriate to the scientific procedure that motivates us. It is not so clear that computational dialectologists have done so well with their Science. What do the results of the technical work really mean? In what way are they associated with particular choices of linguistic theory? Is it the case that, after all of our technical hard work, we find only what we are looking for? In this paper, I will suggest that an appropriate use of the technical results of computational dialectology requires that practitioners take a more subtle approach to the theory that motivates the study in the first place, especially to the relationship between perception and production of language.

1 My thanks to Hans Goebl, to John Nerbonne, and to an anonymous reader for their helpful comments in the revision of this essay.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.