Hearing that I was hoping to attend the second University of Waterloo conference on the new OED, Ian Lancashire, driving force behind Toronto University's thriving Centre for Computing in the Humanitives (CCH), kindly invited me to give a seminar there. This being too good an opportunity to miss, as there are several projects at Toronto of considerable interest, I arrived in Toronto (on a special -bilingual- cheap flight via Montreal) a few days before the OED Conference proper and visited...
The Dictionary of Old English which flourishes in several rooms on the 14th floor of the magnificent Robarts Library, where I saw some very flashy Xerox workstations given to the project together with a small VAX configuration. The project has a single programmer who has to develop all the software for editing and page make-up of the dictionary entries, which have now reached the letter D. They were astonished to hear that we could offer online searching of substantial portions of the corpus, even if we could not display Old English letters. Their interface is pleasantly similar to the desk-tops on which the terminals sit, (i.e. cluttered) and just to be on the safe side the project also maintains (in several hundred drinking chocolate cartons) numerous bits of paper derived from the corpus we know and love. Ashley Amos, sole surviving editor of the dictionary, managed to track down some obscure charters which a user here had been unable to find in our copy and was generally encouraging.
At University of Toronto Computing Services (UTCS), I inspected the bookshop (which is splendid) and the computer shop (likewise; hottest new property reportedly the Amiga 1040 which is selling like hot cakes, or muffins as the Canadians unaccountably call them). I was not shown their Cray, nor indeed their IBM 4361, but instead was introduced by John Bradley, apparently the resident humanities computing boffin, to TACT - a new interactive text-searching system he is developing to run on Toronto's ubiquitous (see below) IBM-XTs - and by Lidio Presutti (his sidekick) to MTAS, an OCP look-alike of which I was given a copy, also for use on IBM-XTs. Time did not permit me to discover much about the way the centre is organised, other than the fact that they have recently started charging their users real money (well, dollars and cents anyway) for computing resources consumed, with predictably dire consequences for anyone not funded by the Defence Dept or similar.
Nevertheless, Humanities Computing is set to thrive at Toronto, largely as a result of Ian Lancashire's "partnership" with IBM-Canada. This involves the setting up of four rooms full of XTs and staff to support them over three years, all paid for by Big Blue, which gets no more in return than lots of academic credibility and three years worth of humanities graduates convinced that all computers should run PC-DOS. Any software etc. developed will be placed in the public domain. One of the four centres was on the verge of opening its doors: it had 24 XTs on a token ring with an AT as file server and three printers. The XTs were set up in such a way that they could only be booted from a supplied disk, which could not be removed from drive A. They were also bolted to the floor, despite Canadians' proverbial honesty. Students will use these to prepare machine-readable texts, using EDLIN or NotaBene (WordPerfect is not regarded as highly as it is here), to be processed using MTAS and maybe TACT. Other software to be made available includes the Duke Toolkit and the usual clutch of concordance packages, Kermit, network mail etc. as well as some public domain text-jiggling utilities designed to whet if not satisfy the literary appetite. Students will apparently be expected to become reasonably proficient in not just PC-DOS but also VM-CMS and UNIX as well, which seems a bit steep. Conspicuously absent was any whisper of what databases are for. There is rumoured to be a Masscomp somewhere in the English Dept but I never saw it.
I gave my seminar in the Centre for Mediaeval Studies (where the second of the four IBM rooms was still under construction); I had been billed to talk about the KDEM but instead waxed lyrical on the necessity for the Text Archive, the problems of representing and processing text properly and the wonders of CAFS to a gratifyingly large (c. 36, including the Director of UTCS, I later learned) audience, most of which survived till the end.
The next day, being Saturday, I spent at Niagara Falls, of which the Canadian end is unquestionably the better, and truly spectacular. I was startled by a bright red London bus (used for touristic purposes) and resisted the temptation to have my photo taken going over in a barrel, though I did go into the tunnels behind the Falls which command a magnificent view of their derriere.
Back in Toronto, I lunched with Michael Gervers, who runs the Documents of Essex England Data Set (DEEDS) project, more or less on his own with some Government assistance in the form of temporary (YOP-type) staff. The project involves the indexing of a massive collection of mediaeval records from Essex (England) and is the only real database project I came across at the University. It started off using an awful DBMS package which sounds like a Canadian version of IMS, but is now going through the traumas of conversion to Oracle, at present on a huge AT (with a 40 Mb disc AND a Bernoulli box), though it will be moving to the UTCS IBM system shortly. The cost of Oracle for this system appears to have been met from the IBM 'partnership', although what other users it will have in the absence of any local knowledge of how to exploit or support it is less clear.
I travelled to Kitchener, the nearest large town to the University of Waterloo, by train in the company of Willard McCarty who works with Ian Lancashire in running the CCH, and Abigail Young, who works on the Records of Early English Drama (REED) project also at Toronto. She had been largely instrumental in depositing in the Text Archive that proportion of the published corpus of REED texts which was still available on floppy disk, so I was very pleased to meet her.
And so to Advances in Lexicology (not a word to be found in OED -yet) which was the second annual conference held at Waterloo's Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary and was generally felt to be a distinct improvement on its predecessor. Twelve papers were given over three days to about 150 delegates, roughly equally divided in their alleigances between lexicography, computer science and artificial intelligence. One reception, many coffee breaks and two fairly spartan lunches were laid on, during all of which there was much animated discussion. The best joke of the conference was probably Dana Scott's collection of howlers, of which I recall only "AI is when the farmer does it to the cow instead of the bull" which manages to combine innuendo with syntactic ambiguity.
Howard Webber (Houghton Mifflin) 's keynote address was the only one of the papers not (yet) available in printed form; like many keynote addresses it sounded rather as if he had made it up on the plane from several old after dinner speeches. However, it got out of the way all that necessary stuff about the role of dictionaries as a sort of "Language Command Central" (his phrase), the unease with which lexicographers had regarded the machine, the difference between machine- readable dictionaries and lexical databases and the transition from the former to the latter, while also dropping a few hints about where the 'American Heritage' dictionary project was now going in its co-operation with Brown University (nowhere in particular, as far as I could tell, other than the preparation of a new 50 million word corpus).
Manfred Gehrke (Siemens AG) tackled head-on the computational difficulties of providing rapid access to a realistically large lexicon. The method described, using morphemes rather than 'words' as primary keys has several attractive features (like the comparatively smaller number - and size - of such keys), though is perhaps more appropriate to highly agglutinative languages such as German. The fact that morphemes have meanings which the compounds derived from them usually employ is also of particular importance in German. Even so segmentation can cause problems: "Madchen handelsschule" is a girls business college, but "Madchenhandels schule" is a white slavery school.
Mark Aronoff (SUNY) and Roy Byrd (IBM) gave a rather dubious account of the role of etymology and word length in English word formation. A dictionary of high frequency affix lists was extracted from the top end of the Kucera-Francis word list, and another unspecified 3/4 million word list. This was then enhanced with some fairly simple etymological information from Webster's 7th (i.e. did the affix enter the language from a Germanic language or a Romance one). Any complications (such as words which were imported into English from French, but came into French from Germanic) were rigorously disregarded, as was the distinction between words which were formed within the English language and those which were borrowed -as it were- fully formed. Much statistical jiggery- pokery was then employed to determine how syllable-length and etymology accounted for the productivity of various affixes, and much wonder expressed at the apparent ease with which native speakers keep their neologisms racially pure. But the results, as Mike Lesk pointed out, would have been equally consistent with a simple phonemic explanation: (predominantly longer) Latinate suffixes naturally sound better on (generally Latinate) polysyllabic verbalisations, while (often short) German endings go best with (mostly Saxon) little words.
Walter and Sally Sedelow (Univ of Arkansas) have been in the field of computational linguistics almost since it began; their paper, which was mostly given by Walter, thus had a tendency to historical reminscence not quite germane to the issue, while employing terminology and a style, the clauses of which were embedded well beyond the capacity of most intelligences not endowed with a 640 Mb hardware stack, not unlike some really nasty exercises in automatic parsing, and consequently seemed to go on for a great deal of time without ever getting very far. This was a pity, because its subject (the adequacy and usability of Roget's Thesaurus as a knowledge representation language) is important and interesting. A mathematical model of the thesaurus (derived from work by Robert Bryan at San Francisco State) was presented and various other research reports adduced in support of the claim that the associations represented in Roget are actually significant. The skeptical might say that this was rather unsurprising; however anyone who can (apparently in all seriousness) express the concept in the following way (quoted from the abstract) clearly cannot be ignored, if only on stylistic grounds:
"The paper ends...with a statement to the effect that any assertions that the Thesaurus is a poor representation of Emnglish semantic organization would be ill founded and, given depth of analysis, would have to be regarded as counterfactual"
Judy Kegl (Princeton), Beth Levin (MIT) and Sue Atkins (Collins) gave probably the meatiest of the papers at the conference, - and coincidentally no doubt the only one co-written by a real lexicographer (Atkins). It includes much analysis of the different ways in which two language learners dictionaries (LDOCE and OALDCE) attempt to convey the intimate relationship between the various senses of English verbs and their complement-taking properties, (or case structure). Even such apparently obvious characteristics of the verb as transitivity are not always predictable by simple transformational rules such a "If the verb takes an object then it can be used passively" (e.g. "The shoes fit", "The shoes fit me" but not "I am fitted by the shoes"), but there is no self-evident place to put such facts about the verb "fit" in a dictionary. Consequently dictionaries differ: "cost" for example is intransitive according to OALDCE, and transitive according to LDOCE. The paper also contains much that is refreshingly sensible about the nature of specialised dictionaries (such as learners' dictionaries) and the distinction between them and the sort of immensely complex linguistic snapshot to which some computational linguists expect all lexicons to aspire. The sort of knowledge needed for the latter, though indispensable to the former, must be processed and combined a way appropriate to particular users. Detailed assessment of the way certain notoriously difficult verbs are presented in OALDCE and LDOCE is used to present inconsistencies inherent in the absence of any generally agreed meta- language for verbal descriptions, a point which recurred in other papers. The strength of this paper is the combination of the structuring capabilities offered by theoretical linguistics with the reductive classificatory skills of lexicography, which it both demonstrates and advocates.
Thomas Ahlswede (Illinois Inst Tech) reported on the continuing saga of the parsing of Websters 7th, first initiated by John Olney et al in 1968. 'Parsing' here means the recognition and extraction of semantic information from the text of a dictionary definition which can then be stored and manipulated within a lexical database. It is analagous to (but even more ambitious than) attempts to extract similar semantic structures from free text. Dictionary definitions provide implicit information about relationships between words, not just taxonomic (an x is a sort of y) but also part/whole relationships. But a simple syntactic analysis of the text of a definition is rarely adequate to the task of understanding it; a detailed lexicon containing information about each word likely to be encountered by the parser is evidently necessary. For Websters 7th, some of this information (but not all) can be extracted from the entries themselves, while some of it is already available in the existing parser's lexicon of about 10,000 entries. This process was later dubbed "dictionary hermeneutics" by Graeme Hirst. How much easier it might have been if the dictionary structure had been initially captured in a meaningful way (as was the OED) is an embarassing question which no-one had the poor taste to ask.
Nicoletta Calzolari (Pisa) described an equally ambitious but rather more practical project now under way under Zampolli's charismatic aegis: the construction of a bilingual lexical database (LDB) system by linking together existing monolingual LDBs, the linkage being provided by machine readable bilingual dictionaries. Combining monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, which typically differ in the degree of discrimination felt necessary for individual word senses, should lead to a much richer integrated system. The dictionaries to be used include Zingarelli, Garzanti, Collins Italian/English, LDOCE and OALDCE. No complex supra- linguistic model is envisaged, simply the ability to discriminate senses when going in either direction between two languages. Such old chestnuts as the fact that Eskimos have 99 different words for 'snow' and Arabs none at all were not on the agenda: the project is not really concerned with semantics, but aims rather to provide a useful tool for translators and others using existing dictionaries.
The final session of the second day comprised summaries of the current state of play of the NOED Project itself, as viewed by firstly Tim Benbow and John Simpson (OUP) and secondly Frank Tompa and Gaston Gonnet (Waterloo), all of whom were sporting Oxford Dictionary Ties to mark the occasion. Benbow reported that the dictionary's 21,000 pages had now been rendered machine readable, using an estimated 500 million keystrokes, with an error rate of around 4 in 10,000; this was being proof read and corrected by ICC to bring the residual error rate down to less than 1 in 250,000 characters. The data is held at Oxford and manipulated in a SQL database under VM/CMS. Rick Kazman's parser would be used to convert the ICC mark-up to SGML, and other software developed in house mostly by IBM secondees (e.g. a text editor called LEXX) will be used by the lexicographers to complete the integration of the dictionary and the supplements. Some wholesale changes will be made (notably Murray's method of representing pronunciation will be replaced by IPA) at the same time as automatic integration is carried out; some (about 4000) new words/senses will also be added to bring the early parts of the supplement up to date (This is the responsibility of John Simpson's NEWS project). Publication of the new integrated dictionary (the Book) is planned for spring 1989. It will have 22 volumes and cost about £1500. Publication of a CD-ROM version of the OED alone (without supplements) is also planned, probably for late 1987, mainly as a means of testing the market for electronic forms of the dictionary, and providing information for the database design work going on at Waterloo. It is hoped to set up a unit of lexicographers in Washington which, together with the NEWS team, will ensure that the dictionary, or rather its eventual electronic form, will be kept up to date on both sides of the Atlantic.
At Waterloo several very interesting pieces of software have been developed, which were described by Gaston Gonnet and Frank Tompa. While waiting for the ICC data to reach them, they had been experimenting with a smaller dictionary of Trinidadian English which had successfully demonstrated the generality of their approach. The software used comprises (1) INR/lsim - a parser-generator and parser for context free grammars (2) PAT - a fast string searcher and (3) GOEDEL the "Glamorous OED Enquiry Language". INR/lsim (no-one seems to know what this is short for) resembles in philosophy the parser-generator developed for Project TOSCA at Nijmegen, though I never got the opportunity to ask Tompa whether he'd heard of this. Maybe it's just the only way of solving the problem properly. It has been used by Kazman among others to convert the ICC mark-up to SGML, and to convert the OALDCE tape as first supplied to the Text Archive into a similar SGML markup. PAT (written by Gonnet who has made quite a study of text searching algorithms, I discovered) stores indexes to a text in a Patricia tree, a form of condensed binary tree new to me, though apparently to be found in Knuth if you know where to look. PAT is very fast but, at present, very simple minded. GOEDEL is a more sophisticated system, still under development, the most crucial element of which is not so much its current Algol-like syntax as the fact that its basic datatype is a parse tree (again like the Dutch system). This solves all manner of nasty data management problems and bridges the gap between DBMS and Text Processing systems in a way at least as natty as CAFS and probably more so. The user specifies a parse tree for the text to be returned and can impose selectional restraints using SQL like conditions.
Peter Davies (described as an 'Independent Lexicographer') read out his paper from the conference proceedings in a dry monotone well suited to its contents, which contained rather few conclusions derived from some fairly specious data. He had tagged the most frequent word forms in the American Heritage Corpus with the century of their introduction to English and the language from which they derived. (Like Aronoff and Byrd he was uninterested in the fact that this corpus neither distinguishes homographs nor associate inflections of the same lemma.) The results presented were raw percentages ("In the top 500 types, 75% are native") with no attempt to adjust for the known skewness of vocabulary distribution irrespective of origin.
Alexander Nakhimovsky (Colgate) is much obsessed with time, more specifically with how language reflects "common-sense reasoning" about the nature of time. He is one of the "Meaning-Text" school of Soviet theoretical linguists. To understand why to answer "I have a 12.30 class" constitutes refusal of a lunch invitation requires not just knowledge of social convention, but also of the probable durations of lunches and classes. English verbs are not marked for perfect as opposed to imperfect so that "Alice read her book quickly" could have two quite different meanings (either as a process or as an event). Knowledge of the duration of events is a linguistic phenomenon because many words cannot be understood without knowing the duration typically associated with them - not just obvious words like 'lunch' or 'nap', but also 'holiday' (which cannot be in minutes but is usually not in years) or 'insomnia'(which cannot be measured in minutes nor go on in the afternoon). It is apparent that the units of time appropriate to common sense reasoning vary with the duration of the event, as does their precision. (Thus '5 minutes' means somewhere between 1 and 10, but '3 minutes' usually means just that). To make up for the absence of a perfective/imperfective aspectual difference, English relies on an opposition Nakhimovsky calls telic/atelic, which has to do with the narrative within which the verb appears, so far as I understand (or have understood) it.
Fabrizio Sebastiani (Pisa) presented a more conventional view of the role of the lexicon in describing QWERTY, a knowledge-based system designed to 'understand' technical writing. It operates by converting parse trees representing syntactic structures onto semantic structures represented in the knowledge representation language KL-MAGMA. The fact that technical writing is mostly composed of 'paradigmatic' sentences, from which such nasty problems as mood, aspect and temporal position are conspicuously absent was touched but not insisted upon: unfortunately Sebastiani did not allow himself enough time to make clear exactly what was original in the system nor how effective the design was in practise.
Graeme Hirst (Toronto) closed the conference on a controversial note which also managed to bring together the two sides of lexicology, if only in debate. His paper stated with agreeably frank partisanship why dictionaries should list case structure, that is, specifications of the valid roles associated with any particular verb, together with any semantic restrictions on the values that may fill those roles and any preposition or other syntactic marker specific to them. Case structures may be found in one guise or another in almost every theory of language or cognition, from Chomsky to Charniak, and in a weak form are almost present already in the 'verb-patterns' specified in some language learning dictionaries. Hirst's most telling argument in favour of his proposal was that if lexicographers did not supply such information then computational linguists would, and would certainly do a worse job of it. The most telling counter argument was that, at present, no-one has a clear idea of exactly what cases (roles) exist nor is there any agreement on how to define them. A less telling counter-argument, which to my mind unnecessarily dominated the subsequent heated discussion, was the economics of adding this information to the already overcrowded pages of a dictionary; when pressed, Hirst said that he thought it would be more use to more dictionary users than etymology if something had to be sacrificed.
After the conference proper, I visited the NOED Centre itself, where I met Donna Lee Berg, the librarian on the project, and acquired offprints of some technical reports on the software being developed there by Gonnet. I also watched some confused lexicographers struggling with GOEDEL and, while being very impressed by the power of this system, was glad to notice that there are 18 months labelled "development of user interface" set aside in the planning of the project which have not yet begun.
Back in Toronto, I found Ian Lancashire very busy preparing a long term plan for funding humanities computing beyond the end of his IBM partnership. This entails the preparation of a detailed report of all the activity currently going on at the six or seven universities in Ontario which is to be presented to the Ontario government with a request for funding very shortly. I managed to distract him sufficiently to discuss briefly his slightly different views of the functions of a text archive. He wishes to see texts distributed as freely as public domain software, the role of the Archive being simply one from which an original non- corrupted version can always be retrieved, and the only restriction on the user being simply not to redistribute materials for profit. To that end, all texts encoded at Toronto (and there will be many, since preparation of a specified text forms a part of students course work) will be prepared to a common standard from non-copyright texts, such as facsimiles of early printed books. Whether this is practical in our case, where many of our texts are prepared from modern editions or texts otherwise still in copyright, is unclear. It is certainly something we should consider when capturing texts in the future however. I would also like to give some thought to the possibility of making some of our other texts more freely available (i.e. copyable).