[ Apologies for cross-postings. ] And here Ken Litkowski's reaction: -----Original Message----- From: Ken Litkowski [mailto:ken@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: zaterdag 10 november 2012 21:46 To: lexicographylist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: amsler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gilles-Maurice de Schryver; EURA; DSNA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; afrilex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; asialex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Lexicog] RE: [afrilex] Re: [DSNA] FW: Macmillan's recent announcement As a fellow computational lexicologist, I would like to second Robert's suggestions and add a few more, inside and outside the box. Inside the box, we examine the content the lexicographers have provided us. Thus, all of Bob's suggestions, and there is probably more. In about 1995, in a chat with George Miller, he lamented that he could only include a relatively small number of relations (compared to previous work he had done). Perhaps we could look to the full battery of Mel'cuk's lexical functions, as well as still other unmined data (e.g., dates for encyclopedic entries of people). Outside the box, we can attempt to incorporate recent efforts that are not usually included in standard lexicographic practice. For example, Patrick Hanks, in his efforts at corpus pattern analysis, is including ontological values for verb arguments, reflecting the patterns he sees. This moves us into the linguistic domain, capturing arguments as in VerbNet. And still further, we reach the frame semantics of FrameNet. FrameNets are mushrooming for non-English languages as well. Wouldn't it be nice to see, not only definitions of words in context, but also the frame elements that we should expect in examining a word. Atkins & Rundell have provided a glimmer of this in their guide to "practical lexicography." Here's to a superdictionary of the future. Ken -- Ken Litkowski TEL.: 301-482-0237 CL Research EMAIL: <mailto:ken@xxxxxxxxx> ken@xxxxxxxxx 9208 Gue Road Home Page: <http://www.clres.com> http://www.clres.com Damascus, MD 20872-1025 USA Blog: <http://www.clres.com/blog> http://www.clres.com/blog