Review of "A Concept Dictionary of English, by Julius Laffal", Gallery Press (Halstead-Wiley), 1973

Abstract

Page 5 computers, [bJ sociological problems of computing in sociology: proposed strategies, [c] networks and public data access, [d] text analysis in sociology: social indicators from mass media, and [e] time series computing in sociology. For each topic, a twenty minute overview paper will be commissioned; persons wishing to be discussants are asked to notify the symposium secretary. (4) Luncheons. While the symposium is designed for a general audience, we are also planning to arrange luncheons between persons with more specialized interests. For further details and deadline dates, contact the symposium secretary: Dr. This book classifies 23,500 words into one or more of 118 different semantic categories. Contrary to thesaurus builders like Roger (English), Boissiere (French), Dornseiff (German) and Casares (Spanish), Laffal is not interested in guiding the user to an appropriate word, but rather deriving a conceptual scheme of language, in which concept categories are selected so as to be neither rare nor overfrequent in occurrence. The dictionary was originally derived for the purpose of content analyzing psychiatric materials but its usefulness for other sccial science and literary analysis is also suggested. Where does Laffal get the 118 categories? Given the frequency constraints, plus a fairly liberal use of a category called "no score" for some common words, Laffal draws on three principles of "synonymy," "similarity" and "relatedness." If two categories are relevant, both may be applied (thus at least potentially creating further intersecting categories). Further multiple category assignments may also occur as one way out of the homograph problem. Following these brief guidelines, Laffal claims: "If someone who had never seen this dictionary undertook to divide the language into 118 concepts, it is highly likely that he would come up with the group which resembled the present one." Unlike Roget, Laffal does not supply his reader with large charts showing the relationships between categories. Since his system has only 118 categories, compared to Roget's 1000 headings, perhaps he felt this was not necessary. Yet these reviewers found it confusing and frustrating to be presented with an alphabetical list of the categories, going from AFAR and AGGR to WRIT and YNG without some further diagrams or other aids as to their interrelationships. A lengthy appendix gives all the entries for each category, but this only supplies detail. An adequate conceptual overview is missing.