Determining the Significance of Lexical Features as Indicative of CBH and LBH: Insights from the Tiberias Stylistic Classifier for the Hebrew Bible

IF 0.1 N/A HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Joshua Berman
{"title":"Determining the Significance of Lexical Features as Indicative of CBH and LBH: Insights from the Tiberias Stylistic Classifier for the Hebrew Bible","authors":"Joshua Berman","doi":"10.25159/2663-6573/9302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the time of Gesenius, scholars have rightly grounded their determinations of linguistic dating of the biblical texts on the comparison of pairs of features that can be contrasted as early and late. However, at times Hebraists also identify terms as indicative of either Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) or Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) on account of their relatively exclusive occurrence in either one corpus or the other. In this study I demonstrate the propensity of scholars to identify such terms in an impressionistic manner and unwittingly fall victim to a probability illusion long known by cognitive psychologists as the small sample fallacy. Conversely, I will show that in seeking lexical terms that are indicative of CBH and LBH respectively, they overlook other terms that are far more indicative and significant from a statistical perspective. To arrive at these conclusions, I employ data generated by the recently launched Tiberias Stylistic Classifier for the Hebrew Bible. Tiberias marshals cutting edge advances in the field of machine learning and computational linguistics to empower users to easily conduct their own experiments analysing and classifying the texts of the Hebrew Bible through the measurable features of linguistic data, and providing them with verifiable results. As an illustration of what is at stake, I reference the debate surrounding the linguistic profile of Genesis 24.","PeriodicalId":42047,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Semitics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Semitics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6573/9302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the time of Gesenius, scholars have rightly grounded their determinations of linguistic dating of the biblical texts on the comparison of pairs of features that can be contrasted as early and late. However, at times Hebraists also identify terms as indicative of either Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) or Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) on account of their relatively exclusive occurrence in either one corpus or the other. In this study I demonstrate the propensity of scholars to identify such terms in an impressionistic manner and unwittingly fall victim to a probability illusion long known by cognitive psychologists as the small sample fallacy. Conversely, I will show that in seeking lexical terms that are indicative of CBH and LBH respectively, they overlook other terms that are far more indicative and significant from a statistical perspective. To arrive at these conclusions, I employ data generated by the recently launched Tiberias Stylistic Classifier for the Hebrew Bible. Tiberias marshals cutting edge advances in the field of machine learning and computational linguistics to empower users to easily conduct their own experiments analysing and classifying the texts of the Hebrew Bible through the measurable features of linguistic data, and providing them with verifiable results. As an illustration of what is at stake, I reference the debate surrounding the linguistic profile of Genesis 24.
确定作为CBH和LBH指示的词汇特征的意义:来自提比里亚文体分类器对希伯来圣经的启示
自格塞纽斯以来,学者们正确地将圣经文本的语言年代确定建立在早期和晚期可以对比的成对特征的比较上。然而,有时希伯来语学者也会将术语视为古典圣经希伯来语(CBH)或后期圣经希伯来语(LBH)的指示,因为它们在一个语料库或另一个语料库中相对排他地出现。在这项研究中,我展示了学者们倾向于以一种印象主义的方式识别这些术语,并无意中成为认知心理学家长期称为小样本谬论的概率错觉的受害者。相反,我将表明,在寻找分别指示CBH和LBH的词汇术语时,他们忽略了从统计角度来看更具指示性和重要性的其他术语。为了得出这些结论,我使用了最近推出的希伯来圣经的提比里亚文体分类器生成的数据。Tiberias汇集了机器学习和计算语言学领域的前沿技术,使用户能够通过语言数据的可测量特征轻松地进行自己的实验,分析和分类希伯来圣经的文本,并为他们提供可验证的结果。为了说明什么是利害攸关的,我引用了围绕《创世纪》第24章语言侧面的争论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal for Semitics
Journal for Semitics HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信