Is this abstract enough?

As per Serapio’s request, here is the abstract for the AAA presentation spoken of below:

This paper works toward an understanding of the applications of correlational analyses using a corpus of text for the elicitation and processing of data towards psychologically real information on the interrelation and intersection of non-overlapping sets. Using a corpus of Chol stories a statistical analysis of the rates of occurrence of any given mytho-geographic term, a text-driven exegetic interpretation of mythic themes, and a thematic classification using the Aarne-Thompson Types are combined in phenetic analysis. The contrasting means of analysis give insight to the cognitive mapping of correlations between mytho-geographic locations and thematic incidence.


~ by jeorgesmith on 9 November 2007.

6 Responses to “Is this abstract enough?”

  1. … there’s so much guild-speech in this abstract.

    Explain the following, please:
    1) “Chol stories”
    2) “Aarne-Thompson Types”

  2. 1) “Chol stories” is actualy quite simple. Chol is one of the modern Mayan languages.
    2) “Aarne-Thompson Types”, or sometimes called simply “Thompson Types”, are a set structuralist classification system of mythic themes. Here is a fairly simple (and maybe helpful) explanation and list of some of the AT Types.

  3. Yay for text corpora and cognitive mapping! This sounds pretty interesting!

    That first sentence has a long series of prepositional phrases that is very difficult to parse. I can’t figure out what ‘for’, ‘towards’ and ‘on’ are supposed to modify.

    And does non-overlapping mean something other than non-intersecting?

  4. Lets see… modifiers are as follows:
    ‘for’: ties the goal of ‘elicitation and processing’ to its affective cause the ‘correlational analyses’.
    ‘toward’: ties ‘psychologically real information’ to the ‘processing of data’ showing the goal of the process used.
    ‘on’: denoting the subject (‘the interrelation and intersection’) of the ‘psychologically real information’ being processed.

    And yes, ‘non-overlapping’ could easily be replaced with ‘non-intersecting’, however then it would read that I am looking at the intersection of non-intersecting sets.

  5. The intersection of non-intersecting sets is the null set, right? I’m confused how psychologically real information about the null set is related to myth schemas…

  6. Well, you see, they’re not ‘intersecting’ and ‘non-intersecting’ in the same ‘intersecting’ (hence the original use of a different, though synonymous) term. The two sets are (1) (mythic)Geography, and (2) thematic significance of a narrative. Thus they are non-overlapping, though the theory is (as would be guessed using a holistic view of culture) that they intersect (are mutually influencing). The “psychologically real information” bit is the spiffy understanding that comes after you get the examine the point of intersection (roughly).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: