Разгневанный всегда считает, что может больше, чем может. …

This blog is quite new and I was not aware of any people actually reading it. How did you find it?

I was doing research on a very important — okay, actually, I just was googling my name.

Are there any follow-ups on the work described in that (btw. extremely interesting) paper?

There’s my work with Stefan Gries on Collostructional Analysis, and I believe he has actually done some more sophisticated work on dispersion. Stefanie Wulffs dissertation (that I quote in the paper) has since been published as “Rethinking Idiomaticity” with Continuum press. If you have any specific aspects that you’re interested it, feel free to email me.

Just another two quick questions:

1. This blog is quite new and I was not aware of any people actually reading it. How did you find it?

2. Are there any follow-ups on the work described in that (btw. extremely interesting) paper? There were a few other things that I found worth discussing but which, I suspect, have already been adressed in subsequent work.

The other problem is that I don’t see a reason to assume that a classification schmeme is “the right one” by showing high kappa values. In principle, it should be possible to develop any kind of scheme and achieve good agreement rates as long as the rater instructions are clear and adequately describe all classes.

Exactly. Kappa is being used here as a measure of interrater reliability, not as a measure of validity of the annotation scheme itself. In other words, a high kappa value indicates that the instructions are clear enough for different raters to achieve essentialy the same results when using the annotation scheme. Whether the categories in the scheme make sense is an entirely different matter.