Editing Hapax legomenon (section)

==Significance==
[[File:Workman'sPaulineHapaxes.svg|upright=1.35|thumb|right]]
[[File:Workman'sShakespearePlays.svg|upright=1.35|thumb|right]]
''Hapax legomena'' in ancient texts are usually difficult to decipher, since it is easier to infer meaning from multiple contexts than from just one. For example, many of the remaining undeciphered [[Maya script|Mayan glyphs]] are ''hapax legomena'', and Biblical (particularly [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]; see [[#Hebrew|§ Hebrew]]) ''hapax legomena'' sometimes pose problems in translation. ''Hapax legomena'' also pose challenges in [[natural language processing]].<ref>Christopher D. Manning and Hinrich Schütze, ''Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing'',MIT Press, 1999, page 22, {{ISBN|0-262-13360-1}}.</ref>

Some scholars consider ''Hapax legomena'' useful in determining the authorship of written works. [[P. N. Harrison]], in ''The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles'' (1921)<ref>P.N. Harrison. ''The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles''. Oxford University Press, 1921.</ref> made ''hapax legomena'' popular among [[Biblical studies|Bible scholars]], when he argued that there are considerably more of them in the three [[Pastoral Epistles]] than in other [[Pauline Epistles]]. He argued that the number of ''hapax legomena'' in a putative author's corpus indicates his or her vocabulary and is characteristic of the author as an individual.

Harrison's theory has faded in significance due to a number of problems raised by other scholars. For example, in 1896, [[Walter Percy Workman|W. P. Workman]] found the following numbers of ''hapax legomena'' in each [[Pauline Epistles|Pauline Epistle]]:
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Pauline Epistle
!''Hapax legomena''
|-
|[[Epistle to the Romans]]
|113
|-
|[[First Epistle to the Corinthians]]
|110
|-
|[[Second Epistle to the Corinthians]]
|99
|-
|[[Epistle to the Galatians]]
|34
|-
|[[Epistle to the Ephesians]]
|43
|-
|[[Epistle to the Philippians]]
|41
|-
|[[Epistle to the Colossians]]
|38
|-
|[[First Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
|23
|-
|[[Second Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
|11
|-
|[[First Epistle to Timothy]]
|82
|-
|[[Second Epistle to Timothy]]
|53
|-
|[[Epistle to Titus]]
|33
|-
|[[Epistle to Philemon]]
|5
|}

At first glance, the last three totals (for the Pastoral Epistles) are not out of line with the others.<ref name="Workman">Workman, "The Hapax Legomena of St. Paul", ''[[Expository Times]]'', '''7''' (1896:418), noted in [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14727b.htm ''The Catholic Encyclopedia'', ''s.v.'' "Epistles to Timothy and Titus"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110408170757/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14727b.htm |date=2011-04-08 }}.</ref> To take account of the varying length of the epistles, Workman also calculated the average number of ''hapax legomena'' per page of the [[Novum Testamentum Graece|Greek text]], which ranged from 3.6 to 13, as summarized in the diagram on the right.<ref name="Workman" /> Although the Pastoral Epistles have more ''hapax legomena'' per page, Workman found the differences to be moderate in comparison to the variation among other Epistles. This was reinforced when Workman looked at several [[Shakespeare's plays|plays]] by [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]], which showed similar variations (from 3.4 to 10.4 per page of Irving's one-volume edition), as summarized in the second diagram on the right.<ref name="Workman" />

Apart from author identity, there are several other factors that can explain the number of ''hapax legomena'' in a work:<ref>Steven J. DeRose. "A Statistical Analysis of Certain Linguistic Arguments Concerning the Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles." Honors thesis, Brown University, 1982; Terry L. Wilder. "A Brief Defense of the Pastoral Epistles' Authenticity". ''Midwestern Journal of Theology'' '''2'''.1 (Fall 2003), 38–4. ([https://web.archive.org/web/20071017013627/http://www.mbts.edu/pdfs/academics/wilder.pdf on-line])</ref>
* text length: this directly affects the expected number and percentage of ''hapax legomena''; the brevity of the Pastoral Epistles also makes any statistical analysis problematic.
* text topic: if the author writes on different subjects, of course many subject-specific words will occur only in limited contexts.
* text audience: if the author is writing to a peer rather than a student, or their spouse rather than their employer, again quite different vocabulary will appear.
* time: over the course of years, both the language and an author's knowledge and use of language will change.

In the particular case of the Pastoral Epistles, all of these variables are quite different from those in the rest of the Pauline corpus, and ''hapax legomena'' are no longer widely accepted as strong indicators of authorship; those who reject Pauline authorship of the Pastorals rely on other arguments.<ref>Mark Harding.'' What are they saying about the Pastoral epistles?'', Paulist Press, 2001, page 12. {{ISBN|0-8091-3975-8}}, {{ISBN|978-0-8091-3975-0}}.</ref>

There are also subjective questions over whether two forms amount to "the same word": dog vs. dogs, clue vs. clueless, sign vs. signature; many other gray cases also arise. The ''Jewish Encyclopedia'' points out that, although there are 1,500 ''hapaxes'' in the [[Hebrew Bible]], only about 400 are not obviously related to other attested word forms.<ref name="JE">Article on [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7236-hapax-legomena Hapax Legomena] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121019231958/http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7236-hapax-legomena |date=2012-10-19 }} in ''[[Jewish Encyclopedia]]''. Includes a list of all the Old Testament ''hapax legomena'', by book.</ref>

A final difficulty with the use of ''hapax legomena'' for authorship determination is that there is considerable variation among works known to be by a single author, and disparate authors often show similar values. In other words, ''hapax legomena'' are not a reliable indicator. Authorship studies now usually use a wide range of measures to look for patterns rather than relying upon single measurements.