Analyzing the order of items in manuscripts of the canterbury tales

Computers and the Humanities

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 97-109

  Spencer, Matthew ^a   Bordalejo, Barbara ^b   Wang, L I San ^c   Barbrook, Adrian C ^a   Mooney, Linne R ^d   Robinson, Peter ^b   Warnow, Tandy ^c   Howe, Christopher J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Canterbury tales; Chaucer; Gene order; Phylogenetic analysis; Stemmatology

Indexed keywords

EID: 1642398189     PISSN: 00104817     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021818600001     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Adams III E.N. (1972) Consensus Techniques and the Comparison of Taxonomic Trees. Systematic Zoology, 21, pp. 390-397.
2. Barbrook A.C., Howe C.J., Blake N., Robinson P. (1998) The Phylogeny of The Canterbury Tales. Nature, 394, p. 839.
3. Benson L.D. (1981) The Order of The Canterbury Tales. Studies in the Age of Chaucer, 3, pp. 77-120.
4. Blake N.F. (1985) The Textual Tradition of The Canterbury Tales. Edward Arnold, London, p. 222.
5. Dempster G. (1949) The Fifteenth-century Editors of the Canterbury Tales and the Problem of Tale Order. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 64, pp. 1123-1142.
6. Doyle A.I., Parkes M.B. (1978) The Production of Copies of the Canterbury Tales and the Confessio Amantis in the Early Fifteenth Century. In Parkes, M.B. and Watson, A.G. (eds.), Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts and Libraries, Essays Presented to N.R. Ker, Scolar, London, pp. 163-210.
7. Doyle A.I., Parkes M.B. (1979) Paleographical Introduction. In Ruggiers, P.G. (ed.), The Canterbury Tales. Geoffrey Chaucer. A Facsimile and Transcription of the Hengwrt Manuscript, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, pp. xix-xlix.
8. Fisher J.H. (1988) Animadversions on the Text of Chaucer. Speculum, 63, pp. 779-793.
9. Flight C. (1990) How many stemmata? Manuscripta, 34, pp. 122-128.
10. Li W.-H. (1997) Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, p. 487.
11. Manly J.M., Rickert E. (1940a) The Order of Tales. In Manly, J.M. and Rickert, E. (eds.), The Text of The Canterbury Tales: Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 475-494.
12. Manly J.M., Rickert E. (eds.) (1940b) The Text of the Canterbury Tales: Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
13. Moorman C. ( 1993) The Statistical Determination of Affiliation In the Landmark Manuscripts of The Canterbury Tales. The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, p. 209.
14. Owen C.A., Jr. (1991) The Manuscripts of The Canterbury Tales. D.S. Brewer, Cambridge, p. 132.
15. Penny D., Hendy M.D. (1985) The Use of Tree Comparison Metrics. Systematic Zoology, 34, pp. 75-82.
16. Ramsey R.V. (1994) The Manley-Rickert Text of the Canterbury Tales. The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, NY, p. 691.
17. Robinson P. (1997) A Stemmatic Analysis of the Fifteenth-century Witnesses to The Wife of Bath's Prologue. In Blake, N. and Robinson, P. (eds.), The Canterbury Tales Project: Occasional Papers Volume II, Office for Humanities Communication Publications, London, pp. 69-132.
18. Saitou N., Nei M. (1987) The Neighbor-joining Method: A New Method for Reconstructing Phylogenetic Trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 4, pp. 406-425.
19. Sankoff D. (1992) Edit Distance for Genome Comparison Based on Non-local Operations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 644, pp. 121-135.
20. Sokal R.R., Rohlf F.J. (1995) Biometry. W.H. Freeman & Co., New York, p. 887.
21. Solopova E. (ed.) (2000) Geoffrey Chaucer: The General Prologue on CD-ROM. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
22. Spencer M., Howe C.J. (2001) Estimating Distances between Manuscripts Based on Copying Errors. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 16, pp. 467-484.
23. Stubbs E. (2000) Observations on the Hengwrt Chaucer. In Stubbs, E. (ed.), The Hengwrt Chaucer Digital Facsimile, Scholarly Digital Editions, Leicester.
24. Swofford D.L. (1991) When are Phytogeny Estimates from Molecular and Morphological Data Incongruent? In Miyamoto, M.M. and Cracraft, J. (cds.), Phylogenetic Analysis of DNA Sequences, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 295-333.
25. Swofford D.L. (2001) PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and other methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
26. Wang L.-S., Warnow T. (2001) Estimating True Evolutionary Distance between Genomes. Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC'01), Crete, Greece, ACM Press, pp. 637-646.
27. Watterson G.A., Ewens W.J., Hall T.E. (1982) The Chromosome Inversion Problem. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 99, pp. 1-7.