Protocols, Methods, and Workflows

Author(s):  
James E. Dobson

This chapter serves as an introduction to the problems raised by the use of computational methods in cultural and literary criticism. It does so by placing the desire for a science of reading expressed by many digital humanists within a larger genealogy of interpretive hermeneutics by turning to a series of crucial historical inflection points in which scholars and other intellectuals have raised the question of whether literary and cultural criticism could be a science or should depend upon the procedures of the sciences. While some critics (Matthew Jockers, Ted Underwood, and Andrew Goldstone, among others) have proposed that research in the digital humanities should look more like the quantitative social sciences, this chapter’s reconstruction of pivotal debates in the literary studies demonstrates the existence of surplus questions related to the ongoing meaning of cultural objects, textual sources, and archives that remain unaddressable and unanswerable by empirical methods. The chapter argues that what sustains the possibility of this notion of the “unaddressable” is a regular disciplinary injunction to apply a critical gaze backward through scholarly methods, to the ways in which evidence is found, collected, or produced, to the ways in which scholars frame this evidence, the protocols by which they interpret it, and the arguments they present to their readers.

PMLA ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 123 (1) ◽  
pp. 223-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stathis Gourgouris

From a certain standpoint, Marjorie Perloff's lament, in her 2006 MLA Presidential Address, that literary study has been relegated to a secondary position in the research framework of our profession has merit. This standpoint, however, rests on a retrospective (if not nostalgic) comparison of today's institutional parameters with the enviable autonomy that literary study once enjoyed, a self-authorization that demarcated not merely the practice of literary study (or literary criticism) but even what we might call a literary way of thinking. This was how the institution of theory in American universities took hold, and it is elementary to recall that many other disciplines, principally in the social sciences but also in the arts, conceded to literary studies the vanguard of the methodological and epistemological reconfigurations of their own disciplinary boundaries. Anthropologists, historians, film critics, and art historians, who suddenly acceded to the position of theorist, came to regard literary studies as an inventory for whatever new terms or concepts they deemed necessary in unsettling their own disciplinary givens.


Author(s):  
James E. Dobson

This chapter positions the use of machine learning within the digital humanities as part of a wider movement that nostalgically seeks to return literary criticism to the structuralist era, to a moment characterized by belief in systems, structure, and the transparency of language. While digital methods enable one to examine radically larger archives than those assembled in the past, a transformation that Matthew Jockers characterizes as a shift from micro to macroanalysis, the fundamental assumptions about texts and meaning implicit in these tools and in the criticism resulting from the use of these tools belong to a much earlier period of literary analysis. The author argues that the use of imported tools and procedures within literary and cultural criticism on the part of some digital humanists in the present is an attempt to separate methodology from interpretation. In the process, these critics have deemphasized the degree to which methodology participates in interpretation. The chapter closes by way of a return to the deconstructive critique of structuralism in order to highlight the ways in which numerous interpretive decisions are suppressed in the selection, encoding, and preprocessing of digitized textual sources for text mining and machine learning analysis.


2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Máiréad Nic Craith ◽  
Laurent Sebastian Fournier

This special issue on anthropology and literature invited proposals for original contributions focusing on relationships between anthropology and literature. We were especially interested in the following questions: what role does literature play in anthropology? Can literature be considered as ethnography? What are the relationships between anthropology and literature, past and present? Are anthropology and anthropological motives used in literature? We also looked for critical readings of writers as anthropologists and critical readings of anthropologists as writers. Moreover, we wanted to assess the influence of literature on the invention of traditions, rituals and cultural performances. All these different questions and topics are clearly connected with the study of literacy, illiteracy and popular culture. They also lead to questions regarding potential textual strategies for ethnography and the possibilities of bringing together the field of anthropology (more associated with the social sciences) and literary studies (traditionally part of the humanities).


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 146-152
Author(s):  
Almaz Ulvi Bi̇nnatova ◽  

The research work named “From the history of scientific-theoretical research of Alisher Navoi’s heritage (on the pages of Azerbaijani literature and literary criticism)” was grouped in several directions. In the systematic research within the sections named - 1. “The influence of Alisher Navoiy’s creativity on Azerbaijani literature”, 2. “The influence of Azerbaijani literature on the creativity of Alisher Navoiy”, 3. “Studying of Alisher Navoiy’s legacy in Azerbaijani literary studies


PMLA ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 129 (3) ◽  
pp. 498-503
Author(s):  
Simon During

Postcolonialism emerged as a field within literary studies during the 1980s as part of the discipline's general restructuring. That restructuring has, perhaps, been insufficiently acknowledged by the profession, and at any rate there seems to be little consensus as to its significance and shape. But it seems undeniable that, during the 1980s, literary criticism ceased to ground itself on its attention to its objects' literary qualities or on its efforts to establish convincing literary judgments about them. It turned rather to thinking about literature as, for instance, a vehicle of cultural-political identities, or as a resistance to ideology, or, more neutrally, as articulated into broader signifying or social structures.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (26) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin Laak

Eesti Kirjandusmuuseum on olnud teerajajaid digihumanitaaria valdkonnas juba 1990. aastatest, alates arvutikultuuri laiemast levikust. Väärtuslike andmekogude haldamisel on olnud missiooniks nende kättesaadavaks tegemine avalikkusele. Kultuuripärand avati laiemale kasutajale kahes suunas: sisupõhised otsitavad andmebaasid ning suhtepõhised andmekeskkonnad. Siinse artikli eesmärgiks on näidata arvutusliku kirjandusteaduse tänapäevaseid võimalusi ja nendega seotud kirjanduslike keeleressursside loomist koostöös korpuslingvistidega. Artiklis analüüsin kultuuripärandi sisukeskkondade ja andmekoguside kasutusvõimalusi masinloetava keeleressursina. Esimeste selliste katsetena on valminud kirjavahetuse ja kriitika märgendatud keelekorpused päringusüsteemis KORP. Käesolev uurimus toob on 20. sajandi alguse mõjukriitika probleemi näitel välja kirjanduslike keelekorpuste potentsiaali kultuuripärandi uurimisel.   Estonia can soon expect an explosive growth in digital heritage and text resources due to the current project of mass digitisation of national cultural heritage (printed books, archival documents, photos, art, audiovisual, and ethnographic artifacts) (2019–2023). This will give new opportunities for different fields of digital humanities and make digitised heritage accessible to everyone in the form of open data. The project will focus on the usage of the heritage, on the needs of education, e-learning, and the creative industry, including digital creative arts. The aim of this article is to examine some research possibilities that opened up for literary history due to the digitisation of literary works and archival sources and to put them in the general context of digital humanities. Although the field of digital humanities is broad, the meaning of DH is often reduced to methods of computational language-centered analyses, mainly based on using different tools and software languages (R, Stylo, Phyton, Gephy, Top Modelling etc.). While the corpus-based research is already a professional standard in linguistics, literary scholars are still more used to working with traditional methods. This article introduces two digital literary history projects belonging to the field of digital humanities and analyses them as language resources for creating texts corpora, and introduces some results of the case study of Estonian criticism from the Young Estonia movement up to the 1920s, carried out using the literary texts corpora in the corpus query system KORP (https://korp.keeleressursid.ee) by the Centre of Estonian Language Resources. During the past twenty years, I have mainly focussed on developing large-scale implementation projects for digital representation of Estonian literary history. The objective of these experimental projects has been to develop principally new non-linear models of Estonian literary history for the digital environment. These activities were based on my research of the intertextual relations between authors, literary works, and critical texts using traditional methods. The first content-based literary history project “ERNI. Estonian Literary History in Texts 1924–1925” (www2.kirmus.ee/erni) was based on a hypertextual network of literary source texts and reviews. We re-conceptualised literary history as a non-linear narrative and a gallery with many entrances. The task of the project was also to ensure its usability in education: a significant number of study materials has been added in cooperation with schoolteachers. In 2004, we initiated our long-term and still running project “Kreutzwald’s Century: the Estonian Cultural History Web” (http://kreutzwald.kirmus.ee) at the Estonian Literary Museum. The objective of this project was to make literary sources of the period accessible as the dynamic, interactive information environment. This was a hybrid project which synthesised the classical study of Estonian literary history, the needs of the digital media user, and the expanding digital resources from different memory institutions; its underlying idea was to link together all the works of fiction of an author, as well as their biography, manuscripts, and photos and to make them visible for the user on five interactive time axes. The project uses a specially created platform. Today, this platform is extensively used by schoolteachers: in 2020 (Jan.–Dec.) it had about 8, 986.555 million clicks and during seven years (2013 Dec.–2020 Dec.) it has collected 64, 627.380 million clicks. To find out how we can fit such content-based models of literary heritage into the context of Digital Humanities we need to compare the previous modelling practices with our current experimental project in the corpus query system KORP. Our interdisciplinary project “Literary Studies Meet Corpus Linguistics” (2017–2020) concentrated on studying literary history sources with linguistic methods. As the result of the project two literary text corpora were created: “Epistolary text corpus of Estonian writers Johannes Semper and Johannes Vares-Barbarus” and “Corpus of the Estonian literary criticism, Noor-Eesti and the 1920s”. Both of them were pilot projects in the field, started with converting the digitalised archival and printed sources into machine-readable format before text and data mining for corpus creation. Query system KORP allows us to organise the language data by all the categories used in the corpus, for example, to learn who and in what context mentioned the name of the French writer André Gide. The second currently running project is the morphologically annotated corpus of literary criticism. This corpus contains texts of literary reviews and criticism in different genres, drawn from the projects ERNI and “Kreutzwald’s Century”. The first results in studying the dynamics of literary values can already be seen. A query in KORP about the word ‘mõju’ (‘influence’) revealed that the manifesto “More of European culture!”of the group Young Estonia, voiced in 1905, was during the independent Estonian Republic replaced by the valuing of a specific national character. Corpus query showed a change in the meaning of the word: in the criticism contemporary to Young Estonia, the word ‘mõju’ was only associated with the historical pressure from Russian and German cultures. The foundation for modern comparative linguistics at the University of Tartu was laid in the 1920s by the professorship in Estonian literature.


Humanities ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
Timo Airaksinen

Richard Rorty speaks of “we ironists” who use irony as the primary tool in their scholarly work and life. We cannot approach irony in terms of truth, simply because, due to its ironies, the context no longer is metaphysical. This is Rorty’s challenge. Rorty’s promise focuses on top English Departments: they are hegemonic, they rule over the humanities, philosophy, and some social sciences using their superior method of ironizing dialectic. I refer to Hegel, Gerald Doherty’s “pornographic” writings, and Gore Vidal’s non-academic critique of academic literary criticism. My conclusion is that extensive use of irony is costly; an ironist must regulate her relevant ideas and speech acts—Hegel makes this clear. Irony is essentially confusing and contestable. Why would we want to use irony in a way that trumps metaphysics? Metaphysics, as defined by Rorty, is a problematic field, but irony can hardly replace it. At the same time, I admit that universal irony is possible, that is, everything can be seen in ironic light, or ironized. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and criticize Rorty’s idea of irony by using his own methodology, that is, ironic redescription. We can see the shallowness of his approach to irony by contextualizing it. This also dictates the style of the essay.


2020 ◽  
Vol 02 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rooweither Mabuya ◽  
Dimakatso Mathe ◽  
Mmasibidi Setaka ◽  
Menno van Zaanen

South Africa has eleven official languages. However, not all have received similar amounts of attention. In particular, for many of the languages, only a limited number of digital language resources (data sets and computational tools) exist. This scarcity hinders (computational) research in the fields of humanities and social sciences for these languages. Additionally, using existing computational linguistics tools in a practical setting requires expert knowledge on the usage of these tools. In South Africa, only a small number of people currently have this expertise, further limiting the type of research that relies on computational linguistic tools. The South African Centre for Digital Language Resources (SADiLaR) aims to enable and enhance research in the area of language technology by focusing on the development, management, and distribution of digital language resources for all South African languages. Additionally, it aims to build research capacity, specifically in the field of digital humanities. This requires several challenges to be resolved that we cluster under resources, training, and community building. SADiLaR hosts a repository of existing digital language resources and supports the development of new resources. Additionally, it provides training on the use of these resources, specifically for (but not limited to) researchers in the fields of humanities and social sciences. Through this training, SADiLaR tries to build a community of practice to boost information sharing in the area of digital humanities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document