CompaRe | Allgemeine und Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (21) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (21)
Keywords
- Digital Humanities (15)
- Quantitative Literaturwissenschaft (5)
- Englische Literatur (4)
- Roman (4)
- Literaturwissenschaft (3)
- Romantheorie (3)
- Dialoganalyse (2)
- Literaturgeschichte (2)
- Literaturkanon (2)
- Literaturtheorie (2)
Institute
- Extern (1)
Es ist wiederholt die These vorgebracht worden, die Grundmuster der europäischen Metaphysik entsprängen den grammatischen Grundmustern der zur Darstellung dieser Metaphysik verwendeten Sprache, allgemeiner des indoeuropäischen Sprachtyps. Was ist z. B. das Sein anderes als eine abstrakte Fiktion, ermöglicht durch die Nominalisierung des Hilfsverbs? Weder findet sich in jeder Sprache ein solches Hilfsverb noch muß überall, wo es vorhanden ist, auch Nominalisierung möglich sein. Ist somit die Rede vom Sein, Ontologie, nicht – unbeschadet der Gründe, um derentwillen diese Rede geübt wird – eine bloße Irreführung durch die Mittel unserer Sprache? Und ferner: Ist nicht die im Wort "Ontologie" erwähnte Logik von eben demselben Sprachbau abhängig (wenn schon nicht von der menschlichen Psyche)? Wir analysieren doch das Urteil in Subjekt, Prädikat und Kopula, S ist P; und auch hier taucht in verräterischer Weise das Hilfsverb auf. Philosophie? Philosophie der Logik? "Die Philosophie ist ein Kampf gegen die Verhexung unseres Verstandes durch die Mittel unserer Sprache." Mit diesen berühmten Worten leitete L. Wittgenstein eine Entwicklung ein ("Wir führen die Wörter von ihrer metaphysischen, wieder auf ihre alltägliche Verwendung zurück.") die E. Tugendhat 1976 schließlich so zusammenfaßte: "Ich kenne keine befriedigende Antwort auf die Frage, wie die sprachanalytische Philosophie von der empirischen Sprachwissenschaft zu unterscheiden ist." Hat das nicht zur Konsequenz, daß am Ende die logisch-philosophischen Probleme – einschließlich aller die Philosophie der Logik betreffenden –, die doch apriori sich aus der Bewußtseinshelle des Menschen herzustellen scheinen, in einer empirischen Disziplin, der Linguistik, aposteriori also, ihre genugtuende Beantwortung finden? Dieser Frage wollen wir nachgehen. Zunächst ist hier kurz zu umreißen, wie sich dem unbefangenen Betrachter die Beziehung von Logik und Linguistik gegenwärtig darstellt.
The object of this study is one of the most ambitious projects of twentieth-century art history: Aby Warburg's 'Atlas Mnemosyne', conceived in the summer of 1926 – when the first mention of a 'Bilderatlas', or "atlas of images", occurs in his journal – and truncated three years later, unfinished, by his sudden death in October 1929. Mnemosyne consisted in a series of large black panels, about 170x140 cm., on which were attached black-and-white photographs of paintings, sculptures, book pages, stamps, newspaper clippings, tarot cards, coins, and other types of images. Warburg kept changing the order of the panels and the position of the images until the very end, and three main versions of the Atlas have been recorded: one from 1928 (the "1-43 version", with 682 images); one from the early months of 1929, with 71 panels and 1050 images; and the one Warburg was working on at the time of his death, also known as the "1-79 version", with 63 panels and 971 images (which is the one we will examine). But Warburg was planning to have more panels – possibly many more – and there is no doubt that Mnemosyne is a dramatically unfinished and controversial object of study.
The Emotions of London
(2016)
A few years ago, a group formed by Ben Allen, Cameron Blevins, Ryan Heuser, and Matt Jockers decided to use topic modeling to extract geographical information from nineteenth-century novels. Though the study was eventually abandoned, it had revealed that London-related topics had become significantly more frequent in the course of the century, and when some of us were later asked to design a crowd-sourcing experiment, we decided to add a further dimension to those early findings, and see whether London place-names could become the cornerstone for an emotional geography of the city.
We would study not style as such, but style 'at the scale of the sentence': the lowest level, it seemed, at which style as a distinct phenomenon became visible. Implicitly, we were defining style as a combination of smaller linguistic units, which made it, in consequence, particularly sensitive to changes in scale—from words to clauses to whole sentences.
This paper is the report of a study conducted by five people – four at Stanford, and one at the University of Wisconsin – which tried to establish whether computer-generated algorithms could "recognize" literary genres. You take 'David Copperfield', run it through a program without any human input – "unsupervised", as the expression goes – and ... can the program figure out whether it's a gothic novel or a 'Bildungsroman'? The answer is, fundamentally, Yes: but a Yes with so many complications that it is necessary to look at the entire process of our study. These are new methods we are using, and with new methods the process is almost as important as the results.
Popularity/Prestige
(2018)
What is the canon? Usually this question is just a proxy for something like, "Which works are in the canon?" But the first question is not just a concise version of the second, or at least it doesn’t have to be. Instead, it can ask what the structure of the canon is - in other words, when things are in the canon, what are they in? This question came to the fore during the project that resulted in Pamphlet 11. The members of that group were looking for morphological differences between the canon and the archive. The latter they define, straightforwardly and capaciously, as "that portion of published literature that has been preserved—in libraries and elsewhere" The canon is a slipperier concept; the authors speak instead of multiple canons, like the books preserved in the Chadwyck-Healey Nineteenth-Century Fiction Collection, the constituents of the six different "best-twentieth century novels" lists analyzed by Mark Algee-Hewitt and Mark McGurl in Pamphlet 8, authors included in the British Dictionary of National Biography, and so forth. [...] This last conundrum points the way out of these difficulties and into a workable model of the structure of the canon. It suggests two different ways of entering the canon: being read by many and being prized by an elite few—or, to use the terms arrived at in Pamphlet 11, popularity and prestige. With these two dimensions, we arrive at a canonical space [...].
Patterns and interpretation
(2017)
One thing for sure: digitization has completely changed the literary archive. People like me used to work on a few hundred nineteenth-century novels; today, we work on thousands of them; tomorrow, hundreds of thousands. This has had a major effect on literary history, obviously enough, but also on critical methodology; because, when we work on 200,000 novels instead of 200, we are not doing the same thing, 1,000 times bigger; we are doing a different thing. The new scale changes our relationship to our object, and in fact 'it changes the object itself'.
Different scales, different features. It’s the main difference between the thesis we have presented here, and the one that has so far dominated the study of the paragraph. By defining it as "a sentence writ large", or, symmetrically, as "a short discourse", previous research was implicitly asserting the irrelevance of scale: sentence, paragraph, and discourse were all equally involved in the "development of one topic". We have found the exact opposite: 'scale is directly correlated to the differentiation of textual functions'. By this, we don't simply mean that the scale of sentences or paragraphs allows us to "see" style or themes more clearly. This is true, but secondary. Paragraphs allows us to "see" themes, because themes fully "exist" only at the scale of the paragraph. Ours is not just an epistemological claim, but an ontological one: if style and themes and episodes exist in the form they do, it's because writers work at different scales – and do different things according to the level at which they are operating.
In the last few years, literary studies have experienced what we could call the rise of quantitative evidence. This had happened before of course, without producing lasting effects, but this time it’s probably going to be different, because this time we have digital databases, and automated data retrieval. As Michel’s and Lieberman’s recent article on "Culturomics" made clear, the width of the corpus and the speed of the search have increased beyond all expectations: today, we can replicate in a few minutes investigations that took a giant like Leo Spitzer months and years of work. When it comes to phenomena of language and style, we can do things that previous generations could only dream of.
When it comes to language and style. But if you work on novels or plays, style is only part of the picture. What about plot – how can that be quantified? This paper is the beginning of an answer, and the beginning of the beginning is network theory. This is a theory that studies connections within large groups of objects: the objects can be just about anything – banks, neurons, film actors, research papers, friends... – and are usually called nodes or vertices; their connections are usually called edges; and the analysis of how vertices are linked by edges has revealed many unexpected features of large systems, the most famous one being the so-called "small-world" property, or "six degrees of separation": the uncanny rapidity with which one can reach any vertex in the network from any other vertex. The theory proper requires a level of mathematical intelligence which I unfortunately lack; and it typically uses vast quantities of data which will also be missing from my paper. But this is only the first in a series of studies we’re doing at the Stanford Literary Lab; and then, even at this early stage, a few things emerge.