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)
Of the novelties introduced by digitization in the study of literature, the size of the archive is probably the most dramatic: we used to work on a couple of hundred nineteenth-century novels, and now we can analyze thousands of them, tens of thousands, tomorrow hundreds of thousands. It's a moment of euphoria, for quantitative literary history: like having a telescope that makes you see entirely new galaxies. And it's a moment of truth: so, have the digital skies revealed anything that changes our knowledge of literature? This is not a rhetorical question. In the famous 1958 essay in which he hailed "the advent of a quantitative history" that would "break with the traditional form of nineteenth-century history", Fernand Braudel mentioned as its typical materials "demographic progressions, the movement of wages, the variations in interest rates [...] productivity [...] money supply and demand." These were all quantifiable entities, clearly enough; but they were also completely new objects compared to the study of legislation, military campaigns, political cabinets, diplomacy, and so on. It was this double shift that changed the practice of history; not quantification alone. In our case, though, there is no shift in materials: we may end up studying 200,000 novels instead of 200; but, they're all still novels. Where exactly is the novelty?
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.
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.
Mit „Aschenbrödel“ bzw. „Aschenputtel“ beginnt das Goethezeitportal die Publikation einer Reihe von Märchen und ihrer Illustrationen. Dabei werden, wie auch in unseren anderen Text-Bild-Serien, Illustrationen der Hoch- wie der Popularkultur berücksichtigt. Beigegeben sind stets der Text des Märchens, in der Regel also die Fassung der Brüder Grimm in ihren „Kinder- und Hausmärchen“, ggf. weitere Bearbeitungen (z.B. von Ludwig Bechstein; Adaptionen im Theater und Film) sowie Hinweise auf Literatur und Weblinks. Die Geschichte vom „Aschenbrödel“ - trotz aller Intrigen der bösen Stiefmutter und ihrer Geschwister wird die gedemütigte Halbwaise vom Königssohn heimgeführt - wurde eines der bekanntesten deutschen Märchen, nicht zuletzt wohl auf Grund seiner positiven moralischen Botschaft. Dem Text sind 19 Illustrationen auf Postkarten beigegeben.
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.
If there is one thing to be learned from David Foster Wallace, it is that cultural transmission is a tricky game. This was a problem Wallace confronted as a literary professional, a university-based writer during what Mark McGurl has called the Program Era. But it was also a philosophical issue he grappled with on a deep level as he struggled to combat his own loneliness through writing. This fundamental concern with literature as a social, collaborative enterprise has also gained some popularity among scholars of contemporary American literature, particularly McGurl and James English: both critics explore the rules by which prestige or cultural distinction is awarded to authors (English; McGurl). Their approach requires a certain amount of empirical work, since these claims move beyond the individual experience of the text into forms of collective reading and cultural exchange influenced by social class, geographical location, education, ethnicity, and other factors. Yet McGurl and English's groundbreaking work is limited by the very forms of exclusivity they analyze: the protective bubble of creative writing programs in the academy and the elite economy of prestige surrounding literary prizes, respectively. To really study the problem of cultural transmission, we need to look beyond the symbolic markets of prestige to the real market, the site of mass literary consumption, where authors succeed or fail based on their ability to speak to that most diverse and complicated of readerships: the general public. Unless we study what I call the social lives of books, we make the mistake of keeping literature in the same ascetic laboratory that Wallace tried to break out of with his intense authorial focus on popular culture, mass media, and everyday life.
The nineteenth century in Britain saw tumultuous changes that reshaped the fabric of society and altered the course of modernization. It also saw the rise of the novel to the height of its cultural power as the most important literary form of the period. This paper reports on a long-term experiment in tracing such macroscopic changes in the novel during this crucial period. Specifically, we present findings on two interrelated transformations in novelistic language that reveal a systemic concretization in language and fundamental change in the social spaces of the novel. We show how these shifts have consequences for setting, characterization, and narration as well as implications for the responsiveness of the novel to the dramatic changes in British society.
This paper has a second strand as well. This project was simultaneously an experiment in developing quantitative and computational methods for tracing changes in literary language. We wanted to see how far quantifiable features such as word usage could be pushed toward the investigation of literary history. Could we leverage quantitative methods in ways that respect the nuance and complexity we value in the humanities? To this end, we present a second set of results, the techniques and methodological lessons gained in the course of designing and running this project.
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.