800 Literatur und Rhetorik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (25) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (25)
Keywords
- Digital Humanities (15)
- Quantitative Literaturwissenschaft (5)
- Englische Literatur (4)
- Roman (4)
- Literaturwissenschaft (3)
- Romantheorie (3)
- Dialoganalyse (2)
- Diskursanalyse (2)
- Erzählen (2)
- Literaturgeschichte (2)
Institute
- Extern (2)
The concept of length, the concept is synonymous, the concept is nothing more than, the proper definition of a concept ... Forget programs and visions; the operational approach refers specifically to concepts, and in a very specific way: it describes the process whereby concepts are transformed into a series of operations—which, in their turn, allow to measure all sorts of objects. Operationalizing means building a bridge from concepts to measurement, and then to the world. In our case: from the concepts of literary theory, through some form of quantification, to literary texts.
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.
Der "Kosmos" ist das letzte Buch des 1859 in seinem neunzigsten Lebensjahr in Berlin verstorbenen Gelehrten, in deutscher Sprache geschrieben und in fünf Bänden 1845 bis 1862 in Stuttgart und Tübingen veröffentlicht. Die Frankfurter Edition von 2004 präsentiert die erste vollständige Ausgabe seit dem neunzehnten Jahrhundert und die erste vollständige Neu-Edition des Humboldtschen Originaltextes überhaupt. Der Kosmos wird erstmalig ausschließlich so aufgelegt, wie er von seinem Autor geschrieben und publiziert wurde. Das bedeutet: Es werden nur die Teile aufgenommen, die tatsächlich von Humboldt selbst stammen. Korrekturen und Ergänzungen, die vom Urheber vorgenommen oder autorisiert wurden, indem sie in den zu Lebzeiten erschienenen Bänden vermerkt sind, wurden ausgeführt beziehungsweise übernommen. Im Anhang nachgereichte Korrekturen und Ergänzungen anderer Autoren aus dem posthumen fünften Band wurden dagegen nicht ein- beziehungsweise umgesetzt. Ausgangspunkt ist der Stand der allerersten Auflage, Maßstab der vom Verfasser selbst hergestellte Text. Die Edition bietet zum ersten Mal den reinen Humboldtschen Ur-Kosmos. Humboldts berühmtestes Werk ist hier tatsächlich in einem Band vereint: ”die ganze Welt in einem Buch”.
Dieses Arbeitspapier geht aus einem Hauptseminar zur Argumentationstheorie hervor, das [von Leila Behrens] im Wintersemester 2008/09 am Institut für Linguistik der Universität zu Köln gehalten [wurde]. In den beiden Arbeiten in diesem Band (Badtke et al. und Benning et al.) stellen die Studierenden dieses Hauptseminars die Ergebnisse vor, die sie (in zwei parallelen Projektgruppen mit unterschiedlichen Diskussionsgegenständen) bei der empirischen Analyse von Argumentationen in einem Internet-Forum gewonnen haben. Der Gegenstand der Diskussion betraf bei der einen Gruppe (Badtke et al.) die Unabhängigkeit des Kosovo, bei der anderen Gruppe (Benning et al.) die Einführung eines generellen Rauchverbots in europäischen Hauptstädten.
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.
In 1983, Brian Henderson published an article that examined various types of narrative structure in film, including flashbacks and flashforwards. After analyzing a whole spectrum of techniques capable of effecting a transition between past and present – blurs, fades, dissolves, and so on – he concluded: "Our discussions indicate that cinema has not (yet) developed the complexity of tense structures found in literary works". His "yet" (in parentheses) was an instance of laudable caution, as very soon – in some ten–fifteen years – the situation would change drastically, and temporal twists would become a trademark of a new genre that has not (yet) acquired a standardized name: "modular narratives", "puzzle films", and "complex films" are among the labels used.
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?