DHd2017. Digitale Nachhaltigkeit. 13. bis 18. Februar 2017, Bern. Book of Abstracts
Conference abstracts for DHd2017, Bern. (http://www.dhd2017.ch/)
This volume introduces the reader to the wide range of methods that digital humanities employ, and offers a practical guide to the study, interpretation, and presentation of cultural material and practices. In this instance, the editors consider digital humanities to include both the use of computing to understand cultural material in new ways, and the application of theories and methods from the humanities to interpret new technologies. Each chapter provides a step-by-step guide to cutting-edge methodologies so that students can make informed decisions about the methods they use, consider ethical practices, follow practical procedures, and present their work effectively. Readers will develop practical and reflexive understandings of the software and digital devices that they study and use for research, and the book will help new researchers collaborate and contribute to their scholarly communities, and to public discourse. As contemporary humanities work becomes increasingly interdisciplinary, and increasingly permeated by and with digital technologies, this volume helps new researchers navigate an evolving academic environment. Humanities and social sciences students will find this textbook an invaluable resource for assessing and creating digital projects.
This essay questions whether digital literary studies can still be meaningfully regarded as part of literary studies. This heretical question is motivated by a praxeological view of a research project for the network analysis of dramatic texts, in particular by reflecting on the project’s underlying ›epistemic thing‹, which in this case consists of specifically-formatted structural data (and not the actual primary texts themselves). What does this corpus of structural data, which was extracted from 465 plays spanning the period from 1730 to 1930, have to do with the ›epistemic things‹ of literary studies? We explore this question by providing insight into our analyses, which describe the structural evolution of the ›plays‹, try to locate ›small world‹ properties in our corpus, and develop new metrics for plot analysis. The results show not only how digital methods can supplement or enrich literary studies; they also raise questions about how digital the field of literary studies already is, since its research objects are increasingly available in digital forms.
We describe the creation of a corpus of Russian-language drama, comprising hundreds of texts from the middle of the 18th century to the first third of the 20th century. Texts are encoded in the XML-based markup standard TEI, the focus is on extra-linguistic, structural annotations, although additional annotation layers can be added easily.
Book of Abstracts of conference Digital Humanities 2020: Carrefours/Intersections.
In 19th century Germany, the number of publications in the history of philosophy increased dramatically. According to Schneider’s (1999) calculations, from 1810 through 1899, 148 original textbooks by 114 authors were published in German. The aim of this article is to analyse how the documented in these publications canonic vision of 19th century German philosophy evolved. An analysis of 66 treatises published from 1802 through 1918 allows dividing 19th century philosophers into groups based on the frequency of their names across the tables of contents, describing the changes in the leading group composition and in the share of attention received by a given philosopher over time (the patterns of attention for Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Herbart, Schleiermacher, Schopenhauer, Jacobi and Fries are discussed in detail). The paper presents thus a formal analysis of how historical reputations of philosophers were made, how they stabilised, or faded. The authors claim that the current understanding of the history of 19th century philosophy differs significantly from the one recorded in the German textbooks of the era (e.g. Herbart’s key position within the 19th century philosophical Canon; Schopenhauer’s recognition by university philosophers during his own lifetime).