计算作为上下文:近距离阅读辩论的新方法

IF 0.1 3区 文学 0 LITERATURE
Kirilloff Gabi
{"title":"计算作为上下文:近距离阅读辩论的新方法","authors":"Kirilloff Gabi","doi":"10.1353/lit.2022.0000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:The perceived dichotomy between distant and close reading continues to shape conversations about the digital humanities. This debate has functioned as a red herring, overshadowing misreadings of computational work. Drawing on two case studies, I argue that the information produced from computational methods should be understood as a type of context, rather than as data or as a textual \"reading.\" Viewing computational output as context implies that impartial and flawed methods can still supply valuable information. This is a radical departure from the field's current preoccupation with methodological validity. My first case study looks at Google's flawed learning algorithm Perspective. I posit that the tool can be reverse engineered to examine racist and sexist attitudes. I also examine my computational study of direct address in 2,000 Anglophone novels. Despite technical flaws, the project facilitated the textual recovery and close reading of several nineteenth-century African-American novels. As these examples show, the computational analysis of literature produces information that, much like biographical and historical context, is in its own right subjective and incomplete but can be used to provoke further acts of interpretation.","PeriodicalId":44728,"journal":{"name":"COLLEGE LITERATURE","volume":"49 1","pages":"1 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Computation as Context: New Approaches to the Close/Distant Reading Debate\",\"authors\":\"Kirilloff Gabi\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/lit.2022.0000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT:The perceived dichotomy between distant and close reading continues to shape conversations about the digital humanities. This debate has functioned as a red herring, overshadowing misreadings of computational work. Drawing on two case studies, I argue that the information produced from computational methods should be understood as a type of context, rather than as data or as a textual \\\"reading.\\\" Viewing computational output as context implies that impartial and flawed methods can still supply valuable information. This is a radical departure from the field's current preoccupation with methodological validity. My first case study looks at Google's flawed learning algorithm Perspective. I posit that the tool can be reverse engineered to examine racist and sexist attitudes. I also examine my computational study of direct address in 2,000 Anglophone novels. Despite technical flaws, the project facilitated the textual recovery and close reading of several nineteenth-century African-American novels. As these examples show, the computational analysis of literature produces information that, much like biographical and historical context, is in its own right subjective and incomplete but can be used to provoke further acts of interpretation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"COLLEGE LITERATURE\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"COLLEGE LITERATURE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/lit.2022.0000\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COLLEGE LITERATURE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/lit.2022.0000","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:远读和细读之间的二分法继续影响着关于数字人文学科的讨论。这场辩论起到了转移注意力的作用,掩盖了对计算工作的误读。通过两个案例研究,我认为计算方法产生的信息应该被理解为一种上下文,而不是数据或文本“阅读”。将计算输出视为上下文意味着公正和有缺陷的方法仍然可以提供有价值的信息。这是对该领域当前对方法论有效性的关注的彻底背离。我的第一个案例研究着眼于b谷歌有缺陷的学习算法Perspective。我认为,这个工具可以逆向工程,以检查种族主义和性别歧视的态度。我还检查了我对2000部英语小说中直接称呼的计算研究。尽管存在技术缺陷,但该项目促进了几本19世纪非裔美国人小说的文本恢复和细读。正如这些例子所示,文学的计算分析产生的信息,就像传记和历史背景一样,本身是主观的和不完整的,但可以用来激发进一步的解释行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Computation as Context: New Approaches to the Close/Distant Reading Debate
ABSTRACT:The perceived dichotomy between distant and close reading continues to shape conversations about the digital humanities. This debate has functioned as a red herring, overshadowing misreadings of computational work. Drawing on two case studies, I argue that the information produced from computational methods should be understood as a type of context, rather than as data or as a textual "reading." Viewing computational output as context implies that impartial and flawed methods can still supply valuable information. This is a radical departure from the field's current preoccupation with methodological validity. My first case study looks at Google's flawed learning algorithm Perspective. I posit that the tool can be reverse engineered to examine racist and sexist attitudes. I also examine my computational study of direct address in 2,000 Anglophone novels. Despite technical flaws, the project facilitated the textual recovery and close reading of several nineteenth-century African-American novels. As these examples show, the computational analysis of literature produces information that, much like biographical and historical context, is in its own right subjective and incomplete but can be used to provoke further acts of interpretation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
COLLEGE LITERATURE
COLLEGE LITERATURE LITERATURE-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信