Preface: Data-Driven Formalism

IF 0.6 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM Journal of Literary Theory Pub Date : 2019-03-05 DOI:10.1515/jlt-2019-0001
Frank Fischer, M. Akimova, B. Orekhov
{"title":"Preface: Data-Driven Formalism","authors":"Frank Fischer, M. Akimova, B. Orekhov","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2019-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The idea of producing a special volume of hitherto untranslated texts by Russian formalists owes its existence to a newly awakened interest in quantification in the (digital) literary studies. A first indication of this was the conference in Stanford in 2015, entitled »Russian Formalism and the Digital Humanities«. The reason for this interest is simple: with the manifold practices developed in the digital literary studies in the past decade, we are now able to operationalise and automatise formalist research ideas, to reproduce them, to scale them up and to further develop methods along those lines. In this volume, we present three articles by Russian scholars, Muscovite scholars, to be precise. Boris I. Yarkho (1889–1942), Mikhail L. Gasparov (1935–2005) and Maksim I. Shapir (1962–2006) come from different periods representing three generations of Russian formalism, and their works are strongly intertwined. As is well known, there was a strong tradition of formal literary studies in Russia in the 20th century (Kizhner et al. 2018). But there were not so many quantitative works – except, of course, in verse studies, which were always based on statistics and calculations (Bely 1910, Shengeli 1923, Tomashevsky 1959, Rudnev 1968, Bayevsky 1972, Zhirmunsky 1975, Shapir 1994, Taranovsky 2010, Kelih 2008). Against this backdrop, the work of Yarkho stands out. Involving modern statistics in literary studies began with Kolmogorov only years later; Yarkho relied on his own statistical handbooks to find his way.","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jlt-2019-0001","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Literary Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2019-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The idea of producing a special volume of hitherto untranslated texts by Russian formalists owes its existence to a newly awakened interest in quantification in the (digital) literary studies. A first indication of this was the conference in Stanford in 2015, entitled »Russian Formalism and the Digital Humanities«. The reason for this interest is simple: with the manifold practices developed in the digital literary studies in the past decade, we are now able to operationalise and automatise formalist research ideas, to reproduce them, to scale them up and to further develop methods along those lines. In this volume, we present three articles by Russian scholars, Muscovite scholars, to be precise. Boris I. Yarkho (1889–1942), Mikhail L. Gasparov (1935–2005) and Maksim I. Shapir (1962–2006) come from different periods representing three generations of Russian formalism, and their works are strongly intertwined. As is well known, there was a strong tradition of formal literary studies in Russia in the 20th century (Kizhner et al. 2018). But there were not so many quantitative works – except, of course, in verse studies, which were always based on statistics and calculations (Bely 1910, Shengeli 1923, Tomashevsky 1959, Rudnev 1968, Bayevsky 1972, Zhirmunsky 1975, Shapir 1994, Taranovsky 2010, Kelih 2008). Against this backdrop, the work of Yarkho stands out. Involving modern statistics in literary studies began with Kolmogorov only years later; Yarkho relied on his own statistical handbooks to find his way.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前言:数据驱动的形式主义
为迄今为止尚未翻译的俄罗斯形式主义者的文本制作特别卷的想法,其存在归功于对(数字)文学研究中量化的新觉醒的兴趣。这方面的第一个迹象是2015年在斯坦福举行的题为“俄罗斯形式主义和数字人文”的会议。产生这种兴趣的原因很简单:在过去的十年里,随着数字文学研究中各种各样的实践的发展,我们现在能够将形式主义的研究思想操作化和自动化,复制它们,扩大它们的规模,并沿着这些路线进一步发展方法。在本卷中,我们提出三篇文章由俄罗斯学者,莫斯科学者,准确地说。Boris I. Yarkho (1889-1942), Mikhail L. Gasparov(1935-2005)和Maksim I. Shapir(1962-2006)来自不同的时期,代表了三代俄罗斯形式主义,他们的作品紧密地交织在一起。众所周知,20世纪俄罗斯有很强的正式文学研究传统(Kizhner et al. 2018)。但是,定量研究的作品并不多——当然,除了诗歌研究之外,诗歌研究总是基于统计和计算(belely 1910, Shengeli 1923, Tomashevsky 1959, Rudnev 1968, Bayevsky 1972, Zhirmunsky 1975, Shapir 1994, Taranovsky 2010, Kelih 2008)。在这种背景下,Yarkho的作品脱颖而出。将现代统计学纳入文学研究始于柯尔莫哥洛夫(Kolmogorov)几年后;耶科依靠自己的统计手册找到了出路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Literary Theory
Journal of Literary Theory LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Die Autonomie der Literatur auf dem Prüfstand. Bourdieus feldtheoretischer Ansatz als Alternative zu soziologistischen Kurzschlüssen Experiencing Literary Audiobooks: A Framework for Theoretical and Empirical Investigations of the Auditory Reception of Literature Autor und Subjekt im lyrischen Gedicht: Rezension und Neukonzeption einer Theorie der lyrischen Persona Die Literaturautonomie im deutschen Rechtssystem. Grenzen, Widersprüche und literaturtheoretische Potenziale Ästhetische Autonomie zwischen Ethik und Ästhetik
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1