团队教育和知识网络k较少的塑形网络配标准,比如1803年的塑形家庭

IF 0.6 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM Journal of Literary Theory Pub Date : 2023-08-14 DOI:10.1515/jlt-2023-2012
Benjamin Krautter
{"title":"团队教育和知识网络k较少的塑形网络配标准,比如1803年的塑形家庭","authors":"Benjamin Krautter","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In my contribution, I argue that a fruitful integration of computational network analytic methods into literary studies depends on how the ›interaction‹ of two characters in an abstract character network is formalized. I support this hypothesis by using the examples of co-presence, co-reference, and knowledge networks, which I analyze in Heinrich Kleist’s tragedy Die Familie Schroffenstein (1803). I assume that the co-presence of characters can provide the basis for more specific formalizations of interaction. But due to its basal specification of interaction, co-presence networks can only be integrated into rather limited questions of literary studies. I illustrate this circumstance by examining Franco Moretti’s approach in his essay Network Theory, Plot Analysis (2011): How does he connect his network analyses to concepts of literary studies? How does he reflect his methods? Which observational stance does he adopt? How appropriate is his approach to the object of study? And how does he tie his results back to literary theory? Moretti’s explorations show that his network analyses seem to be incompatible with established conceptions of characters – at least partially. Therefore, he demands a new conceptualization of dramatic characters in literary studies. To me, however, it seems to be more productive to put into perspective or enhance – under the auspices of network analysis – existing quantitative aspects of established character presentation (configuration, constellation). I therefore propose two additional formalizations of character interaction to create dramatic networks: co-references and knowledge transfers. Regular co-presence networks, which have widely been tested and discussed among (computational) literary scholars, will serve as a ground of comparison. I illustrate the merits and limitations of co-presence networks on both a single text analysis of Die Familie Schroffenstein and a larger corpus analysis of 587 German-language plays. Cursorily, I present the operationalization of co-references and knowledge transfers. The linguistic concept of co-reference means that two or more linguistic expressions refer to the same entities. A knowledge transfer, in my understanding, is a transmission of new information from at least one literary character to at least one other character. Manual annotations of co-reference chains and knowledge transfers serve as basis for the subsequent network creation. I compare these different manifestations of character interaction in terms of the resulting network visualizations as well as of various mathematical network metrics. The goal is to elicit how useful these two criteria are regarding drama analysis, e. g., the analysis of character properties, and to what extent they can complement, differentiate, or even replace the established co-presence networks. Co-presence, co-reference and knowledge networks reveal different aspects of the characters under consideration, picture different dramatic structures, and place different groups of characters at the center of the networks. Therefore, the three abstract textual representations seem to complement each other. In my article, I show that the extent to which the various criteria can be integrated into research questions of literary studies ought to be discussed on (at least) two levels. Firstly, it is necessary to ask how interesting, relevant, and informative a specific criterion is for one’s own research and whether it can relate to the terminology of literary studies. Secondly, it is important to consider how precise the respective criteria can be annotated manually and, subsequently, if and how reliable they can be annotated automatically.","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kopräsenz-, Koreferenz- und Wissens-Netzwerke. Kantenkriterien in dramatischen Figurennetzwerken am Beispiel von Kleists Die Familie Schroffenstein (1803)\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Krautter\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jlt-2023-2012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In my contribution, I argue that a fruitful integration of computational network analytic methods into literary studies depends on how the ›interaction‹ of two characters in an abstract character network is formalized. I support this hypothesis by using the examples of co-presence, co-reference, and knowledge networks, which I analyze in Heinrich Kleist’s tragedy Die Familie Schroffenstein (1803). I assume that the co-presence of characters can provide the basis for more specific formalizations of interaction. But due to its basal specification of interaction, co-presence networks can only be integrated into rather limited questions of literary studies. I illustrate this circumstance by examining Franco Moretti’s approach in his essay Network Theory, Plot Analysis (2011): How does he connect his network analyses to concepts of literary studies? How does he reflect his methods? Which observational stance does he adopt? How appropriate is his approach to the object of study? And how does he tie his results back to literary theory? Moretti’s explorations show that his network analyses seem to be incompatible with established conceptions of characters – at least partially. Therefore, he demands a new conceptualization of dramatic characters in literary studies. To me, however, it seems to be more productive to put into perspective or enhance – under the auspices of network analysis – existing quantitative aspects of established character presentation (configuration, constellation). I therefore propose two additional formalizations of character interaction to create dramatic networks: co-references and knowledge transfers. Regular co-presence networks, which have widely been tested and discussed among (computational) literary scholars, will serve as a ground of comparison. I illustrate the merits and limitations of co-presence networks on both a single text analysis of Die Familie Schroffenstein and a larger corpus analysis of 587 German-language plays. Cursorily, I present the operationalization of co-references and knowledge transfers. The linguistic concept of co-reference means that two or more linguistic expressions refer to the same entities. A knowledge transfer, in my understanding, is a transmission of new information from at least one literary character to at least one other character. Manual annotations of co-reference chains and knowledge transfers serve as basis for the subsequent network creation. I compare these different manifestations of character interaction in terms of the resulting network visualizations as well as of various mathematical network metrics. The goal is to elicit how useful these two criteria are regarding drama analysis, e. g., the analysis of character properties, and to what extent they can complement, differentiate, or even replace the established co-presence networks. Co-presence, co-reference and knowledge networks reveal different aspects of the characters under consideration, picture different dramatic structures, and place different groups of characters at the center of the networks. Therefore, the three abstract textual representations seem to complement each other. In my article, I show that the extent to which the various criteria can be integrated into research questions of literary studies ought to be discussed on (at least) two levels. Firstly, it is necessary to ask how interesting, relevant, and informative a specific criterion is for one’s own research and whether it can relate to the terminology of literary studies. Secondly, it is important to consider how precise the respective criteria can be annotated manually and, subsequently, if and how reliable they can be annotated automatically.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42872,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Literary Theory\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Literary Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Literary Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2012","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: 0

摘要

在我的贡献中,我认为将计算网络分析方法有效地整合到文学研究中取决于如何形式化抽象角色网络中两个角色的“相互作用”。我在海因里希·克莱斯特(Heinrich Kleist)的悲剧《施洛芬斯坦家族》(Die Familie Schroffenstein, 1803)中分析了共同存在、共同参考和知识网络的例子,以此来支持这一假设。我认为角色的共存可以为更具体的互动形式提供基础。但由于其基本的交互规范,共现网络只能整合到相当有限的文学研究问题中。我通过研究佛朗哥·莫雷蒂在他的文章《网络理论,情节分析》(2011)中的方法来说明这种情况:他如何将他的网络分析与文学研究的概念联系起来?他是如何反映他的方法的?他采取了哪种观察立场?他的方法对研究对象是否合适?他是如何将他的研究结果与文学理论联系起来的?莫雷蒂的探索表明,他的网络分析似乎与既定的人物概念不相容——至少部分不相容。因此,他要求在文学研究中重新定义戏剧人物。然而,对我来说,在网络分析的支持下,对已建立的角色表现(配置、星座)的现有定量方面进行透视或增强似乎更有成效。因此,我提出了另外两种角色互动的形式化方法来创造戏剧性的网络:共同引用和知识转移。在(计算)文学学者中广泛测试和讨论的常规共存在网络将作为比较的基础。我在《施洛芬施泰因家族》的单一文本分析和587部德语戏剧的更大语料库分析上说明了共现网络的优点和局限性。粗略地说,我提出了共同参考和知识转移的操作化。共同指称的语言学概念是指两个或两个以上的语言表达指向相同的实体。在我看来,知识转移是将新信息从至少一个文学角色传递给至少另一个角色。人工标注共参考链和知识转移是后续网络创建的基础。我比较了这些角色互动的不同表现形式,根据结果的网络可视化以及各种数学网络指标。我们的目标是引出这两个标准对于戏剧分析有多有用。,对角色属性的分析,以及它们在多大程度上可以补充、区分甚至取代已建立的共同存在网络。共临网络、共指网络和知识网络揭示了人物的不同方面,描绘了不同的戏剧结构,并将不同的人物群体置于网络的中心。因此,这三种抽象的文本表征似乎是相辅相成的。在我的文章中,我表明,应该在(至少)两个层面上讨论各种标准在多大程度上可以融入文学研究的研究问题。首先,有必要问一下,一个特定的标准对自己的研究有多有趣、有多相关、有多翔实,以及它是否与文学研究的术语有关。其次,重要的是要考虑手动注释各自标准的精确度,以及随后自动注释它们的可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Kopräsenz-, Koreferenz- und Wissens-Netzwerke. Kantenkriterien in dramatischen Figurennetzwerken am Beispiel von Kleists Die Familie Schroffenstein (1803)
Abstract In my contribution, I argue that a fruitful integration of computational network analytic methods into literary studies depends on how the ›interaction‹ of two characters in an abstract character network is formalized. I support this hypothesis by using the examples of co-presence, co-reference, and knowledge networks, which I analyze in Heinrich Kleist’s tragedy Die Familie Schroffenstein (1803). I assume that the co-presence of characters can provide the basis for more specific formalizations of interaction. But due to its basal specification of interaction, co-presence networks can only be integrated into rather limited questions of literary studies. I illustrate this circumstance by examining Franco Moretti’s approach in his essay Network Theory, Plot Analysis (2011): How does he connect his network analyses to concepts of literary studies? How does he reflect his methods? Which observational stance does he adopt? How appropriate is his approach to the object of study? And how does he tie his results back to literary theory? Moretti’s explorations show that his network analyses seem to be incompatible with established conceptions of characters – at least partially. Therefore, he demands a new conceptualization of dramatic characters in literary studies. To me, however, it seems to be more productive to put into perspective or enhance – under the auspices of network analysis – existing quantitative aspects of established character presentation (configuration, constellation). I therefore propose two additional formalizations of character interaction to create dramatic networks: co-references and knowledge transfers. Regular co-presence networks, which have widely been tested and discussed among (computational) literary scholars, will serve as a ground of comparison. I illustrate the merits and limitations of co-presence networks on both a single text analysis of Die Familie Schroffenstein and a larger corpus analysis of 587 German-language plays. Cursorily, I present the operationalization of co-references and knowledge transfers. The linguistic concept of co-reference means that two or more linguistic expressions refer to the same entities. A knowledge transfer, in my understanding, is a transmission of new information from at least one literary character to at least one other character. Manual annotations of co-reference chains and knowledge transfers serve as basis for the subsequent network creation. I compare these different manifestations of character interaction in terms of the resulting network visualizations as well as of various mathematical network metrics. The goal is to elicit how useful these two criteria are regarding drama analysis, e. g., the analysis of character properties, and to what extent they can complement, differentiate, or even replace the established co-presence networks. Co-presence, co-reference and knowledge networks reveal different aspects of the characters under consideration, picture different dramatic structures, and place different groups of characters at the center of the networks. Therefore, the three abstract textual representations seem to complement each other. In my article, I show that the extent to which the various criteria can be integrated into research questions of literary studies ought to be discussed on (at least) two levels. Firstly, it is necessary to ask how interesting, relevant, and informative a specific criterion is for one’s own research and whether it can relate to the terminology of literary studies. Secondly, it is important to consider how precise the respective criteria can be annotated manually and, subsequently, if and how reliable they can be annotated automatically.
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
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