I feel that Burrows’ idea of computational stylistics is an interesting one. I especially like his analogy:
But the real value of studying the common words rests on the fact that they constitute the underlying fabric of a text, a barely visible web that gives shape to whatever is being said.
I also agree with the idea that both computational text analysis and traditional forms of text analysis both have their place. In fact, to me it’s quite clear that there is enough room within the humanities for both to thrive… I wonder if it is as clear in other areas of the humanities.
However, if Burrows’ paper is a representative example, I can understand why computational techniques have not exactly taken off with gusto. His paper, with the large and distracting tables, appears at first glance as if it belongs in a science journal rather than a journal of the humanities. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing; however, once you start reading the paper, you find that it is actually a paper from the humanities. The language is quite complex and the dialogue itself is extended and flowing.
To sum up how I feel about this paper: it takes the worst part of scientific papers (really really long sets of tabular data in the body of the text) and the worst part of papers from the humanities (really really complicated language where simple language would have done) and puts it in one. If this is what the cooperation of computational text analysis and traditional literary analysis will yield, I am scared.
In all seriousness however, I am looking forward to discussing the paper in class because I feel that there is a lot of good information in the paper… I just can’t get at it.
Filed under: Uncategorized
