Search

The aim of this poster is to provide an overview of the work carried out in the CLS INFRA project and its conclusions for the field of Computational Literary Studies.

We present a comparison of the results of the projects Novel Perceptions (2021-2023, United Kingdom) and The Riddle of Literary Quality (2012-2019, Netherlands), both combining a computational analysis of a corpus of 400 novels with the outcomes of a large survey in which readers shared their opinions about these novels.

Computational Literary Studies Infrastructure, funded by the Horizon2020 grant scheme, is a four-year, pan-European project that aims to unify the diverse landscape of computational text analysis, in terms of available texts, tools, methods, practices and so forth, within its growing international user community. The project started out in February 2021, meaning that it has been underway for just over a year. In our poster we discuss the various deliverables and activities that have come out of the CLS INFRA project in its first quarter to give an idea of its impact in practice.&nbsp

The aim of this poster is to provide an overview of the principal objectives of the newly started H2020 Computational Literary Studies (CLS) project- https://www.clsinfra.io. CLS is a infrastructure project works to develop and bring together resources of high-quality data, tools and knowledge to aid new approaches to studying literature in the digital age. Conducting computational literary studies has a number of challenges and opportunities from multilingual and bringing together distributing information. At present, the landscape of literary data is diverse and fragmented. Even though many resources are currently available in digital libraries, archives, repositories, websites or catalogues, a lack of standardisation hinders how they are constructed, accessed and the extent to which they are reusable (Ciotti 2014). CLS project aims to federate these resources, with the tools needed to interrogate them, and with a widened base of users, in the spirit of the FAIR and CARE principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016). The resulting improvements will benefit researchers by bridging gaps between greater- and lesser- resourced communities in computational literary studies and beyond, ultimately offering opportunities to create new research and insight into our shared and varied European cultural heritage. Rather than building entirely new resources for literary studies, the project is committed to exploiting and connecting the already-existing efforts and initiatives, in order to acknowledge and utilize the immense human labour that has already been undertaken. Therefore, the project builds on recently- compiled high-quality literary corpora, such as DraCor and ELTeC (Fischer et al. 2019, Burnard et al. 2021, Schöch et al. in press), integrates existing tools for text analysis, e.g. TXM, stylo, multilingual NLP pipelines (Heiden 2010, Eder et al. 2016), and takes advantage of deep integration with two other infrastructural projects, namely the CLARIN and DARIAH ERICs. Consequently, the project aims at building a coherent ecosystem to foster the technical and intellectual findability and accessibility of relevant data. The ecosystem consists of (1) resources, i.e. text collections for drama, poetry and prose in several languages, (2) tools, (3) methodological and theoretical considerations, (4) a network of CLS scholars based at different European institutions, (5) a system of short-term research stays for both early career researchers and seasoned scholars, (6) a repository for training materials, as well as (7) an efficient dissemination strategy. This is achieved through a collaboration between participating institutions: Institute of Polish Language at the Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland; University of Potsdam, Germany; Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria; National University of Distance Education, Spain; École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, France; Humboldt University of Berlin, German; Charles University, Czech Republic; Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities, France; Ghent Centre for Digital Humanities, Ghent University, Belgium; Belgrade Centre for Digital Humanities, Serbia; Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences), Netherlands; Trier Center for Digital Humanities, Trier University, Germany; Moore Institute, National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland; This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101004984. References Ciotti, Fabio. 2014. „Digital literary and cultural studies: the state of the art and perspectives“.Between4/8, 1-17.https://doi.org/10.13125/2039-6597/1392. Borgman, Christine. 2010. Scholarship in the Digital Age : Information, Infrastructure, andthe Internet. Cambridge, Mass & London: MIT Press. See https://www.dariah.euandhttps://www.clarin.eu. Burnard, Lou, Christof Schöch, and Carolin Odebrecht. 2021. „In search of comity: TEI fordistant reading“.Journal of the Text Encoding Initiative. https://doi.org/10.4000/jtei.3500. Eder, M., Rybicki, J. and Kestemont, M. 2016. Stylometry with R: a package forcomputational text analysis.R Journal, 8(1): 107-21.https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2016/RJ-2016-007/index.html Fischer, Frank, Ingo Börner, Matthias Göbel, Andrea Hechtl, Christopher Kittel, P. Miling, andPeer Trilcke. 2019. „Programmable Corpora: Introducing DraCor, an Infrastructure for theResearch on European Drama“. InBook of Abstractsof the Digital Humanities Conference2019. Utrecht: ADHO. Heiden, Serge. 2010. The TXM Platform: Building Open-Source Textual Analysis SoftwareCompatible with the TEI Encoding Scheme. In24th PacificAsia Conference on Language,Information and Computation(pp. 10 p.). Sendai, Japon.Retrieved fromhttp://halshs.archivesouvertes.fr/docs/00/54/97/64/PDF/paclic24_sheiden.pdf Schöch, Christof, Tomaz Erjavec, Roxana Patras, and Diana Santos (in press). „Creatingthe European Literary Text Collection (ELTeC): Challenges and Perspectives”.ModernLanguages Open. Wilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, MylesAxton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg. 2016. „The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific DataManagement and Stewardship“.Scientific Data 3(1).https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.

The aim of this poster is to provide an overview of the principal objectives of the newly started H2020 Computational Literary Studies (CLS) project- https://www.clsinfra.io. CLS is a infrastructure project works to develop and bring together resources of high-quality data, tools and knowledge to aid new approaches to studying literature in the digital age. Conducting computational literary studies has a number of challenges and opportunities from multilingual and bringing together distributing information. At present, the landscape of literary data is diverse and fragmented. Even though many resources are currently available in digital libraries, archives, repositories, websites or catalogues, a lack of standardisation hinders how they are constructed, accessed and the extent to which they are reusable (Ciotti 2014). CLS project aims to federate these resources, with the tools needed to interrogate them, and with a widened base of users, in the spirit of the FAIR and CARE principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016). The resulting improvements will benefit researchers by bridging gaps between greater- and lesser- resourced communities in computational literary studies and beyond, ultimately offering opportunities to create new research and insight into our shared and varied European cultural heritage. Rather than building entirely new resources for literary studies, the project is committed to exploiting and connecting the already-existing efforts and initiatives, in order to acknowledge and utilize the immense human labour that has already been undertaken. Therefore, the project builds on recently- compiled high-quality literary corpora, such as DraCor and ELTeC (Fischer et al. 2019, Burnard et al. 2021, Schöch et al. in press), integrates existing tools for text analysis, e.g. TXM, stylo, multilingual NLP pipelines (Heiden 2010, Eder et al. 2016), and takes advantage of deep integration with two other infrastructural projects, namely the CLARIN and DARIAH ERICs. Consequently, the project aims at building a coherent ecosystem to foster the technical and intellectual findability and accessibility of relevant data. The ecosystem consists of (1) resources, i.e. text collections for drama, poetry and prose in several languages, (2) tools, (3) methodological and theoretical considerations, (4) a network of CLS scholars based at different European institutions, (5) a system of short-term research stays for both early career researchers and seasoned scholars, (6) a repository for training materials, as well as (7) an efficient dissemination strategy. This is achieved through a collaboration between participating institutions: Institute of Polish Language at the Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland; University of Potsdam, Germany; Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria; National University of Distance Education, Spain; École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, France; Humboldt University of Berlin, German; Charles University, Czech Republic; Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities, France; Ghent Centre for Digital Humanities, Ghent University, Belgium; Belgrade Centre for Digital Humanities, Serbia; Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences), Netherlands; Trier Center for Digital Humanities, Trier University, Germany; Moore Institute, National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland

Computational Literary Studies Infrastructure, funded by the Horizon2020 grant scheme, is a four-year, pan-European project that aims to unify the diverse landscape of computational text analysis, in terms of available texts, tools, methods, practices and so forth, within its growing international user community. The project started out in February 2021, meaning that it has been underway for just over a year. In our poster we discuss the various deliverables and activities that have come out of the CLS INFRA project in its first quarter to give an idea of its impact in practice.

Language and literary studies have studied style for centuries, and even since the advent of ›stylistics‹ as a discipline at the beginning of the twentieth century, definitions of ›style‹ have varied heavily across time, space and fields. Today, with increasingly large collections of literary texts being made available in digital form, computational approaches to literary style are proliferating. New methods from disciplines such as corpus linguistics and computer science are being adopted and adapted in interrelated fields such as computational stylistics and corpus stylistics, and are facilitating new approaches to literary style.The relation between definitions of style in established linguistic or literary stylistics, and definitions of style in computational or corpus stylistics has not, however, been systematically assessed. This contribution aims to respond to the need to redefine style in the light of this new situation and to establish a clearer perception of both the overlap and the boundaries between ›mainstream‹ and ›computational‹ and/or ›empirical‹ literary stylistics. While stylistic studies of non-literary texts are currently flourishing, our contribution deliberately centers on those approaches relevant to ›literary stylistics‹. It concludes by proposing an operational definition of style that we hope can act as a common ground for diverse approaches to literary style, fostering transdisciplinary research.The focus of this contribution is on literary style in linguistics and literary studies (rather than in art history, musicology or fashion), on textual aspects of style (rather than production- or reception-oriented theories of style), and on a descriptive perspective (rather than a prescriptive or didactic one). Even within these limits, however, it appears necessary to build on a broad understanding of the various perspectives on style that have been adopted at different times and in different traditions. For this reason, the contribution first traces the development of the notion of style in three different traditions, those of German, Dutch and French language and literary studies. Despite the numerous links between each other, and between each of them to the British and American traditions, these three traditions each have their proper dynamics, especially with regard to the convergence and/or confrontation between mainstream and computational stylistics. For reasons of space and coherence, the contribution is limited to theoretical developments occurring since 1945.The contribution begins by briefly outlining the range of definitions of style that can be encountered across traditions today: style as revealing a higher-order aesthetic value, as the holistic ›gestalt‹ of single texts, as an expression of the individuality of an author, as an artifact presupposing choice among alternatives, as a deviation from a norm or reference, or as any formal property of a text. The contribution then traces the development of definitions of style in each of the three traditions mentioned, with the aim of giving a concise account of how, in each tradition, definitions of style have evolved over time, with special regard to the way such definitions relate to empirical, quantitative or otherwise computational approaches to style in literary texts. It will become apparent how, in each of the three traditions, foundational texts continue to influence current discussions on literary style, but also how stylistics has continuously reacted to broader developments in cultural and literary theory, and how empirical, quantitative or computational approaches have long ­existed, usually in parallel to or at the margins of mainstream stylistics. The review will also reflect the lines of discussion around style as a property of literary texts – or of any textual entity in general.The perspective on three stylistic traditions is accompanied by a more systematic perspective. The rationale is to work towards a common ground for literary scholars and linguists when talking about (literary) style, across traditions of stylistics, with respect for established definitions of style, but also in light of the digital paradigm. Here, we first show to what extent, at similar or different moments in time, the three traditions have developed comparable positions on style, and which definitions out of the range of possible definitions have been proposed or promoted by which authors in each of the three traditions.On the basis of this synthesis, we then conclude by proposing an operational definition of style that is an attempt to provide a common ground for both mainstream and computational literary stylistics. This definition is discussed in some detail in order to explain not only what is meant by each term in the definition, but also how it relates to computational analyses of style – and how this definition aims to avoid some of the pitfalls that can be perceived in earlier definitions of style. Our definition, we hope, will be put to use by a new generation of computational, quantitative, and empirical studies of style in literary texts.

Web 2.0 is characterized by values of openness of participation (unrestricted by traditional markers of expertise), collaboration across and beyond institutions, increased value of resources through distributed participation, dynamic content and context, and self-organization and scalability. These values seem to offer new possibilities for knowledge creation. They also contrast in important ways with traditional forms of knowledge creation, where expertise, institutional affiliation, and restrictions on access and circulation have been important. Yet, rather than seeing a dichotomy between Web 2.0 and non-Web 2.0 modes of working in digital humanities, the authors observe the rise of hybrid forms that combine elements of these two modes. In this chapter, the authors reflect on the reasons for such hybrids, specifically through an exploration of eLaborate. As a virtual research environment, eLaborate targets both professional scholars and volunteers working with textual resources. The environment offers tools to transcribe textual sources, to annotate these transcriptions, and to publish them as digital scholarly editions. The majority of content currently comprises texts from the cultural heritage of Dutch history and literary history, although eLaborate does not put limits on the kind of text or language. Nor does the system impose limits on the openness of contribution to any edition project. Levels of openness and access are solely determined by the groups of users working on specific texts or editions. This Web 2.0 technology-based software is now used by several groups of teachers and students, and by scholarly, educated, and interested volunteers. We conducted interviews with coordinators of and participants in different editorial groups, and we evaluate their experiences from the point of view of the described values of Web 2.0. We investigate changes in digital humanities resulting from intermediate forms between traditional academic practices and Web 2.0 modes. Rather than claim a revolution, we show how hybrid forms can actually be very powerful sites for change, through their inclusive rather than oppositional setup in relation to traditional practices.

Edited by Christof Schöch, Julia Dudar and Evgeniia Fileva. With contributions by Joanna Byszuk, Julia Dudar, Evegniia Fileva, Andressa Gomide, Lisanne van Rossum, Christof Schöch, Artjoms Šeļa and Karina van Dalen-Oskam. The aim of this publication is to document and describe current, widespread research practices in CLS, based on a large collection of publications that have been published in this field over the last approximately ten years. The perspective of this survey is primarily descriptive: it aims to document current, widespread practices as the authors were able to observe them in the published literature. In this sense, the survey can also serve as an annotated bibliography of sorts and as a guide to further reading. Despite the fact that this survey is not intended as an introductory textbook, it can nevertheless also serve as an introduction to several research areas or issues that are prominent within CLS as well as to several key methodological concerns that are of importance when performing research in CLS.

Edited by Christof Schöch, Julia Dudar and Evgeniia Fileva. With contributions by Joanna Byszuk, Julia Dudar, Evegniia Fileva, Andressa Gomide, Lisanne van Rossum, Christof Schöch, Artjoms Šeļa and Karina van Dalen-Oskam. The aim of this publication is to document and describe current, widespread research practices in CLS, based on a large collection of publications that have been published in this field over the last approximately ten years. The perspective of this survey is primarily descriptive: it aims to document current, widespread practices as the authors were able to observe them in the published literature. In this sense, the survey can also serve as an annotated bibliography of sorts and as a guide to further reading. Despite the fact that this survey is not intended as an introductory textbook, it can nevertheless also serve as an introduction to several research areas or issues that are prominent within CLS as well as to several key methodological concerns that are of importance when performing research in CLS.

SSHOC-NL is a collaboration between the social sciences and humanities that is cutting edge and unparalleled internationally. It will make it possible for researchers to securely and ethically link and analyse a huge range of data such as historical records, text data, images, survey data, and social media data. This will help them address some of the most pressing issues that society faces such as polarisation, social inequalities, and our changing environment. These issues are complex and require lots of different perspectives to be brought together in order to find solutions. SSHOC-NL builds the infrastructure for researchers to do that. This document is the grant proposal submitted to NWOLarge-Scale Research Infrastructure: National Roadmap consortia 2021.

This thesis combines methods from sociology of literature and natural language processing to answer the questions: what is the relationship between author gender and the perceived literary quality of her work? And to what extent can textual qualities be ascribed to author gender? I first assess Dutch female authors’ chances of gaining literary prestige. Even though female authors publish many literary works, they still have a harder time climbing the literary ladder. Results of the 2013 National Reader Survey mirror this skewness. Respondents were asked to supply ratings of literary quality, on a list of 401 recent, bestselling Dutch-language novels in several genres (the Riddle of Literary Quality corpus). Even within genre works by female authors’ are judged to be of lesser quality, and ‘feminine’ novels are seen as the worst; formulaic detectives score better. Female author gender is not a conscious motivation, but analysis of respondents’ motivations shows that instead, the text is associated with ‘femaleness’ – through genre, topics or style. Such associations lead to perception of lower literary quality. I then analyze the text of the novels themselves to examine to which extent such femaleness of text exists. First, computational analysis of the Riddle corpus indicates that author gender is too easily assumed to be the cause of text differences. Moreover, additional visualizations show that gender group differences are often caused by outliers. In the final chapters, I focus on a ‘feminine’ topic, attention to characters’ physical appearance. I show that it is not exclusive to the genre of chick-lit, nor to female authors. In fact, male literary authors write most about physical appearance, in describing female love interests. This novel approach shows that female author gender is connected to the text differently than expected. By reading differently, literary quality can be judged separate from female author gender.