Beyondtheword:modellingliterarycontext

WillardMcCarty ProfessorofHumanitiesComputing KingsCollegeLondon

Ofcourse,methodicalexpositionalwayscomeslate.Infact,itmarksa decadentperiodofthought.Thatisthereasonwhythegreatsystem makerscannotwritetheirbooksuntilagehasdiminishedthefecundity oftheirthought. C.S.Peirce,LowellLecturesontheHistoryofScience (1958/1903)

1. Introduction Movingbeyondthewordtowardanalysisofcontexthasfromtheoutset preoccupiedthosewhowouldusecomputingtostudyliterature.Ithas preoccupiedmeforthelastmanyyears.Ihavelearnedbyexperiencethatthe toolswehaveareunfitfortheliteraryscholarsjob.Butthemoreimportant lessonIvelearnedisthatalthoughbettertoolsarepossible,thehumanists perspectiveontoolsproblematizesthem.Thatisultimatelythepointoftool developmentinhumanitiescomputing,justasproblematizingourmethods andobjectsofstudyisultimatelythepointofapplyingthetoolswedohave. Bothproblemmakingactsarelessimmediatewhenthepurposeistoreport (asinepigraphy)ratherthantointerpret(asinliterarycriticism),butinthe longrunourjobisnottosolveorfixbuttoquestion.Ourworkintext analysisamountstoquestioning.Itsfrontieriscontext. GraemeHirsthasarguedthatcontextisaspuriousconcept(2000).Givenhis perspectiveasacomputerscientist,Ithinkheisright.Literallytheresnothing theretocompute,ortoreckonbyanyothermeans.TheliterarycriticJonathan Cullerwouldseemtoagree:appealtocontextexplainsnothing,hedeclares, becausecontextismerelymoretext(1988:93f).BenAmiScharfstein,a philosopher,declaresthattheproblemofcontextistoodifficultfor philosophersoranyoneelsetosolve(1989:4).Itswellknown unboundedness,hepointsout,leadstoextremerelativismandsotoparalysis or,asIexperienceit,claustrophobia.Asifthosedistinguishednaysayers werenotsufficient,thegreatmajorityofwritersonthesubjectweighinwith argumentsthatgoveryheavilynowhere,oratleastnowhereusefultothe studentandmodellerofpoetry.

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/2

Sincewecannotseemtodowithouttheidea,however,weareleftwiththe naggingquestionofhowthetextualenvironmentselectsformeaningabove andbeyondcontiguityandsyntax.Computinggivesusmeansofpurchaseon whatthereistograb:thatweknow,andthatswhereweare.Buthaving grabbedwhatwecan,contextremains,residualbutvastindeed,aslargeas allliterature. CurrentlyIworrytheproblembyattemptingtoexplainasingleliterarytrope, personification,foroccurrencesofwhichonebeginsbyidentifyingnearby words(seePaxson1994).Evencontextinhighlyrestrictedsenseisnota simplematter,sincethesewordsnotonlyaffecteachotheraswellastheir targetnoun,theyalsodosoeachtoadegreeforwhichwehavenoreliable measurebecausetheirdegreeofpersonifyingforceisamatterofcontextin thebroaderandfarmoretroublesomesense.Atbesttheirconnectiontothe textuallocusinquestionisinferential.Thedigitallyenabledscholarcan,aswe allknow,tagwhateverheorshepleases,butifliterarycriticalencodingis carriedoutonatextofanygreatsize,theresultantmassofindividualtagsis ineffectintractable.Forinterpretativepurposesanythingindigitalformthat isnotreadilymanipulableisworsethanpointless.Itisawasteofeveryones time,theencodersespecially. ThecriticalstyleemergentinthestrongviewsIamutteringfollowsfroma remarkNorthropFryemadein1989,thatwerehetowriteAnatomyof Criticismagain,computermodellingwouldgethisattention(1991:6).Inwhat followsIwilldrawonmyanalysisofpersonificationtoworkinsmalltoward whatFryewassuggestingmightbedoneforallliterature.Iwillsuggesthow wecaninchtowardafurtherpurchaseoncontextbydevelopingastable collectionoftheoreticalentitieslargerthanthewordthoughnotquiteso comprehensiveasliteraryarchetypes.Iwillhintatamoreradicaland fundamentalmovethatforwantoftherightwordsmustremainfornowin theshadows. In1989Fryeexpressedapreferenceformodellingoverthequalityofscience towhichhehadappealed30yearsbeforeintheAnatomy,because,hesaid,the formercamemuchclosertowhathehadinmind.Butitsworththinking aboutbothFryesreachingstowardabetterfutureforcriticism.Itseemsto methatratherthanalternatives,theyhavethepotentialforintimaterelation withinthehumanities.HereIwillonlysuggestwhatsucharelationmightbe. Beforeturningtomyownwork,toexemplifyhowthesepossibilitiesmightbe realized,Iproposetoreviewthemainkindsoftextanalysisandtosuggest theiroriginsinpriorhabitsofmind.Iwantinparticulartodrawattentionto thetraditionsofenquirythatourtoolsserve,forbetterandforworse.Idothis inordertoexplainmysuccessiveabandonmentsoftoolsandtoprovidea

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/3

meansoflookingbeyondtotheproblematicoftools. 2. Tools,datamodelsandstylesofreasoning Themoststraightforwardapplicationofcomputingtothestudyoflanguage takesplacenowadaysincorpuslinguistics.Itsessentialconcernsareaptly namedinthetitleofJohnSinclairselegantlittlebook,Corpus,Concordance, Collocation(1991).Onecangetasurprisingdistancebyfollowingthatpathof threestepsbecauselanguage,especiallyEnglish,cooperateswithwhat commonlyavailablesoftwarehasbeenabletodofordecades.InJ.R.Firths happyformulation,theunderlyingprincipleisthatYoushallknowaword bythecompanyitkeeps!(1957:11).Marshallingandenumeratingthis company,concordancesoftwarehasalreadyhelpedustoinchforwardby resolvingcontextpartiallyintoparticularwords,theirpatternsofcollation andatheoreticalentitycalledspan,withinwhichcollocationisprobable. Twothingsaretrueaboutthissituation:toparaphraseJacobBronowski,we arethusabletopushbacktheboundariesofthelawandenlargeitsdominion (1978:5860);toquoteJeromeMcGann,whatremainsbeyondthelawisthe hemofaquantumgarment(2004:201). Literaryscholarsarelesswellservedbyconcordancesoftwarethanlinguists becauseliteratureaddstothelinguistsratheramorphousideaofrunning textacomplexhostofstructuralrelationswithinandamongindividual texts.Theanalyticpurposesoftheliteraryscholargobeyondtheancientlegal principleofnoscituresociiswhichFirthisinvoking,andsowellbeyondthe capabilitiesofconcordancesoftwareaswenowknowit.Sincetheinvention ofkeywordincontextconcordancinginthelate1950s,textanalysishasbeen powerfullyshapedbythevisualideacommunicatedinitslayout.Priortoits dominance,literaryscholarshadbeenfollowingtheleadofbiblicalscholars, whosincetheinventionoftheconcordanceinthe13thCenturyhadbeen makingtoolstoassembleconcordantpassagesoftheBibleassupportfor interpretation(McCarty1993:513).Althoughtheintellectualhistoryofthe concordancehasyettobewritten,itseemslikelythatthemedievalinventors werethinkingtypologically,accordingtotheChristianexegeticalmethodthat derivesthemeaningofthebiblicaltextbyshowing,asStAugustinesaid,that intheOld[Testament]theNewisconcealed,andintheNewtheOldis revealed(Quaest.inHepteuch.2.73).Augustine,heresummarizingthe explicitpracticeofseveralNewTestamentauthors,arguesforkeepingthe HebrewScripturesinthebiblicalcanon.ThoseScripturesindependently demonstratethesamestructuralprincipleandwerelikelyitsorigin. Mypointisthatwhatconcordancesoftwareimplementsisawayoflookingat textthatrunsfrommodernliterarycriticismbackthroughcenturiesofbiblical exegesistothefoundingtextsofEuropeanculture.Wecanhardlythinkin

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/4

anyotherwayabouthowtoreadandwriteliterature.KWICwasagreat invention,butinasenseitdivertedliteraryandliterarylikeanalysistoward linguisticmatters.Theolderconcordanceslistedoccurrencesbysyntactic unitsandsodirectedtheusertowardreadingfortextualmeaning.KWIC centresattentiononthewordirrespectiveofsyntax,andsodirectsusersaway fromreaderlyengagementtothetargetwordwithitscollocatesandstrands themthere,asbothStfanSinclairandJuliaFlandershaveseparatelynoted (2003:180;2005:54).Hencetheliteraryscholarisapttofeelthatwiththese niftyKWICtoolsonequicklyreachesanimpasse. Thesecondmajortooloftextanalysisisstatistics,whichgoesaftersubliminal constituentsofmeaninghiddeninpatternsofwordusage.WilliamJames, writingasapsychologist,hasperhapssaiditbest:
Thereisnotaconjunctionorpreposition,andhardlyanadverbialphrase,syntactic form,orinflectionofvoice,inhumanspeech,thatdoesnotexpresssomeshadingor otherofrelationwhichweatsomemomentactuallyfeeltoexistbetweenthelarger objectsofourthought.Ifwespeakobjectively,itistherealrelationsthatappear revealed;ifwespeaksubjectively,itisthestreamofconsciousnessthatmatcheseachof thembyaninwardcolouringofitsown.Weoughttosayafeelingofand,afeeling ofif,afeelingofbut,andafeelingofby,quiteasreadilyaswesayafeelingofblueora feelingofcold.(1981/1890:I.238)

FormanyyearsscholarssuchasJohnBurrows,DavidHooverandothers havebeendemonstratingsuchsubtlepatterns.Thereachoftheiranalysesis steadilygrowing.Despitetheuseoftoolsunfamiliartomostliteraryscholars, onceagaintheunderlyingstyleofreasoningisnotintheleastforeign. AristotleobservesintheNicomacheanEthicsthatsomewaysofknowingare inherentlystochastic,thatis,theyproceednotbypredictionfromlawsbutby guesswork,basedonwhatseemsfromexperiencemostlikely.HistorianCarlo Ginzburgarguesthatthehumanitiesarenotonlylikethatbutowetheirbasic wayofworkingtothestochastictraditionpreservedinGalenicmedicine, whichinturnmaybetracedbacktotheprimaevalhuntersabilitytofindand readclues(1989/1986).Again,weareinflectingaveryoldwayofreasoning. Statisticsisatrootanythingbutforeign.Itspromise,tofindintheactual wordsastochasticbasisforourcloudyimpressions,isgreat,anditssuccesses todateimpressive.Neverthelessthelearningcurveisquitesteep,anditisnot atallclearhowproblemsofthekindmanyofusworryaboutcaneverbe tackled.Asaresultfewlabourinthispartofthefield,andthatisgreatlytobe lamented. Thechallengesherearefirstofallincommunication.Scholarsfrombothsides needtoflattenthelearningcurvebybridgingliterarycriticalandstatistical

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/5

training.1Muchmoreattentionneedstobepaidtothestatisticalanalysisof languagethathasbecomecentraltocomputationallinguisticsinrecentyears. Themajordisciplinaryandcommunicativeproblemblockingcollaborative interchangeisthepoorappreciation,onbothsides,oftheverydifferent trajectoriesalongwhichhumanitiescomputingandcomputerscienceproceed (McCarty2005:15898). Thethirdmajorkindoftextanalysisisthebestknownandmostwidelyused: metatextualencoding.Ithashadgreatsuccessbecauseitdealswithtextual structureswecanrecognizebutalgorithmscannot,noworperhapsever.It cangenerouslyaccommodatetheideathatnontextualentityXexists somehowintextuallocationY.Onceagain,thisisatechnologywithavery oldbasisinhumanhabitandability:togaincontrolovertheworldby categorizingitsparts.Thepowerofthisstyleofreasoningwasexemplified longbeforecomputing,forexampleinthestructuringoflibraries,insystems oflearningandinnumerousontologicalschemes.Becausecategorizationis (shallwesay?)acognitiveprimitive,metatextualencodingisunsurprisingly bothpowerfulandfamiliar.Researchinthehumanitiesfundamentally involvessystematiccategorization,andsoimplementingitisanaturalfor softwaredevelopment.Buthoweverbigmuscledtextencodinghasgrown, theencodingmovementhasnotdevelopedtoolsthatallowfastmanipulation oftagsenmasseinwayscentraltointerpretation,nor(Iamtold)doweknow howtodesignsuchtoolshencetheproblemIidentifiedearlier.Itsgenius continuestostickclosetodocumententitiesthatarestableandnotmuchin dispute.Asaresultitservesprimarilyareportingfunction.Itisnot particularlysuitabletothosewholeapoffintothewildsofheavilyinteractive interpretation,likeme. Thefourthmajorkindoftextanalysisisrelationaldatabasedesign,whichis alsobasedoncategorizationbutimplementscategoriesintermsoftheir relationsandrulesgoverningwhatmaybedonewiththem.2Itresolvesan artifactofstudyintooneormoreentities,eachofwhichsharesanidenticalset ofdiscreteattributes.Byproperdesignmultiplelevelsofcomplexityand multipleperspectivesontheartefactcanberepresented.Strictlogical principlesapply,butforpurposesheretheimportantmatteristhetradeoff betweenthesevereconstraintstheseprinciplesimpose,andtheenormous manipulatorypowertheyconfer.Unlikebothconcordancingandstatistical analysis,powerisovercategoriesratherthanoverwords.Unlikemetatextual encoding,themanipulatorytoolsaretohand.
Amongotherthings,SirAnthonyKennysmasterfullittlebook,TheComputationofStyle (1982),shouldbebroughtbackintoprint. 2Fortheprinciplesofrelationaldatabasedesign,seeCodd1970(thefirstwidelycirculated paperbyitsinventor)and1980;Date2003.
1

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/6

Theabilitytomanipulatecategoriesimpliesthepossibilityofmodelling towardtheirstabilityoversignificantamountsofdata.Inliterarytermsthis meansthepossibilityofresolvingsomeofthecontextualpenumbraintoa stablecollectionoftheoreticalentities.Oncewehavethese,afurther possibilityisintriguinglysuggestedbytheCanadianphilosopherIan Hackingssubtleargumentforthenaturalsciences:thatwhenonehaslearned howtomanipulateatheoreticalentityinordertocomeupwithnewones, thatentityhasbecomereal(Hacking1983:235,26275).Howapplicableisthis argumentfortheentitieswithwhichliterarycriticismdeals?Theprogressive pathseemstomeunobjectionable.Thequestionforliterature,Iwould suppose,isrealinwhatsense?Tobearealistwithrespecttoinkandpaper, orpixelandscreen,isonething;tobearealistwithrespecttoatextisquite another,andmoresothemorethattextscontextisfiguredin. Unfortunatelythemanipulatorypowerofrelationaldesigncomesatagreat cost.MoresothanKWICconcordancing,itstrandstheuserfarfromthetext whosedataitorganizes.SoImustconcludemybriefsurveyoftextanalytic toolsbyreturningtotheproblematicwithwhichIbegan.Theplaintruthis,as ManfredThallerisinclinedtosay,thatthedatamodel3moregenerously, thewayofworkingwithcomputersforwhichanalysisofliterarytextcalls hasnotyetbeeninvented. 3. Imaginativelanguage Buttowhatend?Whatdoesthisanalysisseektodo?Therearemany answers.Letmegiveyouonethatmakesthemostsenseformyresearch,to whichIwillthenproceed. Wefrequentlylamentthattextanalysishashadlittleinfluenceon scholarship.OnefaultmaybeattributedtowhatJonathanCullerhascalled justtheory.4YearsagoLeonardForsterarguedthattheorizingisoneamong severalwaysoffleeingfromthechallenginggivensofliteratureintothe safetyofcomfortableabstractionfromthedatainitsetymologicalsenseto theorizingincreasinglyremotefromthetext.Computingyanksusbacktothe data,butwhatthen?Asthecriticsofnavecorpuslinguisticssay,withsome
AccordingtoC.J.Date(2003:6),E.F.Coddinventedthetermdatamodel,towhichhe assignsthreecomponents:structuraltypes,inferencingrulesanddefinitionsofwhatstates thesestructuraltypesmayassume(Codd1980).Heisusinganidealized,mathematical idiom;Iamusinghisterminalooser,descriptivesense,withoutworryingaboutruleswedo notyetknowhowtowriteoreveniftheyarepossible.Forhumanitiescomputing,thepoint isheuristicmodellingbymeansofrulesthatremainprovisional. 4ForanexcellentdiscussionoftherelationshipbetweentheoryandtextanalysisseeHoover 2007.
3

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/7

justice,thedataarenotenough.Languageissomethingmore,andliteratureis morethanlanguage. Indiscussingthecognitivedynamicsofnarrative,thepsychologistJerome Brunerpointsoutthatinreadingasinlifeweenterakindofpowersaving modewhensomethingbecomesfamiliar(1991:4).HereferstotheRussian Formalists,suchasVictorShklovskyandRomanJakobson,whohavetaught usthatsuchlanguagewakesusupfromthetorporoffamiliaritybyostranenie ordefamiliarization.Shklovskyarguedin1917thatasperceptionbecomes habitual,itbecomesautomatic;weforgettheessenceofwhatweareseeing, Andsolifeisreckonedasnothing(1965/1917:11ff). In1917,inRussia,thiswasrevolutionary,butitisatleastasoldasGilgamesh. Lookthere!,thegodUtanapishtimtheFarawaysaystohiswife,declaring theherosfailuretopasshumankindsultimatetest,theyouthwhowanted (eternal)life!Sleep,likeafog,blewoverhim.(TabletXI).Poetryisconstantly preparingustofacethattest,constantlytheretowakeusup.AsJakobson insisted,itdisautomatesconsciousnessbymarkingwhenattentionmustbe paidtosomeparticularthing,whenanewperspectiveontheworldheaven inawildflower,ifyouwillawaitsanawakening(Bruner1983;Jakobson 1987). Butwhatdoesostraneniehavetodowithtextanalysis?Letmejoinupthe pieces. InActualMinds,PossibleWorldsBrunerarguesthattherearetwomodesof cognitivefunctioning,eachirreducibletotheother,eachproviding distinctivewaysoforderingexperience,ofconstructingreality:logiconthe onehand,narrativeontheother(1986:1143).Weencounterthesecognitive modesintheopposedactivitiesofcomputingandreading,whichtogether constitutetextanalysis.AsBrunergoesontoargue,eachofthesemodesalso hasitswaysandmeansofawakening,eachitsformofimaginingsomething notyetseen.ThuswhenHenriPoincarspeaksofthemathematical imagination,bywhichthemathematiciansuddenlyapprehends unsuspectedrelationsbetweenfacts,longsinceknown,butwrongly believedtobeunrelatedtoeachother(1996/1914:51;cf.Bruner1979/1962: 1730),whatmattersistheequationtowhichtheindividualfactsuniquely pointtothesingularabstracttruththatbeautifullysubsumesthem.In contrast,whenapoetictextmarksamomentofawakening,itmultiplies realitybyrevealingalternativesintheconcreteandindividualmoment.As Brunersayselsewhere,theobjectofunderstandinghumaneventsistosense thealternativenessofhumanpossibility(Bruner1986:53).But,more importantlyforus,eachofBrunerscognitivemodesusestheotherasitsfoilinthe awakeningitbringsabout.Notonlyistherenounderstandingtheonewithout

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/8

theother,butwhen,asintextanalysis,thetwocometogether,itisinthe playingoffoftheoneagainsttheotherthattheintellectualpowerofthetool lies.Bythisargument,fromtheliterarycriticalperspective,theanalytical pointofcomputingistoarriveatenduringformalismstoarriveattriviality anddullness,ifyouwillasquicklyandefficientlyaspossible. 4. Ovidsdefamiliarization Letbenowturntomyownresearchtoillustrate.Likeallgoodliterarycritics, Ibeginwithatext. ThisistheMetamorphosesoftheRomanpoetPubliusOvidiusNaso,whomwe callOvid.Itcomprisesalmost12,000linesofLatinhexameterin15books, writteninAugustanRomearoundtheturnoftheera.Itdescribesthemytho historyoftheworldfromcreationtotheapotheosisofJuliusCaesar,ina notoriouslyloosestructuresomewhatlikethatoftheBible.Withinthis mythohistoryitincludes,refersandalludestoavast,opennetworkofstories interconnectedinhighlycomplexways.TocombinetheimageryofRoland BarthesandofJorgeLuisBorges,thisnetworkwithathousandentrances, andathousandthousandpathswithinit,exhibitsitsauthorsdeclared intention:innovomutatasdicereformas/corpora,totalkaboutforms changedintonewbodies.Butaswequicklydiscover,thepastparticipial mutatas(changed)ofOvidsmythohistoryturnsintothereaderspresent participialexperienceofrelentlesschanging.Furthermore,therearestrong reasonstothinkthattheMetamorphosesisnotjustapoeticobjectbuthereis acrucialpointtowhichIwillreturnthatitisalsoanagentofself propagation,affectingsubsequentliteraturenotsomuchasaworktoimitate butrather,likelifeitself,asanopenended,selfreplicatingprocess.Although theMetamorphosesnearlyvanishedfromviewforalmosttwocenturies,within thelasthalfcenturyithasresurfacedtobecomeonceagainapowerfuland influentialmirrorofourchangingnatures,asMarinaWarner(amongothers) hasshown.WeareonceagainOvidian. IhavebeenworkingontheMetamorphoseswithsoftwaresincethemidtolate 1980s.Thefirstphaseofthisworkusedtextencodingtorecordalllinguistic devicesreferringinanywaytopersonsandplaces,withtheideathat manipulatingthesewouldprovideawayofcommandingthelargestbodyof evidenceforthepoemselusivestructure.Theresultwasahypertextualwork comprisingabout60,000tagsandsoftwareforgeneratingitsinterlinkedWeb pages.IabandoneditonceIrealisedthatencodingonsuchascalehad,for reasonsIhavegiven,inevitablyledtoaneffectivelyunchangeableand thereforeunfitinstrumentforstudyingOvidsperpetuallyshiftingworld. Hencemystrongopinionsonthematter.

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/9

WithmanipulationinmindImovedfromencodingtotheonlyother possibilityamongcurrentlyavailabletechniques,i.e.relationaldatabase design.Foratimethehighlyeffectivetoolsfortextualcategorization,and especiallyforrapidmanipulationofcategories,seemedtomefair compensationforhavingtonavigatebetweenrelationaltablesandliterary text,forbeingstrandedveryfarfromthetext.Thattimehasnowpassed,but allowmetodwellinitforawhilesothatIcanexplainwhatityielded. Certainlyoneyieldwastherealizationthatweneedadifferentdatamodel forliterarycriticalwork. HavingdecidedthatthewholeoftheMetamorphosesiscurrentlytoomuchto handle,Inarrowedmyscopetoroughly500instancesofpersonificationinthe poem,wherethepoet,functioningmetaphoricallylikeOrpheus,turnsa normallysubhumanentityintoahumanorhumanlikebeing.Personification isafitsubjectforresearchinhumanitiescomputingbecauseitisboth sufficientlytractableasdataandelusiveenoughtoholdoutpromiseofgreat intellectualreward.Itsaboutashardaproblemtohandleaswemay progress. Usuallythetermpersonificationisappliedtopoeticcharacters,especially abstractionssuchasenvy,jealousyorlust,thatnotonlyappearinthetextbut alsoengagewithothercharacters.Theyarenotsimplynoticeablebutareasa ruleemphatic,stageypresenceswhoaffectthenarrativedirectly.Thefirst workinEuropeanliteraturetoemploythemprominentlywasthe Psychomachia,orsoulbattle,ofAureliusPrudentiusClemens,inthelate4th orearly5thCentury.ThispoemdepictstheChristianvirtuesandvicesin bloodybattleforthesoulofman,employingpersonificationtoteachdoctrine. LiketheMetamorphosesitwashugelyinfluential. UnliketheMetamorphoses,however,itisanythingbutsubtle.Theemphatic natureofthepersonificationcharactersuitsPrudentiusdidacticaim perfectly.Ovidsverydifferentaimtodestabilizeourwidelyshared assumptionofwhatisrequiresstealthbeneaththesurfaceaswellasaction aboveit.Ovidusespersonificationcharacters,suchasInuidia(Envy)or Fortuna(Luck),fromtimetotime,butthedominantformofpersonificationin theMetamorphosesisofanothersort.Thisisthepersonificationfigure, whichisshortlived,hardlynoticeable,numerousandoftenmerely anthropocentricratherthananthropomorphic.Itiscreatedquietly,by attributingoneormoreontologicallyunusualqualitiestoasubhumanentity. Thisquietdisturbancemovesitclosertothehumanstate.If,forexample,a poetwritesthewindsighs,apersonificationfigurecomesintobeingin thiscase,withnobodyparts,nospeech,nocognitionjustasigh.

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/10

Actuallythatisnotquiteright,buttoseewhyrequiressomeadditional background. ThankstoacrucialobservationmadebythemedievalistMortonBloomfield in1963,wecannowtalkaboutpersonificationasmadeinlanguagebythe actionofcontextualwordsandotherfactorsoneachother,andwecansee thatthiscanhappenatsuchaminutescaleastobemomentary,barelythere atall.Thusourplotlessutterance,thewindsighs,suggeststhatsomethingis upbyattributingahumanactiontoanonhumanthing,andthenwhateverit wasisgone,havingdoneitsworkonthereadersmind.Buttodrawoutthe factandimplicationsofsuchbriefutterances,todothisinacogent,defensible way,conjuresupabewilderinglycomplexsetofproblems.Thecriticmustbe abletodemonstrate,forexample,thathowevermuchpersonifyingforceone attributestothewindsighs,onemustdothesamewhereverinthepoem thatverbiscoupledwiththatkindofthing.Onemusthavereasonstohand foreachcriticaljudgement.Shouldthispoeticwindbediscoveredtohave additionalpersonifyingattributes(suchasavoiceoremotion),thesemust alsobetakenintoaccountwiththesamerigourofconsistency.Perhapsthe resultantcomplexityofaccountingiswhy,inatimewhencomputingwasnot easytosummon,nothingmuchcameofBloomfieldssuggestion.Nowthat computingistohand,wecandevelopit. Oneoftheimplicationsofconstruingpersonificationassomethingmadein languagebythetotaleffectofdiscreteentitiesisthatitcannotpossiblybea binaryphenomenon.Whatissuggested,rather,isitsrefractionintoan ontologicalspectrumthatrangesfromtheabstractandtheinerttothefully human.Thequestionisnotwhethersomethingisapersonificationfigure, ratherthedegreetowhichitis. Considerwhatcouldbedonewithcodextechnology.Earlymedieval manuscriptsofthePsychomachia,forexample,brilliantlydemonstratehow personificationcharacterscouldbebroughtcompellinglyalivebygivingthem visualform.Butpersonificationfiguresareanothermatter.Denotingthem explicitlyhadtowaitforcapitalizationtodevelop,manycenturiesafterthe Metamorphoseswaswritten.Theproblemis,however,thatcapitalizationis crudelybinary.Isuspectthatwetendtothinkofpersonificationasbinary, andsotolosesightofthesubliminalinstances,preciselybecauseofa typographicconvention.Computingoffersusotherformsofrepresentation (suchasgraphics)thatcanbeusedtoreturnustotheanalogue indeterminatenessofOvidstext. SofarIhaveviewedthepersonificationfigureinisolationandmayseemto haveimpliedthatthevariousphilosophical,historical,linguisticandliterary contextsinwhichanypoetictextisembeddedcanbeignored.Butitwill

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/11

likelybeobviousthatwecannotignorethesecontexts,evenifwecannotsay whatcontextis.Whetherapersonification,tothedegreethatitisone,figures inanygiveninterpretationofitscontextisnotagivenbutistobedetermined byinterpretation.Letussaythatinaparticularlanguage,foraparticularkind ofreading,wejudgetheattributionofsighingtothewindtobeabog standardfeatureoflanguagemetaphoricaltobesure,butdormant.Ifso, thenthereisanargumentforattenuatingitseffectwithinthepoem.Butthis argumentmustfacechallengesatminimumfromwhateverpoetictheory oneadopts,theassumptionsmadeabouttheaudienceonechoosesto considerandhowoneinterpretsthepoetsintention.Again,considercodex technology.Evenifitwerepracticaltodotheworkthatthepersonification figurerequires,wewouldstillhavetodecidewhattoprint,andsowhich theoreticalperspectivetofix.Asyouknow,computingoffersusthe possibilityofsettingparameters,andsorepresentinganytheoretical perspectivewecandescribecomputationally.Butthatisonlythebeginning. 5. Modellingintheory UndergirdingthecontrastIhavebeenmakingbetweenthecodexbookand computingisanargumentIhavemadeelsewhereatlength(2005:2072):that thecentralfunctionofcomputingforscholarlyanalysisisnotbuildingdigital replicasofbooks,orwhatIcallknowledgejukeboxes,butmodelling.Thisis whatFryepointedusalmost20yearsago. Iusethegerundemphaticallyratherthanthenounmodeltodistinguish processfromproduct:ontheonehand,theprogressivecycleofconstructing, manipulatingandreconstructingadigitalrepresentation;ontheother,any givenstateofthatrepresentation.ItisclearfromMr.Turingsscheme (howeverinadequateitmaynowbe)notonlythattherearemanycomputings butalsothateachoneofthemisinacrucialsenseonlyatemporary expressionofwhateverhumanpurposemotivateditsdesign.Themore sophisticated,themoreculturalthispurpose,themoretemporary.Because theculturalartefactsatwhichwedirectcomputingaretranscendent,there canbenofinal,exhaustivemodelsofthem. Nothingnewhereexceptthespeedatwhichthemodellingshappen,the volumeofdataonwhichtheyoperateandtherigourimposedbydigital representation.Becausewearemortal,timeiscrucialmoreprofoundlythan wetendtorealize.Wethinkdifferentlywhenmorecomesmorequicklyinto view.Andbecauseoftherigourimposedbydigitalrepresentation,andthe transcendenceofculturalexpressions,agapseparates,andwillalways separate,modellingfromthemodelled.ToparaphraseJeromeMcGannagain, themainpointforushumanistsisnottotryclosingthatgapbuttofeedoff anddevelopit(2001:103).Forusitisacornucopia.

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/12

6. Modellinginpractice Myattempttomodelpersonificationwithrelationaldatabasesoftware followedthesesteps: 1. FirstIclassifiedeachnamedentityofinterestaccordingkind(allbirds ofwhatevervarietyasbirds&c),thenaccordingtoarelativelysimple ontologicalscheme.Thedetailsofthisschemeareunimportant.What mattersistohavesomewayofexpressingordinaryexpectations,e.g. thatarockisnormallyvisible,inanimateandunmovingbutthatwind isinvisible,inanimateandalwaysmoving.Inotherwords,becausewe sayanentityispersonifiedwhensomebehaviourorqualityunusual foritskindisattributedtoit,wemustknowwhatusualmeans. Unfamiliarityrequiresfamiliarity. 2. Ianalyzedeachlocusofpersonificationaccordingtoidentifiableagents withinthecontext,thatis,allgrammaticallyrelatedwords;nearby attributesofthenamedentity;andanyrelevantfeaturesofthebroader context,whethertheseareexpressedexplicitlyornot. 3. Iassignedtoeverypersonifyingagentasetofnumericalweights accordingtomyontologicalscheme.Theseweightswereautomatically appliedwithabsoluteconsistencytoeverycombinationofagiven agenttoanentityofagivenkind.Forexample,theverbsighwould carrytheidenticalweightforallvisibleentitiesthatareinmotionbut notanimate.Assignmentisatfirstbyeducatedguesswork. 4. Iranasetofdatabasequeriesthatsummedtheweightsforeach personificationandexportedthetotalstospreadsheetsoftware.From theseachartwasgenerated.Icomparedeachpersonification representedonthecharttomyreadingofthepoem.Iftheoriginal guessworkwaswrong,theerrortendedtoshowupasinconsistentor anomalousbehaviourswherethegivenagentoccurs.Iadjusted weightsandfixedfaultsasneeded.ThusIapproachedsomethinglike objectivitybyachievingconsistency. 5. Unsurprisinglythisdidntalwayswork.Wheretheproblemwas intractable,Imarkeditbyaddingalocationspecificfudgefactorto removetheanomaly.LaterIwouldexaminethetroublesomeinstances, takingthemtobecluestoheretoforeundiscoveredfeaturesofthe poemoverlookedwordsor,moresignificantly,emergentbut unnamedfeaturesofcontext.Severalrevisionsofthedatabase structurefollowed,successfullyaddressingmanyoftheseinstances.A

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/13

numberoftheoreticalentitiesbegantoemerge.Moreabouttheseina moment. 7. Survivingproblemsandemergentresults Imentionedamomentagohowannoyingmisfits,denotedbyprovisional fudgefactors,haveservedascluestounforeseencausesofpersonification. OtherinterestingproblemshavearisensimplybecauseIhavebeenforcedby therigourofimplementationtoconfrontthem.Oneexampleistheoddly persistenteffectofsomeattributes,suchasfatherhood,whichviolatethe generalrulethatpersonificationfiguresvanishasquicklyastheirdiscrete causes.(Onceafatheralwaysafather?Ordoestheexistenceofprogeny guaranteeapersonification?)Anotheristheroleofquotedspeech:ifan unreliablecharacter,suchasNarcissus,attributespersonifyingforcetoan entity,dowevalueitthesame,andifnot,byhowmuchisitaffected?A relatedproblemisnarrativeintercalation,ortheoccurrenceofstorieswithin stories:howisourreadingofpersonificationinastoryaffectedbythestories withinwhichitisembedded,andhowisthateffectalteredbythesequenceof reading? Another,morecomplexandchallengingproblem,whichbringsthewhole modelintoquestion,isthesimplifyingbuthighlydubiousassumptionthat individualagentsdonotaffecteachotherbutactinisolationonthenamed entityaproblemIalludedtoearlier.Heretheoldandenigmaticnotionof contextisuseful,foritnotonlynamestheunresolvedpenumbraofmeaning, andsoallowsustotalkaboutthatpenumbra,butitalsogivesusawayof talkingaboutthetotalityofpersonificationssemanticnetwork.Wemightsay thatitisaplaceholderforacompletecatalogueexceptweshouldknowthat notonlywillsuchacatalogueneverbeachievedbut,moreimportantly,that seriouslytodesireoneisanintellectualdeathwish.Tocompletesucha cataloguewouldrequirethatthepoemceasedtobereadandthathuman creativeresponsestoitceased. Workwiththedatabasemodeldemonstratedtomeatleastthatthe theoreticalentitiesImentionedearlierareemergentfromthemodelling.One classofthemthatbecameclearconsistsofstereotypicalhumansituations, suchasbattle,meetingincouncilorathleticcompetition.5Anotherclass comprisesmythologicalkinds,suchascreationormagicalpresence,most
5

Thefirstisfound,forexample,wheninthefightthateruptsduringthemarriageofPerseus andAndromeda,manumfortunaiuuat,fortunehelps[Perseus]hand(5.140);thesecond whenNeptunesummonshisrivers(1.276);thethirdwhenHippomeneswonders,inthe contestwithAtlanta,curcertaminishuius/intemptatamihifortunareliquitur?,whyinthis contestfortuneremainsuntriedforme?(10.584f).

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/14

notablyofMedeaandOrpheus,inwhosepresencethingscomealive.Another classdescribesstructuralcongruencebetweenstories,oneofwhichinvolves anestablishedanthropomorph,theotheranincipientpersonification.Ineach casethesehangintheair,butatvaryingdistance,withvaryingdegreeof explicittietotheplacewheretheyareevoked.Butwhathangsabovethemis thequestionoftheirrealitytowhich,again,Iwillreturn. 8. Reasoningbyanalogyandwhereitleads SofarIhavediscussedafamiliarkindofintellectualoperation,inwhichwe subjectaphenomenontoanalysiswiththeaidofatool,generatequestions andputthemtoourconceptionofthetext,literature,thediscipline,our colleaguesandsoforth.Ihavejustsuggestedthatbymodellingforabetter matchwithaninformedreading,certaintheoreticalentitiesemergeandthat withfurtherworkthesemightsolidify.Ihavepointedtothepossibilitythatif theydo,wemightbeabletousetheminaidoffurtherwork.Now,however,I wanttoventureoutintothefirstofmyrathermoreadventurousregions. ElsewhereIhavearguedthatmodellingofthesortIhavedescribed, involvingquantificationofreaderlyresponsestoatext,leadstoanalogies fromthepoorlyunderstoodphenomenoninquestiontobetterunderstood physicalsystemsandtheirmathematicaltools(2005:5371).Ihave,for example,madeuseofthephysiologicalanalogytoperception,whichonthe faceofitseemscloseandwhichprovidesawayofmodellingreaderly saturationbythemultiplestimulitypicalininstancesofpersonification.(Thus eachcontributingfactorhasprogressivelylessofaneffectasthefactors accumulate.Readerlyresponseisquicklyattenuatedbythepowersaving modeforwhichtheRussianFormalistsargued.)Theanalogicalstyleof reasoningisutterlycommonplace.Butwhatisnotcommonlymentionedisits basisintheassumptionthattheworldwhichcontainsboththewellandthe poorlyunderstoodsystemsisisotropic,i.e.thatallthingsinthisworldbehave accordingtothesamebasicprinciplesorlaws,evenifwedonotunderstand how.Fromthisassumption,wethenreasonthatifwewanttounderstand somethingunknown,wetakesomethingthatbehavesinasimilarway, somethingthatwedounderstand,andthenuseknowledgeofittoprobethe unknownsystem.Weassumethatsimilarbehaviourisbasicratherthan adventitiousthatweliveinacosmos,notachaos. Inthepresentcase,leavingasideforamomenttheimplicationsofan isotropicconnectionbetweenreadingandseeing,twoquestionsarise.The obviousoneis,whatcanneurophysiologicalperceptiontellusabout detectingpersonificationwhenweinteractwithareaderlytext?Theless obviousquestionisthereverse:whatcanreadingpersonificationtellusabout theneurophysiologyofperception?Inotherwords,welandimmediatelyin

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/15

mediasres,inahermeneuticcircle,withthehighlyappealingprospectthatthe farmoredemandingproblem(personification)willthroughtheanalogical connectionmakestrenuousdemandsofsomewhatlessdemandingone (perception). Itseemsnotsoonlyifyouassumethatthephysiologyofvisionisaclosed book,andthatthebookinquestion,writtenbyapositivist,depictsreal physicalthings,outthere,objectiveandreliable,whichsomehowbecome mentalstuff,inhere,subjectiveandunreliable.Veryfewpeoplewouldnow admittosuchadepiction,thoughwearefrighteninglypronetothinkinits terms.Thebestcurrentresearch,suchasSemirZekis,avoidsit,indeedopens upexcitingideasofhowwecreaterealityininteractionwiththephysical world(1993;2006).Nevertheless,thepositivistsdepictioncaneasilybe smuggledbackintomindbytheunderlyingassumptionsofastrictlyclose, datacentredreading.Herewehavephilology,nottheory,asaflightfrom literature. Inotherwords,theanalogicalbridgeIsuggestwebuildgoesbothways.We lookbackandforth,foratheoryofvisionadequatetowhatisread,anda theoryofreadingadequatetohowwesee.Lurkingbehindistheimplication thattheconnectionbeingtraversedisnotsimplyanalogicalbutgenetic. 9. Whichscience? Thequestionofthemediatingrolethatcomputingmayplayinbridgingthe sciencesandthehumanitiesisclearlyrelevant,butsinceIhaveproposeda modelforthatbridgingelsewhere(2007),Iwillleaveitasidehere.RatherI assumethatbyassimilatingcomputingintothehumanities,weare particularlyapttothinkandworkinbroadlyscientificways.Itisdifficultto seehowwecouldescapethecumulativeinfluenceofscientificthinkinginany case,sothebettercourseistomakethatinfluenceconsciousandexamineit critically.Thisisnotsodifficultthankstohistoriansandphilosophersof science,especiallysincethe1960s,when(toquoteIanHackingechoing Nietzsche)ThomasKuhnandothersunwrappedthedehistoricizedmummy ofscienceandsawtheremnantsofanhistoricalprocessofbecomingand discovering(1983:1). Inconsequencetheenormousdiversityofscientificpracticeisnolongerso wellhiddenbytheassumptionthat,inessence,scienceisphysics.So,in makingtheinfluenceofscientificthinkingconscious,wehavenotsomuchto choosefromwhichscience(s)tolearnastoseethatdifferentsciencesinvolve usindifferentdiscoursesabouttheworld.Eachconductsitsworkwithinan agreeduponsetofconventionsaboutwhatcountsasarelevantcontribution,

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/16

whatcountsasansweringaquestion,whatcountsashavingagoodargument forthatansweroragoodcriticismofit(Rorty1980:320). InmyresearchthisquestionwasraisedwhenIrealisedthatoperationalizing contextcangointwodirections,eitherbydefiningspecificinstancesorby describinghowcontextualizationhappensbycataloguingproductsand computingtheirresultsorbymodellingaprocess.Mydatabasemodelbegan withthenotionthatonecouldgaininsightsintotheMetamorphosesby definingthecontextsforindividualpersonifications,howeverprovisionally, computingtheeffectofeachonitstargetnoun,makingadjustmentsand repeatingthecycle.Methodologicalinsightsdidemerge,asIhaveattempted toindicate.Butseveralsharpchallengestoanddisagreementsoverthepoetic resultsledtotheinescapableconclusionthathavingineffectdefined contextasadiscretethinginandofoneormoreknowntexts,Ihadrenderedthe notiontooarbitrarytobeofanyuse.Icouldnotcomeupwithanauthorityor arationalefordecidingwhattoinclude,whattoexclude,andwhenincluding something,howtodetermineitseffectonthewhole. LiterarystudieshadalreadytaughtmetoregardtheMetamorphosesnotso muchasadelimitedworktobeanatomizedandanalyzedbut,asIsaidatthe beginning,assomethinglikeaselfpropagatingmechanism.Thelinkbetween thisliterarycriticalviewofthepoemandthebeginningsofanadequate theoryofcontextcame(asithappens)viathetheoreticalbiologistRobert RosensadmonitioninEssaysonLifeItselfagainstamindsetofreductionism, oflookingonlydownwardtowardsubsystems,andneverupwardand outward(2000:2).RosensargumentorbitsthetheoreticalphysicistErwin SchrdingersturntowardanewphysicsinWhatisLife?(1946).Thetheory ofcontexttowardwhichIamworkingisindebtedtoHumbertMaturanas andFranciscoVarellastheoryofautopoiesis(1980/1972)orprincipleofself organization,whichTerryWinogradandFernandoFloresusedintheir importantargumentforthedesignofcomputingsystems(1987).Itlooksto intriguingworkinbiologicalanthropology,forexampleTerrenceDeacons Emergence:TheHoleattheWheelsHub(2006);toworkinanthropological linguistics,wherethedynamicformationofunderstandinginconversationis examined,forexamplebyAlessandroDuranti(1997);andtostudiesin musicalimprovisation,suchasbyDavidSudnow(1978,2001)andPaul Berliner(1994).Forliterarystudiestheperpetuallyfructifyingworkof MikhailBakhtinisfundamental.AsLynHejiniannotesinherinsightful essay,TheRejectionofClosure(2000),UmbertoEcosargumentfortheco creativityofreaderandwriterisveryhelpful(1984/1979).JeromeMcGanns viewoftextualityasalgorithmiccharacteristicallyoverstatesthecaseinorder tomakethepointtowardwhichthistheoryofcontextismoving(2001:138).

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/17

Mysomewhatbreathlessthoughmuchabbreviatedreadinglistisasignof howincunabulartheprojectis.Its(very)longtermandperhapsutterly unrealisticobjectiveistogeneratepossibleliteraryfuturesforthe personificationsoftheMetamorphoses,thentocomparethemtothefuture thesetropesactuallyhad,orrather,thefuturethatwehaveknowntodescribe sofarbythehaphazardcourseofourliteraryknowledge.Thecurrentstageof thisprojectistheformationofalanguageofinquiry,asHejiniansays.All suggestionsandcommentsarewelcome.

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/18

Workscited [AllURLslastaccessed23September2007.] Berliner,PaulF.1994.ThinkinginJazz:TheInfiniteArtofImprovisation.Chicago StudiesinEthnomusicology.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Bloomfield,MortonW.1963.AGrammaticalApproachtoPersonification Allegory.ModernPhilology60.3:16171. Bronowski,Jacob.1978.TheOriginsofKnowledgeandImagination.MrsHepsa ElySillimanMemorialLectures.NewHavenCN:YaleUniversityPress. Bruner,Jerome.1979/1962.OnKnowing:EssaysfortheLeftHand.Cambridge MA:BelknapPress. .1983.[untitled].InATributetoRomanJakobson.8892.Berlin:Mouton Publishers. .1986.ActualMinds,PossibleWorlds.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversity Press. .1991.TheNarrativeConstructionofReality.CriticalInquiry18.1:121. Codd,E.F.1970.ARelationalModelofDataforLargeSharedDataBanks. CommunicationsoftheACM13.6:37787. .1980.DataModelsinDatabaseManagement.ACMSIGMODRecord. Proceedingsofthe1980workshoponDataabstraction,databasesand conceptualmodeling.11.2(June). Culler,Jonathan.1988.FramingtheSign:CriticismanditsInstitutions.Oxford: BasilBlackwell. Date,C.J.2003.EdgarF.Codd,August23rd,1923April18th,2003,atribute andpersonalmemoir.SIGMODRecord32.4(December):413. Deacon,TerrenceW.Emergence:TheHoleattheWheelsHub.InTheRe EmergenceofEmergence:TheEmergentistHypothesisfromSciencetoReligion. Ed.PhilipClaytonandPaulDavies.11150.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. Duranti,Alessandro.1997.LinguisticAnthropology.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/19

Eco,Umberto.1984/1979.TheRoleoftheReader:ExplorationsintheSemioticsof Texts.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. Firth,J.R.1957.ASynopsisofLinguisticTheory,19301955.InStudiesin LinguisticAnalysis.SpecialVolumeofthePhilologicalSociety.Oxford: BasilBlackwell. Flanders,Julia.2005.Detailism,DigitalTexts,andtheProblemofPedantry. TextTechnology14.2.texttechnology.mcmaster.ca/pdf/vol14_2/flanders142.pdf. Forster,Leonard.1978.LiteraryStudiesasaFlightfromLiterature?Modern LanguageReview73:xxixxiv. Frye,Northrop.1991/1989.LiteraryandMechanicalModels.InResearchin HumanitiesComputing1.Selectedpapersfromthe1989ACHALLCConference. Ed.IanLancashire.312.Oxford:ClarendonPress. Ginzburg,Carlo.1989/1986.Clues:RootsofanEvidentialParadigm.In Clues,Myths,andtheHistoricalMethod.96125.Trans.JohnandAnne Tedeschi.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress. Hacking,Ian.1983.Representingandintervening:Introductorytopicsinthe philosophyofnaturalscience.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Hejinian,Lyn.2000.TheRejectionofClosure.InTheLanguageofInquiry. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Hirst,Graeme.2000.ContextasaSpuriousConcept.Proceedings,Conference onIntelligentTextProcessingandComputationalLinguistics,MexicoCity, February:273287. Hoover,David.2007.TheEndoftheIrrelevantText:ElectronicTexts, Linguistics,andLiteraryTheory.DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly1.2 (Summer),www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/001/2/000012.html. Jakobson,Roman.1987.LinguisticsandPoetics.InLanguageinLiterature. Ed.KrystynaPomorskaandStephenRudy.6294.CambridgeMA: BelknapPress. James,William.1981/1890.PrinciplesofPsychology.CambridgeMA:Harvard UniversityPress.

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/20

Kenny,Anthony.1982.TheComputationofStyle:AnIntroductiontoStatisticsfor StudentsofLiteratureandHumanities.Oxford:PergamonPress. Maturana,HumbertR.andFranciscoJ.Varella.1980/1972.Autopoiesesand Cognition:TheRealizationoftheLiving.Dordrecht:D.Reidel. McCarty,Willard.1993.Handmade,ComputerAssisted,andElectronic ConcordancesofChaucer.InComputerBasedChaucerStudies,vol.3.Ed. IanLancashire.4965.Toronto:CentreforComputingintheHumanities. staff.cch.kcl.ac.uk/~wmccarty/essays/. .2005.HumanitiesComputing.Basingstoke:Palgrave. .2007(forthcoming).BeingReborn:TheHumanities,Computingand StylesofScientificReasoning.InNewTechnologyinMedievaland RenaissanceStudies1:123. McGann,Jerome.2001.RadiantTextuality:LiteratureaftertheWorldWideWeb. NewYork:Palgrave. .2004.MarkingTextsofManyDimensions.InACompaniontoDigital Humanities.Ed.SusanSchreibman,RaySiemens,andJohnUnsworth.198 217.Oxford:BlackwellPublishing. www.digitalhumanities.org/companion/. Paxson,JamesJ.1994.ThePoeticsofPersonification.Literature,Culture,Theory 6.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress Peirce,C.S.1958/1903.LowellLecturesontheHistoryofScience.InValues inaUniverseofChance:SelectedWritingsofCharlesS.Peirce(18391914).Ed. PhilipP.Wiener.NewYork:Doubleday. Poincar,Henri.1952/1905.OntheNatureofMathematicalReasoning.In ScienceandHypothesis.Trans.W.J.G.NewYork:DoverPublications. Rosen,Robert.2000.EssaysonLifeItself.ComplexityinEcologicalSystems Series.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress. Scharfstein,BenAmi.1989.TheDilemmaofContext.NewYork:NewYork UniversityPress. Shklovsky,Victor.1965/1917.ArtasTechnique.InRussianFormalist Criticism:FourEssays.Trans.LeeT.LemonandMarionJ.Reis.324. LincolnNB:UniversityofNebraskaPress.

W.McCarty,Beyondtheword/21

Shrdinger.Erwin.1946.WhatisLife?London:Macmillan. Sinclair,John.1991.CorpusConcordanceCollocation.DescribingEnglish Language.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Sinclair,Stfan.2003.ComputerAssistedReading.LiteraryandLinguistic Computing18.2:17584. Sudnow,David.1978.WaysoftheHand:TheOrganizationofImprovisedConduct. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress. .2001.WaysoftheHand:ARewrittenAccount.CambridgeMA:MITPress. Warner,Marina.2002.FantasticMetamorphoses,OtherWorlds.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress. Winograd,TerryandFernandoFlores.1987.UnderstandingComputersand Cognition:ANewFoundationforDesign.Boston:AddisonWesley. Zeki,Semir.1993.AVisionoftheBrain.Oxford:Blackwell. .2006.TheNeurologyofAmbiguity.InArtfulMind:CognitiveScience andtheRiddleofHumanCreativity.Ed.MarkTurner.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.