Email this article Sonja Klimek / Ralph Müller
Vergleich als Methode? Zur Empirisierung eines philologischen Verfahrens im Zeitalter der Digital Humanities
(Abstract)
Full-length article in: JLT 9/1 (2015), 53–79.
Literary scholars draw comparisons more often than they reflect on the practice of that drawing. Our study of comparisons in hermeneutic practice shows that comparative study is not merely a characteristic of general and comparative literary studies. It can also be found as a (generally qualitative) practice within the monolingual disciplines. The comparison of texts with similar themes is particularly widespread and popular, typically discovering through this comparison the differences and similarities of the literary treatment, in order to prove the aesthetic worth of a work and thus to make increased aesthetic pleasure possible. In addition, there are also studies which, through comparison of sample texts test the validity of statements about literary history or the typology of genres. The practice is particularly associated with comparative literary studies, which claims thus to overcome the limitations of monolingual literary studies. In principle, this form of test study can be extended to an unlimited number of cases, whereby philologists can, among other things, demonstrate how well-read they are. Nevertheless, this form of comparison, too, has to date mostly been used qualitatively, without exploring the potential of a quantitative expansion of the study.
Making reference to Descartes’ thesis (1628) that every growth in knowledge is always grounded in a comparison, it is discussed under what circumstances individual case studies may be understood as technically comparative in nature. In this regard one should be careful not to rob the concept of the comparison of the element of differentiation. Therefore, in what follows, we only class studies as comparative when they consider at least two cases (e. g. at least two works), although the main interest of the study may be reserved for one case.
Further, in literary studies, comparisons may be used both to discover the characteristics of the object investigated (›discovery function‹) and as a (sometimes comparatively conceived) control testing the scope of assertions or hypotheses (›control function‹). The emphasis of the use of comparison, as a rule, lies on the qualitative description of the complexity of individual selected cases, whose aesthetic value and place in literary history may thus be judged. By contrast, quantitative comparisons of a few variables within many cases are seldom used by literary scholars. Literary studies have to date hardly taken into account the contrast between quantitative and qualitative comparisons which has been so thoroughly discussed in social science, nor of the attempts to overcome this contrast (for instance through multi-value comparative quantitative analysis, which takes account not only of the need to revise hypotheses, but also the possible necessity of the revision of categories during or after the drawing of comparisons). Instead, an appeal to the ›incomparability‹ of literary art, made as early as 1902 by Benedetto Croce frequently recurs, or the argument, borrowed from Ethnology and Religious Studies, for the need for necessary ›respect for the unique and different nature‹ (Haupt 2013) of the object of study is often made. Earlier attempts at empiricisation, for instance the empirical study of literature movement of the 1970s (cf. Schmidt 2005), were unable to establish themselves, much less become part of the regular course of German Studies. This was partly because the fundamentally hermeneutically oriented field of literary studies could not accept the empiricists’ rejection of hermeneutic methods (cf. Ort 1994). There was an almost reflex professorial defence of interpretative reading.
Consequently, we think it important that empiricism should no longer be conceived of as an argument against hermeneutic approaches to philological objects of study, but rather to make it available as a useful aid to the improvement of established methods of literary study (cf. Groeben 2013). Literary studies can thus work against the reproach that its generalisations are based at best on insufficient data, and at worst on mere intuition. Building on the often overlooked, but well established philological technique of comparing parallel passages, we wish to demonstrate how, where, and to what extent, the corpus technology offered by the digital humanities can help to empiricise literary studies. Corpora offer, in the first instance, the possibility of qualitative comparison of verbal parallels, but also to make parallels of content in the form of intersubjectively explicable, repeatable search procedures more transparent (cf. Fricke 1991, 2007). In this respect, the comparison of parallel passages, an old established hermeneutic method can be made empirical.
In a further step, we will discuss the possibilities of quantitative comparisons in corpora (i. e. hypothesis-led variables oriented comparisons): on the one hand, the statistical description of corpora through stylometrics, which allows texts as a whole to be described, for instance in terms of word and sentence length, or the frequency of specific graphemes; on the other the analysis of collocations and the determination of »usuelle Wortverbindungen« (common multi-word expressions), which allow for the study of individual textual characteristics. In this connection, we discuss the necessity and usefulness of comparative corpora for the scope of statements determined via corpus analysis, as well as the dependence of the quality of the comparison of parallel passages on the quality of the chosen corpus.
To what extent literary studies as a field will adopt these statistical comparative techniques as a philological method in the age of the digital humanities, remains to be seen. We are, given the aversion to statistical matters which this predominantly hermeneutically oriented discipline has shown to date, somewhat sceptical. We are also sceptical about whether corpus linguistic quality standards of corpora composition will be accepted. We would therefore consider not only statistically based procedures for composing corpora, but also other means of plausibilization, such as the explication of the texts studied, and an argument for their selection, to be not only legitimate but appropriate.
Despite the field of literary studies’ continued reluctance to use quantitative methods, we still see a possibility that quantitative textual comparisons could provide a stimulus to standardisation. Corpus based comparisons make us aware that the comparison of many texts presupposes explicit assumptions about the comparability of what is compared. This requires a precise formulation of the questions to be explored, as well as a precise explication of the textual phenomena studied, so that exact statements about the relationships between the characteristics compared become possible.
References
Baßler, Moritz/Rainer Karczewski, Computergestützte Literaturwissenschaft als Kulturwissenschaft. Eine Wunschliste, Computerphilologie 9 (2007), 27–34.
Biber, Douglas, Methodological Issues Regarding Corpus-Based Analyses of Linguistic Variation, Literary and Linguistic Computing 5 (1990), 257–269.
Biber, Douglas, Representativeness in Corpus Design, in: Thierry Fontenelle (Hg.), Practical Lexicography, Oxford 2008, 63–87.
Biber, Douglas, Corpus Linguistics and the Study of Literature. Back to the Future?, Scientific Study of Literature 1:1 (2011), 15–23.
Birus, Hendrik, Komparatistik, in: Harald Fricke et al. (Hg.), Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft, Bd. 2, Berlin/New York 2000, 313–317.
Boehlich, Walter, Formeln zur Nacht, Der Spiegel 18 (1969), 193f.
Bucheli, Roman, Schneller Lesen, Neue Zürcher Zeitung 29.12.2010 (2010), 45.
Burrows, John Frederick, Computation into Criticism. A Study of Jane Austen’s Novels and an Experiment in Method, Oxford 1987.
Compagnon, Antoine, Le démon de la théorie. Littérature et sens commun, Paris 1998.
Croce, Benedetto, Estetica come scienza dell’espressione e linguistica generale [1902], Bari 121973.
Descartes, René, Règles pour la direction de l’esprit (lat. Original: Regulae ad directionem ingenii), in: R.D., Œuvres philosophiques, Tome 1: 1618–1637, textes établis, présentés et annotés par Ferdinand Aliquié, Paris 1963, 69–204.
Eibl, Karl, Sind Interpretationen falsifizierbar?, in: Lutz Danneberg/Friedrich Vollhardt/Hartmut Böhme/Jörg Schönert (Hg.), Vom Umgang mit Literatur und Literaturgeschichte. Positionen und Perspektiven nach der »Theoriedebatte«, Stuttgart 1992, 169–183.
Firth, John Rupert, A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, 1930–1955, in: J.R.F. (Hg.), Studies in Linguistic Analysis, Oxford 1957, 1–32.
Fricke, Harald, Wie empirisch sollte eine Literaturtheorie sein? Drei Typen von ›Erfahrung‹ beim Erforschen von Texten, in: H.F. (Hg.), Literatur und Literaturwissenschaft. Beiträge zu Grundfragen einer verunsicherten Disziplin, Paderborn 1991, 111–128.
Fricke, Harald, Begriffsgeschichte und Explikation in der Literaturwissenschaft, in: Gunter Scholtz (Hg.), Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte. Die Interdisziplinarität der Begriffsgeschichte, Sonderheft (2000), 67–72.
Fricke, Harald, Erkenntnis- und wissenschaftstheoretische Grundlagen, in: Thomas Anz (Hg.), Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft. Gegenstände – Konzepte – Institutionen, Bd. 2: Methoden und Theorien, Stuttgart/Weimar 2007, 41–54.
Fucks, Wilhelm, Nach allen Regeln der Kunst. Diagnosen über Literatur, Musik, bildende Kunst – die Werke, ihre Autoren und Schöpfer, Stuttgart 1968.
Fucks, Wilhelm, Über den Gesetzesbegriff einer exakten Literaturwissenschaft, erläutert an Sätzen und Satzfolgen,Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 1:1 (1971), 113–137.
Groeben, Norbert, Was kann/soll »Empirisierung« (in) der Literaturwissenschaft heißen, in: Philip Ajouri/Katja Mellmann/Christoph Rauen (Hg.), Empirie in der Literaturwissenschaft, Münster 2013, 47–74.
Haupt, Sabine, Komparatistiken: Allgemeine und Vergleichende Wissenschaften, in: Rüdiger Zymner/Achim Hölter (Hg.), Handbuch Komparatistik. Theorien, Arbeitsfelder, Wissenspraxis, Stuttgart/Weimar 2013, 329–336.
Heil, Uta, Schriftsinn, vielfacher, in: Oda Wischmeyer (Hg.), Lexikon der Bibelhermeneutik (LBH). Begriffe – Theorien – Methoden – Konzepte, Berlin 2009, 531f.
Holmes, David I., Frequent Collocations and Authorial Style, Literary and Linguistic Computing 13:3 (1998), 111–117.
Hölter, Achim, Volltextsuche, Komparatistik. Jahrbuch für Allgemeine und Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft(2004/05), 131–137.
Hölter, Achim, Über den Grund des Vergnügens am philologischen Vergleich, Komparatistik. Jahrbuch für Allgemeine und Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft (2010), 11–23.
Hoover, David L., Frequent Collocations and Authorial Style, Literary and Linguistic Computing 18:3 (2003), 261–286.
Hunston, Susan, Collection Strategies and Design Decisions, in: Anke Lüdeling/Merja Kytö (Hg.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 2, Berlin/New York 2008, 154–168.
Jannidis, Fotis, Computerphilologie, in: Thomas Anz (Hg.), Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft. Gegenstände – Konzepte – Institutionen, Bd. 2: Methoden und Theorien, Stuttgart/Weimar 2007, 27–40.
Juola, Patrick, Authorship Attribution, Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 1:3 (2006), 233–334.
Kaelble, Hartmut/Jürgen Schriewer (Hg.), Vergleich und Transfer. Komparatistik in den Sozial-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften, Frankfurt a. M. 2003.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Comparing Corpora, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6:1 (2001), 97–133.
Knapp, Fritz Peter, Vergleich, in: Jan-Dirk Müller et al. (Hg.), Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft, Bd. 3, Berlin/New York 2003, 755–757.
Kneepkens, C.H., comparatio, in: Gert Ueding (Hg.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, Bd. 2, Tübingen 1994, 293–299.
Köppe, Tilmann/Simone Winko, Neuere Literaturtheorien. Eine Einführung, Stuttgart 2008.
Kreuzer, Helmut/Rul Gunzenhäuser (Hg.), Mathematik und Dichtung. Versuche zur Frage einer exakten Literaturwissenschaft, München 1969.
Lampart, Fabian, Zeit und Geschichte. Die mehrfachen Anfänge des historischen Romans bei Scott, Arnim, Vigny und Manzoni, Würzburg 2002.
Lieberman Aiden, Erez et al., Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books, Scienceexpress(2010).
Mahlberg, Michaela, Corpus stylistics and Dickens’s Fiction, New York 2007.
Mill, John Stuart, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence, and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, London 1843.
Moennighoff, Burkhard, Grundkurs Lyrik, Stuttgart 2010.
Moretti, Franco, Conjectures on World Literature, New Left Review 1 (2000), 54–68.
Moretti, Franco, Style, Inc. Reflections on Seven Thousand Titles (British Novels, 1740–1850), Critical Inquiry 36:1 (2009), 134–158.
Moretti, Franco, Distant Reading, London/New York 2013.
Müller, Ralph, Parallelstellenmethode – digital. Wie computer-gestützte Korpus-Analysen die Hermeneutik empirisieren, in: Philip Ajouri/Katja Mellmann/Christoph Rauen (Hg.), Empirie in der Literaturwissenschaft, Münster 2013, 181–200.
Müller, Ralph/Tobias Lambrecht, ›As if‹: Mapping the empathic eloquent narrator through literary history, Language and Literature 22:3 (2013), 175–190.
Muno, Wolfgang, Fallstudien und vergleichende Methode, in: Susanne Pickel/Gert Pickel/Hans-Joachim Lauth/Detlef Jahn (Hg.), Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 1999, 113–131.
Nemesio, Aldo, The Comparative Method and the Study of Literature, CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture1:1 (1999), http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1000 [CrossRef]
Oakes, Michael P. Corpus Linguistics and Stylometry, in: Anke Lüdeling/Merja Kytö (Hg.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 2, Berlin/New York 2008, 1070–1090.
Ort, Claus-Michael, Texttheorie – Textempirie – Textanalyse. Zum Verhältnis von Hermeneutik, Empirischer Literaturwissenschaft und Literaturgeschichte, in: Achim Barsch/Gebhard Rusch/Reinhold Viehoff (Hg.), Empirische Literaturwissenschaft in der Diskussion, Frankfurt a. M. 1994, 104–122.
Pickel, Susanne/Gert Pickel/Hans-Joachim Lauth/Detlef Jahn, Differenzierung und Vielfalt in den vergleichenden Methoden der Sozialwissenschaften, in: S.P./G.P./H.-J.L./D.L. (Hg.), Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 1999, 9–26 (Pickel et al. 1999a).
Pickel, Susanne/Gert Pickel/Hans-Joachim Lauth/Detlef Jahn (Hg.), Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 1999 (Pickel et al. 1999b).
Ragin, Charles C., The Comparative Method. Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1987.
Rayson, Paul/Roger Garside, Comparing Corpora Using Frequency Profiling, in: Adam Kilgarriff/Tony Berber Sardinha (Hg.), WCC '00 Proceedings of the workshop on Comparing corpora, Vol. 9, Stroudsburg, PA 2000, 1–6.
Satori, Giovanni, Comparing and Miscomparing, Journal of Theoretical Politics 3:3 (1991), 243–257.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst, Hermeneutik und Kritik. Mit einem Anhang sprachphilosophischer Texte Schleiermachers, hg. von Manfred Frank, Frankfurt a. M. 1977.
Schmidt, Siegfried J., Interdisziplinarität – Empirisierung – Medienorientierung. Stationen eines glücklichen Scheiterns, in: Klaus-Michael Bogdal/Oliver Müller (Hg.), Innovation und Modernisierung. Germanistik von 1965 bis 1980, Heidelberg 2005, 53–64.
Semino, Elena/Mick Short, Corpus Stylistics. Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing, London/New York 2004.
Sinclair, John, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, Oxford 1991.
Sinclair, John, Trust the Text. Language, Corpus and Discourse. Edited with Ronald Carter, London/New York 2004.
Soulet, Marc-Henry, Usages et mésusages de la comparaison en sociologie, in: Gilbert Casasus/Sabine Haupt (Hg.), Vergleichen? Komparatistische Wissenschaften im Vergleich. Comparer? La comparaison dans les sciences, Berlin/Wien/Zürich 2011, 103–109.
Steen, Gerard, Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage. A Methodological Analysis of Theory and Research, Amsterdam 2009.
Steyer, Kathrin, Usuelle Wortverbindungen. Zentrale Muster des Sprachgebrauchs aus korpusanalytischer Sicht, Tübingen 2013.
Stubbs, Michael, Text and Corpus Analysis. Computer-Assisted Studies of Language and Culture, Oxford, Cambridge, MA 1996.
Szondi, Peter, Über philologische Erkenntnis, in: P.S., Hölderlin-Studien. Mit einem Traktat über philologische Erkenntnis, Frankfurt a. M. 1967, 9–30.
Szondi, Peter, Einführung in die literarische Hermeneutik, hg. von Jean Bollack und Helen Stierlin, Frankfurt a. M. 1975.
Toolan, Michael, Narrative Progression in the Short Story. A Corpus Stylistic Approach, Amsterdam 2009.
Unsworth, John, Scholarly Primitives: What Methods Do Humanities Researchers Have in Common, and How Might Our Tools Reflect This? (2000), http://people.brandeis.edu/~unsworth/Kings.5-00/primitives.html (27.10.2014).
Zelle, Carsten, Komparatistik und comparatio – der Vergleich in der Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft. Skizze einer Bestandsaufnahme, Komparatistik. Jahrbuch der Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft(2004/05), 13–33.
Zima, Peter V., Komparatistik als Metatheorie. Zu interkulturellen und interdisziplinären Perspektiven in der Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft, in: Lutz Danneberg/Friedrich Vollhardt (Hg.), Wie international ist die Literaturwissenschaft?, Stuttgart/Weimar 1996, 532–549.
Zima, Peter V., Komparatistische Perspektiven. Zur Theorie der Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft, Tübingen 2011.
Zymner, Rüdiger, Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft, in: Achim Hölter/R.Z. (Hg.), Handbuch Komparatistik. Theorien, Arbeitsfelder, Wissenspraxis, Stuttgart/Weimar 2011, 7–9.
2015-08-29
JLTonline ISSN 1862-8990
Copyright © by the author. All rights reserved.
This work may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to
the author and JLTonline.
For other permission, please contact .
How to cite this item:
Abstract of: Alberto Voltolini, Fiction and Indexinames.
In: JLTonline (29.08.2015)
URL: http://www.jltonline.de/index.php/articles/editor/proofGalley/758/1778
A Persistent Identifier can be found in the PDF-Version of this article.