But it's instantly clear to anyone who works on poetry that the results described above are a little unusual. Just this level of detail already unlocks new ways to study poetic history in forthcoming papers, we'll be looking at, for instance, the history of pentameter in English poetry since the 16th century.
In other words, the program was basically good enough to identify ballad meter, though we mostly stuck to labeling poems as "consistent" (like a sonnet, always five feet), "alternating" (like ballad meter) or "irregular" (everything else). That means, in the first instance, determining that the line "The brain is wider than the sky" has four feet, and that the Dickinson poem containing it alternates between four-foot and three-foot lines: The first benchmark was detecting the number of metrical feet in each poetic line, followed by extrapolating the "metrical scheme" of a given poem (both of which depended on metrical parsing software called "Prosodic," developed by Heuser, Josh Falk, and Arto Anttila). The original goal of the Transhistorical Poetry Project was to automate the detection of poetic form, loosely defined. It started as a technical exploration of both programming and poetics, and led us to one of the most generative ideas of the project as a whole. To that end, I wanted to discuss an issue that came up a few years ago in the course of the Transhistorical Poetry Project, an early Literary Lab collaboration that included Ryan Heuser, Mark Algee-Hewitt, Jonny Sensenbaugh, Justin Tackett, and me.
academia, that humanities researchers have *technical *expertise, and DH is best served when it tries to make advances in those areas as well as finding cool new digital methods. Sometimes it's easy to forget in the new and complex DH world, or just in the STEM-centric environment of U.S. It's easy to think of "technical issues" as the domain of the digital half of DH but I think it's important to emphasize the technical nature of the humanities as well. One of the goals of the Techne blog as a whole is to highlight technical issues in Digital Humanities-the kinds of in-the-weeds ideas that are interesting to specialists but don't necessarily make the cut of a final paper.
0 kommentar(er)
