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

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.