DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly
2021
Volume 15 Number 2
Volume 15 Number 2
Towards Hermeneutic Visualization in Digital Literary Studies
Abstract
In this article, we present our reflections on hermeneutic data visualizations for digital literary studies. Hermeneutic approaches in the digital humanities have been rather agnostic about the epistemological premises of hermeneutic theory. These can be summarized as (1) differentiation author/text, (2) hermeneutic circle and (3) dependency text/recipient. In this article, we present the concept of hermeneutic visualization as a means of bridging the gap between “classic” literary hermeneutics and the emerging practice of digital literary hermeneutics. Since data visualization is based on epistemological premises stemming from the natural or social sciences, it is not well-equipped to meet hermeneutic demands. In this article, we argue that the digital humanities can meet hermeneutic demands through a critical interface and visualization concept. We discuss four postulates that can be used as guidelines and help transform “more traditional” data visualization into hermeneutic visualization, while respecting the epistemological foundations of hermeneutic theory. We demonstrate the usefulness of the postulates with an interactive prototype Stereoscope designed to support them.[1]
1. Introduction
Data visualization has become a prolific method in digital literary studies to
represent the results of a research process. While it is most commonly used to
communicate these results to a scholarly audience, there is an increasing number
of cases that exhibit an analytical use of the method in order to gain a better
understanding of the textual data under investigation (cf. [Jessop 2008, 283]; [Sinclair et al. 2013]). A common
definition of data visualization is: “The use of
computer-supported, interactive, visual representations of abstract data to
amplify cognition”
[Card et al. 1999]. Although literary text can be transformed into
abstract data with the help of statistical or computational methods like natural
language processing, this is not the kind of data that literary scholars
practicing an hermeneutic approach are concerned with. Here, scholars are
dealing with subjective and ambiguous data, usually in the form of text
annotations, for which conventional data visualization is not adequate (cf. [Drucker 2018]). Precisely this discrepancy between conventional
data visualizations used and the interpretative data and processes to be
visualized is the starting point of our considerations for a more reflective
interface and visualization concept for literary analysis and interpretation
processes.
As Meister et al. point out: “Most current DH visualizations
are thus epistemological one-way avenues toward knowledge, from data via
rendering algorithm to visual display”
[Meister et al. 2017]. But the process of understanding texts and other
cultural artifacts in the humanities is a continuous, dynamic interplay of
modeling as well as reasoning operations. These operations repeatedly affect a
dynamic data model in form of enrichment and reconfiguration (cf. [Gius et al. 2017, 115]). The hermeneutic approach is a specific form
of the process of understanding, which has significance especially for literary
and cultural studies. In the humanities, the term hermeneutic
(hermeneuein in Greek means “to say,
to explain, to translate”
[Palmers 1969, 13]) generally stands “for
the practice of exegesis (i. e. interpretation) that leads to understanding,
[...] [as well as] for the theory of interpretation as a reflection on the
conditions and norms of understanding and linguistic utterance in
general”
[Mittelstraß 2008, 364][1]. Already developed as a practice in ancient times,
hermeneutics took different forms over the 19th century, especially in
Schleiermacher’s and Herder’s approach, then around 1900 in Dilthey’s conception
and finally in the 20th century in the thinking of Heidegger, Gadamer and the
“Konstanzer Schule”. As a result, the following
distinction has become established in the humanities. On the one hand,
hermeneutic refers to a literary-philological art theory of the interpretation
of texts (and other cultural artefacts). We speak of literary
hermeneutics. On the other hand, hermeneutic is a philosophical
discipline with an universalistic claim that is concerned with the conditions of
humanistic understanding per se (cf. [Nünning 2008, 281];
[Stiening 2016, 54]). In this context, we are talking of
hermeneutic philosophy. However, both meanings of the term are
strongly interdependent and partly overlap in different theories of the
humanities.
In digital humanities research, there has been some discussion on how the digital
humanities might live up to expectations and methodological requirements
associated with a digitally supported hermeneutic practice (cf. [van Zundert 2016]; [Rockwell and Sinclair 2016]). Often a
very broad notion of hermeneutics as a theory of understanding (as opposed to
explaining) is applied. We can observe results that have arisen from these
discussions in a number of software tools (e.g. Catma, Voyant). These tools are, for
example, replicating traditional scholarly activities that are considered a part
of the interpretation process. Unsworth [Unsworth 2000] gives a
systematic account of “scholarly primitives”, as he calls
these activities, some of which are applied by scholars during the
interpretative process. Among these are annotation, comparison and
representation. As for annotation, this is often the starting point of
hermeneutic practice: highlighting parts of a document and writing down comments
in the margins are two of the oldest scholarly techniques.
While the integration of these primary activities into digital tools certainly is
a step towards hermeneutics in the digital realm (or digital literary
hermeneutics), most of these efforts have been rather agnostic about
the epistemological premises of hermeneutic theory. We argue that visualization
could serve as the missing link between fundamental hermeneutic premises and
digital (literary) hermeneutics. We claim that visualizations not only have to
fulfill certain conditions to adequately support literary analysis and
interpretation. Rather, we assert that, in referring to the traditional theory
of hermeneutics, these qualities can be distinctively described and designed
for. We define hermeneutic visualization as:
By clarifying the premises and postulates for hermeneutic visualization, we address two research desiderata. First, a systematic elaboration of the implicit premises of hermeneutic text interpretations is still missing. What premises of hermeneutics do we have to consider when we want to use visualizations as tools for the interpretation process? We propose four premises for hermeneutic visualizations. These can be summarized as (1) differentiation author/text, (2) hermeneutic circle and (3) dependency text/recipient.The use of computer-supported, interactive, visual representations of text annotations to manipulate, reconfigure and explore them in order to create visual interpretations that can be used as arguments and allow a critical reflection of the hermeneutic process in light of a research question.
Second, data visualizations within the DH scholarship are often limited to a
representational usage. The current data visualization paradigm in the digital
humanities foregrounds operations and transformations of input data at the
expense of the human user whose agency as producer and interpreter of
visualizations is largely ignored. This has triggered a conceptual and technical
reification of visualization that invites its misinterpretation as an objective
representation. At worst, visualizations are taken as quasi-objects that appear
to exist on the same ontological level as the objects whose properties they
claim to faithfully represent. But especially in digital literary studies, we
are dealing with data that rather refer to an interpretation process.
Polyvalence is a characteristic of this data generated by interpretation.
Because of the assumed objective nature of the data, polyvalence is not
accounted for in the visual representation of the visual variables, which raises
a range of questions: What demands must be made on a critical interface and
visualization concept for hermeneutic text interpretations? What do hermeneutic
visualizations look like? How do we create them? In order to tackle these
questions we propose four postulates for hermeneutic visualizations: Two Way Screen, Quality, Parallax and Discourse [cf. [Meister et al. 2017]; [Drucker 2018]]. These four postulates serve as guidelines for
creating hermeneutic visualizations and embedding them in user interfaces. To
get our postulates on a concrete footing, we will demonstrate their usefulness
with the help of the interactive visualization prototype “Stereoscope”.
In our paper, we want to raise awareness for the extent to which research in
digital humanities always contributes to the “epistemic
self-enlightenment”
[Albrecht et al. 2015, 10] of one’s own discipline. This article
aims to show how digital humanities research is based on a thorough and
continuous reflection of the epistemological principles at work. Our article
represents an attempt to think visualization in terms of literary hermeneutics.
Contrary to current narratives of an “end of theory”
(cf. [Anderson 2008]) or a post-theoretical era (cf. [Scheinfeldt 2012]) in the DH, we argue for a productive discussion
of theories, in our case literary theories. Against this background, we believe
that the question of hermeneutic visualizations gains an exemplary status. We
are not only interested in demonstrating possibilities of operationalization for
the singular case of hermeneutic visualizations. Rather, we believe that our
case of hermeneutic visualization can be regarded as a prototypical procedure
with respect to the question of methodology in digital humanities research in
general. The issue of “hermeneutic visualization” is, we
argue, both a demonstration object and a medium of reflection.
Here is the structure of our argument: In section 2, we will begin with a short
synopsis of the development of classic hermeneutics and an exposition and
explanation of the three epistemological premises. Against this backdrop, we
will discuss how visualizations are well-suited to represent these activities,
but are also lacking qualities in order to meet the epistemological premises.
Section 3 will address these lacking qualities by discussing four postulates. In
section 4 we will then demonstrate how these postulates have been addressed in a
software prototype. In closing, we reflect on the results and discuss directions
for future research.
2. From the Hermeneutic Foundation to Digital Hermeneutic Visualizations
This section is initially dedicated elaborating implicit premises in hermeneutic
literary theory. These premises are then the lens through which we discuss
current hermeneutical approaches in digital humanities, especially with regard
to the role of visualizations.
2.1 Interpretation, Theory, Method, and Argument in Literary Studies
Among the main activities of researchers working in the field of literary
studies one can count the following: interpretation, development and
application of literary theory and of methods, argumentation. These core
activities form part of the wider literary studies framework and therefore
warrant closer inspection. In order to investigate hermeneutic
visualizations we think that work on our terminology is required.
Interpretation is considered one of the main activities of literary studies
(cf. [Albrecht et al. 2015, 1]).[2] The term
interpretation, a derivation from the Latin word “interpretatio: understand, explain, translate”, is
defined as “the methodically induced result of
understanding texts in their totality”
[Spree 2000, 168f] as well as “the
formulation of hypotheses about aspects of meaning in literary
texts”
[Gius et al. 2017, 236]. Following Winko [Winko 2003, 597] the synthesizing interpretation can, on
the one hand, presuppose the results of a rather descriptive and analytical
text analysis. Analysis and interpretation are thus considered in a
procedural relationship. On the other hand, text analysis and interpretation
can be determined as synonyms, since both terms are based on the same rules
of meaning-making treatment of the text. Despite the idea of a reasoning
process that does not require any principles or the claim of some literary
scholars “that literary texts are ambiguous or
‘polyvalent’ by nature”, as Gius & Jacke [Gius and Jacke 2017, 234] point out, a literary interpretation
is based on rules [cf. [Jannidis et al. 2003, 6]]. These rules,
which are applied in a reasoning process, can be provided by different
theoretical approaches (cf. [Spree 2000, 169]).
A literary theory can be defined as an
[Nünning and Nünning 2010, 6]. Literary theories provide not only specific epistemological implications regarding, for example, the concept of authorship or the relevance of contexts, but also contain an implicit idea of meaning. During decades of theoretical debates and throughout different turns, the parameters indicating or representing meaning have shifted (cf. [Jannidis et al. 2003, 7]). Besides the epistemological implications, this also changed the definition of what actually constitutes a research object as such.[3] Methods, however, differ from theories. A literary method is a procedure for accomplishing knowledge in a research inquiry. Methods can be characterized as purposeful and rule-based (cf. [Nünning and Nünning 2010, 8]; [Winko 2003, 581]). A theory could not only encompass one or a set of several methods, but also demand the application of methods with varying degrees of specification (for example, deductive or dialectical methods compared to the more general operations such as reading or generating hypotheses).explicit, elaborated, logical structured system of categories in order to describe, explore or explain certain issues [of texts]
Argumentation is described as the “unfolding of given
proofs” by Cicero in De partitione Oratoria (cf. [Rädle 2000, 130]). In literary studies, argumentation
plays an important role for the process of generating and validating
interpretations (cf. [Albrecht et al. 2015, 12]). Argumentation
can be described as a formal or logical organization of single observations,
that serve as arguments “to provide evidence in favor of
some point of view”
[Groarke 2017]. Krämer [Krämer 2015, 163]
speaks of “practices of arguing”, that means
“patterns of links, in which certain types of text
data can be associated with certain ways of attributing meaning.”
An argumentation explicates the interpretative process in a textual or
visual form by structuring, connecting, and subsuming single observations
(cf. [Eemeren et al. 2009, 5]). Von Savigny, on the one hand,
distinguishes eight types of literary arguments, for example “arguments of understanding” or “poetic arguments”
[Savigny 1976, 102]. Kindt and Schmidt [Kindt, Schmidt 1976, 9], on the other hand, mention three
attributes for the evaluation of an argumentation: rigor, intersubjectivity,
validation. One issue, for example, is the idea of “evidentiary transparency”
[Piper 2020, 6]. How can we verify a literary hypothesis?
Is it acceptable for a hypothesis to merely resist falsification, or does it
need to be positively confirmed via case studies? (cf. [Albrecht et al. 2015, 13]).
2.2 Foundations of Literary Hermeneutics
The next point to be addressed concerns the foundations of the type of
hermeneutics practiced in the field of literary studies. Thus, the first
sentence of Szondi’s Introduction to Literary
Hermeneutics
[Szondi 1995, 1] reads: “Literary
hermeneutics is the study of the interpretation [...] of literary
works.” Köppe & Winko [Winko 2003, 19]
point out that the hermeneutic approach is a “precursor”
theory, which is not practiced anymore. But according to introductions into
literary studies, hermeneutic theory is not only still widespread, it is
often also mentioned before all other theories (cf. [Jeßing, Köhnen 2007, 276]; [Nünning and Nünning 2010, 29]; [Jahraus, Neuhaus 2002, 36]). While Stiegler notes a kind of
“hermeneutics bashing”
[Stiegler 2015 , 26] conducted by other theoretical
approaches, hermeneutic theory and its methodological tradition constitute
an essential approach to text interpretation.
Essential for hermeneutic theory is the idea of an understanding, which aims
to reach a deeper meaning or hidden reason of a text. Consequently, it is
assumed that (literary) texts have a meaning, which can be exposed under
certain conditions. This meaning does not have an objective, but rather an
observer-dependent and contextual status. In that regard, the hermeneutic
approach differs widely, for example, from Derrida’s deconstruction (cf.
[Derrida 1967]). In his work Hermeneutik und Kritik mit besonderer Beziehung auf das Neue
Testament (1838) Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) stresses
two important epistemological premises of the hermeneutic understanding of
meaning. First, Schleiermacher differentiates between the intentions of the
author and the expressions in the text. Schleiermacher’s distinction leads
to the idea of an autonomous intention of the text, which is not necessarily
congruent with the intention of the author. Therefore, the text is regarded
as an artificial and aesthetic work of art with a specific meaning (cf. [Selbmann 2002, 38]). Second, Schleiermacher argues that a
profound understanding of the text corresponds with the holistic dependency
of parts and the whole. He proposes the “Grundsatz der
Ganzheit” : “[T]he same way that the whole
is, of course, understood in reference to the individual, so too, the
individual can only be understood in reference to the whole” (cf.
[Schleiermacher 1838], [Mantzavinos 2016]).
Moreover, the philologist Friedrich Ast (1778–1841) and later Schleiermacher
emphasize the circular procedure of interpretation, i.e., the hermeneutic
circle. In literary studies, the hermeneutic circle or spiral is regarded as
an instrument for the formulation of a hypothesis connecting a meaningful
whole and its elements [cf. [O'Toole 2018]]. In Gadamer’s
conception of hermeneutic experience, understanding is also determined as a
circular movement that arises precisely through the examination of the text.
The circular structure of understanding thereby aims to change the view of
the world in a way that reveals something new or revises old experiences and
prejudices (cf. [Rese 2010, 176]). The negation of
certain experiences through the reading and analysis of a text leads to the
transformation of the horizon of understanding (cf. [Gadamer 1990]). “Textual understanding”, as
Gius & Jacke [Gius et al. 2017, 236] describe it, “is attained in the interplay between (contextual)
assumptions about the text on the one hand, and textual data on the
other hand […].” Thus, the act of interpretation constitutes a
specific practice of a “reading and questioning […],
back and forth, shifting the focus of one’s attention and revising
interim interpretations and judgements along the way”
[Chamber, Gregory 2006, 35].[4]
Another premise of the hermeneutic method – besides the differentiation
between author and text intention and the holistic premise – is the highly
valued co-dependency between the text and the recipient. The co-dependency
is linked to the issue of context and subjective or social perceptions and
views. According to Gadamer’s fusion of horizons, a recipient,
who engages with the text in a productive way, generates partial and
subjective knowledge. This generated knowledge in the form of meaning “can neither be deduced theoretically, nor be fully
articulated, but rests on a kind of tact or sensitivity that is only
exhibited in the form of exemplary judgments and interpretations”
[Ramberg, Gjesdal 2005]. Gius & Jacke [Gius and Jacke 2017, 234] explain: “Because these reasoning
processes are non-deductive, i.e., they are not strictly based on rules
of deductive logic, they may result in more than one account of
meaning.”
In summary, we define literary hermeneutics as a specific approach to produce
meaning through an iterative, non-deterministic, and subjective procedure.
Essential for this approach are three premises, as explicated in the
previous paragraphs:
- The differentiation between intentions of author and text
- The holistic premise (hermeneutic circle)
- The dependency between text and recipient
2.3 Conceptions of Digital Literary Hermeneutics
So far, hermeneutics, as understood in traditional literary studies and based
on these three premises, has not played a prominent role in digital
humanities. As van Zundert [van Zundert 2016, 335] states:
The dialogue surrounding hermeneutics seems not to have developed fully yet in digital humanities – references to hermeneutics are scant and often at a concrete level of the practice of text interpretation, such as when Katherine Hayles (2012) uses the phrase “hermeneutic close reading”. Yet from several paragraphs and sections in the literature the emergence of a debate seems traceable.
Literary scholars participating in this debate on hermeneutics in digital
humanities or digital hermeneutics, as it is often called, have
different views on how (the use) of digital technology might shape literary
hermeneutics and what digital literary hermeneutics should encompass.
Generally speaking, the debate is dominated by attempts to digitally
replicate interpretative processes known from the analog world. However, a
systematic effort to reflect on how the hermeneutic premises might be
answered by digital technology is still missing.
Commonly, approaches toward a digital literary hermeneutics, or more
generally toward interpretation, share the notion that it involves a process
of “reconfiguration, reorganization or
restructuring”
[Armaselu et al. 2017], or as Samuels & McGann [Samuels and McGann 1999] describe it, “deformance”. Rockwell [Rockwell 2003, 213]
calls the results of algorithmic analysis of texts “hybrid texts” that operate as “interpretive
aids”: “[T]hey are generated by processes of
taking information apart and putting it back together into new
configurations for the purposes of discovery and reflection.”
This reconfiguration can be carried out automatically by an algorithm, as is
the case, for example, in concordances, or by manual annotations and
comments of text passages by scholars [cf. [Rapp 2017]; [Jacke 2018]]. While the former is idiosyncratic to the digital
realm, the latter has been practiced in literary hermeneutics for a long
time. In terms of possibilities to reconfigure and restructure, however, the
digital world grants considerably more freedom than analog annotations.
Bradley [Bradley 2008, 266] describes a research software
prototype called Pliny that is guided by
scholarly practice of interpretation in the analog world:
Notetaking, and this kind of juggling of notes to discover previously unrecognised patterns and relationships and to stimulate new ideas is one of the long established methods of scholarship.
Pliny allows scholars to annotate texts, images
and other media by creating digital notes that can be arranged to one’s
likings on a plane. Relationships between notes can be conveyed by placing
them in spatial proximity or by nesting notes to account for hierarchical
relationships. In contrast to analog environments, notes can be reused in
different structures and contexts as they are references, not actual
objects. References between all the notes can be visualized in a special
graph view.
Boot (2009) takes up Bradley’s tripartition of the scholarly process into
“Reading and Annotation (Resource)”, “Developing Interpretation” and “Presentation of Interpretation (Article/Argument)” and describes
the structure of annotations as “mesotext” that is made
out of “mesodata” (individual annotations). Mesotext acts as a connector between the primary
text (which it references) and “secondary texts” or
“narratives” (the article a scholar is working on),
for which it provides arguments. Similar to Pliny, allowing scholars to adjust the mesotext
structure, when new insights have been gained, the concept comes close to
the traditional analog annotation process.
As a clear differentiation from the scientific method and a way of
strengthening the literary hermeneutic approach, some scholars argue for
exploration or a “hermeneutic of play”
[Rockwell 2003, 214]. van Zundert [van Zundert 2016, 335] calls for a usage of data not so much
as evidence in the scientific sense, but rather as a resource to “provoke new questions and explorations” that can be
utilized in a “playful iterative approach”.
Ramsay [Ramsay 2007] even speaks of a
“Screwmeneutical Imperative” that scholars should
follow, an obligation to be playful and try out things.
2.4 Towards Hermeneutic Visualizations
In addition to the still pending consideration of hermeneutic premises in
digital literary studies, we now take a look at approaches from data
visualization. How are visualizations used in digital literary studies so
far? Why does an “uncritical” use of data visualizations
possibly interfere with an interpretation process? For this purpose, we
discuss two ways of incorporating visualization into digital humanities
research: humanizing visualizations and visual text analysis.
Firstly, research approaches can be brought together that ask about the
critical potential of data visualizations in the humanities. The starting
point is often the criticism of the purely instrumental function of
visualizations. Visualizations serve, following Card et al. [Card et al. 1999, 5], as “external aids”.
Hinrichs et al. [Hinrichs et al. 2019] critically conclude that
visualizations have been considered only as tools “to
facilitate quantitative and qualitative analysis processes, potentially
within any research discipline or practice.” Further the authors
explain that “this pragmatic approach risks overlooking
the research value of visualization and relegating computer science and
design to service-based roles.” Moreover, Correll [Correll 2019] even argues “that
visualization is a bad neighbor to the digital humanities: it
exacerbates the worst tendencies of DH scholarship and promotes
parasitic, technocratic collaborations.” In this context, he
pleas not only for new alliances between the humanities and visualization
research. Rather, he points out, that “[w]e need to
humanize visualization before we visualize the humanities.”
Traditionally, visualizations have been developed and used in scientific
contexts. Drucker [Drucker 2011] explains that “realist models of knowledge” have been instrumental
in forming these representations and that “we need to
take on the challenge of developing graphical expressions rooted in and
appropriate to interpretative activity.”
In order to re-explore new alliances, visualizations are on the one hand
reconsidered by means of concepts or function in a humanities context.
Seifert et al. speak of visualization as “an effective
enabler for exploratory analysis, making it a powerful tool for gaining
insight into unexplored data sets.”[Seifert et al. 2014, 190] Dörk et al. [Dörk et al. 2013] go one step further
and show a critical approach to information visualization. Disclosure,
plurality, contingency, and empowerment are presented as the main
characteristics of critical information visualization. In the context of
trans-disciplinary research in the digital humanities, Hinrichs et al.
advocate for the concept of “sandcastles”, which they
describe as “tailored, unique, often stunning yet also
transient and unstable interactive visualizations.”
[Hinrichs et al. 2019] With this, the authors oppose the reification
of data and refer to an iterative process of understanding. In contrast to a
conception of visualization as tools, they “elicit
critical insights, interpretation, speculation and discussions within
and beyond scholarly audiences.”
While Galey & Ruecker [Galey, Ruecker 2010] do not refer to
visualizations in particular (although they use visualizations as case
studies), they argue for the use of digital artifacts as arguments:
The digital humanities must not lose sight of the design of artifacts as a critical act, one that may reflect insights into materials and advance an argument about an artifact’s role in the world. Our purpose here is to follow the implications of a hermeneutical approach to design for digital humanities projects that entail the strategic prototyping of digital artifacts.
However, as Ramsay & Rockwell [Ramsay and Rockwell 2012] convincingly
point out, Galey & Ruecker’s concept of argument refers rather to the
interface of the digital artifact than to the contents of the text which is
supposed to be analyzed with the digital tool. Relating to our earlier
comment on argumentation in the context of literary studies as a formal or
logical organization of single observations that serve as arguments “to provide evidence in favor of some point of view”
[Groarke 2017], visualizations could serve as another
non-linear form of argument that complements textual explications in an
argumentation (cf. [Meirelles 2019, 169]). In a similar
vein, Ramsay & Rockwell also sees visualization tools behaving “like hermeneutical theories”
[Ramsay and Rockwell 2012] that offer new perspectives on the research
object. Kath et al. [Kath et al. 2015] have already brought to
attention the need for a second order hermeneutics, termed New Visual Hermeneutics, which can guide the
interpretation of such visualizations.
A second research field that plays a role in our demand for hermeneutic
visualizations are the approaches from visual text analysis. Although there
is a large selection of mainly generic visualization tools scholars can
choose from (The TAPoR website[5] with its large collection gives a good
overview), some tools have gained significant popularity for certain use
cases and can almost be considered the de facto standard. Stylometry, for
example, is usually conducted with the Stylo[6]
package of the statistical language R, Gephi[7] is very popular for visualizing
character networks (cf. [Barbot et al. 2019]). These visualization
tools and techniques offer quite complex user interfaces to control the
appearance of a visualization. However, a direct manipulation of the
resulting visualization is often not possible and so the process is split
into two parts: Manipulation of the interface followed by the generation of
a static visualization image as an end result. The image does not contain
any information on how the scholar got there and what other possible visual
configurations might have been possible by changing the parameters and the
data used.
Static visualization images produced by visualization tools are decoupled
from the raw text and the modeled text data (produced by the scholar and/or
an algorithm), neither allowing a direct manipulation of the data, nor a
back-and-forth between data and text.
Other software applications for example Voyant
Tools[8] offer a coexistence of text
and data in one user interface, thereby creating the general possibility for
hermeneutic process. A constant movement between text and data is a
prerequisite formulated by the holistic premise and as a representation of
the data the visualization should be tightly linked to the text and allow to
view text and visualization side-by-side or at least enable quick changes
between these two views. In order to enable that we need to take into
account not only the visualization but the user interface surrounding
it.[9] Most of these tools need to be bent to comply with
hermeneutic practice. Especially the third premise, the dependency between
recipient and text and how it could be represented, has only started to
become an object of special attention in the digital humanities (cf. [Drucker 2018], [Binder et al. 2014], [Therón et al. 2018], [Piotrowski 2019]).
A special use case of visual text analysis is annotation visualization. As
Jannidis et al. [Jannidis et al. 2017, 256] explain: “The creation of annotation categories, the discovery of
corresponding phenomena and the enrichment with appropriate annotations
is part of the hermeneutical analysis process.” Meister [Meister 2020] even claims, that we need to understand
annotation as “a ‘methodological mediator’ that can
prove the connectivity of digital methods also and especially for
traditionally hermeneutically oriented literary scholars.”
Baumann et al. [Baumann et al. 2020, 276] give a differentiated
overview of current approaches to annotation visualization. But what we
think has not yet been sufficiently considered in visualization approaches
is the hermeneutic profit of annotation following Gius & Jacke [Gius and Jacke 2017, 236]. The authors refer to Piez’s [Piez 2010] conception of a hermeneutic markup:
By “hermeneutic markup” I mean markup that is deliberately interpretive. It is not limited to describing aspects or features of a text that can be formally defined and objectively verified. Instead, it is devoted to recording a scholar’s or analyst’s observations and conjectures in an open-ended way.
According to Gius & Jacke, what constitutes Piez’s approach to
hermeneutical markup is that it is precisely the polyvalence and context
sensitivity of literary texts that are taken into account. In order for
visualizations to meet hermeneutical requirements, they need to be linked to
annotations as interpretative endeavors [cf. [Zirker, Bauer 2017],
[Nantke, Schlupkothen 2020]]. Polyvalence in particular is not only the
decisive feature of interpretative data. Rather, the acknowledgement of
polyvalence is one of the conceptual requirements that need to be taken into
account in the sense of our hermeneutical premises when using
visualizations. This is also linked to the distinction of data and capta, as
emphasized by Drucker. In other words, in order to serve this purpose of
polyvalence, hermeneutic visualizations must value the performative and
theoretical aspect of an interpretative endeavor (modelling, theorizing,
critique and discourse) higher than the declarative visual output (results,
experimental validation, applicability).
We have now discussed approaches of digital hermeneutics and data
visualization against the background of our premises. Based on our research
approach, the question now arises which requirements visualizations have to
fulfill in order to support hermeneutic interpretation processes. For this,
we will propose the four postulates that help creating and embedding such
visualizations into a user interface.[10]
3. Hermeneutic Visualization: Four Postulates
As we have seen, one issue of the current approaches to digital hermeneutics is
the disregard of the epistemological premises of hermeneutics, i.e., the
differentiation between intention of author and text, the holistic idea of the
understanding of the whole and its parts (circularity of the interpretation
process), as well as the dependency between the text and the recipient
(subjective and context-dependent reasoning process). Second, the visualizations
used in the DH seem to contradict the hermeneutical premises. We see a
distortion of the hermeneutic interpretation process, for example, in the use of
visualizations that do not take into account the polyvalence of interpretative
data. However, in order for visualizations to be used as the missing link in the
process of “becoming hermeneutical” in the digital
humanities, we need a concept of visualizations that meets the following four
postulates as guidelines: Two Way Screen, Quality, Parallax
and Discourse. We understand these postulates as transformers of and
mediators between the theoretical hermeneutic model and the concrete visual
arrangement.
The postulate of the Two Way Screen refers to the
interface, which should not be restricted to rendering, but allow manipulation
as well. More precisely, a commitment to the Two Way
Screen implies that the screen serves as an interactive and visual
environment in which interpretation (ranging from low-level annotation and
structuring to high-level theorizing activity) takes place, not only gets
displayed [cf. [Drucker 2018, 252]].
The structure of the interface does not serve as a mere representation space for
an interpretative result. Rather, the interface provides incentives to engage
and to change bidirectionally between the representation of text data and the
modelling of text data. This means that actions taken by changing any graphical
feature as an act of interpretation are registered as new data and/or as changes
in the data model on the fly. The underlying principle is to get away from the
flat screen as a space of display by acknowledging the additional dimension of
interpretative activity [cf. [Drucker 2016]]. The postulate of the
Two Way Screen is based on the holistic
premise, as it allows a continuous shift between exploring the visualization to
learn something about the text (the whole) and applying that new knowledge to
change text data (the part), in consequence, creating new representations. Here,
as well as in the postulate of Quality, the
constructedness of the data becomes apparent and we can grasp it “as capta, taken and constructed”
[Drucker 2011].
Figure 1.
Drucker [Drucker 2016]: Conception of the Two-Way-Screen
(draft originated in the 3DH project)While the postulate of the Two Way Screen formulates
the necessity of providing means for changing and constructing interpretative
data through the visualization, it does not specify how the data might be
visually represented. To this end, the postulate of Quality demands the incorporation of the epistemological qualities
of hermeneutic practice into the visualization. Responding to the hermeneutic
premise of the dependency between text and recipient, Quality takes into account the subjective and contextual quality of
the data by showing the annotated text data as capta. We suggest an
extension of the use of Bertin’s visual variables (position, color, tone, size,
shape etc.) [cf. [Bertin 1983]; [Meirelles 2019, 175]] to the encoding of capta, allowing literary
scholars to express interpretative dimensions like salience or relatedness [cf.
[Drucker 2018, 249]].
The third postulate of Parallax stresses the
importance of providing multiple views on the object of hermeneutic inquiry [cf.
[Drucker 2018, 260]]. The term
parallax
“(Greek παράλλαξις (parallaxis)), meaning
‘alternation’” [cf. Oxford
English Dictionary] is a metaphorized terminus
technicus of optics. We understand Parallax as visual
multiperspectivity or multiple points of view that reveal the ambiguity of a
text. Coles [McCurdy et al. 2016] stresses the aesthetic importance of
the “ambiguity of meaning” in contrast to scientific
replicability. Ambiguity, as Berndt [Berndt 2009, 122] points
out, “denotes a fundamental ‘equivocalness’ that engenders
‘uncertainty’ and ‘doubt’.” The visualization in its
parallax function, hence, provokes an ambiguity of a maybe
“assumed” certainty or evidence. This provocation
generated by the visualization relates to the premise of dependency between text
and recipient once more and puts the situatedness and partialness of the
hermeneutic reasoning process into effect. Moreover, the ambiguity evokes a
“questionability whose astonishment gives cause to
further research”
[Mersch 2009, 111]. Instead of limiting the points of view,
the postulate of Parallax increases the possibility
for productive contradiction in the reasoning process.
The last postulate Discourse defines the role of the
visualization in the argumentation. Following Latour [Latour 1986], who claims that “the ways in which we represent our
arguments changes the way in which we argue” (cf. [Hinrichs, Forlini 2017]), we think that a hermeneutic visualization fosters
the critical reflection of the hermeneutic process itself. An argumentation
comprised of text as well as visualizations as single observations differs from
the mere textual form. The connection between visualization, annotations (the
object of study) and textual arguments enables a complex, non-linear movement
between these entities that does not restrict scholars to one possible reading,
but allows a multitude of readings. Furthermore, the direct connection between
annotations and visualizations creates a transparency of individual arguments
that invites the author as well as the audience to critically reflect the
argumentation. In this way, it lives up to the evaluation criteria rigor,
intersubjectivity and validation mentioned in 2.1 and leads to an iterative
refinement of the argumentation and an oscillation between part and whole,
addressing the holistic premise in that way.
The postulates describe four interrelated aspects, under which visualizations can
be beneficial for the hermeneutic process in the digital realm and act as
hermeneutic visualizations. In the next part, we would like to underpin their
validity by presenting their exemplary application in an interface concept and
its prototypical implementation.
4. The Four Postulates Used as Guidelines for Prototypical Implementation
Referring to Boot’s [Boot 2009] model of mesotext as a
particular configuration of annotations (mesodata) that relates to
the primary text, as well as to the secondary text (an article for example), we
incorporated a tripartite user interface in our concept. There is a text area on
the left side holding the primary text a scholar is studying, a canvas in the
middle that can represent different configurations of annotations of the text
with different visualizations and a views area on the right side that allows a
scholar to build arguments by saving different views of canvasses with tags and
comments assigned to them (Fig. 2). All these parts are connected with each
other, so that interacting with one part of the interface, such as a mouse hover
over an annotation in the text area, leads to a highlight of that annotation in
the canvas area (or highlight of the visually represented annotation,
respectively).
Our concept will be illustrated by screenshots of our prototype Stereoscope that implements the most important
features of the concept. Stereoscope is a web-based software prototype for
visualizing two core processes of literary studies: hermeneutic exploration of
textual meaning and construction of arguments about texts. In Stereoscope
scholars can represent their manually created digital annotations with multiple
visualizations to record and convey qualitative statements.[11] In this article, we use a
German-based text, but Stereoscope can be applied to texts in other languages,
too.
Figure 2.
User interface of the Stereoscope prototype with
“overlays” layout selectedText
The area on the left side shows the primary text a scholar is working on and
the parts of the text that have already been annotated. Hovering over
annotations produces a pop-up that informs about the categories of the
annotations for the respective text passage. Annotations can be saved to a
selection by clicking them. A toggle switch at the top of the text area
allows scholars to switch between the linear text view and a view of the
selected annotations.
The prototype allows to upload a text file together with an annotation file
created by the software CATMA. For practical
purposes the prototype was developed to work with the CATMA format, however,
a compatibility with other formats would be desirable.
Canvas
The canvas is the larger area in the middle of the interface that serves as a
plane for creating configurations expressed through visualizations. Each
visualization contains circles of different sizes that represent
annotations. We call these circles glyphs. Their size informs
the length of individual annotations. While the circles themselves are
immutable, the position of glyphs on the canvas can change depending on the
visualization layout scholars have selected. Furthermore, different types of
relationships between annotations can be expressed with connecting lines
between glyphs. Currently, there is only one type of relationship that
depicts the degree of textual proximity of text passages in the
overlaps layout.
When hovering over a glyph a little pop-up reveals the type of annotation
category. The category is also expressed by the color of the circle.
Clicking on a glyph causes the text area to scroll to the corresponding
annotated text passage. Analogous to the text area, alt-clicking on glyphs
allows scholars to collect annotated text passages that can be viewed in the
text area in the selected annotations mode (Fig. 3).
Figure 3.
Selected annotations mode: Collected annotations shown on the left and
corresponding glyphs highlighted on the canvasUsing the scroll wheel of the mouse or a pinch gesture on the track pad
visualizations can be zoomed in and out of and parts of the visualization
can be moved into focus.
Above the canvas area different controls allow scholars to change the layout,
show and hide panels and labels and export the current view as an image. We
call the current state of the visualization on the canvas a
“view”.
There are three selectable panels for filtering by annotation category,
adding comments to a canvas view, and adjusting settings for individual
visualizations. When activated, these overlay the canvas in the bottom half
(Fig. 4). Scholars can currently select from three different types of
visualizations: grid, scatterplot, and overlaps (network diagram). These
visualizations are integrated into the prototype as template files and the
list can be extended to incorporate further visualization techniques.
Scholars are encouraged to add new visualizations that are suited to their
individual research questions and needs.
Figure 4.
Panels filter, comment and layout shown with three categories selected
in the filter panel (Annotated text not falling under these categories
is grayed out in the text area)Views
The narrow column on the right side offers space for saving different views
of the canvas as small thumbnails. Each view in this area consists of a
miniature static image of the selected layout for the view, a title, the
name of the layout, tags, and a button to assign tags. If a comment has been
written for a particular canvas, it is shown here as well. The currently
selected view is marked by an orange border. All manipulations of the
canvas, like selected filters or glyphs, adjusted settings or a change in
zoom state are saved automatically for each view and are re-established,
when scholars click on other canvasses to switch to them.
Clicking the plus sign at the top opens a dialog window for adding a new
view. Here, title, layout, and comment can be filled in. All the comments
assigned to the views can be searched with a search field at the top. Typing
something in there filters the list of views, fading out views that do not
contain comments that match the search term. If tags have been assigned to
views, clicking on one of them filters the list with the respective tag. In
that way, either ad-hoc search strings or tags can be used to create
temporary subselections of the list. Individual views can also be exported
as images.
Using the four postulates as guidelines for implementation
In this section, we will elaborate on the concrete development of a prototype
using the four postulates. Naturally, this prototypical implementation is
exemplary and not exhaustive. There are alternative ways of adhering to the
postulates when developing a user interface.
As described in the previous part, understanding annotations as
capta rather than data, we accounted for this in the
interface of the prototype with the possibility of assigning different
attribute values to selected annotations (or glyphs, respectively). This is
exemplified with two attributes scholars can add: certainty and importance.
Both attributes take values on a scale from 1 to 5. Setting these values
changes the appearance of the glyphs and saves the changes in the underlying
JSON format (see Fig. 5). The altered JSON file can be downloaded for each
individual view (by clicking on the respective icon on the thumbnail image
in the views area). This functionality provides an example of the postulate
of the Two Way Screen, that could be extended
to further functionality, like assigning other attributes or the change of
categories, for example. Generally, when thinking about applying our concept
to a full-fledged software tool, it would be desirable to integrate full
annotation functionality into the system, while allowing the manipulation of
annotation metadata via text as well as visualization.
Figure 5.
Changing certainty and importance values changes the appearance of the
glyphs and writes these changes to the JSON fileWhen assigning certainty or importance values scholars create a qualitative
statement about the epistemic status of annotations, in that way addressing
the Quality postulate. Qualitative statements
are not restricted to the individual annotation. Adding comments and tags to
views offers a way of making qualitative assessments about a particular
configuration of annotations or collection of configurations, respectively
(Fig. 6).
In the prototype, visualizations are always based on an automatic structuring
algorithm, be it the two scales of the scatterplot or the forces operating
in the network layout. In addition to it, the interface concept also
includes a functionality that allows scholars to define the spatial
structures themselves, for example, by positioning glyphs freely on the
canvas or allowing to group them by encircling them with lines drawn on the
canvas. Interacting with the glyphs on the canvas in such a way could also
be a way to offer meta annotations.
Figure 6.
Canvas with assigned comment and tags (Tags visible in the views area
on the right side)In the most basic way, the postulate of Parallax
is accomplished by presenting annotations in the context of the surrounding
text in a linear fashion side by side with the different non-linear
configurations represented by the visualization layouts. Furthermore, with
the views area on the right side of the prototype it becomes possible to
compare different configurations with each other by switching between them.
On another level, the ambiguity mentioned in the postulate is exemplified by
the certainty attribute values assigned to glyphs. When looking at a
particular visualization on the canvas, the filter and settings panel allow
scholars to change the foundation for the representation, for example, by
showing only certain categories of annotations in the visualization or to
change parameters regarding the visualization layout (Fig. 7).
The views column on the right side of the interface responds to the Discourse postulate. Here, scholars are encouraged
to build an argumentation out of visualizations (views) and texts (comments)
as single observations.
Figure 7.
“Enclosed” lines deselected in the settings panel
(bottom right) for the overlaps layoutTags assigned to views provide a structuring mechanism that can be used to
form different argumentations out of the same views, thus presenting
different possible readings to compare with each other.
Scholars can jump between views and, by clicking on them, in that manner read
the argumentation in a non-linear way. By investigating individual views
they can follow the argument down to the specific annotations in the text
that constitute the foundation for the argument. This possibility to drill
down creates a transparency in the argumentation that allows critical
reflections on the rigor, intersubjectivity, and validation of the
argumentation. Figure 8 shows the usage of several views for different
argumentations (Fig. 8).
Figure 8.
A scholar scrolls through views belonging to two different
argumentations (three leftmost images). In the right image the tag
“Häufungen und Lücken” representing one
of the two argumentations has been selected.5. Conclusions
In this article, we suggested four postulates as guidelines for developing
hermeneutic visualizations. The resulting visualizations are designed to promote
the connection of digital literary hermeneutics with digital approaches, since
they address the epistemological premises of hermeneutics, as we have shown in
our exemplary prototypical implementation guided by the postulates.
Looking at the hermeneutic visualizations in the prototype, one might notice that
they have an appearance similar to traditional visualizations. This leads us
back to the question formulated in the introduction: What do hermeneutic
visualizations look like? In other words: Are we able to name distinctive
qualities of hermeneutic visualizations?
The answer to this is to be found in the nature of hermeneutic theory expressed
by the three premises and operationalized by the four postulates. While
certainty and importance are typical examples of partial, contextual, and
subjective knowledge and are expressed with the help of visual variables in the
prototype, the central holistic premise demands an iterative, circular process
of generating meaning and forming arguments that becomes visible in the
structure of the user interface, but not primarily in individual
visualizations.
Future implementations might put a stronger focus on the premise of the
dependency between text and recipient (represented by the Qualitative and Parallax postulate),
which might result in more examples of visual variables depicting partial,
contextual and subjective knowledge or even completely new visualizations.
Newness for its own sake, however, has not been our concern here.
Although the presented prototype has been iteratively developed and reviewed by
the researchers within our team based on a real-world hermeneutic scenario
(Interpretation of Franz Kafka’s In der
Strafkolonie), we are interested to learn more about other scholars’
experience with the prototype in order to further study the appropriateness of
the postulates and the idea of hermeneutic visualization. To this end, the
prototype has been launched on a website for other scholars to use.[12] In
addition, the source code has been published on BitBucket[13] in order to give
interested scholars the opportunity to contribute to the development. Being
aware that our prototype cannot address all eventualities of hermeneutic
activity, we deemed it important to enable scholars to extend the repertoire of
hermeneutic visualizations that can be used as arguments. The source code
provides a visualization template that can be used to develop other
visualizations. Following Hinrichs et al. [Hinrichs et al. 2019], we
encourage scholars to come up with new visualizations and adjust existing
hermeneutic practices, in that way building “sandcastles” and
experimenting with hermeneutic visualizations. The prototype itself necessarily
has to be a generic tool, that is capable of supporting a diverse range of
hermeneutic scenarios.
Finally, we hope that our research might inspire other researchers to investigate
what premises need to be considered in order for visualization to benefit other
interpretative approaches. Since some attributes like ambiguity are not specific
to hermeneutics, but common to all theories of interpretation, this research
might serve as a starting point for the development of respective approaches in
other areas.
6. Acknowledgements
The research and the software prototype Stereoscope was developed as part of the
3DH project Three-Dimensional Dynamic Data Visualisation
and Exploration for digital humanities Research at the University of
Hamburg (04/2016–12/2018).[14] The project is conducted by Jan
Christoph Meister. Associated members are Marian Dörk (University of Applied
Sciences Potsdam), Johanna Drucker (University of California), Evelyn Gius (TU
Darmstadt), Geoffrey Rockwell (University of Alberta), Florian Windhager (Danube
University Krems).
Furthermore, we would like to thank Jan Christoph Meister, Jan Horstmann and
Marian Dörk for comments and suggestions on this paper.
7. Links
- Article “Parallax” in Oxford English Dictionary. Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/parallax
- https://voyant-tools.org/
- https://github.com/computationalstylistics/stylo
- https://gephi.org/
- http://tapor.ca
- http://threedh.net/
- http://catma.de/
- https://github.com/janerikst/stereoscope
Notes
[1] In our article, we refer to the discussions and results of
the three-year research project Three-Dimensional
Dynamic Data Visualisation and Exploration for Digital Humanities
Research (3DH) at the University of Hamburg (04/2016–12/2018).
The considerations on hermeneutic visualizations presented here are
therefore the result of a very productive collaboration. Therefore we cannot
claim the presented ideas as our own.
[1] Original German text passages
quoted or paraphrased above are translated by the authors of this
paper.
[2] We acknowledge that the
chosen terms overlap with terms for example like heuristic,
technique, practice.
[3] Krämer [Krämer 2015, 163]
points out that in the practice of text interpretation different
theoretical approaches are often mixed up.
[4] Problems and critics of the
hermeneutic circle cf. Danneberg (1995).
[5] http://tapor.ca
[9] These insufficiencies which many tools have in common do not
prevent hermeneutic practice with them entirely. Literary scholars
practicing an hermeneutic approach have found workarounds to enable a
critical handling of these visualization tools despite their
shortcomings.
[10] In our understanding hermeneutic
visualizations have to be developed with respect to the user interface
that is holding these visualizations. To be able to reconfigure, explore
and form arguments with hermeneutic visualizations there has to be a
user interface surrounding these visualizations that is oriented towards
the hermeneutic process as a whole and allows the manipulation of the
visualizations as well as the arrangement of them.
[12] http://threedh.janerikstange.com/ (temporary domain)
[14] http://threedh.net/
Works Cited
Albrecht et al. 2015 Albrecht, A., Danneberg,
L., Krämer, O., Spoerhase, C., (eds.) (2015). Theorien,
Methode und Praktiken des Interpretierens. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Anderson 2008 Anderson, C. (2008). “The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method
Obsolete”, in Wired, 23/06/2008.
Available at: https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/.
Armaselu et al. 2017 Armaselu, F., van den
Heuvel, C., (2017). “Metaphors in Digital Hermeneutics:
Zooming through Literary, Didactic and Historical Representations of
Imaginary and Existing Cities”, in DHQ: Digital
Humanities Quarterly, 11(3). Available at: https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/11/3/000337/000337.html.
Barbot et al. 2019 Barbot L., Fischer, F.,
Moranville, Y., Pozdniakov I. (2019). “Which DH Tools are
actually used in Research?”, in weltliteratur.net, A Black Market for
the digital humanities, Available at: https://weltliteratur.net/dh-tools-used-in-research/.
Baumann et al. 2020 Baumann, M., Koch, S., John,
M., Ertl, T. (2020). “Interactive Visualization for
Reflected Text Analytics”, in Reiter, N., Pichler, A., Kuhn, J.
(eds.) Reflektierte algorithmische Textanalyse.
Interdisziplinäre(s) Arbeiten in der CRETA-Werkstatt, Berlin: de
Gruyter, pp. 269-296.
Berndt 2009 Berndt, F. (2009). “In the Twilight Zone. Ambiguity and Aesthetics in
Baumgarten”, in Berndt, F., Kammer, S. (eds.) Amphibolie, Ambiguität, Ambivalenz. Würzburg: Königshausen &
Neumann, pp. 121-137.
Bertin 1983 Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Binder et al. 2014 Binder, F., Entrup, B.,
Schiller, I., Lobin, H. (2014). “Uncertain about
Uncertainty: Different ways of processing fuzziness in digital humanities
data”, in Conference Abstracts, DH2014,
pp. 95-98. Available at: https://d-nb.info/1164023926/34.
Boot 2009 Boot, P. (2009). Mesotext: digitised emblems, modelled annotations and humanities
scholarship. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Bradley 2008 Bradley, J. (2008). “Thinking about interpretation: Pliny and scholarship in the
humanities”, in Literary and linguistic
computing, 23(3), pp. 263-279.
Card et al. 1999 Card, S., Mackinlay, J.,
Shneiderman, B. (1999). Readings in information
visualization: Using vision to think. San Francisco:
Kaufmann.
Chamber, Gregory 2006 Chambers, E., Marshall G.
(2006). Teaching & Learning English Literature.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Correll 2019 Correll, M. (2019). Counting, Collaborating, and Coexisting: Visualization and the
digital humanities. Available at: https://mcorrell.medium.com/counting-collaborating-and-coexisting-visualization-and-the-digital-humanities-1bf157400d8.
Danneberg 1995 Danneberg, L. (1995). “Die Historiographie des hermeneutischen Zirkels: Fake und
fiction eines Behauptungsdiskurses”, in Zeitschrift für Germanistik, 5(3), pp. 611-624.
Derrida 1967 Derrida, J. (1967). De la grammatologie [dt. Grammatologie 1974, 2004].
Paris: Editions de Minuit, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Drucker 2011 Drucker, J. (2011). “Humanities approaches to graphical display”, in DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly, 5(1). Available at:
https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/5/1/000091/000091.html.
Drucker 2016 Drucker, J. (2016). 3DH Visualizations: Three dimensional / digital
humanities. Available at: https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/drucker/3DH_Gallery/Text_3DH_Gallery.html.
Drucker 2018 Drucker, J. (2018). “Non-representational approaches to modeling interpretation in
a graphical environment”, in Digital Scholarship
in the Humanities, 33(2), pp. 248-263.
Dörk et al. 2013 Dörk, M., Feng P., Collins, C.,
Sheelagh C. (2013). Critical InfoVis: Exploring the
Politics of Visualization, in alt.chi
2013: Extended Abstracts of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, ACM, pp. 2189-2198.
Eemeren et al. 2009 Eemeren, F., Grootendorst,
R., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1996, 2009). Fundamentals of
argumentation theory : a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary
developments. New York, London: Routledge [Erlbaum].
Gadamer 1990 Gadamer, H.-G. (1960, 1990). Hermeneutik I. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer
philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Mohr.
Galey, Ruecker 2010 Galey, A., Ruecker, S. (2010).
“How a prototype argues”, in Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25(4), pp. 405-424.
Gibson 2014 Gibson, J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception. London:
Psychology Press.
Gius and Jacke 2017 Gius, E., Jacke, J. (2017).
“The hermeneutic profit of annotation: on preventing and
fostering disagreement in literary analysis”, in International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 11(2), pp.
233-254.
Gius et al. 2017 Gius, E., Kleymann, R., Meister
J.C., Petris M. (2017). “Datenvisualisierung als
Aisthesis”, in Conference Abstracts, DHd
2017, pp. 115-120. Available at: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4646123.
Glinka et al. 2017 Glinka, K., Pietsch, C., Dörk,
M. (2017). “Past Visions and Reconciling Views: Visualizing
Time, Texture and Themes in Cultural Collections”, in DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly, 11(2). Available
at: https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/11/2/000290/000290.html.
Groarke 2017 Groarke, L. (2017). “Informal Logic”, in Zalta, E. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at:
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/logic-informal/.
Hinrichs et al. 2019 Hinrichs, U., Forlini, S.,
Moynihan, B. (2019). “In defense of sandcastles: Research
thinking through visualization in digital humanities” in Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34(1), pp.
180-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy051.
Hinrichs, Forlini 2017 Hinrichs, U., Forlini, S.
(2017). “In defense of sandcastles: research thinking
through visualization in DH”, in Proceedings of
the conference on Digital Humanities. International Alliance of
Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO). Available at: https://dh2017.adho.org/abstracts/133/133.pdf.
Jacke 2018 Jacke, J. (2018). “Manuelle Annotation”, in forTEXT. Literatur
digital erforschen. Available at: http://fortext.net/routinen/methoden/manuelle-annotation.
Jahraus, Neuhaus 2002 Jahraus, O., Neuhaus, S.
(eds.) (2002). Kafkas “Urteil” und die
Literaturtheorie. Zehn Modellanalysen. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Jannidis et al. 2003 Jannidis, F., Lauer, G.,
Martínez, M., Winko, S. (eds.) (2003). “Der
Bedeutungsbegriff in der Literaturwissenschaft. Eine historische und
systematische Skizze”, in Regeln der Bedeutung.
Zur Theorie der Bedeutung literarischer Texte. Berlin: de Gruyter,
pp. 3-32.
Jannidis et al. 2017 Jannidis, F., Kohle, H.,
Rehbein, M. (eds.) (2017). Digital Humanities. Eine
Einführung, Stuttgart: Metzler.
Jessop 2008 Jessop, M. (2008). “Digital Visualization as a scholarly activity”, in
Literary and Linguistic Computing, 23(3), pp.
281-293.
Jeßing, Köhnen 2007 Jeßing, B., Köhnen, R.
(2007). Einführung in Die Neuere Deutsche
Literaturwissenschaft. Stuttgart [u.a.]: Metzler.
Kath et al. 2015 Kath, R., Schaal, G., Dumm, S.
(2015). “New Visual Hermeneutics”, in Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 43(1), pp.
27-51.
Kindt, Schmidt 1976 Kindt, W., Schmidt, S. (1976).
Interpretationsanalysen: Argumentationsstrukturen in
Literaturwissenschaftlichen Interpretationen. München: Fink.
Krämer 2015 Krämer, O. (2015). “Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften in Interpretationen von der
Geistesgeschichte bis zum Poststrukturalismus”, in Albrecht, A.,
Danneberg, L., Krämer, O., Spoerhase, C., (eds.) (2015) Theorien, Methode und Praktiken des Interpretierens. Berlin: de
Gruyter, pp. 159-203.
Köppe, Winko 2013 Köppe, T., Winko, S. (2013).
Neuere Literaturtheorien. Eine Einführung.
Stuttgart: Metzler.
Latour 1986 Latour, B. (1986). “Visualization and Cognition: Drawing Things Together”,
in Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of
Culture Past and Present, 6, pp. 1-40.
MacEachren et al. 2012 MacEachren, A. M.,
Roth, R. E., O'Brien, J., Li, B., Swingley, D., Gahegan, M. (2012). “Visual semiotics & uncertainty visualization: An empirical
study”, in IEEE Transactions on Visualization
and Computer Graphics, 18(12), pp. 2496-2505.
Mantzavinos 2016 Mantzavinos, C. (2016).
“Hermeneutics,”
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/hermeneutics/.
McCurdy et al. 2016 McCurdy, N., Lein, J., Coles,
K., Meyer, M. (2016). “Poemage: Visualizing the Sonic
Topology of a Poem”, in IEEE Transactions on
Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1), pp. 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467811.
Meirelles 2019 Meirelles, I. (2019). “Visualizing information”, in Flanders, J., Jannidis, F.
(eds.) The Shape of Data in the Digital Humanities.
Modeling Texts and Text-based Resources. London, New York:
Routhledge, pp. S. 167-177.
Meister 2020 Meister. J.C., (2020). “Annotation als Mark-Up avant la lettre”, in Jannidis
F., Winko, S., Rapp, A., Meister J.C., Stäcker T. (eds.) Digitale Literaturwissenschaft. DFG-Symposium Villa Vigoni, 2017.
Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter (to appear).
Meister et al. 2017 Meister, J.C., Drucker, J.,
Rockwell, G. (2017). “Modeling Interpretation in 3DH: New
dimensions of visualization” in Proceedings of
the conference on Digital Humanities. International Alliance of
Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO). Available at: https://dh2017.adho.org/abstracts/058/058.pdf.
Mersch 2009 Mersch, D. (2009). “The Chiasmus of Language - Six Theses of Language and
Alterity”, in Berndt, F., Kammer, S. (eds.) Amphibolie, Ambiguität, Ambivalenz. Würzburg: Königshausen &
Neumann, pp. 107-120.
Mittelstraß 2008 Mittelstraß, J. (ed.)
(2008). Enzyklopädie Philosophie und
Wissenschaftstheorie. Vol. 3. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Nantke, Schlupkothen 2020 Nantke, J.,
Schlupkothen, F. (eds.) (2020). Annotations in Scholarly
Editions and Research. Functions, Differentiation, Systematization,
Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.
Nünning 2008 Nünning, A. (2008). Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie: Ansätze –
Personen – Grundbegriffe. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Nünning and Nünning 2010 Nünning, V., Nünning, A.
(2010). Methoden der literatur- und
kulturwissenschaftlichen Textanalyse. Ansätze – Grundlagen –
Modellanalysen. Stuttgart: Metzler.
O'Toole 2018 O'Toole, M. (2018). The Hermeneutic Spiral and Interpretation in Literature and
the Visual Arts. New York: Routledge.
Palmers 1969 Palmers, R. E. (1969). Hermeneutics. Interpretation Theory in Schleiermachers,
Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Evanston: Northwestern University
Press.
Piez 2010 Piez, W., (2010). Towards Hermeneutic Markup: An architectural outline. Available at:
http://dh2010.cch.kcl.ac.uk/academic-programme/abstracts/papers/pdf/ab-743.pdf.
Piotrowski 2019 Piotrowski, M. (2019). “Accepting and Modeling Uncertainty”, in Kuczera, A.,
Wübbena, T., Kollatz, T. (eds.) Die Modellierung des
Zweifels – Schlüsselideen und -konzepte zur graphbasierten Modellierung von
Unsicherheiten. Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften.
Wolfenbüttel. DOI:
10.17175/sb004_006a.
Piper 2020 Piper, A. (2020). Can We Be Wrong? The Problem of Textual Evidence in a Time of Data.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ramberg, Gjesdal 2005 Ramberg, B., Gjesdal, K.
(2005). “Hermeneutics”, in Zalta, E. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at:
https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2010/entries/hermeneutics/.
Ramsay 2007 Ramsay, S. (2007). “Algorithmic criticism”, in Siemens, R., Schreibmann, S.
(eds.) A Companion to Digital Literary Studies.
Oxford: Blackwell. Available at: http://www.digitalhumanities.org/companion/view?docId=blackwell/9781405148641/9781405148641.xml&chunk.id=ss1-6-7&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ss1-6-7&brand=9781405148641_brand.
Ramsay and Rockwell 2012 Ramsay, S., Rockwell, G.,
(2012). “Developing Things: Notes toward an Epistemology of
Building in the Digital Humanities”, in Gold, M. (ed.) Debates in the Digital Humanities. Available at: http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/11.
Rapp 2017 Rapp, A. (2017). “Manuelle und automatische Annotation”, in Jannidis, F., Kohle, H.,
Rehbein, M. (eds.) Digital Humanities. Eine
Einführung. Stuttgart: Metzler, pp. 253-267.
Rese 2010 Rese, F. (2010). “Hans-Georg Gadamer”, in Martínez, M., Scheffel, M. (eds.). Klassiker der modernen Literaturtheorie. München:
Beck, pp. 168-190.
Rockwell 2003 Rockwell, G. (2003). “What is text analysis, really?”, in Literary and linguistic computing, 18(2), pp.
209-219.
Rockwell and Sinclair 2016 Rockwell,
G., Sinclair, S. (2016). Hermeneutica: Computer-assisted
interpretation in the humanities. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London,
England: The MIT Press.
Rädle 2000 Rädle, F. (2000). “Argumentum”, in Fricke, H. (ed.) Reallexikon
der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp.
130-132.
Samuels and McGann 1999 Samuels, L., McGann, J.
(1999). “Deformance and interpretation”, in New Literary History, 30(1), pp. 25-56.
Savigny 1976 von Savigny, E. (1976). Argumentation in der Literaturwissenschaft. München:
Beck.
Scheinfeldt 2012 Scheinfeldt, T. (2012).
“Where’s the Beef? Does Digital Humanities Have to
Answer Questions?”, in Gold, M. (ed.) Debates in
Digital Humanities. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Available at: http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/18.
Schleiermacher 1838 Schleiermacher, F.
(1838). Hermeneutik und Kritik. Deutsches
Textarchiv. Available at: http://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/schleiermacher_hermeneutik_1838/8.
Schwan et al. 2019 Schwan, H., Jacke, J.,
Kleymann, R., Stange, J. E., Dörk, M. (2019). “Narrelations
– Visualizing Narrative Levels and their Correlations with Temporal
Phenomena”, in DHQ: Digital Humanities
Quarterly, 13(3). Available at: https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/13/3/000414/000414.html.
Seifert et al. 2014 Seifert, C., Sabol, V.,
Kienreich, W., Lex, E., Granitzer, M. (2014). “Visual
analysis and knowledge discovery for text”, in Large-Scale Data Analytics. New York: Springer, pp. 189-218.
Selbmann 2002 Selbmann, R. (2002). “Kafka als Hermeneutiker. Das Urteil im Zirkel der
Interpretation”, in Jahraus, O., Neuhaus, S. (eds.) Kafkas “Urteil” und die Literaturtheorie. Zehn
Modellanalysen. Stuttgart: Reclam, pp. 36-58.
Sinclair et al. 2013 Sinclair, S., Ruecker, S.,
Radzikowska, M. (2013). “Information Visualization for
Humanities Scholars”, in Price, K. M., Siemens, R. (eds.). Literary studies in the digital age: An evolving anthology.
New York: Modern Language Association. Available at: DOI: 10.1632/lsda.2013.6.
Spree 2000 Spree, A. (2000). “Interpretation”, in Fricke, H. (ed.): Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 2. Berlin,
New York: de Gruyter, pp. 168-172.
Stiegler 2015 Stiegler, B. (2015). Theorien der Literatur- und Kulturwissenschaften.
Paderborn: Schöningh.
Stiening 2016 Stiening, G. (2016). “Hermeneutik. Über die Grenzen des Verstehens und die Gefahren
ihrer Missachtung”, in Jahraus, O. (ed.) Zugänge
zur Literaturtheorie. Stuttgart: Reclam, pp. 54-70.
Szondi 1995 Szondi, P. (1995). Introduction to literary hermeneutics. Trans. by
Martha Woodmansee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Therón et al. 2018 Therón, R., Losada, A. G.,
Benito, A., Santamaría, R. (2018). “Toward supporting
decision-making under uncertainty in digital humanities with progressive
visualization”, in Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing
Multiculturality, pp. 826-832.
Unsworth 2000 Unsworth, J. (2000). “Scholarly primitives: What methods do humanities researchers
have in common, and how might our tools reflect this”, in Symposium on Humanities Computing: Formal Methods,
Experimental Practice. King’s College, London, 3.
Weimar 2000 Weimar, K. (2000). “Hermeneutik”, in Fricke, H. (ed.): Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 2. Berlin,
New York: de Gruyter, pp. 25-29.
Winko 2003 Winko, S. (2003). “Textanalyse”, in Fricke, H. (ed.): Reallexikon
der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 2. Berlin, New York: de
Gruyter, pp. 597-601.
Zirker, Bauer 2017 Zirker, A., Bauer, M. (2017).
“Explanatory Annotation in the Context of the Digital
Humanities: Introduction”, in International
Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing - A Journal of Digital
Humanities, 11 (2017), pp. 145-152.
van Zundert 2016 van Zundert, J. (2016). “Screwmeneutics and hermenumericals: the computationality of
hermeneutics”, in Schreibmann S., Siemens, R., Unsworth J. (eds.)
A New Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford:
Wiley Blackwell, pp. 331-347.
Recommendations
DHQ is testing out three new article recommendation methods! Please explore the links below to find articles that are related in different ways to the one you just read. We are interested in how these methods work for readers—if you would like to share feedback with us, please complete our short evaluation survey. You can also visit our documentation for these recommendation methods to learn more.
SPECTER Recommendations
Below are article recommendations generated by the SPECTER model:
- Humanities Approaches to Graphical Display, 2011, Johanna Drucker, Breslauer Professor of Bibliographical Studies Department of Information Studies, UCLA
- The Fold: Rethinking Interactivity in Data Visualization, 2020, Viktoria Brüggemann, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam; Mark-Jan Bludau, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam; Marian Dörk, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam
- Narrelations — Visualizing Narrative Levels and their Correlations with Temporal Phenomena, 2019, Hannah Schwan, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam; Janina Jacke, University of Hamburg; Rabea Kleymann, University of Hamburg; Jan-Erik Stange, ATLAS.ti; Marian Dörk, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam
- Racism in the Machine: Visualization Ethics in Digital Humanities Projects, 2019, Katherine Hepworth, University of Nevada, Reno; Christopher Church, University of Nevada, Reno
- Placing Graphic Design at the Intersection of Information Visualization Fields, 2019, Yvette Shen, Ohio State University
DHQ Keyword Recommendations
Below are article recommendations generated by DHQ Keywords:
- In a test bed with Kafka. Introducing a mixed-method approach to digital stylistics, 2018, J. Berenike Herrmann, Basel University
- Intermediality and Cultural Assessment: Digital Flows in the Global Age, A Review of Digital Humanities and the Study of Intermediality in Comparative Cultural Studies, edited by Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek. Purdue Scholarly Publishing Services, 2013, 375 pp., 2015, Isabel Pinto, Research Centre for Communication and Culture from the Catholic University of Portugal
- Narrelations — Visualizing Narrative Levels and their Correlations with Temporal Phenomena, 2019, Hannah Schwan, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam; Janina Jacke, University of Hamburg; Rabea Kleymann, University of Hamburg; Jan-Erik Stange, ATLAS.ti; Marian Dörk, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam
- A Digital Humanities Approach to Narrative Voice in The Secret Scripture: Proposing a New Research Method, 2014, Sonia Howell, University of Notre Dame, USA; Margaret Kelleher, University College Dublin (UCD); Aja Teehan, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Ireland; John Keating, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Ireland
- Visualization of Categorization: How to see the wood and the trees, 2023, Ophir Münz-Manor, The Open University of Israel; Itay Marienberg-Milikowsky, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
TF-IDF Recommendations
Below are article recommendations generated by the TF-IDF Model:
- In a test bed with Kafka. Introducing a mixed-method approach to digital stylistics, 2018, J. Berenike Herrmann, Basel University
- Metaphors in Digital Hermeneutics: Zooming through Literary, Didactic and Historical Representations of Imaginary and Existing Cities, 2017, Florentina Armaselu, University of Luxembourg; Charles van den Heuvel, Huygens ING, The Hague, Netherlands; University of Amsterdam
- Digital Humanities, Postfoundationalism, Postindustrial Culture, 2014, James Smithies, University of Canterbury
- Methods of quality, quality of methods. What does Roberto Busa have to communicate to digital humanists in the 21st century? From hermeneutics to performativity., 2017, Marinella Testori, King's College London
- Varieties of Digital Literary Studies: Micro, Macro, Meso, 2022, Simone Murray, School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics, Monash University
URL: https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/15/2/000547.html
Comments: dhqinfo@digitalhumanities.org
Published by: The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations and The Association for Computers and the Humanities
Affiliated with: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
DHQ has been made possible in part by the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Copyright © 2005 - 2025
Unless otherwise noted, the DHQ web site and all DHQ published content are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Individual articles may carry a more permissive license, as described in the footer for the individual article, and in the article’s metadata.
Comments: dhqinfo@digitalhumanities.org
Published by: The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations and The Association for Computers and the Humanities
Affiliated with: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
DHQ has been made possible in part by the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Copyright © 2005 - 2025
Unless otherwise noted, the DHQ web site and all DHQ published content are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Individual articles may carry a more permissive license, as described in the footer for the individual article, and in the article’s metadata.
