Vergleich als Methode? Zur Empirisierung eines philologischen Verfahrens im Zeitalter der Digital Humanities

Sonja Klimek; Ralph Müller

doi:10.1515/jlt-2015-0004

Article

Vergleich als Methode? Zur Empirisierung eines philologischen Verfahrens im Zeitalter der Digital Humanities

Published/Copyright: March 10, 2015

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Journal of Literary Theory Volume 9 Issue 1

Abstract

Literary scholars draw comparisons more often than they reflect on the practice of that drawing. Our study of comparisons in hermeneutic practice shows that comparative study is not merely a characteristic of general and comparative literary studies. It can also be found as a (generally qualitative) practice within the monolingual disciplines. The comparison of texts with similar themes is particularly widespread and popular, typically discovering through this comparison the differences and similarities of the literary treatment, in order to prove the aesthetic worth of a work and thus to make increased aesthetic pleasure possible. In addition, there are also studies which, through comparison of sample texts test the validity of statements about literary history or the typology of genres. The practice is particularly associated with comparative literary studies, which claims thus to overcome the limitations of monolingual literary studies. In principle, this form of test study can be extended to an unlimited number of cases, whereby philologists can, among other things, demonstrate how well-read they are. Nevertheless, this form of comparison, too, has to date mostly been used qualitatively, without exploring the potential of a quantitative expansion of the study.

Making reference to Descartes’ thesis (1628) that every growth in knowledge is always grounded in a comparison, it is discussed under what circumstances individual case studies may be understood as technically comparative in nature. In this regard one should be careful not to rob the concept of the comparison of the element of differentiation. Therefore, in what follows, we only class studies as comparative when they consider at least two cases (e. g. at least two works), although the main interest of the study may be reserved for one case.

Further, in literary studies, comparisons may be used both to discover the characteristics of the object investigated (›discovery function‹) and as a (sometimes comparatively conceived) control testing the scope of assertions or hypotheses (›control function‹). The emphasis of the use of comparison, as a rule, lies on the qualitative description of the complexity of individual selected cases, whose aesthetic value and place in literary history may thus be judged. By contrast, quantitative comparisons of a few variables within many cases are seldom used by literary scholars. Literary studies have to date hardly taken into account the contrast between quantitative and qualitative comparisons which has been so thoroughly discussed in social science, nor of the attempts to overcome this contrast (for instance through multi-value comparative quantitative analysis, which takes account not only of the need to revise hypotheses, but also the possible necessity of the revision of categories during or after the drawing of comparisons). Instead, an appeal to the ›incomparability‹ of literary art, made as early as 1902 by Benedetto Croce frequently recurs, or the argument, borrowed from Ethnology and Religious Studies, for the need for necessary ›respect for the unique and different nature‹ (Haupt 2013) of the object of study is often made. Earlier attempts at empiricisation, for instance the empirical study of literature movement of the 1970s (cf. Schmidt 2005), were unable to establish themselves, much less become part of the regular course of German Studies. This was partly because the fundamentally hermeneutically oriented field of literary studies could not accept the empiricists’ rejection of hermeneutic methods (cf. Ort 1994). There was an almost reflex professorial defence of interpretative reading.

Consequently, we think it important that empiricism should no longer be conceived of as an argument against hermeneutic approaches to philological objects of study, but rather to make it available as a useful aid to the improvement of established methods of literary study (cf. Groeben 2013). Literary studies can thus work against the reproach that its generalisations are based at best on insufficient data, and at worst on mere intuition. Building on the often overlooked, but well established philological technique of comparing parallel passages, we wish to demonstrate how, where, and to what extent, the corpus technology offered by the digital humanities can help to empiricise literary studies. Corpora offer, in the first instance, the possibility of qualitative comparison of verbal parallels, but also to make parallels of content in the form of intersubjectively explicable, repeatable search procedures more transparent (cf. Fricke 1991, 2007). In this respect, the comparison of parallel passages, an old established hermeneutic method can be made empirical.

In a further step, we will discuss the possibilities of quantitative comparisons in corpora (i. e. hypothesis-led variables oriented comparisons): on the one hand, the statistical description of corpora through stylometrics, which allows texts as a whole to be described, for instance in terms of word and sentence length, or the frequency of specific graphemes; on the other the analysis of collocations and the determination of »usuelle Wortverbindungen« (common multi-word expressions), which allow for the study of individual textual characteristics. In this connection, we discuss the necessity and usefulness of comparative corpora for the scope of statements determined via corpus analysis, as well as the dependence of the quality of the comparison of parallel passages on the quality of the chosen corpus.

To what extent literary studies as a field will adopt these statistical comparative techniques as a philological method in the age of the digital humanities, remains to be seen. We are, given the aversion to statistical matters which this predominantly hermeneutically oriented discipline has shown to date, somewhat sceptical. We are also sceptical about whether corpus linguistic quality standards of corpora composition will be accepted. We would therefore consider not only statistically based procedures for composing corpora, but also other means of plausibilization, such as the explication of the texts studied, and an argument for their selection, to be not only legitimate but appropriate.

Despite the field of literary studies’ continued reluctance to use quantitative methods, we still see a possibility that quantitative textual comparisons could provide a stimulus to standardisation. Corpus based comparisons make us aware that the comparison of many texts presupposes explicit assumptions about the comparability of what is compared. This requires a precise formulation of the questions to be explored, as well as a precise explication of the textual phenomena studied, so that exact statements about the relationships between the characteristics compared become possible.

Anmerkung

Abstract translated by Johanna Kershaw.

Danksagung

Wir danken den anonymen Gutachtern für ihre konstruktiven Kommentare.

Literatur

Baßler, Moritz/Rainer Karczewski, Computergestützte Literaturwissenschaft als Kulturwissenschaft. Eine Wunschliste, Computerphilologie 9 (2007), 27–34.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Methodological Issues Regarding Corpus-Based Analyses of Linguistic Variation, Literary and Linguistic Computing 5 (1990), 257–269.10.1093/llc/5.4.257Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Representativeness in Corpus Design, in: Thierry Fontenelle (Hg.), Practical Lexicography, Oxford 2008, 63–87.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Corpus Linguistics and the Study of Literature. Back to the Future?, Scientific Study of Literature 1:1 (2011), 15–23.10.1075/ssol.1.1.02bibSearch in Google Scholar

Birus, Hendrik, Komparatistik, in: Harald Fricke et al. (Hg.), Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft, Bd. 2, Berlin/New York 2000, 313–317.Search in Google Scholar

Boehlich, Walter, Formeln zur Nacht, Der Spiegel 18 (1969), 193f.Search in Google Scholar

Bucheli, Roman, Schneller Lesen, Neue Zürcher Zeitung 29.12.2010 (2010), 45.Search in Google Scholar

Burrows, John Frederick, Computation into Criticism. A Study of Jane Austen’s Novels and an Experiment in Method, Oxford 1987.Search in Google Scholar

Compagnon, Antoine, Le démon de la théorie. Littérature et sens commun, Paris 1998.Search in Google Scholar

Croce, Benedetto, Estetica come scienza dell’espressione e linguistica generale [1902], Bari ¹²1973.Search in Google Scholar

Descartes, René, Règles pour la direction de l’esprit (lat. Original: Regulae ad directionem ingenii), in: R.D., Œuvres philosophiques, Tome 1: 1618–1637, textes établis, présentés et annotés par Ferdinand Aliquié, Paris 1963, 69–204.Search in Google Scholar

Eibl, Karl, Sind Interpretationen falsifizierbar?, in: Lutz Danneberg/Friedrich Vollhardt/Hartmut Böhme/Jörg Schönert (Hg.), Vom Umgang mit Literatur und Literaturgeschichte. Positionen und Perspektiven nach der »Theoriedebatte«, Stuttgart 1992, 169–183.10.1007/978-3-476-03386-4_7Search in Google Scholar

Firth, John Rupert, A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, 1930–1955, in: J.R.F. (Hg.), Studies in Linguistic Analysis, Oxford 1957, 1–32.Search in Google Scholar

Fricke, Harald, Wie empirisch sollte eine Literaturtheorie sein? Drei Typen von ›Erfahrung‹ beim Erforschen von Texten, in: H.F. (Hg.), Literatur und Literaturwissenschaft. Beiträge zu Grundfragen einer verunsicherten Disziplin, Paderborn 1991, 111–128.Search in Google Scholar

Fricke, Harald, Begriffsgeschichte und Explikation in der Literaturwissenschaft, in: Gunter Scholtz (Hg.), Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte. Die Interdisziplinarität der Begriffsgeschichte,Sonderheft (2000), 67–72.Search in Google Scholar

Fricke, Harald, Erkenntnis- und wissenschaftstheoretische Grundlagen, in: Thomas Anz (Hg.), Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft. Gegenstände – Konzepte – Institutionen, Bd. 2: Methoden und Theorien, Stuttgart/Weimar 2007, 41–54.Search in Google Scholar

Fucks, Wilhelm, Nach allen Regeln der Kunst. Diagnosen über Literatur, Musik, bildende Kunst – die Werke, ihre Autoren und Schöpfer, Stuttgart 1968.Search in Google Scholar

Fucks, Wilhelm, Über den Gesetzesbegriff einer exakten Literaturwissenschaft, erläutert an Sätzen und Satzfolgen, Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 1:1 (1971), 113–137.Search in Google Scholar

Groeben, Norbert, Was kann/soll »Empirisierung« (in) der Literaturwissenschaft heißen, in: Philip Ajouri/Katja Mellmann/Christoph Rauen (Hg.), Empirie in der Literaturwissenschaft, Münster 2013, 47–74.10.30965/9783957439710_005Search in Google Scholar

Haupt, Sabine, Komparatistiken: Allgemeine und Vergleichende Wissenschaften, in: Rüdiger Zymner/Achim Hölter (Hg.), Handbuch Komparatistik. Theorien, Arbeitsfelder, Wissenspraxis, Stuttgart/Weimar 2013, 329–336.10.1007/978-3-476-05307-7_9Search in Google Scholar

Heil, Uta, Schriftsinn, vielfacher, in: Oda Wischmeyer (Hg.), Lexikon der Bibelhermeneutik (LBH). Begriffe – Theorien – Methoden – Konzepte, Berlin 2009, 531f.Search in Google Scholar

Holmes, David I., Frequent Collocations and Authorial Style, Literary and Linguistic Computing 13:3 (1998), 111–117.10.1093/llc/13.3.111Search in Google Scholar

Hölter, Achim, Volltextsuche, Komparatistik. Jahrbuch für Allgemeine und Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft (2004/05), 131–137.Search in Google Scholar

Hölter, Achim, Über den Grund des Vergnügens am philologischen Vergleich, Komparatistik. Jahrbuch für Allgemeine und Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft (2010), 11–23.Search in Google Scholar

Hoover, David L., Frequent Collocations and Authorial Style, Literary and Linguistic Computing 18:3 (2003), 261–286.10.1093/llc/18.3.261Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan, Collection Strategies and Design Decisions, in: Anke Lüdeling/Merja Kytö (Hg.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 2, Berlin/New York 2008, 154–168.Search in Google Scholar

Jannidis, Fotis, Computerphilologie, in: Thomas Anz (Hg.), Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft. Gegenstände – Konzepte – Institutionen, Bd. 2: Methoden und Theorien, Stuttgart/Weimar 2007, 27–40.Search in Google Scholar

Juola, Patrick, Authorship Attribution, Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 1:3 (2006), 233–334.10.1561/1500000005Search in Google Scholar

Kaelble, Hartmut/Jürgen Schriewer (Hg.), Vergleich und Transfer. Komparatistik in den Sozial-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften, Frankfurt a. M. 2003.Search in Google Scholar

Kilgarriff, Adam, Comparing Corpora, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6:1 (2001), 97–133.10.1075/ijcl.6.1.05kilSearch in Google Scholar

Knapp, Fritz Peter, Vergleich, in: Jan-Dirk Müller et al. (Hg.), Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft, Bd. 3, Berlin/New York 2003, 755–757.Search in Google Scholar

Kneepkens, C.H., comparatio, in: Gert Ueding (Hg.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, Bd. 2, Tübingen 1994, 293–299.Search in Google Scholar

Köppe, Tilmann/Simone Winko, Neuere Literaturtheorien. Eine Einführung, Stuttgart 2008.10.1007/978-3-476-05041-0Search in Google Scholar

Kreuzer, Helmut/Rul Gunzenhäuser (Hg.), Mathematik und Dichtung. Versuche zur Frage einer exakten Literaturwissenschaft, München 1969.Search in Google Scholar

Lampart, Fabian, Zeit und Geschichte. Die mehrfachen Anfänge des historischen Romans bei Scott, Arnim, Vigny und Manzoni, Würzburg 2002.Search in Google Scholar

Lieberman Aiden, Erez et al., Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books, Scienceexpress (2010).Search in Google Scholar

Mahlberg, Michaela, Corpus stylistics and Dickens’s Fiction, New York 2007.Search in Google Scholar

Mill, John Stuart, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence, and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, London 1843.10.5962/bhl.title.25118Search in Google Scholar

Moennighoff, Burkhard, Grundkurs Lyrik, Stuttgart 2010.Search in Google Scholar

Moretti, Franco, Conjectures on World Literature, New Left Review 1 (2000), 54–68.Search in Google Scholar

Moretti, Franco, Style, Inc. Reflections on Seven Thousand Titles (British Novels, 1740–1850), Critical Inquiry 36:1 (2009), 134–158.10.1086/606125Search in Google Scholar

Moretti, Franco, Distant Reading, London/New York 2013.Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Ralph, Parallelstellenmethode – digital. Wie computer-gestützte Korpus-Analysen die Hermeneutik empirisieren, in: Philip Ajouri/Katja Mellmann/Christoph Rauen (Hg.), Empirie in der Literaturwissenschaft, Münster 2013, 181–200.Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Ralph/Tobias Lambrecht, ›As if‹: Mapping the empathic eloquent narrator through literary history, Language and Literature 22:3 (2013), 175–190.10.1177/0963947013489236Search in Google Scholar

Muno, Wolfgang, Fallstudien und vergleichende Methode, in: Susanne Pickel/Gert Pickel/Hans-Joachim Lauth/Detlef Jahn (Hg.), Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 1999, 113–131.10.1007/978-3-531-91826-6_6Search in Google Scholar

Nemesio, Aldo, The Comparative Method and the Study of Literature, CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 1:1 (1999), http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.100010.7771/1481-4374.1000Search in Google Scholar

Oakes, Michael P. Corpus Linguistics and Stylometry, in: Anke Lüdeling/Merja Kytö (Hg.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 2, Berlin/New York 2008, 1070–1090.Search in Google Scholar

Ort, Claus-Michael, Texttheorie – Textempirie – Textanalyse. Zum Verhältnis von Hermeneutik, Empirischer Literaturwissenschaft und Literaturgeschichte, in: Achim Barsch/Gebhard Rusch/Reinhold Viehoff (Hg.), Empirische Literaturwissenschaft in der Diskussion, Frankfurt a. M. 1994, 104–122.Search in Google Scholar

Pickel, Susanne/Gert Pickel/Hans-Joachim Lauth/Detlef Jahn, Differenzierung und Vielfalt in den vergleichenden Methoden der Sozialwissenschaften, in: S.P./G.P./H.-J.L./D.L. (Hg.), Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 1999, 9–26 (Pickel et al. 1999a).10.1007/978-3-531-91826-6_1Search in Google Scholar

Pickel, Susanne/Gert Pickel/Hans-Joachim Lauth/Detlef Jahn (Hg.), Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Wiesbaden 1999 (Pickel et al. 1999b).Search in Google Scholar

Ragin, Charles C., The Comparative Method. Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1987.Search in Google Scholar

Rayson, Paul/Roger Garside, Comparing Corpora Using Frequency Profiling, in: Adam Kilgarriff/Tony Berber Sardinha (Hg.), WCC '00 Proceedings of the workshop on Comparing corpora, Vol. 9, Stroudsburg, PA 2000, 1–6.10.3115/1604683.1604686Search in Google Scholar

Satori, Giovanni, Comparing and Miscomparing, Journal of Theoretical Politics 3:3 (1991), 243–257.10.1177/0951692891003003001Search in Google Scholar

Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst, Hermeneutik und Kritik. Mit einem Anhang sprachphilosophischer Texte Schleiermachers, hg. von Manfred Frank, Frankfurt a. M. 1977.Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, Siegfried J., Interdisziplinarität – Empirisierung – Medienorientierung. Stationen eines glücklichen Scheiterns, in: Klaus-Michael Bogdal/Oliver Müller (Hg.), Innovation und Modernisierung. Germanistik von 1965 bis 1980, Heidelberg 2005, 53–64.Search in Google Scholar

Semino, Elena/Mick Short, Corpus Stylistics. Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing, London/New York 2004.10.4324/9780203494073Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, Oxford 1991.Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John, Trust the Text. Language, Corpus and Discourse. Edited with Ronald Carter, London/New York 2004.10.4324/9780203594070Search in Google Scholar

Soulet, Marc-Henry, Usages et mésusages de la comparaison en sociologie, in: Gilbert Casasus/Sabine Haupt (Hg.), Vergleichen? Komparatistische Wissenschaften im Vergleich. Comparer? La comparaison dans les sciences, Berlin/Wien/Zürich 2011, 103–109.Search in Google Scholar

Steen, Gerard, Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage. A Methodological Analysis of Theory and Research, Amsterdam 2009.Search in Google Scholar

Steyer, Kathrin, Usuelle Wortverbindungen. Zentrale Muster des Sprachgebrauchs aus korpusanalytischer Sicht, Tübingen 2013.Search in Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael, Text and Corpus Analysis. Computer-Assisted Studies of Language and Culture, Oxford, Cambridge, MA 1996.Search in Google Scholar

Szondi, Peter, Über philologische Erkenntnis, in: P.S., Hölderlin-Studien. Mit einem Traktat über philologische Erkenntnis, Frankfurt a. M. 1967, 9–30.Search in Google Scholar

Szondi, Peter, Einführung in die literarische Hermeneutik, hg. von Jean Bollack und Helen Stierlin, Frankfurt a. M. 1975.Search in Google Scholar

Toolan, Michael, Narrative Progression in the Short Story. A Corpus Stylistic Approach, Amsterdam 2009.10.1075/lal.6Search in Google Scholar

Unsworth, John, Scholarly Primitives: What Methods Do Humanities Researchers Have in Common, and How Might Our Tools Reflect This? (2000), http://people.brandeis.edu/~unsworth/Kings.5-00/primitives.html (27.10.2014).Search in Google Scholar

Zelle, Carsten, Komparatistik und comparatio – der Vergleich in der Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft. Skizze einer Bestandsaufnahme, Komparatistik. Jahrbuch der Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft (2004/05), 13–33.Search in Google Scholar

Zima, Peter V., Komparatistik als Metatheorie. Zu interkulturellen und interdisziplinären Perspektiven in der Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft, in: Lutz Danneberg/Friedrich Vollhardt (Hg.), Wie international ist die Literaturwissenschaft?, Stuttgart/Weimar 1996, 532–549.10.1007/978-3-476-03631-5_33Search in Google Scholar

Zima, Peter V., Komparatistische Perspektiven. Zur Theorie der Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft, Tübingen 2011.Search in Google Scholar

Zymner, Rüdiger, Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft, in: Achim Hölter/R.Z. (Hg.), Handbuch Komparatistik. Theorien, Arbeitsfelder, Wissenspraxis, Stuttgart/Weimar 2011, 7–9.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-3-10

Published in Print: 2015-3-1

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2015-0004