Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2004 :: April ::
Stylometrics
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0904  Tuesday, 20 April 2004

[1]     From:   R. A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 19 Apr 2004 08:03:01 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0891 Stylometrics

[2]     From:   Jonathan Hope <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 19 Apr 2004 13:02:42 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0891 Stylometrics

[3]     From:   Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 19 Apr 2004 08:36:42 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0891 Stylometrics


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 19 Apr 2004 08:03:01 -0500
Subject: 15.0891 Stylometrics
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0891 Stylometrics

 >I thought that stylometrics had established beyond any doubt that
 >Terence Hawkes was actually a pseudonym for Hardy - one of his most
 >brilliant creations, in fact, the indolent and ironical Englishman to
 >serve as an alter ego to the earnest and hardworking American.

Caution: T. Hawkes *may* be Welsh.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jonathan Hope <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 19 Apr 2004 13:02:42 +0100
Subject: 15.0891 Stylometrics
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0891 Stylometrics

If Michael Egan genuinely wants answers to his questions about
attribution studies, he should read some or all of the following:

Joseph Rudman, 1998, 'The state of authorship studies: some problems and
solutions', Computers and the Humanities, 31, pp. 351-65

Harold Love, 2000, Attributing Authorship: an introduction (CUP)

David Holmes, 1994, 'Authorship attribution', Computers and the
Humanities, 28, pp. 87-106

David Holmes, 1998, 'The evolution of stylometry in humanities
scholarship', Literary and Linguistic Computing, 13.3, pp. 111-17

I'm not trying to dodge his questions, but they would all take a long
time to answer, and I don't think an email discussion list is the best
place to answer such a broad range of fundamental questions.  If he's
not happy with this, I'll take them one by one if he wants to re-pose
them one by one.

All of the recent attribution work I've read is punctilious (indeed,
often buttock-clenchingly so) about addressing the questions Michael
raises in his post.

Jonathan Hope
Strathclyde University, Glasgow    http://www.sinrs.stir.ac.uk/

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 19 Apr 2004 08:36:42 -0400
Subject: 15.0891 Stylometrics
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0891 Stylometrics

Michael Egan writes,

 >The responses to key questions have been
 >very unsatisfactory, in some
 >cases no response at all. The most important for list readers are these:
 >What are the testable and verifiable data underlying the assumptions of
 >Stylometrical analysis? Is Shakespeare sufficiently exceptional as a
 >writer so as not to be amenable to the same analyses as others? Are the
 >measured stylistic variants in his work indicators of collaboration
 >and/or non-authorship, or merely of his own evolution as a writer? Is
 >drama in a different category from other literary genres? -- As
 >Schoenbaum remarks, 'The cadences of the council chamber may be expected
 >to differ from those of the boudoir.'

Right, and to drop a level of classification, a comedy may be in a
different category from a tragedy or history; or to drop another level
of classification, a romantic comedy may be in a different category from
a farce.  An author might aim for different audiences with the same kind
of play, too, with changes in word-use.  Lots of other factors, as well.
  I think stylometrics fascinating and near-certain to one day be very
persuasive, but for now Heminges and Condell will remain my authorities
for which plays Shakespeare authored.

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.