Close Reading At A Micro Level

In her article, “A rationale of digital documentary editions”, Elena Pierazzo claims, “the digital medium has proved to be much more permissive and so editors need new scholarly guidelines to establish ‘where to stop’.”(463). By digitally analyzing text at a micro level, I have been able to look into aspects of the manuscript that I wouldn’t have done otherwise. For example, I’ve learned to take note on which specific words the author tends to use, in what way the author tends to describe people and places, and even observe the author’s past experiences, and how that in effect can make an impact on their writing.

Nobody looks at a text close enough for full understanding until he or she has completed a transcription of that text. In the beginning of this assignment, I knew very little about Linn and his travels just from reading his diary. However, now that I have meticulously gone into detail transcribing multiple entries of his diary, I am able to connect with Linn on a level that I wasn’t able to before. The action of transcribing has caused me to engage with Linn’s diary and help me discover aspects of his writing that I never would have noticed before.

Color coding words helped me think about which words to mark up and why

Color coding words helped me think about which words to mark up and why

What is interesting about transcribing a document is that everybody will do it a different way. Pierazzo states on page 465 that, “if every editor necessarily selects from an infinite set of facts, it is evident that any transcription represents an interpretation and not a mechanically complete record of what is on the page.” This is why it is impossible to exactly replicate the document in a transcription; it is subjective to the person transcribing it. What’s good about this is that one can see how engaged a person is with the material by looking at how marked up the document they’re transcribing is. Because everybody transcribes differently, it becomes evident who is focusing on what aspect of the text through his or her transcription. This in turn gives a well-rounded view of the document as a whole, and one will be able to look into multiple aspects of the document with ease.

Oxygen shows the tags within the diary entry

Oxygen shows the tags within the diary entry

Pierazzo couldn’t have said it better when she stated, “The preparation and publication on the Web of digital scholarly editions, especially those based on transcriptions of manuscripts, are at the centre of lively debate among scholars.”(463). Though we are considered more of students than scholars, I would wholeheartedly agree with Pierazzo on this point. As a class, we have had multiple discussions on whether certain things are objects or places and event versus time. Personally, I believe these discussions are the most beneficial part of the transcription process because it allows everybody to hear different perspectives. To resolve our disputes, we would vote, majority winning. However, before that vote was made, each side would have to give an appealing argument to support their claim. This kind of action in class made for a very productive work environment, and helped bring about discussion that benefitted everyone.

close reading

The process of marking up my transcription has effected my understanding of the text. It helped me to understand the context and learn specific words. For example, I had no idea that a battery was a place; rather, I thought a battery was an object. By looking at it closely, I was able to come to a realization that the battery was a significant place during the Civil War. In my specific entry, I found color coding and marking up words very interesting because I could see whether or not people agreed with what I coded them as. For example, I coded Rengler’s Old Mill as a place, whereas someone else might have thought of it as an object

In her article, Elena Pierazzo speaks about limits. She said, “So, we must have limits, and limits represent the boundarieswithin which the hermeneutic process can develop”(466). Therefore she meant that we couldn’t mark up everything because then we wouldn’t be limiting ourselves.  “The challenge is therefore to select those limits that allow a model which is adequate to the scholarly purpose for which it has been created (466)”. I faced this problem when I was choosing which words to tag. I had to limit myself with the tagging; otherwise I would’ve gone overboard and tagged the whole paper. It was hard to choose which ones I wanted to tag because they all seemed taggable. After I got the hang of it, it became easier and limiting the words that I tagged become more natural and less of a process.

In Pierazzo’s article G.T Tanselle says: “The process of selection is inevitably an interpretative act: what we choose to represent and what we do not depends either on the particular vision that we have of a particular manuscript or on practical constraints”(467). I related to this when I was trying to decide whether something was an object or a place. For example, our whole class was disputing over whether a Cossack was a place or an object. Some people have particular visions as boats being objects where others have envisions of boats being places. My feeling was that Cossack was a place because it’s a place that people go to. Another time I was interpreting things while selecting was when I had to select whether something was just a persons name or a role name. For example, I interpreted col as being a role name. So I selected the tag “roleName” opposed to “persName.”

Another point made in Pierazzo’s article was when E. Pierazzo said “Capital letters were preserved and marked; Austen used these inconsistently for any part of speech, so we have distinguished nouns, verbs, pronouns, adjectives, articles, and adverbs(470).” I agree with this because if things weren’t being capitalized, I’d have trouble distinguishing what the words were and when new sentences were starting. Also without the proper punctuation, it would be hard to follow the entry and understand what was going on. “The original fluctu- ating punctuation was also kept”(470). If it weren’t kept, there would be no proper flow to the diary entry

As a class we came to an agreement on whether specific words were places or objects. At first, everyone would bicker but by the end we all came to an agreement with what we thought the word should be categorized under. I found this process very engaging, yet frustrating, but overall I liked it!

Below is me tagging the word wagon track as an “ object type” in oxygen:

Oxygen

Tagging in Oxygen 

Below is me marking the word “wagon track” with the color orange to represent an object:

Screen shot 2014-10-26 at 7.33.28 PM

Color Coding

As seen in the two pictures the things I marked up and tagged as objects ended up being objects.

In conclusion I enjoyed close reading. It really helped me understand the context of the diary entry more. At first I thought oxygen was going to be extremely difficult to use and overwhelming but it turned out to be very maneuverable and to my liking!

Things I learned through tagging

The process of marking up my transcription was definitely very helpful as it allowed me to make observations that I would not have otherwise made. The first step was for us to tag people, places, objects, events, etc. in our our own diary entry. Before doing the markups in XML, we made a class google document with all of our diary entries in order. Each category (people, places, objects, etc.) eScreen Shot 2014-10-26 at 5.45.56 PMach had its own color and we were instructed to highlight the words accordingly. For me, this was the most useful step. During this step was when I decided which words were important enough to be highlighted. For example, a person was referred to in Linn’s entry as “gentleman,” but I decided that he was someone Linn saw in passing and was not essential to be marked up.

Another helpful part of this step was that when each of my classmates and I finished the markups I was able to scroll through the document and see which color was the most prominent. It turned out that blue and orange, which represented people and objects, appeared to be the two most seen colors. On the other hand, red represented events and this was probably the most seldom seen color. This allowed me to observe that Linn did not view the specific events, accomplishments, or defeats of the battle as significant to write about, but instead Linn focused on the people and objects that directly involved him on a day-to-day basis.

Lastly, through scrolling through the document I was able to see that each person chose to focus on tagging different word types. For example, there were some diary entries that had numerous purple markups (dates and times) and others that had zero. I do not think that this difference came about because of Linn, but this occurred because of the students’ different ideas of what they viewed as important.  This observation connects heavily to the Pierazzo reading. Pierazzo focused a lot on how the digital medium allows for greater possibilities for representation, which proved to be true. Additionally, I was able to see the large role individuality and perspective plays in marking up documents that Pierazzo discussed. By actually completing markups and comparing mine to that of my classmates, I now agree with Pierazzos statement that, “a digital edition includes features of the original document that are considered meaningful to the editors” (475). The digital edition is exactly so, but I may be difficult to understand this without actually going through the process for yourself.

After highlighting in the google document, we used XML in order to tag the words. Personally, I think it is significantly harder to make observations in this medium. This is because the google document allowed for both close and distant reading analyses to be made, which cannot be done using the XML. In XML only close reading analysis can be easily made. I definitely used this method as for each word that I tagged, I first analyzed the importance of it in terms of Linn and his entry. Based on my analysis I decided whether the word was worth being tagged.  This connects to another central topic of Pierazzo’s article, which was on “when to stop.” Since the digital world does not place many limitations on the editors, how do the editors know enough is enough? Personally, I believe it is better to under tag than over tag, because if every other word is tagged it is harder to see what is truly meaningful.

Another aspect of this project that was an eye-opener for me was the class debate. During this class, I felt like I was at an editorial staff meeting. We were sitting in a circle comparing specific words that some of us tagged as different word types. For example, cossack was a word that was of huge debate. A portion of the class felt that cossack was a place, but others argued that it was an object. It was interesting to take part in this debate and to in the end agree on one of the two. As a class we decided to mark cossack as an object. We came to this conclusion because although sometimes cossack is mentioned as a place in which Linn is going to, this is not always the case. However, it can not be argued against that cossack is always an object since it is a boat. I thought it was very interesting to see how much passion was put into this argument over tagging one single word.

I also found that this act of collaboration was helpful in enhancing my TEI file. Prior to this class, I did not go into detail on any of my tags. I merely used the word categories given to me, without further identifying. As a class we agreed that Beaver was someone of importance based on how frequently he Screen Shot 2014-10-26 at 5.59.56 PMwas discussed throughout the diary entries. Since he was important, we decided to give him an attribute. As a group we thought it was appropriate to give Beaver the type military.

I definitely had a lot of fun doing this project and I learned a lot about digital editions and the battles that editors can face in the process of publishing. Sometimes freedom is a bad thing because it can be difficult to place limits on oneself. Although a digital edition will never be the same as its source document I enjoyed trying to preserve it as much as I could. For example, in the TEI the line breaks match up with that of the original copy. I also kept Linn’s abbreviations such as his ampersands. Although there are some aspects that can not be replicated, such as the specific spacings between his written words, it is important to maintain as much as the digital allows.

Importance of Tagging in TEI

Close reading is a great tool to help categorize people, places, events, and more within a specific text. Using TEI, we analyzed Linn’s diary by choosing what words to tag. For example, one of our class discussions consisted of whether or not “cossack” should be tagged as a place or object. I argued that a cossack, which is a type of boat, is always an object but depending on the context of the sentence, it can be a place, too. In Linn’s diary, cossack was frequently used so we knew that we needed to tag it. We decided to tag it as object because in some instances in the diary, cossack wasn’t always a place.
Screen Shot 2014-10-26 at 3.52.50 PM

However, we resolved the place vs. object dilemma by categorizing it as an object but by also specifying what kind of object it is. Thus, we specified cossack by placing an object type tag as “boat”. By consulting with my peers, I realized that there can be multiple different perspectives and outlooks of a word, phrase or even an entire document. Cossack is a great example of a word that can be interpreted differently depending on its context. I may feel strongly that cossack is an object, but others can interpret it differently. Collaborating throughout Linn’s diary will allow our class to determine and classify words, which will also help clarify different opinions and interpretations.

In general, marking up the transcription has helped me better understand the context and circumstances of Linn. For instance, we individually started separating the people in the database by union and confederate army. Most of the people are union, which is to be expected because Linn is part of the union army and talks about the military men surrounding him. I also learned a little more about the men in the specific diary entry I transcribed.Screen Shot 2014-10-26 at 4.13.46 PMI thought that Alcot, Ripley and Prawe were all part of the union army but they were actually reporters who were supposedly neutral during the war. This helped clarify the context of the diary entry when I knew they were not directly involved in the war. As shown above, Alcot, Ripley and Prawe are reporters for the Herald & Inquirer. Before we started categorizing people, I assumed they were part of the military and I was confused why a newspaper company was mentioned. Now the context of this diary entry makes more sense!

In Pierazzo’s essay “A Rationale of Digital Documentary Editions”, she discusses the process of tagging selection. One of the most challenging aspects of specifying by tagging in TEI is knowing when to stop. You could essentially tag everything but that’s very time-consuming and does not distinguish significant phrases or words from less important ones. Pierazzo writes, “…we might conclude that one possible and tempting answer to the question ‘where to stop’ could be ‘nowhere’, as there are potentially infinite sets of facts to be recorded” (466). This causes a wide variation in interpretation. If there’s no limit, then one would think there is essentially no structure or guidelines between different articles. Although there may not be a hard limit, “the vast majority of decisions we make in this realm are decisions on which all (or most) competent readers agree or seem likely to agree (p. 196)” (466). Pierazzo makes the point that the tags made are (almost) universally acceptable and understood. There is room for interpretation, but the tags are not completely random. Therefore, there is some order when tagging words. Additionally, Pierazzo feels that when tagging, it is important to consider your audience. She writes, “to achieve the purpose of the edition and meet the editors’ needs, one needs to ask which features bear a cognitive value, that is, which are relevant from a scholarly point of view” (469). This demonstrates that the person marking up the document must consider the audience and make thoughtful, educated decisions when tagging. Although there’s no limit or “correct” way to tag words, Pierazzo believes that there are ways to make it somewhat orderly and structured while also having room for different interpretation.

Oxygen Mark Up of Diary 60

During the markup process of my Linn diary transcription, I learned a lot about the context of Linn’s writings through close reading. It allowed me to focus on certain words that helped me get a greater understand of the t text as a whole. Even collaborating with the editorial group in class helped me get a better grip on how to mark up certain words. One such instance that helped me decide what to mark certain words was the debate over whether a boat is a place or an object. In my opinion, I believe a boat is a place; it is extremely the case when it is named like the “Cossack.” The “Cossack” seemed to have much more of a meaning and presence than just an object. After a lengthy and intense discussion on why our class felt what they felt, we decided to mark up any boat, regardless of a proper noun, an object. We decided that this “object” would have a more descriptive mark up.

How do we mark up a boat?

How do we mark up a boat?

Elena Pierazzo really categorizes the, in Jakacki’s words, “richness of the marked up text as a form of intellectual engagement with its interpretation.” In her article, “A Rationale of Digital Documentary Editions” is exemplary of how people should mark up transcriptions. One way she wants people to consider the marking up process is to have “have limits, and limits represent the boundaries within which the hermeneutic process can develop”(Pierazzo). Basically, she believes that we cannot mark up and focus on every single word. That would one, very time-consuming, and, two, counterproductive. In order to interpret Linn’s transcriptions, we had to make decisions on what was important to us. If everything was marked up, wouldn’t we just end up at the beginning? We need to see the relationship between certain things and this is, ultimately, intellectual engagement.

Screen Shot 2014-10-22 at 5.43.25 PM

persName and placeName

Another point that Pierazzo brings up is that we ultimately choose what we rant to represent. There needs to be a meaning behind the mark ups. She states that “the process of selection is inevitably an interpretative act: what we choose to represent and what we do not depends eitherr on the particular vision that we have a particular manuscript or on practical constraints”(Pierazzo). There are certain influences that make us mark up certain words. In my case, I focused on people and places. What I found was that after zoning in on one particular area, I could then go deeper and mark up those words even further. While having some technical difficulties in the level I could describe different people’s roles, I at least was trying to make that one of my main goals.

The last crucial point that Pierazzo argues is that letters are not just marks on a paper. They are symbols we chose to make meanings for. Robinson insists, “‘an ‘i’ is not an ‘i’ because it is a stroke with a dot over it. An “i” is an “i” because we alls agree that it is an ‘i’’”(Pierazzo). Taking this into consideration, our class decided that we would always use “&” for every time Linn uses “&.” After coming to this conclusion, we had to make it clear in Oxygen that we wanted “&” to also mean “and.” An ampersand is not just some weird symbol, we came to a final conclusion, along with the English society, that an ampersand means and.

After using Oxygen and reading the Pierazzo article, I really have a better understanding for Diary 60 of the Linn transcription. Close reading individual words contributes to the overall meaning of Linn’s diary.