Category: Blog #4

Categories
Blog #4

Blog #4

     Marking up my transcription was actually an integral aspect to my understanding of the text. I feel as if being able to analyze the text through breaking down different aspects of the words was really helpful in that it made me feel closer to the actual words and meanings of the text itself. Instead of just reading every small word individually, I was able to see how every word shaped the overall meaning of the text due to tagging.

     I feel as if the Bethlehem memoirs in specific were important with regards to the aspect of understanding how the memoirs interrelate. Our memoirs were different from the other memoirs in that we had several different authors all from the same relative time period, rather than just one single memoir. This method of marking up was also unique with our Bethlehem memoirs in that we had varying accounts of mentioning the word “Lord”, “Savior”, or ”Jesus”. To remain consistent throughout, we decided as a group to tag any occurrences of the Holy Spirit as a person. We had to make some cuts on what should be considered tangible, and what should not be considered taggable. As Pierazzo says, “informed choices need to be made on what to include because it is relevant and what can be safely omitted” (Pierazzo 467).

     Collaborating with the rest of my editorial board (group) also heavily influenced my perspective on the memoirs as a whole. I feel as if when it was just me editing my own memoir, I had a single perspective on which words should be tagged. When I gave it to the rest of my group to revise , they pointed out aspects of my memoir that I hadn’t previously considered taggable, and thus I was able to get a more full sense of my memoir.

     I really enjoyed using TEI with my memoir. I think Pierazzo summarized it best when she said “to all intents and purposes there is no limit to the information one can add to a text—apart, that is, from the limits of imagination” (Pierazzo 466). Using technology to actually be able to analyze all accounts of different aspects of these memoirs was an invaluable opportunity, and is a “much less limiting” medium to engage in analysis. (Pierazzo 464).

     I also believed that learning how to use this software gave me a strong insight on how to apply to this to other literature that I may encounter. I have gotten a much firmer understanding of html and how computer processes and systems work, so I feel like I have a more diverse approach to the digital humanities now. I now have a knack for transcription AND a knack for using the technology associated with analyzing those said transcribed texts.

    Overall, I believe that I have a much more complete and wholistic grasp on the Bethlehem memoirs, but specifically that of Anna Elizabeth Rauch. I now understand more of why she did what she did because I tagged different aspects of her emotions and her health. When I had read the memoir previously, it seemed a little dry, and I was confused about the sequence of events that occurred and why they happened. Now I know how Anna’s emotions and state of mind shaped her journey working in Jamaica on the Mesopotamia plantation.

Categories
Blog #4

Blog #4

Throughout the duration of my work with my memoirs, I have developed a deeper understanding and appreciation of digital humanities. I also became very familiar with my memoir throughout each process that I went through, whether it be transcribing, tagging, or converting my transcription into an html text. Through these processes, I was also able to get a more in depth understanding of the way the digital humanity community works and realized just how complex this work can be.

My understanding and familiarity developed throughout the time that I worked with my memoir; I learned more and more each time I examined the text. At first, during my transcription, I would say that I developed a basic understanding of my memoirs; when I transcribe I am more objective towards the transcription itself, not the analyzation of the text. After transcribing the text, my understanding deepened as I read over my transcription, making sure that it was coherent. I became interested in the words that I had no familiarity with and proceeded to research them. For example, when I came across “Gnadenfrei,” I didn’t know if it was a person, place, or event, but after researching the word I became familiar with the city. The next stage, developing my timeline with my group, brought on an even more involved/developed familiarity and understanding of not only my text but also of the memoirs that my partners worked on; when we worked together outside of class, we shared interesting topics and events that were throughout our memoirs. Being able to link events in my memoirs to contextual events was enlightening; it provided more of  a background into the lives of the original authors of my texts. Finally, when it came to marking up and tagging my transcriptions, I learned even more about my memoirs. I can most logically contribute this deeper understanding to the fact that tagging invites you to analyze each and every word in the text on a deeper level to then be able to categorize its properties and overall impact on the text overall. For instance, the sentence, “till he at last with Howling & bawling went to Eternity,” from my Benigna Briand memoir seemed to have greater meaning and impact when I tagged it to eventually be, “till he at last with <name type=”emotion”>Howling &amp; bawling</name> went to Eternity,” causing me to be even more drawn to the emotion that really  bring great meaning and have a great impact on the sentence. This impact that words and their functions can have on the text when analyzed is conveyed by Pierazzo when she states, “While some of these parameters correspond to graphic evidence on the writing surface (letter shapes, ligatures, graphic components), others represent meta-information, such as dimensions, or qualifications of words in terms of both semantics and grammatical functions.” (Pierazzo 468)

One of the most important parts and greatest learning experiences of my work with my memoirs was the collaboration that took place with my group. Working with a group provided great insight into how the digital humanities community functions; it is very rare that a person works alone within the community. From providing us with editorial freedom to allowing us to work out our problems within our group, the structure of the entire assignment was very beneficial to learning and developing my understanding of DH. As Pierazzo suggests, in digital humanities, because we have so many resources at our fingertips, we must establish how much is enough/too much (Pierazzo 463). It was mostly in tagging where we had to establish this. In my group, we had to make several editorial decisions, which were made unanimously and without disagreement or arguing. Some of the decisions we made together was to tag God and any reference to him as “persName” and any religion/religious group as “orgName.”

Working with these texts is a huge responsibility; the editor’s interpretation of the text is huge factor in how the text is represented and presented. As stated in Pierazzo’s work and cited from Meulen and Tanselle, “the transcriber’s goal is to make an informed decision about what is actually inscribed at each point.”(Pierazzo 465) I believe that through each process our project went through, I, as a transcriber, was able to make well-informed decisions as I became more and more familiar with my memoirs and my understanding of them developed and deepened.

    

Categories
Blog #4

Blog #4

The process of marking up the transcription of Harriett Lee’s memoir has positively affected my understanding of the text. After spending this entire semester working with this memoir making transcribing, making timelines, and especially marking up the transcription has allowed me to understand the memoir so much better. Close reading has allowed me to notice and understand the specifics and smaller, hidden information in the text that I did not see earlier and while I was distant reading. This is an example of differential reading, which has helped broadened my understanding of the text and has allowed me to gain a better connection to the text. While transcribing in the beginning of the semester, I was perplexed and uncertain if what I was transcribing made any sense, but as the semester went on and I practiced differential reading, I have learned so much more about Harriett Lee’s life and about the early nineteenth century as well. Our completion of our memoir this far in the semester is an example of a diplomatic edition, “the two products will possibly contain the same text, but while the first will be a private product, the latter will be a publicly published one. These two objects therefore represent two different stages of the same editorial process, although the first can exist without the second” (Pierazzo 646).
       My overall understanding of how edited texts are predicted changed drastically when working as an editorial board with Hailey. The process of marking up the memoir of Harriett Lees with Hailey was a slight challenge because we had to make important decisions on what specifically to tag. To ensure consistency in our mark ups, we were constantly discussing our opinions on how and what we should tag. Hailey and I decided to make a google doc to help keep our thoughts organized on what we were and weren’t tagging, which was extremely helpful, especially when doing work outside of class.
One example of a big decision we discussed is if we should tag “God”, “Savior”, and “Lord” as a person. There is much controversy over this because each individual has different thoughts and opinions on this, but after a long discussion, we decided that God should not be tagged as a person. We also agreed to not tag “heaven” as a place for this same reason. Depending on the context of the sentence, we decided to tag “church” as an organization because Harriett Lees’s life revolved around religion. We also decided that tagging “brother”, “sister”, “mother”, “doctor”, etc. as people would not be beneficial when reading this memoir. My favorite part of tagging was tagging emotion because it deepen my connection to the text and how Harriett Lees and her family felt when she was so ill.
Through this process, I have come to notice and learn that “the process of selection is inevitably an interpretative act” (Pierazzo 465).
          Hailey and I get along very well and share many of the same values and beliefs, so there has been very little disputes. When a disagreement occurred, we would each explain our reasoning for why we felt a way about marking up the text and then would then compromise on a decision. Our compromise is an example of social agreement that Peter Robinson discussed in the article. The article says, “judgment is necessarily involved in deciding what is in fact present [in the manuscript], as when an ambiguously formed character resembles two different letters; but the transcriber’s goal is to make an informed decision about what is actually inscribed at each point (Pierazzo 466). I think these words are very wise and well thought out.

           Editing digital texts is very difficult, but also rewarding. Strong communication between team members is very important to help prevent any mistakes, such as not working on the newest document, from occurring. All in all, I really enjoyed learning how to edit digital texts and am very glad I learned this skill. I also find it fascinating that technology has allowed us to be able to electronically transcribe documents from so long ago.

These are two examples of times Hailey and I tagged in the Harriett Lees document. For example, we specifically tagged emotions, objects, events, etc.

Categories
Blog #4

Blog #4

Learning TEI-compliant XML markup and applying it to my transcription enabled me to see my transcription in a new way. While the past two modules had me looking at my transcription through distant reading, the TEI-complaint XML markup had me paying attention to every single word once again. However, while this new view allowed me to closely look at every word, I also had to pay attention to the larger context in which the words were placed. By paying attention to the larger context in which the words were places, I was able to interpret what I thought Joseph Lingard was saying, while also trying to correctly tag the transcription. 

Within my team, we created a set of rules within a Google Doc about how we were tagging our transcriptions. As Pierazzo states, our group had to ask ourselves, “Which features of the primary source are we to reproduce in order to be sure that we are following ‘best practice’? Are there any shared guidelines to inform our choices? Where shall we stop?” (Pierazzo, 4). Some examples of decisions we made were if to tag “Lord”, “Jesus” and “Savior” as a person (which we agreed to) and whether to tag specific churches as an organization or as a place. My group largely agreed with one another with these tagging decisions, so there was little dispute and resulting tension. However, making these decisions about how to tag the document made the document more personal to our group. Specifically, as Pierazzo explains, “Arguably some of the choices made by the editors can be motivated both by the purpose of the edition and by the needs of the readers, and one might also argue that making an accessible edition is one purpose of the edition” (Pierazzo, 8). Our decisions were made with both our group’s purpose and the larger need of the future readers in mind. With reference to Pierazzo’s point, our document was subjected to our own personal interpretation and could arguably be interpreted very differently if it were tagged by another group in HUMN 100. Additionally, Pierazzo explains, “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” (Pierazzo, 5). I would agree with Pierazzo that at times it was a challenge for my group to know if we were tagging our transcriptions “correctly”. We sometimes worried that if we were to make mistakes now, it would have large implications for future research. In the end, making these crucial decisions as a team brought us closer to both each other and our transcriptions.