Paolo Monella - In the Tower of BabelModelling primary ... · Paolo Monella In the Tower of Babel Modelling primary sources of multi-testimonial textual transmissions Digital Classicist

Paolo Monella

In the Tower of BabelModelling primary sources of

multi-testimonial textual transmissions

Digital Classicist & Institute of Classical Studies Seminar 2012London, 20 July 2012

2

Outline

● The 'Babel issue'– The 'Babel issue' in a nutshell

– Comparing texts

– In the Tower

● Two issues

A. Comparison at the linguistic layer

B. Comparison at the graphemic layer

3

Outline


– Comparing texts

– In the Tower

● Two issues



4

The 'Babel issue' in a nutshell

● Each primary source uses a different writing (encoding, semiotic) system

● We want to compare the texts they bear

5

Outline


– Comparing texts

– In the Tower

● Two issues



6

Comparing texts


● We want to compare the texts they bear– Textual Criticism

– Processing (e. g. cross-corpus search)

7

MS A MS B Print ed. Cui’ꝑ̱̱

Gperuius

Gpervius

G

Comparing texts




8

Comparing texts




MS A MS B Queryui’ꝑ̱̱

Gperuius

Gpervius

G

9

Comparing texts

● Simplification: same writing system (no 'Babel' issue)

– simple variant (at graphemic layer)

MS A wG

↔ wG

MS B

yG

↔ yG

fG

↔ fG

↮ fG

eG

↔ eG

wyfeGrapheme

wyffeG

MS A MS B

10

Comparing texts

● Simplification: same writing system (no 'Babel' issue)

– no variant (at linguistic layer)

wyfeGrapheme

wyffeG

MS A MS B

wyfeWord

wyfeLetter

wyffeL

11

Comparing texts

● The same text (reading)?– Comparing texts at different layers

wyfeGrapheme

wyffeG

MS A MS B

wyfeLetter

wyffeL

Comparing atgraphemic layer

wyfeWord

Comparing atlinguistic layer

12

Comparing texts

wyfeGrapheme

wyffeG

MS A MS B

wyfeLetter

wyffeL

Diplomatic edition (Pierazzo)“Archive” edition (Vanhoutte)

● Types of edition in the print age

wyfeWord

Critical edition (Pierazzo)“Museum” edition (Vanhoutte)

13

Comparing texts

wyfeGrapheme

wyffeG

MS A MS B

wyfeLetter

wyffeL

● Digital edition

wyfeWord

Digitaldiplomatic

edition(Pierazzo)

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/07/28/llc.fqr033

14

Comparing texts

wyfeGrapheme

wyffeG

MS A MS B

wyfeLetter

wyffeL

● Digital edition

wyfeWord

Open sourcecritical edit.

(Bodard-Garcés)

https://www.zotero.org/groups/digitalclassics/items/itemKey/GKEAQ6WV

15

Comparing texts

wyfeGrapheme

wyffeG

MS A MS B

wyfeLetter

wyffeL

● Digital edition

wyfeWord

Digital edit.as model:

sub-systems(Orlandi)

http://books.google.it/books?id=GLzFSAAACAAJ

16

Outline


– Comparing texts

– In the Tower

● Two issues



17

In the Tower

ui’ꝑ̱Grapheme

peruiusG

perviusG

perviusL

MS A PR CMS B

perUiUsLetter

● Different Writing Systems (Graphemes):

A: ꝑ̱G, u

G (no u

G/v

G distinction)

B: uG (no u

G/v

G distinction)

C: uG, v

G peruiusWord

18

In the Tower

ui’ꝑ̱Grapheme

peruiusG

perviusG

perviusL

MS A PR CMS B

perUiUsLetter

● Different Alphabets (Letters):

A: uL (no u

L/v

L distinction)

B: uL (no u

L/v

L distinction)

C: uL, v

L peruiusWord

19

In the Tower

ui’ꝑ̱Grapheme

peruiusG

perviusG

perviusL

MS A PR CMS B

perUiUsLetter

● Same text at Linguistic layer (Inflected word)

“Perius”, nom. sing. masc. of lemma “perius,

-a, um”

peruiusWord

22

In the Tower

&#A751; K E &us;

C

2 ...C

2 - 4 K E K I

C

2 - 4 L E K I

C

2 ...C

MS A PR C

● Digital edition: Formalisation

MS B

(some code)C

23

In the Tower

● Life in the Tower of Babel (recapitulation):– Each builder, a language

● Each primary source, a semiotic system

– ...yet we want builders to interact● Textual Criticism● Processing (e. g. cross-corpus search)

– ...at different layers● Graphs, allographs, graphemes, linguistic...

– … all the sudden, all builders are robots!● Formalisation (no human intuition)

24

Outline


– Comparing texts

– In the Tower

● Two issues



25

Two issues

A. Comparison at linguistic layer

– Substantial readings (wyfeW ≠ lyf

W)

– Critical edition

– The 'text' (Inflected words)

B. Comparison at graphemic layer

– Accidentals (wyfeG ≠ wyffe

G)

– Diplomatic edition

– The 'spelling' (orthography, Graphemes)

26

Two issues

A. Comparison at linguistic layer– How do you identify elements at linguistic

layer (Inflected words) digitally?● The Canterbury Tales Project:

“Regularized spelling”● Tito Orlandi:

Linguistic entities

27

Two issues

B. Comparison at graphemic layer– Can you compare graphemes through

different graphemic systems?● The Canterbury Tales Project:

Unicode; Corpus-wide modelling of the graphemic system

● Tito Orlandi:MS-wide complete modelling of the graphemic system (and of other systems at other textual layers)

28

Two issues

● The Canterbury Tales Project● Tito Orlandi, Informatica Testuale, Laterza:

Roma 2010● My own project of an experimental edition

from the Anthologia Latina

29

Outline


– Comparing texts

– In the Tower

● Two issues



30


● Why comparing Words (at linguistic layer)? The Canterbury Tales Project:

– Textual criticism● Relations between MSS

– Processing● Indexing (“Spelling database”)

wyfeG

wyffeG

MS B

wyfeW

MS A

31


● From Grapheme to Word, not Lemma

– Inflected word (wyfeW ≠ wyves

W)

● Not as element of language (langue)● But as as element of that text (parole)

– “Substantial reading”

– Critical edition

wyfeG

wyffeG

MS B

wyfeW

MS A

32


● From Grapheme to Word: semi-automatic– Not computable so far

– Linguistic competence required● Grapheme → Letter: ambiguous graphemes

IonG

→ JonL / Ion

L → Jon

W / Ion

W

doꝑ̱G → perdo

L / prodo

L → perdo

W / prodo

W

wyfeG

wyffeG

MS B

wyfeW

MS A

33



– Linguistic competence required● Letter → Word: omographs

estG

→ estL → est (she is)

W / est (she

eats)W

wyfeG

wyffeG

MS B

wyfeW

MS A

34



– Linguistic competence required● Letter → Word: different spellings

wyfew / wyffe

W →

wyfe

w / wyffe

W → wyfe

W

wyfeG

wyffeG

MS B

wyfeW

MS A

35



– Linguistic competence required

– 'Context': interpretation of the whole text● Linguistic and higher-level competence

(Jon / Ion)

wyfeG

wyffeG

MS B

wyfeW

MS A

36


● From Grapheme to Word: semi-automatic– Semi-automatic procedures

(human-driven, computer-assisted)

– "The computer collation program we are using (Collate) permits regularization as part of the collation process” [...] “regularized spelling" (Robinson-Solopova →)

wyfeG

wyffeG

MS B

wyfeW

MS A

37


● How do you identify elements at linguistic layer (Inflected words) digitally?

– The Canterbury Tales Project:“Regularized spelling”

– Tito Orlandi:Linguistic entities

wyfeG

wyffeG

MS B

wyfeW

MS A

1000101C

0010100C

38


● Canterbury: “Regularized spelling”

wyfeG

wyffeG

MS B

wyfeW

MS A

wG_reg

yG_reg

fG_reg

eG_reg

wL y

L fL

eL

U0077C

U0079C

U0066C U0065

C

http://www.canterburytalesproject.org/pubs/transguide-MI.pdf

39


● Orlandi: Discrete linguistic entities in a database

wyfeG

wyffeG

MS B

wyfeW

MS A

ID_09834C

40


● Orlandi: Discrete linguistic entities in a database → How do you identify them?

wyfeG

wyffeG

MS B

wyfeW

MS A

Lemma [wyfe]Morph [sing]

C

41



deorumG

devmG

MS B

deorumW

MS A

deumW

[deus1][gen.pl.masc]

C


C

42



deorumG

devmG

MS B

deorumW

MS A

deumW

[deus1][gen.pl.masc.1]

C

[deus1][gen.pl.masc.2]

C

43



deorumG

devmG

MS B

deorumW

MS A

deumW

deumG_reg

→ U0064C U0065

C

U0075C U006D

C


C

deorumG_reg

→ U0064C

U0065C

U006FC U0072

C U0075

C U006D

C


C

44


● Orlandi/Monella: is it worth it?

deumG_reg

Canterbury

Orlandi/Monella

deumG_reg

[deus1] [gen.plur.masc]C

devmG

deumW

45


MS A] Pater devm MS B] Timeo devm

deumW

≠ deumW

deumG_reg

Canterbury, MS A

Orlandi/Monella, MS A

deumG_reg


deumG_reg

Canterbury, MS B

Orlandi/Monella, MS B

deumG_reg

[deus1] [acc.sing.masc]C

≠

=

46


● I'ts only worth it

– if words are not their regularised spelling, i. e.

– if homograph words exist

deumW

≠ deumW

Pater deum Timeo deum

47


● I'ts only worth it

– if substantial readings are not their regularised spelling, i. e.

– if homograph substantial readings exist (do they? → Concept of “reading”)

Pater, Pater deum,devm Neptvnvm odi Neptunum odi

deum ≠ deum?

MS A MS B

48



deum ≠ deum?

deumG_reg

Canterbury, MS A


deumG _reg

Canterbury, MS B


=

≠deum

G_reg


deumG_reg


MS A MS B

49



deum = deum?

deumG _reg

Canterbury, MS A


deumG _reg

Canterbury, MS B


=

≠deum

G_reg


deumG_reg


MS A MS B

50


● Normally done via regularised spelling● Inflected words are not their regularised

spelling (omographs)● Are there omograph substantial readings

(deum)?● If so:

– No regularised spelling– But formal identifiers for inflected

words (spelling, lemma, identifier)

51

Outline


– Comparing texts

– In the Tower

● Two issues



52


● Why comparing spellings (at graphemic layer)?

– Historical Linguistics● Evidence for lexical, morphological and

phonetic evolution

53



– Palaeography● Indirect evidence for letters (Benskin: letter

þ thorn →)– Overlapping with Historical Linguistics

(Emiliano: “Scripto-linguistic change” →)● Though only graphemes

– Not allographs (graphetes, s/ſ) or graphs (bitmap)

54



– Textual Criticism● 'Orthographic' apparatus (The Hengwrt

Chaucer Digital Facsimile, Collation function →)

● “Although for most manuscripts collation of the regularized text will produce sufficient information to place those manuscripts in genetic relation to one another [...]” (Robinson-Solopova →)

55


● The loue of love● Loue: “A hill or mountain” ≠ Love: “Love”● Middle English alphabet: u ≠ v

aL

...u

L

vL

...

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00379818209514199

http://www2.fcsh.unl.pt/docentes/aemiliano/CV/ficheiros/pub-03.pdf

56


The loue of love The loue of loueMS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

http://www.sd-editions.com/AnaAdditional/HengwrtEx/images/hgopen.html


57


The loue of loveG

The loue of loueG

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

58


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

59


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

● Back in the Tower

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

60


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

● Back in the Tower– “Grapheme. (1) A minimally distinctive unit

of writing in the context of a particular writing system” (Unicode Glossary →).

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

61


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

● Back in the Tower– De Saussure: relational nature of signs

within a semiotic system

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

62


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A



– This is a different grapheme than this,

as the former is in contrast with this, while the latter is not

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

http://unicode.org/glossary/#grapheme

63


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A





aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

64

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A





65


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

● How do you encode graphemes digitally?

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

66


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

● TEI– Unicode→ →

● The Canterbury Tales Project– Corpus-wide definition of the graphemic

system →

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

67


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

U0075C

U0076C

U0075C

U0075C

68


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

U0075C

U0076C

U0075C

U0075C

No match:different graphemes

http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/CH.html

http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/WD.html


69


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

U0075C

U0076C

U0075C

U0075C

Match:same grapheme

70


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

● Orlandi– MS-wide complete definition of graphemic

system● Not corpus-wide (Canterbury)● Not world-wide (Unicode)

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

71


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

<teiHeader>

<encodingDesc>

<charDecl>

<char xml:id="uv"><glyph xml:id="long_s">

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

Graphemes

Allographs

72


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

<body>

<p>

<g ref="uv" />

<! or, better: >

<!ENTITY uv '<g ref="#uv" / >

&uv;

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

73


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG u

G

uL

vL

74


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG u

G

uL

vL

U0076C

&uvC

&uvC

<charDecl> <char xml:id= "a"> <char xml:id= "uv">

<charDecl> <char xml:id= "a"> <char xml:id= "u"> <char xml:id= "v">

MS B

U0075C

MS A

75


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG u

G

uL

vL

<charDecl> <char xml:id= "uv"> <charName>SMALL LATIN U OR V</charName> <desc>Ushaped when lowercase, Vshaped when uppercase. Content: either small letter Latin u or small letter Latin v</desc>

MS B

76


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG u

G

uL

vL

<charDecl> <char xml:id= "uv"> <charProp>

<localName>Expression</localName><value>U+0075</value><localName>Content</localName><value>u|v</value>

MS B

77


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG u

G

uL

vL

78


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

nG

nL

uL

uG

ıı

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

uG

Two minims, lowercase

Expression (shape): indistinguishable. Content (letter): n or u.

The reader does not identify the grapheme from its shape, but guessing its content.

Graphematic information is not conveyed by graphic information, but by linguistic information (context), so the scribe was confident in our Linguistic competence to tell the graphemes apart.

79


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

u-uG

u-vG u-u

G

uL

vL

u-vG

u

80


<charDecl> <char xml:id= "a"> <char xml:id= "uu"> <char xml:id= "uv">


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

u-uG

u-vG u-u

G

uL

vL

u-vG

MS A MS B

U0076C

&u-uC

&u-vC

U0075C

81


The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

U0076C

&u-uC

&u-vC

U0075C

aL

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

aG

u-uG

u-vG

● Fun● But how do you compare graphemes now?

82




The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

MS A MS B

U0076C

&u-uC

&u-vC

U0075C

83




The louGe of lov

Ge The lou

Ge of lou

Ge

MS BMS A

aL

uL

vL

MS A MS B

U0076C

&u-uC

&u-vC

U0075C

RDF/OWL?(Or other

relationships-definingtechnology)

84

B. Comparison at graphemic layera

L

hL

tL

aG

hG

tG

● When the game gets tough...– Different alphabets

(Middle English, thorn letter)

aG

hG

tG

þG

aL

hL

tL

þL

85


L

hL

tL

aG

hG

tG

● When the game gets tough...– Different alphabets, shared phonetics

(Middle English, thorn letter)

aG

hG

tG

þG

aL

hL

tL

þL

aP

hP

tP

þP

86

aG

pG

eG

rG

aG

pG

eG

rG

ꝑ̱G̱


● When the game gets tougher...– No 1:1 grapheme / letter ratio (Huitfeldt →)

● Brevigraphs as graphemes (up to 40%)● “Grapheme. (1) A minimally distinctive unit


aL

pL

eL

rL

87

aG

pG

eG

rG

aG

pG

eG

rG

ꝑ̱G̱


● When the game gets tougher...– No 1:1 grapheme / letter ratio (Huitfeldt →)

● Brevigraphs as graphemes (up to 40%)● “Grapheme. (1) A minimally distinctive unit


aL

pL

eL

rL

88


L

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

● When the game gets most tough...– (Classicists start to play)

– Different alphabets, different phonetics (Ancient Latin)

aP

uP w

P

aP

uP w

P

vP

aG

vG

aL

vL

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/3/295.abstract


89


L

uL

vL

aG

uG

vG

● When the game gets most tough...– (Classicists start to play)

– Different alphabets, different phonetics (Ancient Latin)

– Still possible to formalise relationships

aG

vG

aL

vL

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/3/295.abstract


90


● Description of graphemic system– MS-wide

– Complete

● Formalisation of relationships between graphemes in different graphemic systems

– Involving higher-level entities (letters, phonemes)

● Intelligent searches, intelligent results

91

Outline


– Comparing texts

– In the Tower

● Two issues



Documents

Paolo Monella - In the Tower of BabelModelling primary ... · Paolo Monella In the Tower of Babel Modelling primary sources of multi-testimonial textual transmissions Digital Classicist