Analysis of Variation Significance in Artificial Traditions Using Stemmaweb

Veröffentlichungen: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelPeer Reviewed

Abstract

The role of human philological judgement in textual criticism, and particularly in stemmatics, has been at times hotly debated and in computational stemmatology tends to be carefully circumscribed. In this context philological judgement is deployed to distinguish ‘significant’ from ‘insignificant’ textual variation—that is, to select those variants that are more or less likely to betray information about the exemplar from which a given text was copied. This article reports on an experiment performed to assess the accuracy of human philological judgement on a set of three artificial traditions, using tools for stemma analysis developed for a prior project and available to the public as the Stemmaweb online service. We show that for most of the artificial traditions, human judgement was not significantly better than random selection for choosing the variant readings that fit the stemma in a text-genealogical pattern, and we discuss some of the implications of these findings.
OriginalspracheEnglisch
Seiten (von - bis)523-539
FachzeitschriftDigital Scholarship in the Humanities
Jahrgang31
Ausgabenummer3
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 1 Dez. 2014

ÖFOS 2012

  • 605007 Digital Humanities
  • 602024 Klassische Philologie

Zitationsweisen