Perhaps you have noticed that GO::DH has several working groups or perhaps you have not yet explored this part of our site. Whether you already belong to a working group or whether you are thinking of creating one, here are some things you should know about them.
A working group is a group of individuals with a common task or interest and who would like to work with others sharing the same concerns.
You might already know that you want to start a working group or you might be thinking that it would be good to have a place to discuss a particular subject. If you have been wondering about this, if you have had discussions in the GO::DH mailing list, if you think that others are also interested, you could start your own working group.
GO::DH provides working groups with a space for a webpage, a mailing list pertaining to the group and guidance when you need it.
If you decide to create a working group, you must have a group coordinator, a page in GO::DH outlining the interest(s) of the group and the coordinator must report the group’s progress to the GO::DH executive once a month.
If you think that you want to do this, send us a message and we will help you get things started.
I have been playing around with the idea of creating projects related to translation and comparative literature studies in digital humanities. My impression, regarding for instance text analysis, data mining, big data etc. (say the recent book by Matthew Jockers that I am reading as we speak) is that the tools and the possibilities (and limitations) of natural language processing that we have now work very well, but rather exclusively, within a mono-linguistic kind of material, and that we should rethink both theoretical approaches, tools and technologies in order to address comparative and translational/transnational questions. In other words, my impression is the most recent (and amazing, I am not trying to diminish their importance here) developments of DH literary criticism are somewhat, willingly or unwillingly, aiding and abetting the supremacy of English-speaking literature, or at least a kind of criticism based on single national languages and literatures, in a way forcing academic discourse back into national literary studies (and cultural nationalism, as a consequence).
I am saying this tentatively, and I am not sure that there is material here for a fully developed working group, nor if I am the person with enough time and qualifications to coordinate it, but I would surely be interested in a discussion about these questions.
Hi Giorgio and colleagues – I’m also really interested in DH approaches to translation research, and, in particular, seeing if we can use DH knowledge to better question the role of ‘the translator’ and translation practice, and then do a better job of communicating this in the public sphere. I’m coming to this with an interest in translator ethics and the political decision-making role a translator engages in when they weigh up the text for translation and the needs of the audience for which they are writing. This brings in ethical and political philosophy, hermeneutics and literary theory – and I’m keen to see how DH approaches could bring to light the translator from these different perspectives.
Comments are closed.