Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

pp 1–14 | Cite as

Digital hermeneutics: from interpreting with machines to interpretational machines

  • Alberto Romele
  • Marta Severo
  • Paolo Furia
Original Article

Abstract

Today, there is an emerging interest for the potential role of hermeneutics in reflecting on the practices related to digital technologies and their consequences. Nonetheless, such an interest has neither given rise to a unitary approach nor to a shared debate. The primary goal of this paper is to map and synthetize the different existing perspectives to pave the way for an open discussion on the topic. The article is developed in two steps. In the first section, the authors analyze digital hermeneutics “in theory” by confronting and systematizing the existing literature. In particular, they stress three main distinctions among the approaches: (1) between “methodological” and “ontological” digital hermeneutics; (2) between data- and text-oriented digital hermeneutics; and (3) between “quantitative” and “qualitative” credos in digital hermeneutics. In the second section, they consider digital hermeneutics “in action”, by critically analyzing the uses of digital data (notably tweets) for studying a classical object such as the political opinion. In the conclusion, we will pave the way to an ontological turn in digital hermeneutics. Most of this article is devoted to the methodological issue of interpreting with digital machines. The main task of an ontological digital hermeneutics would consist instead in wondering if it is legitimate, and eventually to which extent, to speak of digital technologies, or at least of some of them, as interpretational machines.

Keywords

Hermeneutics Digital hermeneutics Political opinion Data Digital traces Methods Information Information technologies Interpretational machines 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Part of this work has been funded by the European Commission H2020 FETPROACT 2016-2017 program under grant 732942 (ODYCCEUS).

References

  1. Acker A (2015) Toward a hermeneutics of data. IEEE Ann Hist Comput 37(3):70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adriaans P (2010) A critical analysis of Floridi’s theory of semantic information. Knowl Technol Policy 23(1–2):41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkineni H, Lakshmi PV, Vijaya Babu B (2016) Scheme critic—an automated opinion mining system for policy making. Int J Control Theory Appl 9(34):755–763Google Scholar
  4. Allport FH (1937) Toward a science of public opinion. Public Opin Q 1(1):7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Rifaie MM, Bishop M (2015) Weak and strong computational creativity. In: Schorlemmer M, Smaill A, Besold T (eds) Computational creativity: towards creative machines. Springer, London, pp 37–49Google Scholar
  6. Armaselu F, Jones C (2016) Towards a digital hermeneutics? Interpreting the user’s response to a visualisation platform for historical documents. http://www.dhbenelux.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/106_Armaselu-Jones_FinalAbstract_DHBenelux_long.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  7. Armaselu F, van den Heuvel C (2017) Metaphors in digital hermeneutics. Zooming through literary, didactic and historical representations of imaginary and existing cities. Digit Humanit Q 11(3). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/11/3/000337/000337.html. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  8. Bachimont B (1996) Herméneutique matérielle et artéfacture: des machines qui pensent aux machines qui donnent à penser. Critique du formalisme en intelligence artificielle. Mémoire de thèse d’épistémologie, Ecole Polytechnique. http://www.utc.fr/~bachimon/Livresettheses.html. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  9. Bachimont B (2010) Le sens de la technique. Le numérique et le calcul. Les Belles Lettres, ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. Bachimont B (2018) Between formats and data. When communication becomes recording. In: Romele A, Terrone E (eds) Towards a philosophy of digital media. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 13–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bachimont B, Blanchette J-F (2006) Computer-aided hermeneutics. A practical and theoretical approach to digital media preservation. In: Position paper for the “Designing for Collective Remembering” workshop, CHI, Montreal. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265662502_Computer-Aided_Hermeneutics_A_Practical_and_Theoretical_Approach_to_Digital_Media_Preservation. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  12. Bastos MT, Raimundo RLG, Travitzki R (2013) Gatekeeping Twitter: message diffusion in political hashtags. Media Cult Soc 35(2):260–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bermingham A, Smeaton AF (2011) On using twitter to monitor political sentiment and predict election results. Workshop Sentiment Analysis where AI meets Psychology (SAAIP) at the International Joint Conference for Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP). http://doras.dcu.ie/16670/1/saaip2011.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  14. Boullier D, Crépel M, Jacomy M (2016) Zoomer n’est pas explorer: spatialiser les graphes, categorizer et (dé)construire les réseaux. Réseaux 34(195):131–161Google Scholar
  15. Burnard L (1998) On the hermeneutic implications of text encoding. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lou/wip/herman.htm. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
  16. Capurro R (1986) Hermeneutik der Fachinformation. Alber Verlag, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  17. Capurro R (1992) Informatics and hermeneutics. In: Floyd C, Züllighoven H, Budde R at al (eds) Software development and reality construction. Springer, Berlin, pp 363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Capurro R (2000) Hermeneutics and the phenomenon of information. In: Mitcham C (ed) Metaphysics, epistemology, and technology. Research in philosophy and technology, vol. 19. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 79–85Google Scholar
  19. Capurro R (2010) Digital hermeneutics: an outline. AI Soc 25(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clingermann F, Treanor B, Drenthan M, Utsler D (eds) (2013) Interpreting nature: the emerging field of environmental hermeneutics. Fordham University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Conover MD, Gonçalves B, Ratkiewicz J et al (2011) Predicting the political alignment of Twitter users. In: Proceedings of the IEEE third international conference on privacy, security, risk and trust (PASSAT 2011) and the IEEE third international conference on social computing (SocialCom 2011), pp 192–199Google Scholar
  22. De Mul J (2013) Understanding nature. Dilthey, Plessner and biohermeneutics. In: D’Anna G, Johach H, Nelson ES (eds) Dilthey, Anthropologie, und Geschichte. Königshausen and Neumann, Würzburg, pp 459–478Google Scholar
  23. Diamante OR (2014) The hermeneutics of information in the context of information technology. Kritike 8(1):168–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dreyfus H (1972) What computers can’t do. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Dreyfus H (2007) Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian. Artif Intell 171(18):1137–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dreyfus H, Dreyfus S (1988) Making a mind versus modeling the brain: artificial intelligence back at a branchpoint. Daedalus 117(1):15–43Google Scholar
  27. Entman RM, Herbst S (2001) Reframing public opinion as we have known it. In: Bennett W, Entman RM (eds) Mediated politics: communication in the future of democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 203–225Google Scholar
  28. Ferraris M (2012) Documentality. Why it is necessary to leave traces. Fordham University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Floridi L (2005) Is semantic information meaningful data? Res 70(2):351–370Google Scholar
  30. Floridi L (2010) Information: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Floridi L (2015) Semantic conceptions of information. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-semantic/. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  32. Floridi L, Sanders J (2004) On the morality of artificial agents. Mind Mach 14(3):349–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gadamer HG (2004) Truth and method. Continuum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Gens J-C (2008) Elements pour une herméneutique de la nature. Editions du Cerf, ParisGoogle Scholar
  35. Gerbaudo P (2016) From data analytics to data hermeneutics. Online political discussions, digital methods and the continuing relevance of interpretative approaches. Digit Cult Soc 2(2):95–112Google Scholar
  36. Gibbs F, Owens T (2013) The hermeneutics of data and historical writing. In: Dougherty J, Nawrottzki K (eds) Writing history in the digital age. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 159–172Google Scholar
  37. Ginzburg C (1989) Clues: roots of an evidential paradigm. In: Clues, myths, and the historical method. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 87–113Google Scholar
  38. Habermas J (1991) The structural transformation of the public sphere. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Heidegger M (1999) Ontology. The hermeneutics of facticity. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. Heyles NK (2012) How we think: transforming power and digital technologies. In: Berry DM (ed) Understanding digital humanities. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 42–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ihde D (1990) Technology and the lifeworld. From garden to earth. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. Ihde D (1999) Expanding hermeneutics. Visualism in science. Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  43. Introna LD (1993) Information: a hermeneutic perspective. In: Conference proceedings of the First European conference on information systems, ECIS, Henley-on-Thames. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221407669_Information_A_hermeneutic_perspective. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  44. Katz E, Lazarsfeld PE (1955) Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communication. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Key VO (1961) Public opinion and american democracy. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Key VO (1966) The responsible electorate: rationality in presidential voting, 1936–1960, with the assistance of MC Cummings. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Latour B (1993) We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Latour B (1994) On technical mediation. Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowl 3(2):29–64Google Scholar
  49. Lazarsfeld PF, Berelson B, Gaudet H (1948) The people’s choice: how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Lehnert WG, Alker H, Schneider D (1983) The heroic Jesus: the affective plot structure of Toynbee’s Christus Patiens. In: Burton SK, Short DD (eds) Proceedings of the sixth international conference on computers and the humanities. Computer Science Press, Rockville, pp 358–367Google Scholar
  51. Lentricchia F (1983) Criticism and social change. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  52. Livne A, Simmons MP, Adar E et al (2011) The party is over here: structure and content in the 2010 election. In: Proceedings of the fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, pp. 201–208Google Scholar
  53. Mallery JC, Hurwitz R, Duffy G (1986) Hermeneutics: from textual explication to computer understanding? A.I. memo no. 871. MIT artificial intelligence laboratory. ftp://publications.ai.mit.edu/ai-publications/pdf/AIM-871.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  54. Marres N (2017) Digital sociology. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Marres N, Gerlitz C (2015) Interface methods: renegotiating relations between digital social research, STS and sociology. Sociol Rev 64(1):21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mayaffre D (2002) L’herméneutique numérique. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00586512/document. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  57. Mayaffre D (2006) Philologie et/ou herméneutique numérique: nouveaux concepts pour des nouvelles pratiques? https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00551477/document. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  58. Merton RK (1968) Patterns of influence: local and cosmopolitan influentials. In: Merton RK (ed) Social theory and social structure. Free Press, New York, pp 441–474Google Scholar
  59. Michel J (2017) Homo interpretans. Hermann, ParisGoogle Scholar
  60. Mohr JW, Wagner-Pacifici R, Breiger RL (2015) Toward a computational hermeneutics. Big data and society.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715613809. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  61. Noelle-Neumann E (1984) The spiral of silence. Public opinion—our social skin. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  62. O’Connor B, Balasubramanyan R, Routledge BR et al (2010) From tweets to polls: linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. In: Proceedings of the fourth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, pp 122–129Google Scholar
  63. Østerlund CS, Crowston K, Jackson CB (2016) The hermeneutics of trace data: building an apparatus. IFIP Working Group 8.2 Working Conference, Dublin. https://citsci.syr.edu/sites/crowston.syr.edu/files/Crowston_Osterlund_Jackson_The_Hermeneutics_of_Trace_Data-Full_Paper.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  64. Ramsay S (2010) The hermeneutics of screwing around; or what you do with a million of books. http://www.leeannhunter.com/digital/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/RamsayBooks.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  65. Rastier F (1996) Sémantique interprétative. Presses Universitaires de France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  66. Rastier F (2008) Sémantique du Web vs semantic Web? Le problème de la pertinence. Syntax Semant 1(9):15–36Google Scholar
  67. Rastier F (2010) Sémiotique et linguistique de corpus. Signata 1:13–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rastier F (2011) La mesure et le grain. Sémantique de corpus. Honoré Champion, ParisGoogle Scholar
  69. Reynié D (1989) Le nombre dans la politique moderne. Hermès 4:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ricoeur P (1974) The conflict of interpretations. Essays in hermeneutics. Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  71. Ricoeur P (1988) Time and narrative, vol 3. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  72. Ricoeur P (1991) From text to action. Essays in hermeneutics, II. Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  73. Sebbah FD (2015) Traces numériques: plus ou moins de fantômes? In: Larsonneur C, Regnauld A, Cassou-Nougès P (eds) Le sujet digital. Les presses du réel, Dijon, pp 114–127Google Scholar
  74. Skoric M, Poor N, Achananuparp P et al (2012) Tweets and votes: a study of the 2011 Singapore general election. In: Proceedings of 45th Hawaii international international conference on systems science (HICSS-45 2012), IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 2583–2591Google Scholar
  75. Sützl W (2016) Gianni Vattimo: hermeneutic communism and digital media theory. Philos Today 60(3):743–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tarde G (1989) L’opinion et la foule. Presses Universitaires de France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  77. Tripathi AK (2016) The significance of digital hermeneutics for the philosophy of technology. In: Bielby J, Kelly M (eds) Information cultures in the digital age. A Festschrift in honor of Rafael Capurro. Springer, London, pp 143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tumasjan A, Sprenger TO, Sandner PG et al (2010) Predicting elections with Twitter: what 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In: Proceedings of the fourth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, pp 178–185Google Scholar
  79. Valée M-A (2013) Gadamer et Ricœur. La conception herméneutique du langage. Presses Universitaires de Rennes, RennesGoogle Scholar
  80. Van Zundert JJ (2016) Screwmeneutics and hermenumericals. The computationality of hermeneutics. In: Schreibman S, Siemens R, Unsworth J (eds) A companion to digital humanities. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 331–347Google Scholar
  81. van den Akker C, van Erp M, Aroyo L et al (2011) Digital hermeneutics: agora and the online understanding of cultural heritage. ACM Web Science Conference, Koblenz. http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/papers/Akker11a.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  82. Watts DJ, Dodds PS (2007) Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. J Consum Res 34(4):441–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Webb P, Pollard C (2006) Demystifying a hermeneutic approach to IS research. Austr J Inf Syst 13(2):31–47Google Scholar
  84. Wilson T, Wiebe J, Hoffmann P (2005) Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 347–354Google Scholar
  85. Xu WW, Sang Y, Blasiola S et al (2014) Predicting opinion leaders in Twitter activism networks: the case of the Wisconsin recall election. Am Behav Sci 58(10):1278–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zaller JR (1992) The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lille Catholic University/University of PortoLilleFrance
  2. 2.Paris Nanterre UniversityParisFrance
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Filosofia e Scienze dell’EducazioneUniversity of TurinTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations