Computers and the Humanities

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 191–206 | Cite as

Intertextual Encoding in the Writing of Women's Literary History

  • Susan Brown
  • Isobel Grundy
  • Patricia Clements
  • Renée Elio
  • Sharon Balazs
  • Rebecca Cameron
Article

Abstract

This paper explores theoretical and practical aspects of intertextuality, in relation to the highly interpretative <intertextuality> tag within the SGML tagset developed by the Orlando Project for its history of women's writing in the British Isles. Arguing that the concept of intertextuality is both crucial to and poses particular challenges to the creation of an encoding scheme for literary historical text, it outlines the ways in which the project's tags address broader issues of intertextuality. The paper then describes the specific <intertextuality> tag in detail, and argues on the basis of provisional results drawn from the Orlando Project's textbase that despite the impossibility of tracking intertextuality exhaustively or devising a tagset that completely disambiguates the concept, this tag provides useful pathways through the textbase and valuable departure points for further inquiry. Finally, the paper argues that the challenges to notions of rigour posed by the concept of intertextuality can help us fruitfully to examine some of the suppositions (gendered and other) that we bring to electronic text markup.

interpretation literary history markup systems semantics SGML text encoding 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armstrong D., et al. (1997) The Place of Inter-Rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: An Empirical Study. Sociology, 31(3), pp. 597–606.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin M.M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin M.M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom H. (1973) The Anxiety of Influence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bolter J.D. (1991) Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and The History of Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Brown S., Fisher S., Clements P., Binhammer K., Butler T., Carter K., Grundy I., Hockey S. SGML and the Orlando Project: Descriptive Markup for an Electronic History of Women's Writing. Computers and the Humanities, 31: pp. 271–284.Google Scholar
  7. Brown S., Clements P., with Grundy I., Butler T., Hockey S., Fisher S., Carter K., Harvey K., Wood J. (1998b) Tag Team: Computing, Collaborators, and The History of Women's Writing in the British Isles. Text/Technology 8, pp. 37–52. On-line at www.epas.utoronto.ca:8080/epc/chwp/orlando/ Accessed 21 June 2001.Google Scholar
  8. Butler T. and Members of the Orlando Project (2000). Can a Team Tag Consistently? Experiences on the Orlando Project. Markup Languages: Theory and Practice, 2.2, pp. 111–125.Google Scholar
  9. Clayton J., Rothstein E., (eds.) (1991) Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History. Madison: U of Wisconsin P.Google Scholar
  10. Denzin N.K. (2000) The Art and Politics of Interpretation. In Denzin et al. (ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 500–515.Google Scholar
  11. Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S. (ed.) (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks and London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis D., Furner-Hines J., Willett P. (1994) On the Creation of Hypertext Documents: Measurement of Inter-Linker Consistency. Journal of Documentation, 50.2, pp. 67–98.Google Scholar
  13. Flanders J. (1997) The Body Encoded: Questions of Gender and the Electronic Text. Electronic Text: Investigations in Method and Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 127–144.Google Scholar
  14. Frow J. (xxxx) Intertextuality and Ontology. In Still et al. (eds.), pp. 45–55.Google Scholar
  15. Guba E.G., Lincoln Y.S. (2000) Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In Denzin et al. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 105–117.Google Scholar
  16. Huitfeldt C. (1995) Multi-Dimensional Texts in a One-Dimensional Medium. Computing and The Humanities 28, pp. 235–241.Google Scholar
  17. Kristeva J. (1984) Revolution in Poetic Language. New York: Columbia, UP.Google Scholar
  18. Landow G.P. (1992) Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Leonard L.E. (1977) Inter-Indexer Consistency Studies, 1954-1975: A Review of the Literature and Summary of Study Results. University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science Occasional Papers 131. [Champaign]: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  20. McCarty W. (2001) A Serious Beginner's Guide to Hypertext Research. Online at: http://ilex.cc.kcl.ac.uk/wlm/essays/diy/hyperbib.html Accessed: 21 June 2001.Google Scholar
  21. Miall D.S. (1999) Trivializing or Liberating? The Limitations of Hypertext Theorizing. Mosaic, 32, pp. 157–172.Google Scholar
  22. Plottel J.P., Charney H. (eds.) (1978) Intertextuality: New Perspectives in Criticism. New York: New York Literary Forum.Google Scholar
  23. Rothstein E. (1991) Diversity and Change in Literary Histories. In Clayton J., Rothstein E. (eds.), Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 114–145.Google Scholar
  24. Still J. and Worton M. (1990) Introduction. In Still J., Worton M. (eds.), Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
  25. Sutherland K. (1993) Challenging Assumptions: Women Writers and New Technology. In Chernaik W., Davis C., Deegan M. (eds.), The Politics of the Electronic Text. Oxford: Office for Humanities Communications Publications, pp. 53–68.Google Scholar
  26. Tuchman G. (2000) Historical Social Science: Methodologies, Methods, and Meanings. In Denzin et al. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 306–323.Google Scholar
  27. Tuchman G., Fortin N.E. (1989) Edging Women Out: Victorian Novelists, Publishers, and Social Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. allc2001/papers/unsworth2/index.html}. Accessed 21 June 2001.Google Scholar
  29. Worton et al. (1990).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Brown
    • 1
  • Isobel Grundy
    • 1
  • Patricia Clements
    • 1
  • Renée Elio
    • 1
  • Sharon Balazs
    • 1
  • Rebecca Cameron
    • 1
  1. 1.The Orlando Project, Department of EnglishUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations