Advertisement

Exploring a Semiotic Conceptualisation of Modelling in Digital Humanities Practices

  • Arianna CiulaEmail author
  • Cristina MarrasEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Numanities - Arts and Humanities in Progress book series (NAHP, volume 6)

Abstract

Digital Humanities (hereafter DH) is a research field engaged in exploring how humanities scholarship is transformed and extended by the digital and vice versa. The core practice of DH research is modelling which implies the translation of complex systems of knowledge into computationally processable models. In our work we contextualise DH practices within a semiotic framework; namely we consider modelling as a strategy to make sense (signification) via practical thinking (creation and manipulation of models). A semiotic approach of this kind contributes to stress the dynamic nature of models and modelling, and to reinstate in renewed terms the understanding of modelling as open process of signification enacting a triadic cooperation (among object, representamen and interpretant). Referring to Peirce classification of hypoicons, we reflect on some DH examples of modelling in the form of images, diagrams and metaphors, claiming that a semiotic understanding of modelling could ultimately allow us to surpass the duality object versus model (as well as sign vs. context). We thus propose to consider modelling as a creative and highly pragmatic process of thinking and reasoning in which metaphors assume a central role and where meaning is negotiated through the creation and manipulation of external representations combined with an imaginative use of formal and informal languages.

References

  1. A.A. V.V. 1999. Il ruolo del modello nella scienza e nel sapere. Contributi del centro linceo interdisciplinare ‘Beniamino Segre’ n. 100. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.Google Scholar
  2. Black, Max. 1962. Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bradley, John, and Harold Short. 2005. Texts into databases: The evolving field of new-style prosopography. Literary and Linguistic Computing 20 (Suppl): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buzzetti, Dino. 2002. Digital representation and the text model. New Literary History 33: 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cecire, Natalia. 2011. When digital humanities was in vogue. Journal of Digital Humanities 1 (1). http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-1/when-digital-humanities-was-in-vogue-by-natalia-cecire/. Accessed 13 July 2017.
  6. Ciula, Arianna. 2017a. Modelling Textuality: A Material Culture Framework. In Advances in 44: Papers presented at the DiXiT conferences in The Hague, Cologne, and Antwerp, eds. Peter Boot, Anna Cappellotto, Wout Dillen, Franz Fischer, Aodhán Kelly, Andreas Mertgens, Anna-Maria Sichani, Elena Spadini and Dirk van Hulle. Leiden: Sidestone Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ciula, Arianna. 2017b. Digital palaeography: What is digital about it? Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 32 (suppl_2.1): ii89–ii105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ciula, Arianna, and Cristina Marras. 2016. Circling around texts and language: towards ‘‘pragmatic modelling’’ in digital humanities. Digital Humanities Quarterly 10 (3). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/10/3/000258/000258.html. Accessed 13 July 2017.
  9. Ciula, Arianna, and Øyvind Eide. 2014. Reflections on cultural heritage and digital humanities: Modelling in practice and theory. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Digital Access to Textual Cultural Heritage (DATeCH’14). 35–41. New York: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2595188.2595207.
  10. Ciula, Arianna, and Øyvind Eide. 2017. Modelling in digital humanities: Signs in context. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 32 (Suppl. 1): i33–i46.  https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqw045.
  11. Daston, Lorraine (ed.). 2000. Biographies of scientific objects. Chicago: The University Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Elleström, Lars. 2013. Spatiotemporal aspects of iconicity. In Iconic investigations, ed. Lars Elleström, Olga Fischer, and Christina Ljungberg, 95–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22 (2): 133–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flanders, Julia. 2009. The productive unease of 21st-century digital scholarship. Digital Humanities Quarterly 3. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000055/000055.html. Accessed 13 July 2017.
  15. Flanders, Julia. 2012. Modeling scholarship. Paper presented at the workshop Knowledge Organization and Data Modeling in the Humanities: An ongoing conversation, Brown University, RI, March, 2012. https://datasymposium.wordpress.com/flanders/. Accessed 13 July 2017.
  16. Flanders, Julia and Jannidis, Fotis. 2015. Knowledge organization and data modeling in the humanities. [White Paper]. https://opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/11127. Accessed 29 June 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books. Reprint: Geertz, Clifford. 1993. The interpretation of culture. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
  18. Graves-Brown, and Paul M. 2000. Introduction. In Matter, materiality and modern culture, ed. Paul M. Graves-Brown. 1–9. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Haken, Hermann, Anders Karlqvist, and Uno Svedin (eds.). 1993. The machine as metaphor and tool. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Haley Michael C. 1988. The semeiosis of poetic metaphor. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hesse, Mary. 1966. Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kralemann, Björn, and Claas Lattmann. 2013. Models as icons: Modeling models in the semiotic framework of Peirce’s theory of signs. Synthese 190 (16): 3397–3420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mahr, Bernd. 2009. Information science and the logic of models. Software & Systems Modeling 8: 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marras, Cristina. 2006. Metafore scientifiche, entry for the Enciclopedia Filosofica Italiana, ed. Virginio Melchiorre. 7364–7366. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  26. Marras, Cristina. 2013. Structuring multidisciplinary knowledge: Aquatic and terrestrial metaphors. Knowledge Organization 40 (6): 392–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marras, Cristina. 2014. Exploring digital environments for research in philosophy. Metaphorical models and sustainability. In AIUCD ‘14, Proceedings of the Third AIUCD Annual Conference on Humanities and Their Methods in the Digital Ecosystem, Bologna, September 18–19 2014, eds. Francesca Tomasi, Roberto Rosselli del Turco, Anna Maria Tammaro. ACM, NY.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2802612.2802639.
  28. Marras, Cristina. 2017. Les métaphores dans la philosophie de Leibniz. Limoges: Lambert–Lucas.Google Scholar
  29. McCarty, Willard. 2005. Humanities Computing. Basingstoke [England]; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCarty, Willard. 2006. Tree, turf, centre, archipelago–or wild acre? Metaphors and stories for humanities computing. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCarty, Willard. 2009. Being reborn: The humanities, computing and styles of scientific reasoning. New Technology in Medieval and Renaissance Studies 1: 1–23.Google Scholar
  32. McCarty, Willard. 2014. Getting there from here. Remembering the future of digital humanities Roberto Busa award lecture 2013. Literary and Linguistic Computing 29 (3): 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGann, Jerome. 2014. New republic of letters: Memory and scholarship in the age of digital reproduction. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moretti, Franco. 2013. Operationalizing. New Left Review 84: 103–119.Google Scholar
  35. Morgan, Mary S, and Tarja Knuuttila. 2012. Models and modelling in economics. In Philosophy of Economics, ed. Uskali Mäki. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, eds. Dov M. Gabbay, Paul Thagard, and John Woods. 49–87. Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  36. Nersessian, Nancy J. 2008. Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Olteanu, Alin. 2015. Philosophy of education in the semiotics of Charles Peirce. A Cosmology of Learning and Loving. Oxford, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Wien, Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  38. Ortony, Andrew (ed.). 1993. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Palmieri, Fabio (ed.). 2012. Consciousness in interaction. The role of the natural and social context in shaping consciousness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  40. Pasin, Michele, and John Bradley. 2015. Factoid-based prosopography and computer ontologies: Towards an integrated approach. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30 (1): 86–97. published online June 29, 2013  https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqt037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peirce, Charles, Sanders. 1933. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce [CP], eds. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Small, Helen. 2013. The value of the humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verschueren, Jef. 2012. The pragmatic perspective. In Handbook of pragmatics, ed. Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jan Blommaert. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.King’s Digital LabKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Institute for European Intellectual Lexicon and History of IdeasItalian National Research CouncilRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations