Manual Textual Encounters: 2

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Textual Encounters: 2 file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Textual Encounters: 2 book. Happy reading Textual Encounters: 2 Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Textual Encounters: 2 at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Textual Encounters: 2 Pocket Guide.

This statement was implied, but necessary for the argument to work. What are the possible counter arguments or objections? Do the authors take possible counterarguments into account? Do they discuss both sides of the debate before reaching a conclusion? Or do they argue one-sidedly in favour of their claim, only adducing such research and empirical evidence findings, data as will support their claim?

Do the authors adequately justify their methods? If their arguments rely on data, are there enough data? Are the data sufficiently representative? If they base their claims on interviews, did they conduct enough interviews?

  • First steps in qualitative data analysis: transcribing | Family Practice | Oxford Academic.
  • The Stainless Steel Rat Saves the World: The Stainless Steel Rat Book 3.
  • Argumentation in text!
  • Product details!
  • 16 Linking, Segmentation, and Alignment - The TEI Guidelines.
  • The Divine Family: Experiential Narratives;

Were the interviews sufficiently thorough? Or do the authors draw wider conclusions than are justified by the scope of the underlying evidence? Ask whether the use of a method is adequately justified, analyse if the method presented has sufficient backing.

Services on Demand

Look for this backing also referred to as foundation or support in various places. When you ask what backing there is for a claim, this is the same as asking what arguments exist in support of the claim or what evidence supports it. What is the backing for this argument? What types of qualifiers are used by the authors when presenting the claim?

Look for qualifiers in the formulation of the argument. What they are claiming is more problematic than they would lead us to believe. A thorough critique of a text must build upon a thorough reading where you present your counterarguments in a balanced manner. Gather the questions above and use them as a method to ask questions to the texts you are reading the method is called the Toulmin model on argumentation. After in-depth searches to find information for your thesis, use the above argumentation model to analyse central texts.

This will give you a more systematic view on how the authors builds their argumentation, whether the arguments are sufficient, and will also unveil weaknesses in the text. Not all texts — or even all scholarly texts — are argumentative. The primary purpose of an encyclopaedia article is to inform. It provides information about something rather than arguing in favour of a particular point of view.

They argue in favour of something. Often authors will state clearly what it is that they are arguing. What follows is the point of view or claim that will be the subject of the argument, i. Firstly, there will not always be a direct statement to this effect. Often we will have to work out what is being argued by analysing the text, without the direct assistance of these types of hints.

Secondly, even though the authors may tell us what they will argue, this does not necessarily mean that we will understand fully what they mean. If you have studied literary science, you may have an idea of the actual or likely meaning. But even then you should probably do some further reading in order to understand more precisely what the author is talking about in this context. In the example above, the author expands on the meaning of these concepts in the sentences following the one cited. This section provides even more detailed information, referring to various theoreticians, explaining additional concepts, and providing examples.

Thirdly, it is not always the case that a point of view is something that must — or can — be proved. How can one prove that a particular reading of a poem is correct? The point here is rather that the author derives something from the analytical process, with her or his interpretation shedding new light on the text that is the subject of the analysis and that the discussion contains some valid points and interesting material.

In short, the decisive factor is that the reader gains new insight. Although the precise nature of this insight may be difficult to define, this does not render it worthless. Fourthly, note that the claim in the example is formulated with certain qualifications. Certain expressions used to formulate the claim make it less definitive than it would be had they not been present. In other words, the author is to a certain extent reserving her position. This can also be described as using qualifiers to indicate how strongly a claim should be interpreted. Instead we usually encounter such logic.

The use of such qualifiers is widespread — and when reading it is important to notice how they are used. So much for the claim standpoint, assertion, hypothesis, or whatever is being argued in favour of. What about the arguments? The arguments are everything that is put forward in support of the claim.

In the literary-criticism article cited above, there are several types of arguments:. If we then ask what it is that makes this material useful for the purposes of argumentation, and how strong the individual arguments are, we will to some extent be looking at what is generally viewed as acceptable arguments in scholarly criticism of literary texts, while also looking at precisely how this author in particular is attempting to support her view, and how she is using her presented material. It is generally considered acceptable to cite theories, concepts and statements from different philosophers and literary scholars to shed light on a text.

Authors are also expected to quote from the text that is being interpreted, and their comments are expected to appear plausible when taken in conjunction with these quotations. An examination of the study of literature and the history of the field will quickly reveal a great deal of debate about what should be viewed as an acceptable argument. There will be opinions and arguments on both sides. So now we can ask a more specific question: What arguments are being made by this specific author?

How does the author of this particular analysis of this particular poem go about supporting her view? For example, at one point in we read this paragraph:. By appropriating the form of this ancient Greek elegy, the poetic language is woven into an intertextual web. In the next paragraph the author examines how the poem is structured with strophes and rhymes.

  • Buying Options?
  • Get A Copy.
  • Appendices?
  • The Great Black Hope (Hope Series Book 1).

Is it possible to say that a poem written in contains allusions to events in the s? The need to mark the relative positions of text components with respect to time arises most naturally and frequently in transcribed spoken texts, but it may arise in any text in which quoted speech occurs, or events are described within a time frame. The methods described here are also generalizable for other kinds of alignment for example, alignment of text elements with respect to space. Provided that explicit elements are available to represent the parts or places to be synchronized, then the global linking attribute synch may be used to encode such synchronization, once it has been identified.

This is another of the attributes made globally available by the mechanism described in the introduction to this chapter. Alternatively, the link and linkGrp elements may be used to make explicit the fact that the synchronous elements are aligned. To illustrate the use of these mechanisms for marking synchrony, consider the following representation of a spoken text:.

This representation uses numbers in brackets to mark the points at which speakers overlap each other. For example, the [1] in A's first speech is to be understood as coinciding with the [1] in B's second speech. A synchronous alignment specifies which points in a spoken text occur at the same time, and the order in which they occur, but does not say at what time those points actually occur. If that information is available to the encoder it can be represented by means of the when and timeline elements, whose description and attributes are the following:. Each when element indicates a point in time, either directly by means of the absolute attribute, whose value is a string which specifies a particular time, or indirectly by means of the since attribute, which points to another when.

If the since is used, then the interval and unit attributes should also be used to indicate the amount of time that has elapsed since the time specified by the element pointed to by the since attribute; the value -1 can be given to indicate that the interval is unknown. If the when elements are uniformly spaced in time, then the interval and unit values need be given once in the timeline , and not repeated in any of the when elements.

If the intervals vary, but the units are all the same, then the unit attribute alone can be given in the timeline element, and the interval attribute given in the when element. The origin attribute in the timeline element points to a when element which specifies the reference or origin for the timings within the timeline ; this must, of course, specify its position in time absolutely.

If the origin of a timeline is unknown, then this attribute may be omitted.

P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange

For further discussion of this and related aspects of encoding transcribed speech, refer to chapter 8 Transcriptions of Speech. In this section we introduce the notions of correspondence , expressed by the corresp attribute, and of alignment , which is a special kind of correspondence involving an ordered set of correspondences. Both cases may be represented using the link and linkGrp elements introduced in section We also discuss the special case of alignment in time or synchronization , for which special purpose elements are proposed in section A common requirement in text analysis is to represent correspondences between two or more parts of a single document, or between places in different documents.

Provided that explicit elements are available to represent the parts or places to be linked, then the global linking attribute corresp may be used to encode such correspondence, once it has been identified. This is one of the attributes made available by the mechanism described in the introduction to this chapter 16 Linking, Segmentation, and Alignment. Correspondence can also be expressed by means of the link element introduced in section Where the correspondence is between spans , the seg element should be used, if no other element is available.

Where the correspondence is between points , the anchor element should be used, if no other element is available. One very important application area for the alignment of parallel texts is multilingual corpora.

  • Textual Encounters 2 Quotes!
  • In Her Power: Reclaiming Your Authentic Self.
  • Shattered Fates (Dark King Rising series Book 2).
  • Definitions!
  • Historical Dictionary of the War of 1812 (Historical Dictionaries of War, Revolution, and Civil Unrest).
  • How Clarissa Burden Learned to Fly: A Novel!

Concerning this problem, Gale and Church write:. The alignment produced by Gale and Church's program can be expressed in four different ways. The encoder must first decide whether to represent the alignment in terms of points within each text using the anchor element or in terms of whole stretches of text, using the seg element. To some extent the choice will depend on the process by which the software works out where alignment occurs, and the intention of the encoder. Secondly, the encoder may elect to represent the actual encoding using either corresp attributes attached to the individual anchor or seg elements, or using a free-standing linkGrp element.

There is no requirement that the corresp attribute be specified in both English and French texts, since as noted above this attribute is defined as representing a mutual association. However, it may simplify processing to do so, and also avoids giving the impression that the English is translating the French, or vice versa. More seriously, this encoding does not make explicit that it is in fact the entire stretch of text between the anchors which is being aligned, not simply the points themselves.

If for example one text contained material omitted from the other, this approach would not be appropriate. The preceding encoding of the alignment of parallel passages from two texts requires that those texts and the alignment all be part of the same document. If the texts are in separate documents, then complete URIs, whether absolute or relative section 16 Linking, Segmentation, and Alignment , will be required. These external pointers may appear anywhere within the document, but if they are created solely for use in encoding links, they may for convenience be grouped within the linkGrp or other grouping element that uses them for linking.

To demonstrate this facility, we consider how we might encode the alignments in an extract from Comenius' Orbis Sensualium Pictus , in the English translation of Charles Hoole Each topic covered in this work has three parts: a picture, a prose text in Latin describing the topic, and a carefully-aligned translation of the Latin into English, German, or some other vernacular. Key terms in the two texts are typographically distinct, and are linked to the picture by numbers, which appear in the two texts and within the picture as well.

This map, of course, only aligns whole segments and image portions, since these are the only parts of our encoding which bear identifiers and can therefore be pointed to. To add to it the alignment between the typographically distinct words mentioned above, new elements must be defined, either within the text itself or externally by using stand off techniques.

Encoding these word pairs as term and gloss , although intuitively obvious, requires a non-trivial decision as to whether the Latin text is glossing the English, or vice versa. Tagging all the marked words as term avoids the difficult decision, but might be thought by some encoders to convey the wrong information about the words in question. Simply tagging them as additional embedded seg elements with identifiers that can be aligned like the others is also a possibility.

Encounters II for tuba solo by William Kraft - Editions Bim & The Brass Press

This section introduces the notion of a virtual element , that is, an element which is not explicitly present in a text, but the presence of which an application can infer from the encoding supplied. In this section, we are concerned with virtual elements made by simply cloning existing elements. In the next section Provided that explicit elements are available to represent the parts or places to be linked, then the global linking attributes sameAs and copyOf may be used to encode this kind of equivalence:.

The sameAs attribute may be used to document the fact that two elements have identical content. It may be regarded as a special kind of link. It should only be attached to an element with identical content to that which it targets, or to one the content of which clearly designates it as a repetition, such as the word repeat or bis in the representation of the chorus of a song, the second time it is to be sung. The relation specified by the sameAs attribute is symmetric: if a chorus is repeated three times and each repetition bears a sameAs attribute indicating the first occurrence of the element concerned, it is implied that each chorus is identical, and there is no need for the first occurrence to specify any of its copies.

An application program should replace whatever is the actual content of an element bearing a copyOf attribute with the content of the element specified by it. If the content of the element specified includes other elements, these will become embedded within the element bearing the attribute. Care must be taken to ensure that the document is valid both before and after this embedding takes place. If, for example, the element bearing a copyOf attribute requires a mandatory sub-component, then this component must be present though possibly empty , even though it will be replaced by the content of the targetted element.

For further examples of the use of this attribute, see Because of the strict hierarchical organization of elements, or for other reasons, it may not always be possible or desirable to include all the parts of a possibly fragmented text segment within a single element. In section In this section we first describe another way of linking the parts of a discontinuous whole, using a set of linking attributes, which are made available for any tag by following the procedure described at the beginning of this chapter. We then describe how the link element may be used to aggregate such segments, and finally introduce the join element, which is a special-purpose linking element specifically for representing the aggregation of parts, and the joinGrp for grouping join elements.

The linking attributes for aggregation are next and prev ; each of these attributes has a single identifier as its value:. It is recommended that the elements indicated by these attributes be of the same type as the element bearing them. The join element is also a member of the class of att. Such a link element must carry a type attribute with a value of join to specify that the link is to be understood as joining its targets into a single aggregate. The following example shows how join can be used to reconstruct a text cited in fragments presented out of order.

The join element is useful as a means of representing non-hierarchic structures as further discussed in chapter 20 Non-hierarchical Structures. It may also be used as a convenient way of representing a variety of analytic units, like the span and interp elements discussed in chapter 17 Simple Analytic Mechanisms. As an example, consider the following famous Zen koan:. Note the use of the desc child element within the two join s making up the q element here.

These enable us to document the speakers of the two virtual q elements represented by the join elements; this is necessary because the there is no way of specifying the attributes to be associated with a virtual element, in particular there is no way to specify a who value for them. This section proposes elements for the representation of alternation. We say that two or more elements are in exclusive alternation if any of those elements could be present in a text, but one and only one of them is; in addition, we say that those elements are mutually exclusive.

We say that the elements are in inclusive alternation if at least one and possibly more of them is present. The elements that are in alternation may also be called alternants. The need to mark exclusive alternation arises frequently in text encoding. A common situation is one in which it can be determined that exactly one of several different words appears in a given location, but it cannot be determined which one. One way to mark such an exclusive alternation is to use the linking attribute exclude.

Having marked an exclusive alternation, it can sometimes later be determined which of the alternants actually appears in the given location. To preserve the fact that an alternation was posited, one can add the linking attribute select to a tag which hierarchically encompasses the alternants, which points to the one which actually appears. To assign responsibility and degree of certainty to the choice, one can use the certainty tag described in chapter 21 Certainty, Precision, and Responsibility.

Also see that chapter for further discussion of certainty in general. The exclude and select attributes may be used with any element assuming that they have been declared following the procedure discussed in the introduction to this chapter. A more general way to mark alternation, encompassing both exclusive and inclusive alternation, is to use the linking element alt. The description and attributes of this tag and of the associated grouping tag altGrp are as follows.

These elements are also members of the att. Note the use of the copyOf attribute discussed in section Another attribute that is defined specifically for the alt element is weights , which is to be used if one wishes to assign probabilistic weights to the targets alternants. Its value is a list of numbers, corresponding to the targets, expressing the probability that each target appears. If the alternants are mutually exclusive, then the weights must sum to 1.

If it is desired, alt elements may be grouped together in an altGrp element, and attribute values shared by the individual alt elements may be identified on the altGrp element. The targFunc attribute defaults to the value first. From the information in this encoding, we can determine that the probability is about Another very similar example is the following regarding the text of a Broadway song. Most of the mechanisms defined in this chapter rely to a greater or lesser extent on the fact that tags in a marked-up document can both assert a property for a span of text which they enclose, and assert the existence of an association between themselves and some other span of text elsewhere.

In stand-off markup, there is a clear separation of these two behaviours: the markup does not directly contain any part of the text, but instead includes it by reference. One specific mechanism recommended by these Guidelines for this purpose is the standard XInclude mechanism defined by the W3C; another is to use pointers as demonstrated elsewhere in this chapter.

There are many reasons for using stand-off markup: the source text might be read-only so that additional markup cannot be added, or a single text may need to be marked up according to several hierarchically incompatible schemes, or a single scheme may need to accommodate multiple hierarchical ambiguities, so that a single markup tree is not the most faithful representation of the source material.

Works Cited

This section describes a generic mechanism for expressing all kinds of markup externally as stand-off tags, for use whenever it is appropriate. Stand-off markup which relies on the inclusion of virtual content is adequately supported by the W3C XInclude recommendation, which is also recommended for use by these Guidelines.

XInclude relies on the XPointer framework discussed elsewhere in this chapter to point to the actual fragments of text to be internalized. Although XInclude only requires support for the element scheme of XPointer, these Guidelines permit the use of any of the pointing schemes discussed in section XInclude is a W3C recommendation which specifies a syntax for the inclusion within an XML document of data fragments placed in different resources.

Included resources can be either plain text or XML. XInclude instructions within an XML document are meant to be replaced by a resource targetted by a URI, possibly augmented by an XPointer that identifies the exact subresource to be included. Additionally, it uses the parse attribute whose only valid values are text and xml to specify whether the included content is plain text or an XML fragment, and the encoding attribute to provide a hint, when the included fragment is text, of the character encoding of the fragment.

Its use is not however recommended for stand-off markup. The operations of internalizing and externalizing markup are very useful and practically important. XInclude processing as defined by the W3C is internalization of one or more source documents' content into a stand-off document. TEI use of XInclude for stand-off markup enables use of XInclude-conformant software to perform this useful operation. However, internalization is not clearly defined for all stand-off files, because the structure of the internal and external markup trees may overlap.

In particular, when an external markup document selects a range that overlaps partial elements in the source document, it is not clear how the semantics of internalization inclusion should work, since partial elements are not XML objects. When overlapping hierarchies need to be represented for a single document, each hierarchy must be represented by a separate set of XInclude tags pointing to a common source document. This sort of structure corresponds to common practice in work with linguistic text corpora. In such corpora, each potentially overlapping hierarchy of elements for the text is represented as a separate stream of stand-off markup.

Generally the source text contains markup for the smallest significant units of analysis in the corpus, such as words or morphemes, this information and its markup representing a layer of common information that is shared by all the various hierarchies. As a way of organizing the representation of complex data, this technique generally allows a large number of xml:id attributes to be attached to the shared elements, providing robust anchors for links and facilitating adjustments to the source document without breaking external documents that reference it.

Please note that this specification requires that the XInclude namespace declaration is present in all cases. This is the preferred behaviour for use with stand-off markup. The whole source fragment identified by an XInclude element, as well as any markup therein contained is inserted in the position specified, and an XInclude processor is required to ensure that the resulting internalized document is well-formed.

This has obvious implications when the external document contains XML markup. A plain text source document will always create a well-formed internalized document. When the source text is plain text the overall form of the XPointer pointing to it is of minimal importance. In this case, it is rather important to distinguish whether we intend to substitute the source XML with the new one, or just to add new markup to it. The XPointers used in the references can express both cases. Thus, the following could be a valid stand-off document for the Source.

In chapters 17 Simple Analytic Mechanisms and 18 Feature Structures and elsewhere, provision is made for analytic and interpretive markup to be represented outside of textual markup, either in the same document or in a different document. The elements in these separate domains can be connected, either with the pointing attributes ana for analysis and inst for instance , or by means of link and linkGrp elements. Numerous examples are given in these chapters. The selection and combination of modules to form a TEI schema is described in 1.

Last updated on 29th January , revision 3c0c64ec4. Double connection among elements could also be expressed by a combination of pointer elements, for example, two ptr elements, or one ptr element and one note element. All that is required is that the value of the target or other pointing attribute of the one be the value of the xml:id attribute of the other.

What the link element accomplishes is the handling of double connection by means of a single element. As an example of the use of mechanisms which establish connections among elements, consider the practice common in 18th century English verse and elsewhere of providing footnotes citing parallel passages from classical authors. Such footnotes can of course simply be encoded using the note element see section 3.

Combining these two approaches gives us the following associations: a pointer within one line indicates the note the note indicates the line a pointer within the note indicates the line Note that we do not have any way of pointing from the line itself to the note: the association is implied by containment of the pointer.

We do not as yet have a true double link between text and note. To achieve that we will need to supply identifiers for the annotations as well as for the verse lines, and use a link element to associate the two. The target attribute of the link element here bears the identifier of the note followed by that of the verse line. Typical software might hide a web entirely from the user, but use it as a source of information about links, which are displayed independently at their referenced locations. Alternatively, software might provide a direct view of the link collection, along with added functions for manipulating the collection, as by filtering, sorting, and so on.

To continue our previous example, this text contains many other notes of a kind similar to the one shown above. Additional information for applications that use linkGrp elements can be provided by means of special attributes. First, the domains attribute can be used to identify the text elements within which the individual targets of the links are to be found.

Suppose that the text under discussion is organized into a body element, containing the text of the poem, and a back element containing the notes. Next, the targFunc attribute can be used to provide further information about the role or function of the various targets specified for each link in the group. The value of the targFunc attribute is a list of names formally, name tokens , one for each of the targets in the link; these names can be chosen freely by the encoder, but their significance should be documented in the encoding description in the header.

Suppose however that we wish to access a document stored locally in a file. In the following example, however, we first change the current base URI by setting a new value for xml:base. A shorthand pointer , in which the URI consists only of followed by the value of an xml:id acts as a pointer to the element in the current document with that xml:id , as in the following example. If you want to link a name in the novel. One way to deal with this is to use what is often referred to as a "magic token".

A more robust alternative is to use a private URI scheme. This is a method of constructing a simple, key-like token which functions as a data. Such a scheme consists of a prefix with a colon, and then a value. For any given prefix, it may be useful to supply more than one expansion. For instance, in addition to pointing at the person element in the personography file, it might also be useful to point to an external source which is available on the network, representing the same information in a different way.

The refsDecl element is described in section 2. In the above example, the value of cRef was used to generate a Fragment Identifier. An absolute URI could be generated directly, as in the following example. For example, suppose that we wish to mark the end of the fifth word following each occurrence of some term in a particular text, perhaps to assist with some collocational analysis. This can most easily be done with the help of the anchor element, as follows: English language. In the following simple example, the seg element simply delimits the extent of a stutter, a textual feature for which no element is provided in these Guidelines.

As the above example shows, seg elements may be nested directly within one another, to any degree of analysis considered appropriate. The example values shown are chosen for simplicity of comprehension, rather than verisimilitude. It should also be noted that specialized segment elements are defined in section These allow for the explicit markup of units called s-units , clauses , phrases , words , morphemes , and characters , which may be felt preferable to the more generic approach typified by use of the seg element. In language corpora and similar material, the seg element may be used to provide an end-to-end segmentation as an alternative to the more specific s element proposed in chapter Like other elements, the seg tag must be properly enclosed within other elements.

Thus, a single seg element can be used to group together words in different sentences only if the sentences are not themselves tagged. The first of the following two encodings is legal, but the second is not. Or two or three.

For example, if one were writing dual-platform instructions for installation of software, it might be useful to use seg to record platform-specific pieces of mutually exclusive text. In other cases, where the text clearly indicates paragraph divisions containing one or more verses, the p element may be used to tag the paragraphs, and the seg element used to subdivide them.

The ab element is provided as an alternative to the p element; it may not be used within paragraphs. The seg element, by contrast, may appear only within and not between paragraphs or anonymous block elements. The ab element is also useful for marking dramatic speeches when it is not clear whether the speech is to be regarded as prose or verse. To encode this we use the spoken texts module, described in chapter 8 Transcriptions of Speech , together with the module described in the present chapter.

First, we transcribe this text, marking the synchronous points with anchor elements, and providing a synch attribute on one of each of the pairs of synchronous anchors. As noted in the example given above section We can encode this same example using link and linkGrp elements to make the temporal alignment explicit. As with other forms of alignment, synchronization may be expressed between stretches of speech as well as between points.

When complete utterances are synchronous, for example, if one person says What? A simple way of expressing overlap where one speaker starts speaking before another has finished is thus to use the seg element to encode the overlapping portions of speech. Finally, suppose that a digitized audio recording is also available, and an XML file that assigns identifiers to the various temporal spans of sound is available. Essentially, what the corresp attribute does is to specify that elements bearing this attribute and those to which the attribute points are doubly linked. It is thus different from the target attribute, and provides functionality more similar to that of the link and linkGrp elements defined in section In the following example, we use the same mechanism to express a correspondence amongst the anchors introduced following the fifth word after English in a text: English language.

Most English sentences match exactly one French sentence, but it is possible for an English sentence to match two or more French sentences. The first two English sentences [in the example below] illustrate a particularly hard case where two English sentences align to two French sentences. The next two alignments The final alignment matches two English sentences to a single French sentence. These alignments [which were produced by a computer program] agreed with the results produced by a human judge. First, we consider the text portions. The English and Latin portions have been encoded as distinct div elements.