Towards the Implementation of Text and Discourse Theory in Computer-Assisted Textual Analysis

D o n a l d Bruce

Department of Romance Languages, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2E6 e-mail: dbruce@vm.ucs.ualberta.ca

Abstract: Humanities computing (HC) has failed to integrate into its practices many of the key theoretical elements of contemporary text and discourse theory. This has in turn contributed to the marginalization of HC in research and teaching. Outdated theoretical models must be abandoned in order to develop a critical discourse based on the insights of HC. HC projects remain far too attached to micro-analyses and have not developed the theoretical and methodological tools necessary to undertake systemic macro-analyses on the level of discourse. Given that texts are a mixture of determi- nate and dynamic systems, recent developments in chaos theory may be of help in modelling the interrelationship of these elements at discourse level.

Key Words: text, intertextuality, discourse, interdiscursivity, literary theory, chaos theory, conceptual convergence

Upon reading Mark Olsen's paper, I hesitated, for I knew not what my response should be: a knowing smile, because here was a colleague who spoke my language and understood the problem as I did; or tears of rage, in sad recognition of the validity of his analysis of humanities computing (HC) in the present scheme of things. Coming as I do from the literary theory side of the problem, I could not help but think that Olsen's paper

Donald Bruce is Associate Professor of Romance Languages at the University of Alberta. His research interests include literary theory, XIXth century French literature, science and literature, and translation. He recently edited an issue of Recherches S6miotiques/Semiotic Inquiry on "Literature and Ideology" and is presently working on a project entitled, The Socio-semiotic Nexus: Jules Vall~s and the Discourse of the Commune.

Computers and the Humanities 27: 357-364, 1993. © 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

signalled a salutary critique of this still relatively new quasi-discipline called humanities computing. My judgement here is motivated by both profes- sional and personal experience, since I am cur- rently engaged in a computer-assisted textual analysis project and I am constantly searching the literature for examples of outstanding work combining technical innovation and theoretical sophistication. Unfortunately, this combination is hard to come by. The more I pursue my project, the more I am aware of two basic realities of HC as it presently exists: on the one hand, most of my colleagues who are interested in this type of research simply do not speak the same theoretical metalanguage(s) that I do, these being drawn principally from literary theory and semiotics; on the other hand, many active researchers and teachers in the humanities are either not at all sure of the value of computers in their disciplines (i.e., beyond word-processing), or do not believe that the results thus far achieved have been very significant.

In a sense, the specifics of Olsen's remarks are neither new nor unexpected. What is new - and this is apparent from his analysis - is that HC seems to have reached something of a crisis point in its development: the lack of articulation between theory and practice has become an obstacle which must be overcome before this type of research/pedagogical activity can have any legitimacy or stature in the academic world. This crisis has much to do with our realization that the computer is more than a tool which merely enhances and supports our work; beyond this purely instrumental dimension is the fact that we are dealing with a new medium and that the

358 DONALD BRUCE

humanities cannot come away from it untouched by its ramifications: "A new medium involves both a new practice and a new rhetoric, a new body of theory" (Slatin, 1991, p. 153). What Phil Mullins calls the "constitutive and transformative character of media" (1991, p. 4) is a key element which must be grasped by scholars before any true reconceptualization can take place. In other words, the first problem is that the epistemological and indeed ontological status of the electronic text must be rethought in the ways it differs from more traditional notions of text: the one side of the coin is thus of a theoretical nature. The second problem is that such a rethinking of the (electronic) text necessitates an equally radical rethinking of our analytical methods: this is the methodological side of the coin.

Various researchers have made similar comments in the course of the last few years (Bolter, 1985; Lusignan, 1985; Busa, 1990; et al.). Serge Lusignan, for example, contends that much of the work done in HC over the last twenty years has yielded a great deal of information without a concomitant increase in sense, i.e., in "seeing things differently." The prevalent view of the text is atomistic and is manifested through a set of methodological procedures, based on a certain number of implicit theoretical principles. Such an approach is found in the majority of analyses undertaken thus far: the researcher identifies quantifiable units and uses their number and dis- tribution to compare isolated texts. The distribu- tion is then analyzed statistically and compared to a stylistic norm of some kind: the individual text remains the property of the individual subject/author and is semantically guaranteed by authorial intention. This statistical information is indeed new and useful in relation to the informa- tion obtained by the traditional reading of the text. However, this information is almost always evaluated in relationship to print-based text- theories. Lusignan is quite correct when he says that "nous n'arrivons pas h fonder v6ritablement le discours critique sur les informations issues du texte 61ectronique" (1985, p. 211). Critical dis- course has yet to seize intellectually the nature and consequences of the electronic text, whether the text was originally produced in electronic or in printed form (not an indifferent question, of course). No internal model for the evaluation of

this information has been developed to legitimize the overall research program, and the insights of textual theory have made few inroads into the realm of HC. As a consequence, most researchers on the "outside" see the computer-assisted analysis of texts as a minor adjunct to scholarship whose results must be confirmed by and are dependent upon a traditional reading of the text° Thus the computer methodology seems to be of secondary importance, an add-on to tried and true practices of reading and their well-worn accompanying theories of text. The epistemological status of the computer(ized) text, the value and ramifications of computer-assisted analyses, and the theoriza- tion of the contingent problems remain as yet incompletely articulated and largely unexplored.

Elsewhere, Roberto Busa, one of the great pioneers of HC, has commented that the computer understands the relationship between the elements it studies in purely formal or positional terms: semantics does not enter into the question. "Syntactic analysis, formalized grammar, auto- matic lemmatization, and artificial intelligence are slowly confronting the problem of semantic pro- cessing" (1990, p. 340). One of the key points which Busa stresses is that our existing traditional linguistic categories are inadequate to the task at hand: what he proposes is the "resystematization" of the categories used to describe linguistic com- ponents. Specifically, for example, he suggests that the lexicon must be reconfigured theoretically in order to take into account "semanticity type" (p. 342). Here, we are moving into the realm of semiotics for this relationship which Busa describes is one of "signifier-to-signified": it is formal in nature yet seeks to deal with value and meaning. This is where the Bakhtinian principle of the coexistence of the semiotic and the ideo- logical comes into play. 1 In addition, Busa further suggests that the whole area of statistical stylistics has not significantly moved forward for a very specific reason: "The problem is on the philolog- ical side: there is no general consensus on the discourse features to which these programs should be applied, or on how to apply them" (p. 342). This is again quite revealing in relation to theory and methodology, for one of the main problems in the present state of affairs is precisely the lack of theorization of the object of study in terms of text and discourse, and the development of

T E X T AND D I S C O U R S E THEORY 359

methods based on this type of model. Busa's conclusions, therefore, are clearly relevant to the present discussion: 1) the main problem in HC lies on the philological side and not on the side of mathematics, logic or statistics; 2) "the epistemo- logical methodologies of mathematical and physical sciences, which measure quantifiable physical entities, are not sufficient to dominate and grasp the logic of the signs we use to communi- cate knowledge"; 3) the results provided by computer-aided analyses must be considered "probabilistic predictions only" (pp. 342-43). 2

That the problem has been perceived in terms of a need for "reconceptualization" can also be seen in other recent publications, s In almost all instances, this involves a rethinking of the notion of text, a displacement of linearity by discontinuity and a multi-dimensional model, and the creation of methodological links which bind theory to practice: "without an adequate conceptual basis for the development of computing technologies to support writing and thinking, we risk dealing only in metaphors, anthropomorphizing the machine and mechanizing the uniquely human" (Barrett, 1988, p. xvii). Such comments underscore the criticisms offered by other researchers that HC requires new models, developed from within but in conjunction with already existing models in text and discourse theory, if it is to play a significant future role for scholars and teachers.

It is particularly noteworthy that Olsen's article makes reference to the highly stimulating and original issue of New Literary History ("Tech- nology, Models and Literary Study") in which little if anything is said about computer-assisted textual analysis: these researchers, some of whom are engaged in hands-on computer activities, virtually ignore computer-based textual analyses as they currently exist. What the articles in this issue pursue in depth and with considerable enthu- siasm is a matter which is yet to be thoroughly discussed in HC circles: the inherent theoretical and empirical differences between traditional and electronic texts in relation to the last twenty-five years of work in text and discourse theory. Many people in literary computing still subscribe to a relatively outdated notion of "text" which was inherited from earlier critical traditions, a notion which appears self-evident and ahistorical but which is of course historically, culturally and

institutionally contingent. As Lusignan says, "La recherche sur les textes h l'aide de l'ordinateur n'effectuera de v6ritables progr~s que si elle se concentre sur la mise au point de mod6les d'analyse qui soient propres au texte 61ectronique; il faut apprendre d'extraire de celui-ci des informations qui conduisent ?~ des interpr6tations significatives tout autant qu'impr6visibles ?t la lecture du texte imprim6" (1985, p. 211).

The whole question of HC constitutes a complex of interrelated problems, located at dif- ferent levels of pertinence, and as yet poorly articulated as a sub-discipline. Considering that more traditional disciplines such as literary studies have themselves been going through considerable reformulation, it is perhaps not surprising that this is the case. A few of these problem areas could be identified as follows: 1) the articulation of a theoretical basis for HC which construes its object(s) in epistemological terms adequate to the phenomena studied; 2) the analysis of the degree and kind of conceptual convergence which is demonstrated by the interrelationships between such disciplines as informatics, cognitive psy- Chology and literary theory; 3) the clarification of the relationship between such innovative models as hypertext and hypermedia, on the one hand, and their implementation in actual hardware software configurations on the other; 4) the development of analytical techniques which do not simply reproduce (albeit more quickly) what is done by more traditional methods, but rather realize in practice fundamental theoretical reformulations. Since I do not have the space to pursue all of these here, I will limit my discussion to a brief articu- lation of theories of text and discourse within ttC.

Text and Discourse Amongst the numerous developments in recent theoretical work which are significant for HC, perhaps the two key elements to be considered are those of text and discourse.

For perhaps the last twenty years, the area of textual theory has been one of the most exciting and innovative areas in literary studies and, given the nature of the problematics inherent in HC, it is precisely here that we should look for the relative implementation of contemporary theoret- ical models. The development of textual theory, however, has also led to the elaboration of more

360 D O N A L D B R U C E

encompassing discursive models. In literary studies as well as in virtually all other areas of the human sciences, the notion of discourse has come to play an increasingly important role: as R6gine Robin and Marc Angenot have quite correctly put it, "le discours est aujourd'hui au centre d'~ peu pros toutes les r6flexions prescrites dans l'horizon des sciences humaines" (Robin, 1992, p. 111). "Discourse" has become one of those key notions around which all else is con- structed. However, when one reads the studies undertaken in the area of HC, one is particularly struck by the significant absence of both this term and its attendant notions as they are currently used in the human sciences.

In the present context, discourse can be under- stood to mean the following: 1) a dispersion of texts whose historical mode of inscription allows us to describe them as a space of enunciative regularities; 2) a set of anonymous, historically situated rules (generic systems, repertoires of topo~', principles of narrative syntax which deter- mine the manner in which dnonc~s are linked, and so on) which are determined by the time and space which define a given epoch, and which determine for a given social, economic, geographical or linguistic field the conditions of enunciation: in other words, the principles which determine what is sayable and which assure the discursive division of labour (Angenot, 1991). The meaning of the term text, on the other hand, is that of a specific articulation of discourse: discourse emerges through text. Text and discourse are not synony- mous, yet they are inextricably interconnected and interdependent. Seen in this light, the sense of the term text goes beyond traditional understandings (i.e., a piece of written, linguistic communication) and extends to the overall domain of signification. Here, we are closer to its accepted semiotic meaning: both text and discourse constitute signifying systems, but at different levels of pertinence, generality and kind.

Many discussions I have listened to or read on the subject of computer applications to textual analysis have been internally weak in terms of their theoretical basis. The theoretical basis of HC is still tied to a narrowly neo-positivistic tradition on the one hand, and a "new critical" one on the other. This presupposes numerous implicit assumptions concerning intention, normative

discourse, discourse provenance, discursive regu- larity, hermeneutic procedures, object/subject relationships, etc. The object of study is most frequently thought of in atomized form with little supporting conceptualization of problems such as: the subject, ideology, representation, (inter)textu- ality, (inter)discursivity, discontinuity, modularity, et al. - as if these matters were unproblematic, self-evident, or indeed inconsequential for HC. The absence of adequate conceptualization in computer-assisted analyses is largely responsible for the discipline's failure to ask questions relevant to the nature of the new medium, and relevant to the changes which have taken place in the sciences humaines disciplines themselves over the last three decades. In particular, we have yet to establish the mediating concepts between qualitative and quantitative research in the humanities. The necessary preliminary to an analysis of this kind is the elaboration of a theoretical model which is adequate to both the object and the methodology: indeed, we find ourselves in the rather unusual situation of possessing an exciting methodological tool most of whose practitioners rarely articulate a supporting theoretical model adequate to the phenomenon. In the eyes of traditional humanists, the very notion of computers being involved in textual analysis is anathema; in the eyes of the postmodern theorists, the conceptual basis of HC is simply antiquated.

A happy departure from this state of affairs is to be found in Hypermedia and Literary Studies (Delany and Landow, 1991). Here we find an attempt to explain the notion of text in terms relevant to both HC and literary theory. For example, hypertext is thought of as an "infinitely recenterable system" (p. 6) and a link is estab- lished to Derridean "dissemination." However, it is interesting that this statement is qualified as follows: "Hypertext thus presages a potential revolution in literary studies" (p. 6). I would in fact propose that this revolution is already well underway: what we see here is a bridging phe- nomenon whereby the interconnections between HC and literary theory are starting to emerge. 4 It is precisely ira the realization of this new infor- mation technology that previously transhistorical notions have become radically historicized. Textual and discursive interrelationships are either associative or determined, but their actual config-

T E X T AND D I S C O U R S E T H E O R Y 361

uration changes considerably given the particular model within which they are conceptualized.

One of the key problems, then, is that there is a considerable gap between contemporary theo- reticians on the one side and computer analysts on the other. Witness, for example, J.F. Burrows' passing reference to Barthes and the notion of "texte lisible" and "texte scriptible": this reference is not at all developed within any kind of theo- retical framework in his book, nor are any of the numerous 'ramifications for methodology made apparent (1987, p. 94). Derrida is at least men- tioned (p. 94), Greimas, Lacan and Culler appear in a note (p. 114). Bakhtin fares better with a two page discussion of some his ideas as filtered through Tony Bennett (pp. 188-90); Roman Jakobson gets three pages (pp. 28-31). All of this is very laudable since it shows an attempt to relate contemporary literary theory to computer-assisted textual analysis; however, it does not go far enough at all in rethinking the text, nor does it seem to influence the methodology: one is clearly struck by the timid and tentative reference to these "new-fangled" ideas. Any substantial contribution by these ideas to HC would require a fundamental change in the researcher's textual and discursive theoretical models, and that is not possible here. Jane Austen's texts are considered in their singularity and not as part of a discursive system interacting with other discursive systems.

Since one of the key features of the computer is its ability to be virtually exhaustive in its analysis of a given data set within specific parameters, it is most certainly this capability to undertake systemic macro-analyses rather than individual micro-analyses (as has generally hitherto been the case) that must yet be thoroughly exploited. In the past, traditional researchers have had to work with relatively small corpora and extrapolate their findings on the basis of experi- ence and familiarity with the material. Ironically, this has led modern computer-aided researchers to concentrate on micro-analyses to the extent that the work done in HC has become extremely atom- istic - and largely ignored. Most scholars do not believe that it has contributed significantly to larger questions in our disciplines. It is in this respect that Mark Olsen's comment - " . . . a shift in the theoretical orientations of computer-assisted textual analysis may lead to a more prominent role

in the mainstream of literature" - should be under- stood.

Certainly intertextuality, and more correctly interdiscursivity are two fundamental concepts which are quite close to the hypertextual model. Few discussions of hypertext have exploited these notions. 5 Although there is also a "feedback" effect into literary theory in so far as the hyper- text model actually realizes in concrete form many of the more abstract elements of the new subver- sive textual and discursive models, few attempts have been made to establish the parameters of this sort of conceptual convergence.

Tales of Blindness and Insight I would like at this point to refer to two examples located at rather different levels of research which elucidate some of the problems currently plaguing us. The first case involves Marc Angenot who, in 1989, published a book of some 1200 pages called 1889. Un dtat du discours social which I person- ally admire very much. This most important text is a synchronic discursive history (texts chosen only from within specified temporal limits) of the interactions of numerous discourses (literary, scientific, philosophical, journalistic, popular press, political, et al.) within the framework of competing ideological and hegemonic models. Though this project involved the analysis of an immense amount of material and encompassed enormous dimensions, it did not take in the totality of accessible discursive production of the period. In the book Angenot acknowledges that other researchers have availed themselves of computer- assisted techniques for similar projects: however, he does not and we are not told why this is the case. 6 The very proportions of the project - the avowed goal of demonstrating systemic interac- tions at the interdiscursive and intertextual levels, the attempt to determine discursive, thematic, rhetorical, lexical, structural, etc. regularities across discursive boundaries, the key problem of tracking ideologems through successive transfor- mations and textual manifestations - all these elements would seem to indicate that computer- assisted analysis should be a key empirical and heuristic tool in this undertaking. As Charles Faulhaber quite rightly points out,

In terms of literary theory and analysis, the combination of tools and data should provide a much-needed dose of

362 DONALD BRUCE

pragmatism by allowing (and forcing) critics and theo- reticians to treat large quantities of data with great precision. All too frequently, excessively broad general- izations are based on microanalyses of small slices of data, or upon haphazardly collected instances of a given phenomenon

(Faulhaber, 1991, pp. 147-48). The Angenot project and its theoretical foundations respond admirably to this call for macro-analyses, but fall short of the goal in that the power of the computer is not brought to bear on the problem. Though I believe that there are several reasons for Angenot's failure to use computer-assisted analysis in his project, I would submit that one very significant reason was that it offered him little in terms of theoretical sophistication in relation to the task at hand and did not merit the considerable effort necessary to put it into action. In Angenot's work Faulhaber's "dose of pragma- tism" is arrived at by means of a theoretical model capable of sustaining it. That this was done without the aid of HC was not an accident.

The second case, though somewhat more anecdotal in nature than the first case, is nonethe- less also very instructive. I recently served on an MA defence in another department where a student used some basic statistical computing tech- niques to determine the degree of participation of a male author in a text which was supposedly written by a woman, but where the participation of the famous male author was suspected for various non-textual reasons. What surprised me was that the student (in all respects quite com- petent) had expected to find formal, normative discursive features which would indicate one or the other author's gender: the presupposition here is that linguistic expression is not only gender related but also formally identifiable as such. The results were, of course, inconclusive. Beyond the initial question of whether one or the other writer was responsible for the text was the much larger question of the possibility of the existence of formal discursive features which are ascribable to gender per se. Though I do not reject this possi- bility, the question is an extremely complex one and the danger of falling into an essentialist position on gender is very real. What was evident in this case was that, though computer-assisted analysis could most certainly play a role here, the student's thesis contained no theoretical model, no

conceptualization of formal gender identification on the level of text or discourse, let alone a hypothesis concerning the way in which statistical tedhniques could reveal this. The problem was not adequately conceptualized in terms relevant to HC or to feminist/textual/discursive theory.

My point here is that at all levels of the research spectrum, that of the seasoned veteran or of the debutante, theory and practice in computer- assisted analyses still have been unable to effect a fruitful union.

The Discourse of the Commune The current mismatch or indeed disjunction between methodology and theory is thus at the heart of the problem. In this respect I would like to make brief mention of my own project, which is of course of major concern to me at this point. The project involves the analysis of a particular discursive type which I have named the "Dis- course of the Commune." It is my hypothesis that this particular discursive type existed historically and manifested itself textually (in literary, jour- nalistic, scientific, political texts, as well as orally) and that, like any other discursive type, it is susceptible to an empirical, formal analysis. The theoretical model which I use is taken from discourse analysis, specifically the type of dis- course analysis as theorized and practised by Marc Angenot and exemplified in his book, 1889. The model is interdiscursive, and articulates itself in terms of discourse/counter-discourse relationships (as developed in the work of Richard Terdiman, Kristin Ross, Ross Chambers). In general, my aim is to use computer-assisted text analysis on a large enough corpus to demonstrate the existence of this discursive type and to relate it to a particular conjunction of socio-historical factors. In par- ticular, I hope to show how the fundamental conceptual structure of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's anarchism (i.e., an unresolved binary dialectic), expressed largely in explicitly propositional terms in Proudhon's own texts, is realized metaphori- cally, structurally, lexically in the "Discourse of the Commune," specifically in the autobiograph- ical/historical trilogy, Jacques Vingtras, by Jules Vall~s. In other words, these elements manifest themselves in specific representational forms and relations in a discursive type whose many variants have the Paris Commune as their historical focus,

TEXT AND D I S C O U R S E T H E O R Y 363

and Proudhonian anarchism as their conceptual matrix. The overall problem is clearly of an inter- discursive, systemic kind. Though limited to the Vall~s corpus at this first stage (ca. 1500 pages), such interdiscursive analysis would necessarily include a large variety of texts: literary (the trilogy of Jules Vall~s; the poetry of Rimbaud); journal- istic (the writings of Vall~s and many others); political (many of the texts of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, anonymous tracts); scientific (I~lie R6clus' writings on geography) and others such as popular songs, posters, etc. in so far as these have been recorded. Along with demonstrating specific systemic relationships, one of my fundamental aims is to develop analytical tools of a computa- tional nature which correspond to the conceptual- ization of the problem within a socio-semiotic framework. The aim here is to determine not only the specific (oppositional) features of what I call the "Discourse of the Commune" but also the interactions between it and other hegemonic and non-hegemonic discourses.

The Vall~s corpus has been rendered in machine readable format and verified for accuracy. The next step is the encoding of this text according to the new TEI parameters. This, of course, is where the problems begin and where the rethinking of traditional categories must take place, for it is precisely in this conceptualization of the text and its relationship to the overall discursive norms that new categories must be developed. One very fruitful avenue of inquiry here is that of chaos theory, or more correctly, the theory of dynamic systems. N. Katherine Hayles and others have pursued this domain in relation to literature (Hayles, 1984, 1990, 1991). The characteristics of "chaotic" systems correspond well to the concep- tual model of Proudhonian anarchism and the discursive features of numerous Commune-related narratives. Such a model might very well enable researchers to theorize the interrelationship between semantics and form, signified and signi- fier, of which Busa speaks. Similarly, Isabelle Stengers' recent work on conceptual convergence (1987) is also useful here in understanding the relationship between models in informatics and in literary theory, i.e., the way in which concep- tual models are embodied in different discourses. At present, this project is still "work in progress"

and I will report further on theory, method, and results at a later date:

Conclusion

Computers should aid us in understanding how representation functions, what forms are used, and in what way different modes of representation are related to the material universe in which the symbolic order manifests itself. The current gen- eration of researchers who are involved in computer-assisted textual analysis must, as a first step, consciously work towards the implementa- tion of contemporary theories of textuality and discourse in their own work if, as Mark Olsen says, computers are to play a role in the main- stream of literary studies in particular and humanistic studies in general.

Notes 1 "The domain of ideology coincides with the domain of signs. They equate with one another. Wherever a sign is present, ideology is present, too. Everything ideological possesses semiotic value" (Volo~inov, 1986, p. 10). 2 Evidently, Busa's comments do signal a change in the traditional disciplines of philology and textual criticism; witness some of the articles published in a recent Romance Philology issue (1991) on the question, such as: Charles Faulhaber, "Textual Ci'iticism in the Twentieth Century" (1991, pp. 123-48). See also the "Bibliography" (pp. 206-36) contained in this issue. In addition, R. Howard Bloch, "New Philology and Old French" (1990, pp. 38-58) in an issue of Speculum entitled "The New Philology" is useful in this regard. 3 These include Edward Barrett's Text, ConText, and HyperText; Paul Delaney and George Landow's Hypermedia and Literary Studies; a special issue of Romance Philology on textual theory, text-editing (particularly from the medieval period), and computers; and a recent issue of Humanities Education (1991). 4 See, for example, the articles by Slatin (1991), Dickey ("Poem Descending a Staircase: Hypertext and the Simultaneity of Experience") (1991), Moulthrop ("Reading from the Map: Metonymy and Metaphor in the Fiction of 'Forking Paths'") (1991), Harpold ("Threnody: Psychoanalytic Digressions on the Subject of Hypertexts") (1991). 5 See for instance, John M. Slatin, "Hypertext and the Teaching of Writing", (1991, p. 115). Here, Slatin relates the notion of hypertext to poetry, specifically to such authors as Coleridge and Pound. 6 p. R6tat/J. Sgard, L'Ann~e 1734 (Angenot, 1989, p. 1086) is just one example of such a computer-assisted discourse analysis project mentioned by Angenot. 7 Cf. Bruce (1991) for further information concerning this ongoing project.

364 DONALD BRUCE

Reference Angenot, Marc. 1889. Un dtat du discours. Longueil, Qu6.:

Pr6ambule, 1989. Angenot, Marc. "Les id6ologies ne sont pas des syst~mes."

Recherches Sdmiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry, 11, 2-3 (1991), 181-202.

Barrett, Edward, ed. Text, ConText, and HyperText. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1988.

"Bibliography." Romance Philology, 45, 1 (August 1991), 206-36.

Bloch, R. Howard. "New Philology and Old French." Speculum, 65 (1990), 38-58.

Bolter, J. David. "The Idea of Literature in the Electronic Medium." Topic, 39 (1985), 23-34.

Bruce, Donald. "Le discours de la Commune: Interdiscursivit6, dialectique et id6ologie chez Jules Vall~s." Recherches Sdmiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry, 11, 2-3 (1991), 203-23.

Busa, Roberto. "Informatics and the New Philology." Computers and the Humanities, 24 (1990), 339-43.

Burrows, J.F. Computation into Criticism. A Study of Jane Austen's Novels and an Experiment in Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Delany, Paul and Landow George P., eds. Hypermedia and Literary Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.

Dickey, William. "Poem Descending a Staircase: Hypertext and the Simultaneity of Experience." In Hypermedia and Literary Studies. Eds. Paul Delany and George P. Landow. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1991, pp. 143-52.

Faulhaber, Charles B. "Textual Criticism in the 21 st Century." Romance Philology, 45, 1 (August 1991), 123-48.

Harpold, Terence. "Threnody: Psychoanalytic Digressions on the Subject of Hypertexts." In Hypermedia and Literary Studies. Eds. Paul Delany and George P. Landow. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1991, pp. 171-81.

Hayles, N. Katherine. The Cosmic Web. Scientific Field Models and Literary Strategies in the 20th Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984.

Hayles, N. Katherine. Chaos Bound. Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.

Hayles, N. Katherine, ed. Chaos and Order. Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1991~

Humanities Education, 8, 1 (1991). Landow, George P. Hypertext. The Convergence of

Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

Lusignan, Serge. "Quelques r6flexions sur le statut 6pist6- mologique du texte 61ectronique." Computers and the Humanities, 19, 4 (1985), 209-12.

Moulthrop, Stuart. "Reading From the Map: Metonymy and Metaphor in the Fiction of 'Forking Paths'." In Hypermedia and Literary Studies. Eds. Paul Delany and George P. Landow. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1991, pp. 119-32.

Mullins, Phil. "New Images of Text, Text-Making and Text- Reading. In Humanities Education, 8, 1 (1991), 4-10.

New Literary History, "Technology, Models, and Literary Study," 20, 2 (Winter 1989).

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. Thdorie de la propridtd. Paris: Lacroix, 1866.

Robin, R6gine. "Remarques de cl6ture." Discours Social~Social Discourse: Analyse du discours et sociocri- tique des textes/Discourse Analysis and Text Sociocriticism, 4, 1 & 2 (1992), 111-14.

Romance Philology, 45, 1 (August 1991). Slatin, John. "Reading Hypertext: Order and Coherence in a

New Medium." In Hypermedia and Literary Studies. Eds. Paul Delany and George P. Landow. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1991, pp. 153-69.

Speer, Mary B. "Editing Old French Texts in the Eighties: Theory and Practice." Romance Philology, 45, 1 (August 1991), 7-43.

Stengers, Isabelle, ed. D'une science ?t l'autre. Des concepts nomades. Paris: Seuil, 1987.

Volo~inov, V.N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trans. L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik. London: Seminar Press, 1986 (1973).