What's in a <quote>?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
b_O
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What's in a <quote>?

b_O
Hello everyone,

I'd like to know how wide a spectrum of speech acts the TEI-element  can
cover. The definition of this element is: "contains a phrase or passage
attributed by the narrator or author to some agency external to the text."
Can anyone tell me if there is a 'canonized reading' of this definition?

Because if I'm not mistaken it is open to interpretation; it is save to say
that it includes, at the very least,
- verbatim quotes.
It also seems reasonable to extend it to
- indirect speech and
- paraphrases (with no regard to the exact wording in the source)
But what about these?
- adoption of style (e.g. in a satirical manner), be it in syntax, grammar,
rhetorical devices, vocabulary ...
- (intentionally) distorted quotations
- and, under certain circumstances (e.g. adoption of parts of the
formulation): objections, counterstatements

Thanks in advance!

Best regards,
Bernhard Oberreither




--
Sent from: http://tei-l.970651.n3.nabble.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's in a <quote>?

Paul Schaffner
I doubt very much whether there is a consensus (the only way, I should
think, to establish a canon) on the application of either <quote> or its
sibling <q>. As you suggest, the kinds of material that one is tempted
to apply it to are so various that it is hard to imagine that any one
person's application, however rigorous in its own terms, matches that
of anyone else. This is almost a rule with regard to the basic, core,
long-standing elements in TEI: the older and more ubiquitous they are,
the more likely they are to create local traditions, quickly ossified into
local canons, regarding their meaning and use.

Even the more vaguely defined <q>, designed for
"material which is distinguished from the surrounding text," is widely
used for material that is NOT distinguished from the surrounding
text!

IMHO, of course. The canonical response may be: use it for anything
that reasonably fits the definition, but describe the policy more fully
in the header.

pfs

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020, at 07:29, b_O wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I'd like to know how wide a spectrum of speech acts the TEI-element  can
> cover. The definition of this element is: "contains a phrase or passage
> attributed by the narrator or author to some agency external to the text."
> Can anyone tell me if there is a 'canonized reading' of this definition?
>
> Because if I'm not mistaken it is open to interpretation; it is save to say
> that it includes, at the very least,
> - verbatim quotes.
> It also seems reasonable to extend it to
> - indirect speech and
> - paraphrases (with no regard to the exact wording in the source)
> But what about these?
> - adoption of style (e.g. in a satirical manner), be it in syntax, grammar,
> rhetorical devices, vocabulary ...
> - (intentionally) distorted quotations
> - and, under certain circumstances (e.g. adoption of parts of the
> formulation): objections, counterstatements
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Best regards,
> Bernhard Oberreither
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://tei-l.970651.n3.nabble.com/
>

--
Paul Schaffner  Digital Content & Collections
University of Michigan Libraries
[hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
lou
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's in a <quote>?

lou
In reply to this post by b_O
As Paul suggests, it's really up to you how you decide to implement these rather subtle interpretative distinctions. The intention of the Guidelines is that <quote> should be reserved for speech acts attributed by the text to some other text producer. I personally would use it  only for passages clearly signalled as having an existence outside the text (truthfully or not). The Guidelines recommend  use of <said> for all representations of direct or indirect speech (attributes @direct and @aloud permit some subcategorisation of these).  However, this is a distinction not present in earlier versions of the Guidelines, and consequently there are probably many early adopters of the TEI who have not internalised it, and some encoding traditions which don't profit from it. Looking at the ways that  different readings of the Guidelines become canonized is an interesting research project, which I am happy to leave someone else to embark on though.

Paraphrase, imitation or parody, distortion  and many more seem to be purely interpretative judgments, which operate at a different analytic level from representations of speech or quotation, as witness the fact you might well want to combine them with the others. Consider for example, a text in which a speaker quotes from some other text, or imitates one of the other speakers.  Oh, and there are also the much confused elements <soCalled> and <mentioned> which allow you to indicate something about narrative stance. 


On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 12:39, b_O <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello everyone,

I'd like to know how wide a spectrum of speech acts the TEI-element  can
cover. The definition of this element is: "contains a phrase or passage
attributed by the narrator or author to some agency external to the text."
Can anyone tell me if there is a 'canonized reading' of this definition?

Because if I'm not mistaken it is open to interpretation; it is save to say
that it includes, at the very least,
- verbatim quotes.
It also seems reasonable to extend it to
- indirect speech and
- paraphrases (with no regard to the exact wording in the source)
But what about these?
- adoption of style (e.g. in a satirical manner), be it in syntax, grammar,
rhetorical devices, vocabulary ...
- (intentionally) distorted quotations
- and, under certain circumstances (e.g. adoption of parts of the
formulation): objections, counterstatements

Thanks in advance!

Best regards,
Bernhard Oberreither




--
Sent from: http://tei-l.970651.n3.nabble.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What's in a <quote>?

Martin Mueller

Wallace Stevens’ Connoisseurs of Chaos has the memorable line “The squirming facts exceed the squamous mind”. I believe that TEI Lite just had “q” and did well enough with it. The TCP texts only use  “q”. It’s a well-named  weasel element, which only declares that its content “somehow” differs.   Its name reminds me of the Indo-European labio-velars that can turn into just about any  sound while never quite losing the connection to their origins.  In an email quite a few years ago Paul Schaffner observed ruefully that if  the content model of <q> supported the divtop and divbottom elements of a single div it would cover most of the cases for which <floatingText> was invented. That would have turned it into the equivalent of the joker in a pack of cards—the element of disorder and ambiguity without which no order can be maintained for any length of time. I remember telling Sebastian what Paul written to me, and he observed equally ruefully “that ship has sailed.”

 

From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]> on behalf of Lou Burnard <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: Lou Burnard <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 1:46 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: What's in a <quote>?

 

As Paul suggests, it's really up to you how you decide to implement these rather subtle interpretative distinctions. The intention of the Guidelines is that <quote> should be reserved for speech acts attributed by the text to some other text producer. I personally would use it  only for passages clearly signalled as having an existence outside the text (truthfully or not). The Guidelines recommend  use of <said> for all representations of direct or indirect speech (attributes @direct and @aloud permit some subcategorisation of these).  However, this is a distinction not present in earlier versions of the Guidelines, and consequently there are probably many early adopters of the TEI who have not internalised it, and some encoding traditions which don't profit from it. Looking at the ways that  different readings of the Guidelines become canonized is an interesting research project, which I am happy to leave someone else to embark on though.

 

Paraphrase, imitation or parody, distortion  and many more seem to be purely interpretative judgments, which operate at a different analytic level from representations of speech or quotation, as witness the fact you might well want to combine them with the others. Consider for example, a text in which a speaker quotes from some other text, or imitates one of the other speakers.  Oh, and there are also the much confused elements <soCalled> and <mentioned> which allow you to indicate something about narrative stance. 

 

 

On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 12:39, b_O <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello everyone,

I'd like to know how wide a spectrum of speech acts the TEI-element  can
cover. The definition of this element is: "contains a phrase or passage
attributed by the narrator or author to some agency external to the text."
Can anyone tell me if there is a 'canonized reading' of this definition?

Because if I'm not mistaken it is open to interpretation; it is save to say
that it includes, at the very least,
- verbatim quotes.
It also seems reasonable to extend it to
- indirect speech and
- paraphrases (with no regard to the exact wording in the source)
But what about these?
- adoption of style (e.g. in a satirical manner), be it in syntax, grammar,
rhetorical devices, vocabulary ...
- (intentionally) distorted quotations
- and, under certain circumstances (e.g. adoption of parts of the
formulation): objections, counterstatements

Thanks in advance!

Best regards,
Bernhard Oberreither




--
Sent from: http://tei-l.970651.n3.nabble.com/