Skip to main content

Global Debates in the Digital Humanities: Figure Descriptions

Global Debates in the Digital Humanities
Figure Descriptions
  • Show the following:

    Annotations
    Resources
  • Adjust appearance:

    Font
    Font style
    Color Scheme
    Light
    Dark
    Annotation contrast
    Low
    High
    Margins
  • Search within:
    • Notifications
    • Privacy
  • Project HomeGlobal Debates in the Digital Humanities
  • Projects
  • Learn more about Manifold

Notes

table of contents
  1. Cover
  2. Half Title Page
  3. Series Title Page
  4. Title Page
  5. Copyright Page
  6. Contents
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. Introduction | Domenico Fiormonte, Paola Ricaurte, and Sukanta Chaudhuri
  9. Part I. Global Histories of Digital Humanities
    1. 1. Epistemically Produced Invisibility | Sayan Bhattacharyya
    2. 2. Alternative Histories of Digital Humanities: Tracing the Archival Turn | Puthiya Purayil Sneha
    3. 3. Can the Subaltern “Do” DH? A Reflection on the Challenges and Opportunities for the Digital Humanities | Ernesto Priego
    4. 4. Peering Beyond the Pink Tent: Queer of Color Critique across the Digital Indian Ocean | Rahul K. Gairola
    5. 5. The History and Context of the Digital Humanities in Russia | Inna Kizhner, Melissa Terras, Boris Orekhov, Lev Manovich, Igor Kim, Maxim Rumyantsev, and Anastasia Bonch-Osmolovskaya
    6. 6. Debating and Developing Digital Humanities in China: New or Old? | Jing Chen and Lik Hang Tsui
    7. 7. How We Became Digital: The Recent History of Digital Humanities in Poland | Maciej Maryl
    8. 8. Digital Social Sciences and Digital Humanities of the South: Materials for a Critical Discussion | Nuria Rodríguez-Ortega
  10. Part II. Exploring and Practicing Global Digital Humanities
    1. 9. Mining Verbal Data from Early Bengali Newspapers and Magazines: Contemplating the Possibilities | Purbasha Auddy
    2. 10. Digital Brush Talk: Challenges and Potential Connections in East Asian Digital Research | Aliz Horvath
    3. 11. “It Functions, and That’s (Almost) All”: Tagging the Talmud | Itay Marienberg-Milikowsky
    4. 12. What’s Trending in the Chinese Google Books Corpus? A Google Ngram Analysis of the Chinese Language Area (1950–2008) | Carlton Clark, Lei Zhang, and Steffen Roth
    5. 13. In Tlilli in Tlapalli / In Xochitl in Cuicatl: The Representation of Other Mexican Literatures through Digital Media | Ernesto Miranda Trigueros
    6. 14. No “Making,” Not Now: Decolonizing Digital Humanities in South Asia | Dibyadyuti Roy and Nirmala Menon
    7. 15. Digital Humanities and Memory Wars in Contemporary Russia | Sofia Gavrilova
    8. 16. Borderlands Archives Cartography: Bridging Personal, Political, and Geographical Borderlands | Maira E. Álvarez and Sylvia Fernández Quintanilla
    9. 17. Developing New Literacy Skills and Digital Scholarship Infrastructures in the Global South: A Case Study | María José Afanador-Llach and Andres Lombana-Bermudez
    10. 18. Manuscripts Written by Women in New Spain and the Challenge of Digitization: An Experiment in Academic Autoethnography | Diana Barreto Ávila
  11. Part III. Beyond Digital Humanities
    1. 19. Digital Humanities and Visible and Invisible Infrastructures | Gimena del Rio Riande
    2. 20. Site-Specific Cultural Infrastructure: Promoting Access and Conquering the Digital Divide | Juan Steyn and Andre Goodrich
    3. 21. On Gambiarras: Technical Improvisations à la Brazil | Carolina Dalla Chiesa and Leonardo Foletto
    4. 22. Messy Empowerment: Mapping Digital Encounters in the Margins | Anita Gurumurthy and Deepti Bharthur
    5. 23. On Language, Gender, and Digital Technologies | Tim Unwin
    6. 24. Africa’s Digitalization: From the Ecological Dilemma to the Decolonization of the Imaginary | Cédric Leterme
  12. Contributors
  13. Figure Descriptions

Figure Descriptions

  1. Figure 12.1. This line chart tracks the values of ten 2-grams in Google Books English language corpus from the years 1900 through 2008. The y-axis values range from 0 percent through 0.00160 percent in increments of 0.00020 percent. Each 2-gram is associated with a line in the chart. Those for “Natural science,” “Modern science,” “To science,” “A science,” “Political science,” “Social science,” “In science,” and “And science,” generally trend up from left to right across the span of years with values not reaching higher than 0.00040 percent. The value for “The science,” begins higher, between 0.00060 percent and 0.00080 percent, trending down to its lowest point in the 1980s before trending back up 0.0004601127 percent in 2008. The obvious outlier is “Of science,” with a beginning value near 0.00120 percent that tracks almost up to 0.00140 percent in the late 1960s before returning to a value close to 0.00120 percent in 2008.

    Return to figure 12.1.

  2. Figure 12.2. This line chart tracks the values of ten 2-grams in Google Books English language corpus from the years 1900 through 2008. The y-axis values range from 0 percent through 0.00140 percent in increments of 0.00010 percent. Each 2-gram is associated with a line in the chart. Those for “Science has,” “Science or,” “Science that,” “Science as,” “Science to,” “Science in,” “Science is,” and “Science fiction,” generally have little change in value from left to right across the span of years with values not reaching higher than 0.00020 percent. The value for “Science of,” begins higher at 0.00066 percent and trending down to 0.000400 percent in 2008. The obvious outlier is “Science and,” with a beginning value near 0.000554 percent that tracks up to 0.001286 percent in the late 1980s before returning to a value close to 0.001117 percent in 2008. Visually, the lines for “Science and” and “Science of” mirror one another, with the former starting lower, increasing and rounding out in the late 1980s and then trending down and the latter starting higher, decreasing to a low in the late 1980s and then rebounding upward.

    Return to figure 12.2.

  3. Figure 12.4. This chart plots the combination of the five, single-word lexemes “System,” “method,” “theory,” “research,” and “analysis” into a single line, ranging from the years 1800 through 2008. The y-axis values range from 0 percent through 0.160 percent in increments of 0.020 percent. The line begins with a value near 0.030 percent in 1800 and slowly trends upward until the mid-1940s. At that point it increases more rapidly through the early 1980s to almost 0.150 percent, before ending in 2008 just below 0.120 percent.

    Return to figure 12.4.

  4. Figure 12.5. This chart plots the combination of the four, two-word lexemes “Social science,” “science fiction,” “political science,” and “modern science” into a single line, ranging from the years 1800 through 2008. The y-axis values range from 0 percent through 0.001000 percent in increments of 0.000100 percent. The line begins with a value just below 0.000100 percent in 1800 and slowly trends upward until just before 1920, where it increases steadily to just below 0.0009000 percent in the late 1970s. At that point it dips a bit from the 1980s through 1990s before ending in 2008 just above 0.0008000 percent.

    Return to figure 12.5.

  5. Figure 12.6. This line chart tracks the values of the single-word lexeme “theory” and the two-word lexeme “social science” from the years 1950 through 2008. The y-axis values range from 0 percent through 0.130 percent in increments of 0.0010 percent. The value for “Social science” remains flat across the years at a value just above zero percent. The line for “Theory” begins near the top of the graph, just about 0.100 percent and trends up to a high mark of near 0.130 percent in the late 1960s. From there is trends down marginally, ending just above 0.0110 percent in 2008.

    Return to figure 12.6.

  6. Figure 12.8. This line chart tracks three lexeme combinations from 1950 through 2008: Economy (市场 经济 Market economy + 国民 经济 national economy + 经济发展 economic development + 经济增长 economic growth), Science (社会 科学 Social science + 科学 发展 scientific development + 科学 技术 science and technology + 科学 研究 scientific research), and Law (法律 的 Legal + 法律 法规 legal regulations + 法律 制度 legal system + 有关 法律 relevant law). The y-axis values range from 0 percent through 0.180 percent in increments of 0.20 percent. The line associated with Law is the most consistent and consistently lowest value of the three, hovering near zero percent until the mid-1970s, after which it begins to increase modestly to near 0.020 percent in 2008. The values for Economy begin near 0.20 percent in 1950 and trend down through the mid-1950s, after which they rebound to around 0.10 percent through the early 1970s, increasing consistently through the mid-180s. As the 1980s continue the values rise more steadily until the mid-1990s, topping out around 0.150 percent and then declining through the end of the 1990s and early 2000s to just above 0.080 percent in 2008. The line associated with Science generally sites between those of Law and Economy, starting near zero percent in 1950, increasing to near 0.030 percent through the late 1950 and much of 1960s, dipping again in the early 1970s, and then rising again in the 1980s to 0.040 percent. The line remains at that level through the mid-1980s before dipping slightly through the 1990s and ending in 2008 just above 0.030 percent.

    Return to figure 12.8.

  7. Figure 12.9. This line chart tracks four lexeme combinations from 1950 through 2008: Education (教育 的 Educational + 高等教育 higher education + 教育部 Ministry of Education + 义务教育 compulsory education), Health (医疗 机构 Medical institutions + 医疗卫生 medical hygiene + 合作医 疗 cooperative medical treatment + 基本医疗 basic medical care), Politics (中央 政治 Central politics + 政治 体系 political system + 民主 政治 democratic politics + 政治 家 politician), and Mass Media (新闻媒体 News media + 新媒体 new media + 网络媒体 internet media + 传统媒体 traditional media). The y-axis values range from 0 percent through 0.0200 percent in increments of 0.0020 percent. The values for Mass Media are the lowest of the four and stay near zero percent until the mid-1990s, after which they increase consistently to just below 0.0040 percent in 2008. The line for Medical also begins near zero percent in 1950 and begins rising in the late 1960s until the early 1970s, reaching just above 0.0020 percent. From there it dips back down through the early 1980s and then begins a steady rise through the 1990s and early 2000s, finishing in 2008 at 0.0080 percent. The line for Politics is steady between 0.0020 and 0.0040 percent from 1950 through the early 1980s. Then it begins to increase, dramatically at first for the late 1980s and then gradually from there until 2008, ending around the 0.0070 percent mark. Education consistently tracks highest of the lexeme combinations, starting in 1950 just under teh 0.0080 percent mark, increasing modestly into the early 1960s before a decline to near the 0.0060 percentage mark for most of the mid-1960s through the late 1970s. From the early 1980s onward the values increase consistently to a high mark just above 0.0160 percent in the early 2000s, before decreasing slightly to near 0.0150 percent in 2008.

    Return to figure 12.9.

  8. Figure 12.10. This line chart tracks three lexeme combinations from 1950 through 2008: Art (文化艺术 Culture and art + 文学艺术 literature and art + 艺术作品 art work + 艺术形式 forms of art), Religion (宗教 信仰 Religion + 宗教 活动 religious activities + 民族宗教 national religion + 宗教事务 religious affairs), and Sport (体育活动 Sports activities + 体育 运动 sports + 体育事业 sports career + 国家体育 national sports). The y-axis values range from 0 percent through 0.0220 percent in increments of 0.0020 percent. The values for Sport are tempestuous from 1950 through the mid-1970s, starting near zero percent, rising quickly to just below 0.0040 percent through much of the 1950s, dipping back down to near 0.0010 percent for the early 1960s, before rising modestly and lowering again to the same 0.0010 percent mark in the early 1970s. From the mid-1970s on, Sport stays mostly consistent between 0.00100 and 0.0020 percent. Religion starts in 1950 near the 0.0010 percent mark, with a very modest increase through the early 1960s before trending back down near zero percent at the start of the 1970s. From there it rises slowly to a high mark in 2008 just above the 0.0030 percent mark. Art is the most dramatic line, starting near 0.0020 percent and then showing a meteoric rise to above 0.0180 percent in the early 1960s. It then drops to around 0.0050 percent in the early 1970s, ascends to just above 0.0080 percent in the early 1980s and then slowly tracks down to just below 0.0040 percent in 2008.

    Return to figure 12.10.

Annotate

Previous
Copyright 2022 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota.
Powered by Manifold Scholarship. Learn more at
Opens in new tab or windowmanifoldapp.org