Abstract
The framing of Guideline VI within the pedagogical situation of a class on “DigitalMethods in Literary Studies” is helpful in pointing out some of the ways inwhich the theory and practice of annotation can serve students of literature, aswell as eventually contributing to computational analysis. Above all, annotationnecessitates firm decisions, as the authors describe: ”Rather than let an ambiguoustext stay ambiguous, they simply had to decide for one option in order tobe able to annotate a passage and had to justify their choice with reference tothe whole text or to adapt the guidelines in order to address and document theambiguity” (3). This remark highlights the challenge in developing annotationguidelines so that they can be used consistently by different communities of userswithout modifications. The authors note several points of debate within the classthat are relevant to the overall shared task and its evaluation: the feasibility of developingannotation guidelines that could be applied to a wide range of literarytexts; the involved levels of textual interpretation that some kinds of annotationrequire; and the effect of prior study or knowledge on an annotator’s ability to discernor interpret narrative levels. As the shared task proceeds, it may be necessaryto specify the applicability of the annotation guidelines to works from particulargenres, time periods, or languages.
How to Cite:
Houston, N., (2020) “Annotating Narrative Levels: Review of Guideline No. 6”, Journal of Cultural Analytics 4(3). https://doi.org/10.22148/001c.11774 (external link, opens in new tab).