Computing Error: Reassessing Austin's Study of Groatsworth of Wit.
Recently prominent readers in Shakespeare have embraced Warren B. Austin's 1969 computer-based study which concludes that Henry Chettle wrote Greene's Groatsworth of Wit. However, Austin's study is flawed primarily because Austin excludes hosts of data related to his conclusion, while also misreadin...
| Publicado en: | Literary & Linguistic Computing Vol. 21; no. 3; pp. 363 - 379 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Sep2006
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=22485822&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 22485822 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 02681145 BJ1 jtl: Literary & Linguistic Computing issn: 02681145 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Sep2006 vid: 21 iid: 3 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 22485822 10.1093/llc/fqi044 ppf: 363 ppct: 16 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 142KB tig: atl: Computing Error: Reassessing Austin's Study of Groatsworth of Wit. aug: au: Westley, Richard affil: English Instructor, Cherevus High School, Portland, Maine, USA su: Literary errors & blunders Austin, Warren B. Orthography & spelling Psycholinguistics Linguistic analysis Data editing sug: subj: Literary errors & blunders Austin, Warren B. Orthography & spelling Psycholinguistics Linguistic analysis Data editing ab: Recently prominent readers in Shakespeare have embraced Warren B. Austin's 1969 computer-based study which concludes that Henry Chettle wrote Greene's Groatsworth of Wit. However, Austin's study is flawed primarily because Austin excludes hosts of data related to his conclusion, while also misreading the data that continuously point to Robert Greene as Groatsworth's author. Austin studies just five of Greene's thirty-two known prose works and rules out studying many of Greene's words on the sole basis of their subject matter, words like repent that connect Greene to the writing of Groatsworth. Austin is also silent about Chettle's stated role as copyist and overseer in preparing and printing Groatsworth. Prominent in this discussion are the six `Greene plus' words Austin identifies, but does not analyse, that appear often in Groatsworth and Greene's other prose writings, but never in Chettle. Especially important are the forty-one rare and unique words presented here that Austin excludes from his study and which constitute direct evidence of Greene's hand in writing the complete text of Groatsworth. Nor does Austin study the orthography of Groatsworth, which differs significantly from Chettle's Kind Harts Dreame and suggests different authors for each work. Austin's findings should, therefore, be set aside, while renewed consideration is given to the lexical and orthographical evidence presented in this article that continues to identify Greene as Groatsworth's author, that is, as someone familiar enough with Shakespeare's early theatre practices to criticize them. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: © 2019 EADH: The European Association for Digital Humanities. item: Literary & Linguistic Computing holder: Oxford University Press / USA dt: @attributes: year: 2006 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|