Content uploaded by Laura Ciubotarașu Pricop
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Laura Ciubotarașu Pricop on Jan 22, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
TOOLS, METHODS, AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE EXPLORATION OF ROMANIAN CORPORA
2
Roxana Patraș, Loredana Cuzmici (editors), Tools, Methods, and Solutions for the Exploration of
Romanian Corpora
© 2024 Institutul European Iaşi, pentru prezenta ediţie
INSTITUTUL EUROPEAN
Iaşi, Str. Băluşescu nr. 2, et. I, O P 6, CP 1309
euroedit@hotmail.com.; www.euroinst.ro
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României
Tools, methods, and solutions for the exploration of Romanian corpora /
ed.: Roxana Patraş, Loredana Cuzmici. - Iaşi : Institutul European, 2024
Conţine bibliografie
ISBN 978-606-24-0395-9
I. Patraş, Roxana (ed.)
II. Cuzmici, Loredana (ed.)
811.135.1
All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyrights hereon may be reproduced or
copied in any form or by any means – graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, taping – without written permission of publisher.
PRINTED IN ROMANIA
Creating Tools for Romanian Corpora
3
Roxana Patraș, Loredana Cuzmici
(editors)
TOOLS, METHODS, AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE
EXPLORATION OF ROMANIAN CORPORA
INSTITUTUL EUROPEAN
2024
TOOLS, METHODS, AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE EXPLORATION OF ROMANIAN CORPORA
4
This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, CNCS–UEFISCDI,
project number PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2019-0127, within PNCDI III.
The revision and editing of this collection was performed by BolderWords translation & revision and was
supported by the Altissia Chair in Digital Cultures and Ethics held by Chris Tanasescu at Université catholique
de Louvain.
Creating Tools for Romanian Corpora
5
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTORY NOTES
7
Tactics: your DH is not my DH
Roxana PATRAȘ
9
CREATING TOOLS FOR ROMANIAN CORPORA
23
RELATE: a modern processing platform for Romanian language
Vasile PĂIȘ, Radu ION, Andrei-Marius AVRAM, Maria MITROFAN, Dan TUFIȘ
25
Tools and Resources for Digitizing Historical Romanian Documents
Victoria BOBICEV, Tudor BUMBU,Ludmila MALAHOV, Alexandru COLESNICOV,
Svetlana COJOCARU, Liudmila BURTSEVA, Cătălina MĂRĂNDUC
53
Digitalization of Romanian Lexicography
Elena Isabelle TAMBA
85
ADAPTING TOOLS FOR ROMANIAN CORPORA
97
Postdigital Creativity: modeling poetry translation with multiplexes,
neural networks, and large language models
Raluca TANASESCU, Chris TANASESCU
99
Challenges of Digitization and Digitalization for the Study of
Writing: from archival survey to process analysis
Georgeta CÎȘLARU
125
Towards a Digital Corpus-Based Method for Assessing Language
Level in EFL Student Writing: a case study on Romanian
undergraduate literary analyses
Alexandru ORAVIȚAN, Mădălina CHITEZ
139
DIGITIZING ROMANIAN HERITAGE
151
A Computer-Assisted Analysis of Eminescu’s Doină
Ioana GALLERON
153
Mapping Eastern European Political Discourse and Inequalities
through Public Monuments: a digital cartography crowdsourcing
project
Voica PUȘCAȘIU
175
The Title of the Feuilleton Novel: a model of semantic annotation
Lucreția PASCARIU
193
Exercises in Literary Geography: where hajduks roam in the second
half of the nineteenth century
Alexandra OLTEANU
227
TOOLS, METHODS, AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE EXPLORATION OF ROMANIAN CORPORA
6
DIGITUS DEI EST HIC!
251
Proxy Structures in Computational Analyses of Text Corpora
Laura PRICOP
253
The Many Faces of Virtual: charting the family resemblance network
for conceptual understanding
Matei Alexandru STOENESCU
267
CARTOGRAPHIES OF THE ROMANIAN NOVEL: THEN AND
NOW
297
The Recontextualization of a Genre
Loredana CUZMICI
299
Notes on the Contributors
321
Digitus Dei est Hic!
253
Proxy Structures in Computational Analyses
of Text Corpora
Laura PRICOP
Digitus Dei est Hic!
Since the turn of the twenty first century, humanity has been cautiously entering
the digital realm, impacting culture, society, economics, and human well-being. This
is a realm in which distance as much as data is compressed, and feedback is
instantaneous. Are we prepared for this new world? Or, perhaps more accurately:
How are we preparing ourselves for this world?
Whether engaged in learning, working, or building relationships with family
members or romantic partners, we conduct at least half of our lives through computer
screens. Despite the hectic rhythm and apparent chaos of transitioning from the pre-
digital era, there seems to be a sort of control, better yet, a controlled desire to achieve,
in compositionist terms, a “tentative and precautionary progression” (Latour 2010).
The current European or national legislation (horizontal or sectoral), enables different
institutions and sectors of society—such as government, economy, transport,
education, health, sport, culture and cultural heritage—to make their services
available within digital environments. The scientific field of humanities, are
undergoing a similar process of digitization, which inspired Roberto A. Busa’s
famous declaration: Digitus Dei est hic! [the finger of God is here!] (Busa 2008).
Equally, the presence of artificial intelligence (AI) in our everyday lives is no longer
being called into question because AI recently became the engine of the mass
digitization phenomenon across application fields. Experts define AI as a cluster of
systems of software technologies (e.g. voice assistants, image analysis software,
search engines, voice and facial recognition systems) or hardware (e.g. advanced
TOOLS, METHODS, AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE EXPLORATION OF ROMANIAN CORPORA
254
robots, autonomous vehicles, drones or Internet of Things applications) designed by
humans to accomplish complex goals in the physical or digital dimension. These
systems have the ability to sense the environment by collecting unstructured data, to
interpret knowledge or process information from this data, and then to decide on the
best course of action to be taken to achieve a given goal. AI systems can also adapt
their behavior by first analyzing how their previous actions have affected the
environment and then integrating new symbolic rules or learning numerical models.
Recently, AI specialists are focusing on the positive or negative quality of AI usage
and on the magnitude of the effects it can have: “the pertinent questions now are by
whom, how, where, and when this positive or negative impact will be felt” (Floridi et
al. 2023).
Therefore, with a view to AI usage the human condition and human dignity in
the digital age, scholars in the area had to reformulate several philosophical questions:
Who can we become? In other words, to what extent is autonomous
self-realization possible if it is conditioned externally by technology?
What can we do? How much freedom do human beings still have if
decision-making is initiated and verified by technology?
What can we achieve? How can individual and societal capabilities still
be boosted if such activities are partially undertaken by technology?
How can we interact with each other and the world? How might societal
cohesion still be realized and sustained if it is mediated by technology (Floridi
et al. 2023)?
My view is that these questions will become even more frequent over time and
that, with the “controlled” progress of knowledge, their answers will only ever be
partial and consist of temporary responses to punctual issues.
Providing a broad oveview of the main questions being asked, this chapter
encourages an ethical approach to studying how the use of computational tools affects
human thinking habits and behaviour. In this chapter, I attempt to analyze the
behavior of the humanities, when they are engaged in processes of digital
transformation. Epistemologically, I am interested in hybridization of literature as a
Digitus Dei est Hic!
255
field of knowledge; in terms of logic, I am interested in how proxy arguments, work
within the questions posed on computing texts. Proxy arguments refer to an argument
made on behalf of or in place of another argument to support a main argument, adress
weaknessess, and bringing in supplimnetary evidence.
Compatibility between Logic and Literature
Logic and literature are two areas of knowledge that have commonalities in their
development. If Plato expelled poetry/literature from the city, Aristotle classified
entities in the natural world and categorized various types of utterances. The Organon
not only showcased Aristotle’s analytical prowess but also established a robust
correlation between language analysis and the classification of utterances. By delving
deep into the nuances of linguistic structures and patterns, the Greek philosopher was
able to uncover the underlying connections between language and the different ways
in which people express themselves. His groundbreaking work not only enhanced our
understanding of language but also shed light on the intricate relationship between
logic and human communication. For several centuries, logic was placed, in
Aristotle’s tradition, alongside grammar and rhetoric as ars sermocinalis, and all of
the arts of discourse (seen as the means by which people communicate with each
other), including literary theory, were later classified in this category (Kneale and
Kneale 1975, 377; Murphy 1974, 91).
Recent interdisciplinary studies have attempted to develop a new field in which
logic and literature engage in philosophical dialogue.1 Scholars argue for the “trans-
historical portability of literary form to historical accounts of logic and logical form”
(Belvins 2020). Accordingly, logic and literature should be devoted both to exploring
the possibilities of reconciling logical rationality with the inherently imaginative and
1 The concept of interdisciplinarity still provokes much debate. Extensive discussion of these
arguments is beyond the scope of this chapter; I would, however, like to highlight that Wolf defines
interdisciplinarity as a philosophy of integrative thinking (Wolf 1998). By “interdisciplinary
philosophy,” I mean the complementary nature of philosophy, which provides a solid foundation
and rigorous tools for integrating—and perhaps understanding in more logical ways—the results
of research meticulously undertaken by digital humanities specialists.
TOOLS, METHODS, AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE EXPLORATION OF ROMANIAN CORPORA
256
affective aspects of literature, and to comparing narrative analysis with logical
systems of inference. Grounded in this “trans-historical portability,” the compatibility
between literature and logic may be addressed within a narrow interdisciplinarity
framework. Still, when we consider their comparability within the framework of
digital humanities, a field that reflects hybridity and experimentalism par excellence,
then a higher degree of interdisciplinary integration—in formal as well as
methodological terms—may be achieved (Newell 1998). Borrowing a method or
concept from one discipline to use it in another serves the aim of testing hypotheses,
developing new theories, and/or responding to problems that could not be solved with
the tools available within the researcher’s immediate disciplinary paradigm. With the
advent of distant reading, literature seems to have internalized quantitative
methodologies: this has led to more fine-grained interpretations of textual phenomena
but also to the concern that the resulting findings are not robust enough. In fact,
computational analyses draw from traditional philological practices, such as
indexing, enumeration of forms, and concordance—each of which the computer can
perform more quickly if the texts being processing meet certain criteria, like
addressability (Wittmore 2016). However, big data also undergoes a process of
abstraction or reduction so that it can be easily analyzed and used for modelling.
It seems reasonable to assume that technology-based quantitative methods used
in the empirical sciences could be transferred to literary studies. It is possible to adapt
digital tools to analyses of literary content if we draw on both a larger
interdisciplinary paradigm and basic logic It is due to this interdisciplinarity that
proxy argument is used. In short, in computational text analysis, proxy argument
seems to play the role of stabilizing relations between terms or sentences through
analogy.
This chapter, which generally falls within the realm of interdisciplinary studies
(or rather interdisciplinary philosophy), aims to clarify the structure of proxy
argumentation and how it is used in the digital humanities. Although digital
humanities research relies on the adaptation of proxy measures and arguments for
data selection and interpretation, this knowledge behavior has only been partially
theorized. What are these measures and arguments? How are they constructed? How
Digitus Dei est Hic!
257
can they be justified? And how can their validity be verified? In this chapter, I will
begin to think about these questions—which are as yet unexplored—by examining
the complex network of associations that the proxy argument unveils, enriching the
dynamic interaction among different sentences, entities, and attributes conceived
within fictional realms. By doing so, I will provide fresh insights into the application
of logic in the field of digital humanities, as the application of logic establishes novel
points of connection between fresh insights into how concepts from the field of logic
can be applied to the field of digital humanities. This exploration will illuminate the
ways in which logic is harnessed to navigate the complexities of digital texts and their
spatial representations, ultimately enriching our comprehension of both disciplines.
Structure and functions of the argument by proxy
Within the field of logic, literary texts have been disputed for their inability to
trigger logical inquiry and have been accused of not containing a sufficient amount
of argumentative material (Kneale and Kneale 1974, 9). However, literature, theatre,
film and online videogames that take place in virtual environments undeniably
describe or enact complex situations that are grounded in moral reasoning
(Søndergaard 2021), a basic type of argumentative structure that has often been
discussed in relation to elliptical reasoning. Literature, in particular, seems to
contribute to the accumulation of knowledge, and this knowledge seems to raise
claims to validity by virtue of the moral change, it produces.
From a logical point of view, computational analyses show the tendency to
establish binary proxy relations between simple propositions in order to support the
epistemological thesis under consideration. A binary proxy relation can take the
following form (Fritz 2019):
“Xa” (“a to this X”)
“Xa” can be “Yb”
The conditions for Xa to be Yb are not restricted to the equivalence between a
and b or between X and Y. Thus, Xa can be Yb without a being b or X being Y. The
TOOLS, METHODS, AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE EXPLORATION OF ROMANIAN CORPORA
258
relation a to X is structured by proxy by the proposition that relates a to Y. The use
of by-proxy argument schemes does not generate all true sentence conditions (Nelson
1997). True sentence conditions relate to evidence that is empirically verifiable. This
shortcoming in the digital humanities can be compensated for by ways of evaluating
arguments and an open attitude to how truth is delivered (Symons 2017, 31).
Let us consider a paradigmatic case of an example in natural language:
“Raindrops are colorless if and only if tears are colorless” (Xa if and only if Yb). We
can see that the statement “tears are colorless” does not necessarily fulfil the truth
condition. Even though the premise of tears being composed of blood may seem
fictitious, hemolacria is a real medical condition that disrupts the truth value of “tears
are colorless.” In this case, the truth of the statement “raindrops are colorless”2 cannot
be obtained by the proposed proxy argument. On the other hand, the Romanian
expression apă de ploaie [rainwater]—referring to superficiality—raises truth claims
if it has as a proposed proxy argument the Romanian expression lacrimi de crocodil
[crocodile tears]. This is valid in the case of the Romanian language, so the proposed
analogy has a restricted degree of validity due to the context of use. If the expression
“rainwater” (Rw) is a proxy for superficiality, then the expression “crocodile tears”
(Ct) can support the idea of a behavioral manifestation affected by superficiality. If
Rw is a proxy for lack of content, then Ct loses its function of supporting Rw, and the
analogy between the two expressions is false; it is a faulty analogy (Govier 2014,
Symons 2017, 163-178). There are other types of errors related to the use of analogy:
the two-wrongs fallacy, the fallacy of slippery uses of assimilation, and the fallacy of
slippery uses of precedent. The two-wrongs fallacy is based on the two-wrongs
analogy, whereby, if two wrongs are similar and one of them is tolerated, then the
other, by virtue of consistency, should also be tolerated. The fallacy of slippery
assimilation is a false appeal to consistency that starts from the premise that, if the
differences between successive situations are small, they must all be accepted. This
fallacy actually cancels out the small differences between entities which, if
2 The truth value of this statement changes if one takes into account the rare meteorological
phenomenon that produces the so-called “bloody rain” caused by the presence of Saharan dust
particles.
Digitus Dei est Hic!
259
aggregated, would prove significant. The fallacy of slippery precedent argues that a
good deed should not be allowed, because this will create a precedent for committing
other deeds that are bad. It misreads the distinction between right and wrong.
Some analogies can be convincing, and others can be irrelevant or misleading.
In general, two types of analogies are accepted: a priori and inductive. A priori
analogies depend on consistency and support the resolution (acceptance or refutation)
of conceptual situations. The analogy may be either hypothetical or fictitious, but its
value does not alter the contextual understanding. Inductive analogies have an
important epistemological function because they relate known structures to new,
unexplored ones. In computational analyses, proxy structures based on a priori
analogies are frequently found in lexicon-based studies, whereas inductive ones are
adopted in analyses that favor experiment and allocate more freedom in terms of both
establishing the methodology and exploring and interpreting the results obtained.
Let us now return to the structure of the argument by proxy. If the truth claim is
dropped in the case of Yb in order to assert Xa, then it is recommended (Nelson 1997)
that the by-proxy argument be combined with Quine’s observation theory, because it
is only with this conceptual support that the ontological relativity of a proposition can
become an epistemological thesis. Quine’s observational propositions are the starting
point in our direct acquisition of sense-based knowledge. For an observational
statement to be accepted, the condition of perceptual similarity must be met. A
sentence such as “It is raining outside” can be accepted or rejected if observers receive
sensory stimuli that support or contradict the proposition (Quine 1969).
If Yb is accepted as a proxy argument to support Xa, then further explanations
are needed to justify the acceptance of the argument. Logic imposes that the
acceptability of grounds should be exclusively related to the content of the argument
and not to the argumentative structure. In other words, an argument may contain one
or more premises that are presented as evidence to support the truth of the conclusion.
According to Govier’s list, the conditions for the acceptability of a premise in an
argument may be as follows:
a) the premise is supported by a cogent sub-argument;
TOOLS, METHODS, AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE EXPLORATION OF ROMANIAN CORPORA
260
b) the premise is supported elsewhere by the arguer or another person, and this
fact is noted;
c) the premise is known a priori to be true;
d) the premise is a matter of common knowledge;
e) the premise is supported by appropriate testimony—that is, the claim is not
implausible, the sources are reliable, and the content of the claim is restricted
to experience.
As far as the argument’s content is concerned, explanation is based on a
different balance of acceptability (Govier 2014, 128). The explanandum (i.e. what
has been explained) is assumed to be true, and the explanatory factors can also be
assumed to be true and used to elucidate causal phenomena, narratives, motives or
intentions. Explanations are not separate from argumentation. They can, as Govier
mentions,3 complement and support each other.
In computational analyses, it is essential that by-proxy structures be supported
by explanations. Otherwise, the methodological approach is opaque and the final
result may not be deemed reliable. Disregarding from the truth conditions of a proxy
argument shifts the problem of truth over to the realm of linguistics and, more
specifically the interpretation of meaning.4 If we start from the simple fact that
computational analyses usually process corpora of texts (that is, a set of word units
and their contexts), then we might incorrectly assume that the meaning of an isolated
utterance is equal to that utterance’s deeper meaning (Meyer 1986, 284–285). This
situation also indicates that an utterance becomes more informative if reattached to
its context; therefore, the meanings of particular utterances become visible as part of
the contexts. For instance, in the case of temporal mappings, it has been observed that
3 Among the arguments supported by explanations are abductive arguments (arguments that support
the best explanation for a given phenomenon) and transcendental arguments (arguments that require
that between A and B there is a necessary condition that can be explained if A is used as a factor
that explains B).
4 The definition of “meaning” and the distinction between meaning and reference are among the
issues that are still hotly debated today. Quine stated that “pending a satisfactory explanation of the
notion of meaning, linguists in semantic fields are in the situation of not knowing what they are
talking about”. The concept of meaning in Quine’s terms is a special kind of entity, and the meaning
of an expression is the idea expressed (Quine 1980, 47-48).
Digitus Dei est Hic!
261
“relative TOs (temporal operators) are usually intuited from the context of story,
rather than directly stated” (Yager 2023).
Many computational analyses are grounded in by-proxy arguments. In digital
humanities, variations depend on previous practice, on tools and on the complexity
of the corpora under study. To support the by-proxy argument, computational
analysts of text corpora may resort to developing complex annotation schemes, as in
the case of spatial entities proposed for a Romanian corpus of 19th-century hajduk
novels. In practice, researchers have identified and classified toponyms, common
place names or locative prepositions specific to the Romanian language. Therefore,
in the first phase of the study, in which observation units were initially identified,
morphologic categories that carried spatial information functioned as proxies. Then,
in order to highlight orientation, movement and metrical spatial relations, researchers
expanded the sample to include more complex syntactic units and “focused on nouns
and adverbs carrying spatial semantics, taking into account the whole nominal,
pronominal or adverbial phrase” (Galleron et al. 2021). The spatial turn is also a
concern of Grisot and Herrmann (2023), who aim “to detect and examine how
different types of space are distributed and affectively encoded in German-Swiss
literature.” In this case, the researchers detected emotion or mood words in a corpus
of 125 texts written in German by establishing two broad spatial categories: rural,
urban. The creation of emotion lexicons related to spatial entities (in groups of
approximately 50 words clustered around the detected entities) served as a proxy for
mapping rural and urban spaces as sentimental landscapes rather than as architectural
or social configurations. As the authors note, these lexicon-based approaches
(recently, the term “bag of words approach” has been used self-critically or
pejoratively) faced a number of challenges such as those related to the finite number
of words included in the compiled list, to the inconsistency between different lexicons
and a certain definition of a concept, and to the difficulty of representing exceptional
situations in a ready-made scheme and of devising new functional categories to
account for unexpected data encountered during in the research process
TOOLS, METHODS, AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE EXPLORATION OF ROMANIAN CORPORA
262
Discussion and conclusion
The recent development of digital humanities has brought with it harsh
criticism. The field is unfairly accused of, among other things, betraying principles
of humanities and of distancing itself from traditional academic research and
pedagogy, the main concern being that students will receive training in the use of
technologies rather than in critical thinking (Galleron and Imhadad 2020). However,
the appropriateness of criticism to reveal, to debunk prejudices, to enlighten and
encourage minds in the shattering of illusions and idols is also questioned by Bruno
Latour. He outlines a way of reusing criticism, “a critique acquired secondhand—so
to speak—and put to a different use” (Latour 2010). The idea of composition on
which Latour’s process of reusing criticism is based concerns the economy of
knowledge (Ciubotarașu-Pricop 2014), which involves combining 1) knowledge that
has been acquired through experience and 2) processed experience, such as inferred
effects with respect to the usability of an object or phenomenon. Descartes established
three different modes of composition: by impulse, by conjecture and by deduction. In
the case of composition by impulse, one makes decisions based on belief in a higher
power, based on one’s own freedom or based on one’s imagination. Judgments
derived from reached through imagination are credited with the lowest confidence
value, and these are followed by judgments obtained by conjecture, which according
to Descartes “do not make us more learned” but have a higher degree of probability.
In the case of deductive judgments, they are beyond doubt but not beyond error, as in
the deduction of a general and necessary thing from a particular or contingent one
(Descartes 1964). A follower of Descartes and Locke, Bruno Latour’s
compositionism—proposed as an alternative to criticism—aims to reassemble reality
piece by piece. For a compositionist, everything is called into question, judgements
are touched by Cartesian doubt, nothing is revealed by criticism, science (with a small
“s”) is achieved “only by the slow process of composition and compromise, not by
the revelation of the world beyond” (Latour 2010).
By recovering imagined, fictional or real worlds, digital humanities scholars
carry out compositional labor that needs to be discussed in appropriate terms. The
Digitus Dei est Hic!
263
challenge lies in adapting to language processing a methodology that was developed
within the sphere of empirical sciences. Unlike classical logic, textual analysis
requires the use of logical forms that closely align with natural/intuitive thought
processes. Therefore, analytical processes have shifted from traditional logical
reasoning and introduced new approaches such as the argument by proxy.
The methods of the compositional project may establish a connection between
two different propositions, supported by explanation and analogy. By using
argumentation by proxy, researchers are able to operationalize categories. Knowledge
acquired through this process serves to compensate for discontinuities within the text.
It also helps to establish and locate new relationships between different observation
units. By employing logical forms that align with natural thought processes on the trial-
and-error paradigm, digital humanities researchers are able to uncover hidden
connections within texts and shed light on the intricate complexities of textual
collections. This painstakingly constructed new knowledge makes use of creativity and
empathy but also requires rationality to process large datasets.
Finally, what is the special contribution of quantitative analyses? One of the
most elegant answers to this question can be found in Witmore’s suggestion that
computational analysis has the ability to capture the finest and most imperceptible
details in a text, as in the full collection of Eadweard Muybridge’s photographs
capturing the galloping horse: the observer can see the stride with all four feet in the
air, unless their perception is mediated by the sequence of snapshots (Witmore 2016).
The snapshots of the horse represent a movement that, unless recorded and played
back by a camera, is not accessible to the naked eye. The same movement of recording
discrete units and playing them back all over again through trial-and-error iterations
seems to be the distinctive feature of research in digital humanities.
TOOLS, METHODS, AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE EXPLORATION OF ROMANIAN CORPORA
264
References
Belvins, J., and D. Williams. 2020. “Logic and Literary Form.” Poetics Today 41 (1).
https://doi.org/10.125/03335372-7974058.
Botezatu, P. 1974. Semiotics and Negation: Critical Orientation in Modern Logic. Iași:
Junimea Publishing House.
Busa, A. R. 2008. “Foreword: Perspectives on the Digital Humanities.” In A Companion to
Digital Humanities, edited by S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, and J. Unsworth, 10–15.
Blackwell Publishing.
Ciubotarașu-Pricop, L. 2014. Problematologie și discursivitate. Cu un exercițiu asupra
pasiunilor. Iași: Alexandru Ioan Cuza University Publishing House.
Descartes. 1964. Reguli utile și clare pentru îndrumarea minții în cercetarea adevărului
[Discourse Method of Correctly Conducting One’s Reason and Seeking Truth in the
Science]. Translated by Cornelius Vilt. Bucharest: Editura Științifică.
Floridi, L., J. Cowls, M. Beltrametti, R. Chatila, P. Chazerand, V. Dignum, C. Luetge, R.
Madelin, U. Pagallo, F. Rossi, B. Schafer, P. Valcke, and E. Vayena. 2018. “AI4People-
An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and
Recommendations.” Minds & Machines 28 (4): 689–707.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5.
Fritz, P. 2019. “Structure by Proxy, with an Application to Grounding.” Synthese.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02450-z.
Galleron, I., R. Patraș, C. Grădinaru, and F. Melanie-Becquet. 2021. “In Search of Haidouks.
Annotating Spatial Entities in 19th Century Romanian Novels.” Humanites Numeriques
3. https://doi.org/10.4000/revuehn.1399.
Galleron, I., and F. Idmhand. 2020. “Why Go from Texts to Data, or The Digital Humanities
as a Critique of the Humanities.” Word and Text: A Journal of Literary Studies and
Linguistics X: 53–66. halshs-03951355.
Govier, T. 2014. A Practical Study of Argument. Enhanced Seventh Edition. Wadsworth:
Cengage Learning.
Grisot, G., and B. Herrmann. 2023. “Examining the Representation of Landscape and Its
Emotional Value in German-Swiss Fiction between 1840–1940.” Journal of Cultural
Analytics 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.22148/001c.84475.
Haverals, W., L. Geybels, and V. Joosen. 2022. “A Style for Every Age: A Stylometric
Inquiry into Crosswriters for Children, Adolescents and Adults.” Language and
Literature 31 (1): 62–84.
Kneale, W., and M. Kneale. 1974. Dezvoltări ale Logicii [The Development of Logic], vol.
I. Translated by Cornel Popa. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia.
Digitus Dei est Hic!
265
Kneale, W., and M. Kneale. 1975. Dezvoltări ale Logicii [The Development of Logic], vol.
II. Translated by Sorin Vieru and Ușer Morgenstern. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia.
Latour, B. 2010. “An Attempt at a Compositionist Manifesto.” New Literary History 41:
471–490.
Meyer, M. 1986. From Problematology: Philosophy, Science, and Language. Brussels:
Pierre Mardaga.
Murphy, J. J. 1974. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint
Augustine to the Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nelson, R. J. 1997. “Proxy Functions, Truth and Reference.” Synthese 111: 73–95.
Newell, W. H. 1998. “Professionalizing Interdisciplinarity: Literature Review and Research
Agenda.” In Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the Literature, edited by W. H. Newell. New
York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down
Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending
Certain Union Legislative Acts. 2021. COM/2021/206 final, April 21. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021PCO206.
Radak, T., et al. 2023. “Toward a Computational History of Modernism in European Literary
History: Mapping the Inner Lives of Characters in the European Novel (1840–1920).”
Open Research Europe. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.16290.1.
Quine, W. V. 1969. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Quine, W. V. 1980. From a Logical Point of View: 9 Logico-Philosophical Essays. Harvard
University Press.
Schreibman, S., R. Siemens, and J. Unsworth (eds). 2008. A Companion to Digital
Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Søndergaard Christensen, A. M. 2021. Moral Philosophy and Moral Life. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198866695.003.0007.
Symons, J. 2017. Formal Reasoning: A Guide to Critical Thinking. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt
Publishing Company.
Witmore, M. 2016. “Latour, The Digital Humanities, and the Divided Kingdom of
Knowledge.” New Literary History 47 (2–3): 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1353/
nlh.2016.0018.
Wolf, S. 1998. “The Challenge and Satisfaction of Integrative Thinking.” Integrative
Physiological and Behavioral Science 33 (2): 120–121.
Yager, S. A. 2023. “Time Maps: Theory and Methods.” Journal of Cultural Analytics 8 (3).
https://doi.org/10.22148/001c87937.