Month: February 2020

Chapter 3 of The Information by James Gleick talks about certain differences in the English language. One that I find the most interesting is about the original two workbooks that were created for the English language.

The first influencer of this Robert Cawdrey, who created A Table Alphabeticall, which introduced us to creating our alphabet. This table helps to show the start of our language, and what we should value to add to it. Since this table was one of the first to be introduced in a different language then what others new, it became difficult for others to adapt or adjust to and had a negative effect in certain areas and tribes.

The next important book that was created for language was the Oxford English Dictionary. This information outlet was made by John Simpson and became an adaptation of table alphabeticall. The main reason I am giving all of this information, is because this is still our main standard for the English language, at least one hundred years after it was created.

A main point mentioned in this chapter is about how unneccessary letters, due to the Latin adaptation, have disappeared since the dictionary was created. For example when talking about the word figurate, you can see that this word has now been adapted into the verb figurative. Since the definition (page 60, for reference) is “to shadowe, or represent, or to counterfaire” we can also see that the definitions given for certain words are simple and understandable for multiple reading levels.

I think the main takeaway I got from this chapter was that we always have to start somewhere with language, no matter which language it is. Since it is a main form of communication it is important to put emphasis on being able to adapt to change in order for you to survive. Also I should mention that the reason I decided to post on this chapter is because of my fascination with the English language. In my opinion, every language is unique to its own culture or way, but I also think that English is the most complex to understand and explain.

Being that I want to be an English teacher after college, I think it is important to know and talk about the origin of the language and why we should care about all of the parts of the English language. The English language in itself has two distinct differences from other languages; no geographic location, and more than 40 phonemes in the lexicon. I think these points are important to know as an English major, and since it is my first language. I also have gained a lot of knowledge about the English language from my cultural anthropology class. This class helps me to realize that our language is complicated to anyone who does not readily know about it, and can overall cause a lot of confusion for others.

Overall I appreciate that this entire chapter talked about different aspects about the development of the English language, and how we identify and use it today. I think this chapter should be mentioned and used more often for more English speakers to understand all the fun and different parts of the language.

According to James Gleick, in the late 1500’s, “Barely five million people on earth spoke English (a rough estimate; no one tried to count the population of England, Scotland or Ireland until 1801). Barely a million of those could write.” However, he also mentions that over the course of four centuries, the number of English speakers jumped to one billion people. This is partly due to the creation of the dictionary.

The creation of the dictionary is key in understanding the evolution of communication and shared experience over time. While the dictionary is a convenient place to look up words and definitions, it is also an irreplaceable part of English culture. This is because the dictionary documents the continuing development of our society and provides an important record of the evolution of the English language. 

In chapter three of “The Information”, James Gleick tells the story of how Robert Cawdrey wrote his Table Alphabeticall, the first monolingual dictionary in English. Cawdrey knew that his typical reader, a book-buying Englishman, could live a lifetime without encountering a set of data ordered alphabetically because more sensible ways of ordering words came first. For instance, the Chinese arranged the two thousand entries in their dictionary by meaning, and Egyptians and Arabians had word lists organized on philosophical or educational principles. These were thought provoking, creative means of organization. However, Cawdrey wanted to create a list that was more mechanical, effective, and automatic. 

Many years later, Thomas Blount wrote a dictionary containing more than eleven thousand words. His definitions were much more elaborate than Cawdrey’s, and he even provided information about the origins of each word. Sadly enough though, he didn’t pay homage to Cawdrey and his work. This is unfortunate, because despite the fact that it was never deemed a particularly useful work, if Cawdrey had not decided to compile two thousand words and list them in his Table Alphabeticall, it is possible that Blount wouldn’t have written his dictionary.

The first editors of the Oxford English Dictionary did mention Cawdrey in regards to their work. These editors called him ‘the original acorn’ from which their oak had grown. And boy, did their oak grow. After combing through several works of classic literature, the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary managed to include nearly four hundred thousand words and phrases in ten volumes. This was an incredible feat, especially considering this dictionary was first published in 1928 – during a time when they lived without all of the helpful technology we have now.

Dictionaries continue to expand because language is always changing. No dictionary is ever really complete, and this includes the new, modernized versions of dictionaries that we access digitally. In 1989, with some help from a complicated software, Oxford editors managed to add five thousand new words to their popular reference work, both digitally and in print. Today the Oxford English Dictionary is still under alteration. 

By informing readers on the history of the English dictionary, Gleick is insinuating that as dictionaries are written and expanded upon, humans only become more interested in words, and this is what leads to more English speaking individuals.

When the number of English speaking individuals increases, numerous connections can be formed within our society, which only results in an increase in communication and shared experiences. As we know, communication and shared experience are important when discussing the humanities.

On the first day of class, Professor Schact led a conversation regarding the concept of the humanities. He encouraged the class to interpret this definition. While Google simplifies the term as “academic disciplines that study aspects of human society and culture,” as well as “the human race,” our class explored alternative definitions as we each related the term to our own majors.

On the first day of class, Professor Schact led a conversation regarding the concept of the humanities. He encouraged the class to interpret this definition. While Google simplifies the term as “academic disciplines that study aspects of human society and culture,” as well as “the human race,” our class explored alternative definitions as we each related the term to our own majors.

I explored this concept in my own individual lens. I took a hold of it psychologically, since I am a psychology major. Because of this, I pay close attention to people’s behavior and the way they interact with others. Based on this, I interpreted this term as a way of understanding people and more specifically, understanding how people relate. 

Others of us in the class who may be history or mathematics majors internalized this discussion more in terms of theorem or in terms of field ideas. While we did not all arrive at just one correct answer as to how to define this concept, I do believe that our inability to concretely decide on one definition of the humanities in itself showed the beauty of the term. This class discussion further demonstrated the way in which academic disciplines are so interconnected. Not only are they interconnected as broadly as the material, but also in the words that are used to identify concepts and terms. This umbrella term of the humanities only goes to show how applicable this term is to life itself, which shows what it means to be human.  

Furthermore, a strong relationship exists between computing and the humanities. While I typically associate computing with mathematics and STEM, this term also refers to communication. Last semester I took an Interpersonal Communication class with an esteemed professor, and I realized just how expansive communication is; I do it every day by calling, texting, facetiming, speaking, and writing. It is a continuously ongoing process. To fully link this connection, communication is one of the foundations of the humanities. The only way philosophers years ago were able to make more discoveries and were able to explore ideas is because of communication and sharing ideas. Without this as a foundation, the humanities would be underdeveloped. 

James Gleick discusses the idea of the dictionary in chapter three of his novel The Information. This chapter largely focuses on the production of dictionaries and the growth of vocabulary over time. At the time, philosophers tried to discover every word in the world, but they realized that in order to define a word, such as science, they needed to develop language. To demonstrate this ongoing growth, Gleick defined the dictionary as a “a malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic” (66). In other words, the academic disciplines within the humanities, as well as all other outside knowledge, continuously contribute to this project. The dictionary itself is a reflection of communication between and among people, and also exhibits history as it displays the origin of words. In order to communicate, people need to have a basis of words, and further, words are needed to communicate ideas. The dictionary, as described in the text, is in a specific, organized order. This order is referred to as alphabetic order. It simplifies the searching process so that words can be easily found and also brings additional meaning to words. As said, “only when printing – and the dictionary… could anyone develop a sense of word meaning as interdependent or even circular. Words had to be considered as words, representing other words, apart from thing” which further indicates that in order to understand any word, language itself needs to be understood (66). This itself is the epitome of communication. The only way I can understand or even articulate my own thoughts whether in this assignment or even in a conversation is by understanding the meaning of the words I am using and what meaning they contribute to the sentence I am forming. Words bring rise to more words which further develops vocabulary and meaning. 

To further forge this connection regarding the meanings of words and the connections between people and language, Gleick also includes, “The dictionary ratifies the persistence of the word. It declares that the meanings of words come from other words.  It implies that all words, taken together, form an interlocking structure: interlocking, because all words are defined in terms of other words” (66). This concept of circularity is a good representation of the dictionary and is also supportive of the basis of the humanities. The humanities comprise all of these academic disciplines. Each discipline uses words and concepts that are essential to its study. And these words are also found in other disciplines. For instance, I may learn about Measures of Central Tendency (MCT) such as mean, median, and mode in a statistics class for mathematics. With how interlocked different subject matters are, I may also learn about this exact material as it applies to Behavioral Research Methods for psychology. Just as the dictionary demonstrates circularity within its language, this circularity is then evident within majors and classes. Communication interlocks with the humanities. 

On the first day of class, Professor Schact led a conversation regarding the concept of the humanities. He encouraged the class to interpret this definition. While Google simplifies the term as “academic disciplines that study aspects of human society and culture,” as well as “the human race,” our class explored alternative definitions as we each related the term to our own majors.

I explored this concept in my own individual lens. I took a hold of it psychologically, since I am a psychology major. Because of this, I pay close attention to people’s behavior and the way they interact with others. Based on this, I interpreted this term as a way of understanding people and more specifically, understanding how people relate. 

Others of us in the class who may be history or mathematics majors internalized this discussion more in terms of theorem or in terms of field ideas. While we did not all arrive at just one correct answer as to how to define this concept, I do believe that our inability to concretely decide on one definition of the humanities in itself showed the beauty of the term. This class discussion further demonstrated the way in which academic disciplines are so interconnected. Not only are they interconnected as broadly as the material, but also in the words that are used to identify concepts and terms. This umbrella term of the humanities only goes to show how applicable this term is to life itself, which shows what it means to be human.  

Furthermore, a strong relationship exists between computing and the humanities. While I typically associate computing with mathematics and STEM, this term also refers to communication. Last semester I took an Interpersonal Communication class with an esteemed professor, and I realized just how expansive communication is; I do it every day by calling, texting, face-timing, speaking, and writing. It is a continuously ongoing process. To fully link this connection, communication is one of the foundations of the humanities. The only way philosophers years ago were able to make more discoveries and were able to explore ideas is because of communication and sharing ideas. Without this as a foundation, the humanities would be underdeveloped.

James Gleick discusses the idea of the dictionary in chapter three of his novel The Information. This chapter largely focuses on the production of dictionaries and the growth of vocabulary over time. At the time, philosophers tried to discover every word in the world, but they realized that in order to define a word, such as science, they needed to develop language. To demonstrate this ongoing growth, Gleick defined the dictionary as a “a malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic” (66). In other words, the academic disciplines within the humanities, as well as all other outside knowledge, continuously contribute to this project. The dictionary itself is a reflection of communication between and among people, and also exhibits history as it displays the origin of words. In order to communicate, people need to have a basis of words, and further, words are needed to communicate ideas. The dictionary, as described in the text, is in a specific, organized order. This order is referred to as alphabetic order. It simplifies the searching process so that words can be easily found and also brings additional meaning to words. As said, “only when printing – and the dictionary… could anyone develop a sense of word meaning as interdependent or even circular. Words had to be considered as words, representing other words, apart from thing” which further indicates that in order to understand any word, language itself needs to be understood (66). This itself is the epitome of communication. The only way I can understand or even articulate my own thoughts whether in this assignment or even in a conversation is by understanding the meaning of the words I am using and what meaning they contribute to the sentence I am forming. Words bring rise to more words which further develops vocabulary and meaning. 

To further forge this connection regarding the meanings of words and the connections between people and language, Gleick also includes, “The dictionary ratifies the persistence of the word. It declares that the meanings of words come from other words.  It implies that all words, taken together, form an interlocking structure: interlocking, because all words are defined in terms of other words” (66). This concept of circularity is a good representation of the dictionary and is also supportive of the basis of the humanities. The humanities comprise all of these academic disciplines. Each discipline uses words and concepts that are essential to its study. And these words are also found in other disciplines. For instance, I may learn about Measures of Central Tendency (MCT) such as mean, median, and mode in a statistics class for mathematics. With how interlocked different subject matters are, I may also learn about this exact material as it applies to Behavioral Research Methods for psychology. Just as the dictionary demonstrates circularity within its language, this circularity is then evident within majors and classes. Communication interlocks with the humanities. 

Through our interconnected world, we have learned to rely on different mediums to obtain different information. Whether it be Google, Youtube, the news, or library books, we are bound to find different resources to learn new information. But, we rarely stop to think about what would happen if the information that has been internalized, in both online and printed materials, was erased and there was no way of knowing past history. As Gleick introduced in Chapter 2, “The Persistence of the World”, “to subtract the technologies of information internalized over two millenia requires a leap of imagination backwards to a forgotten past” (pg 28).  Through my time at SUNY Geneseo, I have been a part of different conversations about the meaning of language and its importance. As an English Adolescent Education major with a linguistics background, I have realized that there is a deep correlation between the ways in which language has shaped our culture, identity, and history. Before understanding the interconnectedness between the impact of language and new information, it is important to understand the processes in which we go about learning new topics. 

Chapter two dives deep into the meaning of “looking up” something online or in printed texts. But, what does it mean when we are “looking up” something? Does it mean that we are researching something for the sake of finding an answer, or are we researching something to learn new information? I would say that there is a distinction between being able to identify an answer to something one “looks up” and being able to understand the new piece of information. Most of the time, we are told to complete an assignment that requires heavy research but in that process, we mostly find answers to the questions we are looking for. Through different research projects, I have neglected to think about where the information originated from, the impact the information had on those that were researched, and the future implications of other readers. It’s important that we sometimes take a step back and think about how what we read, what we research, and what we write plays a role in the ways we are connected through language. 

In one of my linguistics classes, I came across an article by Cambridge University Press titled, “American English: History, Structure, and Usage” that explains language, the importance of it, and how we have developed its power. Within the article, I learned about the term idiolect, which refers to a person’s use of language within a particular context. Most of the time, we think about us either engaging in formal or informal conversations, but it’s important to think about the contexts of different conversations and how we interact within each. The Information by James Gleick brings light to the power of language through the lens of personal knowledge. Essentially, before language became widespread, information was contained within our minds and shared only with those we spoke to. After the writing language was created, the knowledge that many had started to spread. Symbols, pictures, and writing languages were created to represent different concepts.

Today, our words are powerful and when we say something, it is more powerful. Through the sharing of knowledge, we become more powerful and also learn a lot more. It’s important to think that as we keep evolving technologically as a society, we will find new ways to convey different information. But, what’s more important is how we think about how information has evolved and the impact that sharing that information has on us. Language is more than the spread of knowledge, in some instances, it is the communication and unpacking of it. It’s weird to think that the information we have internalized, or rather our technological devices has internalized would require a lot of imagination if it were to be erased.

I like Stanford’s definition of the humanities on their humanities website. Their definition is “the study of how people process and the document the human experience.” This manifests into many different academic fields like philosophy, literature, history, language, and several other subject that all fit under the humanities umbrella. Computing or the use of computers completely changes the way that we can process and document these subjects. In order to further develop the humanities, people will still process their own experience in the same way but the human experience has changed due to the vast globalization that computing has aided. The scope of what can be processed and accessed is vastly higher through the internet and all of the information that is stored online.

A part of the reading from Gleick that really stood out to me was the part of chapter 3 that talks about how words were spelled. In the reading it talked about how each time that someone sat down to write something they came up with the spelling however they saw fit. “In fact, few had the concept of spelling—the idea that each word, when written, should take a particular predetermined form of letters” (p. 53) I was very surprised to read this because in my mind the way that words are spelled are so set in stone. However, in actuality it was only four centuries ago that most people didn’t even have the concept of words having a specific order. When I was reading this, I related this to how quickly documentation as a whole has progressed. The state of information technology was so poor compared to what we have now. The influx of computers and the internet into our daily lives completely changes what is possible in terms of documentation, the information you can find, and the sharing of this information. Nowadays you can access information on the humanities from all around the world. This gives those trying to innovate and learn more about these certain subjects way more material to widen their own thinking. So much of philosophy, literature, and language has been developed during times where access to information was so limited. The ability to access information that computing has given us makes me believe that we can progress in any subject at a faster rate. Nowadays, the average person who is interested in a subject can learn from experts in fields that they would have no chance to learn about in the past. This gives many people the ability to fast track their experience learning from the past. Subsequently giving them much more time and experience to innovate within their fields and compare with people all around the world.

I also found chapter 5 to be interesting in how many different ways people tried to develop the telegraph. I think that this shows that some of the great minds at that time realized the effect that quick transfers of information could possibly have to life. Later in the chapter, there is a part that talks about telegraph in a way that I thought was interesting. It says “ the telegraph served not just as a device but as a medium—a middle, intermediary state. The concept of using some sort of medium to transfer information is used in computers all the time and is one of its greatest functions. With modern computers we have all sorts of different websites that act as mediums that can be very specific to what the individual person wants to find. This ties into the point I made the last paragraph regarding the ability to progress within subjects. Now that we have all of these built in mediums in the internet our access to information is incredible. The more minds that are able to access education in certain fields will inevitably progress the fields at a faster rate in terms of innovation then we have ever seen.

In his book, The Information, James Gleick touches upon the ways in which language serves as the conveyer of information, which I found particularly interesting in relation to how our computers engage with language. That being said, after taking the time to reflect on the various functions of my computer, I am beginning to recognise that there seems to a connection between the ways our computers recognise information, directions, and expressions and the ways in which we, as English speakers, manipulate language to carry out these three functions. 

I was specifically intrigued by Gleick’s argument: “With words we begin to leave traces behind us like breadcrumbs: memories in symbols for others to follow.” (Gleick 31). As an English major, when I think of the English language, I enjoy paying close attention to the function of symbols. At the micro level, I believe symbols begin first as characters (similar to the keys on our keyboard) that are formed into groups, which become words that can represent various definitions. From there, we group these words into unique combinations in order to convey meaningful sentences and functions that we as students of the humanities, later unpack or deconstruct for depth, significance, and meaning. 

Gleick’s observation about symbols in language is a notion that I am currently engaging with in Dr. Lydia Kertz’s Chaucer and His World course. As we read Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, our class is encouraged to think about the Middle English text and its respective translations. Oftentimes one word can have various spellings but essentially represent the same idea. Take for instance, the noun tyranny, which appears as tirrannie, tirauni, tireni, and thirannie in the middle english text yet each variation of the word still represents the usual characteristics of a cruel despot. Gleick makes a clever observation when he points out: “words were fugitive, on the fly, expected to vanish again thereafter” (Gleick 53). This concept makes the most sense to me when I think about Chaucer’s pilgrims engaging in storytelling because they are all essentially spinning their own tales and the language they use is fleeting. So it becomes Chaucer’s responsibility as the the writer, to document these tales and decide which variation of a word or symbol he will use to represent the meaning of the story. In a sense, Chaucer as the documenter is also engaging with the informative function of language because these tales teach us as modern readers about the social changes, religious tensions, and various lifestyles of late medieval England.

That being said, when I reconsider the functions and symbols that I manipulate on my keyboard, I realise that I am also engaging with the informative function of language when I use my computer. For instance, when I need information on locating a file on my desktop, I simply use the Command-spacebar combination and I can easily request a search. The same concept can be applied when I use the Command-F combination to locate a particular phrase in a document or webpage. In addition to manipulating my computer’s informative function of language, I am also engaging with the directive functions. For example, when I want to take a screenshot of the entire screen, I simply press Command-Shift-3 and my computer immediately recognises my command. While it is evident that our computers can carry out commands and requests, they can also engage in expressive language as well. In chapter two, Glieck posits that one way of deciphering Marshall McLuhan’s critique of print “would be to say that print offers only a narrow channel of communication. The channel is linear and even fragmented…If the ideal of communication is a meeting of souls, then writing is a sad shadow of the ideal” (Gleick 43). While McLuhan may be justified in his belief that communication ought to be a meeting of souls, I do not necessarily agree that print is the antithesis of this ideal. Communication is not limited to gestures or touch, in fact, when we direct our computers to italicise, bold, or underline certain words or phrases by using combinations like Command-I, Command-B, and Command-U we are engaging in the expressive function of language. The functions that we use not only provide emphasis to the ideas that we want to convey, but it also expresses emotions and attitudes as well. 

James Gleick in his information novel entitled, The Information, touches on the different forms of communicating, and in turn, computing and understanding the information that we encounter in our lives. From the use of “talking drums” in Africa, to the use of the Alphabet, Gleick is able to provide thought provoking analysis about how communication has changed over the course of his novel.

In the course of reading the novel so fair, I’ve noticed the amount of time that Gleick spends on discussing the Alphabet, how it has used, and how it has changed since its invention. Particularly, in chapter 3, Gleick writes,

“That Crawdrey should arrange his words in alphabetical order, to make his Table Alphabeticall, was not self-evident. He knew he could not count on even his educated readers to be versed in alphabetical order, so he tried to produce a small how to manual…

Thou shall learn the alphabet, to wit, the order of the letters as they stand, perfectly without booke, and where evert Letter standeth: as b neere the beginning, n about the middesti, and t toward the end. Nowe if the word, which thou art desirous to finde, begin with an a then look in the beginning of this table, but if with v looke towards the end. Againe, if thy word beginne with ca looke in the beginning of the letter c but if with cu then looke toward the end of that letter. And so of all the rest. &c” (57).

Crawdrey, who sought out to write the first dictionary (although that wasn’t what it was called at its creation in 1604), struggled with how to format his work by the alphabet because during the time period, few knew the alphabet and how to use it. In fact, according to Gleick, even the very words and definitions that Crawdrey was recording were commonly disputed and no one was quite certain what the exact meanings and spellings were.

In the above quoted passage, the reader, finds not only can find roots in computer science, but also in the humanities and the english language. The reader finds what is possibly the first algorithm, created by Crawdrey, as well as language itself, the very thing that humans use to communicate and facilitate the spread of ideas that we still use today.

The way in which Crawdrey decided to instruct users on how to use his dictionary using alphabetical order can be likened to one of the first algorithms used in society. By follow those step by step instructions, Crawdrey expects the user to get a certain result – finding the particular word that they are looking for. The steps done change in regard to the word you are looking for. Today, when we think of algorithms, one may think of a robot being given a certain input to complete a job, like flagging tweets or facebook posts for deletion. However, algorithms are also step by step instructions that you use to complete a task. For instance, anyone can learn how to solve a rubiks cube if they learn the different algorithms. The algorithms to complete the task don’t change depending on how the cube is mixed up, they’re always the same serious of terms. Crawdrey’s instructions to look up a word are the exact same type of process, just with different wording.

Crawdrey’s dictionary can be viewed as representing the first algorithm, but it is also inherently a way of communication and has a distinct connection to humanities. A core feature of humanities is the way that human beings record, share, and spread new information. By creating the first dictionary, Crawdrey recorded, intended to share, and facilitated the spread of not only the alphabet, but a more uniform and common way of defining and spelling words. Now, obviously, we know that from previous class discussions that the humanities don’t have one exact definition, goal, and study – the humanities are inherently a combination of multiple things lumped into just one category to explain human nature and thought. With this in mind, we know that while Crawdrey’s dictionary was never reinvented, we know that it was changed, edited, and adapted and time went on, human nature changed, and humans learned more information. The human race doesn’t have just one dictionary, we have more concrete definitions and spellings for each word then we did in 1604, and we have more then one producer of dictionaries (Mariam Webster, the Oxford Dictionary, The Cambridge Dictionary, etc.), we even go as far to have dictionaries that translate different languages into English.

In general, one of the most interesting thing about Gleick’s novel, The Information, is that, as a reader, it opens your eyes to not only what technology was before the age of smartphones and computers, but it opens your eyes to the way information itself has transformed since the beginning of time. Crawdrey’s dictionary, his explanation and steps used to understand alphabetical ordering, and the various interpretations and editions that were created after its original publications shows signs of not only the beginnings of computer technology, but it is a perfect example of the humanities and the way in which this form of study allows for interpretation, communication, and the spread of information.

On page 85 of The Information by James Gleick, a book is spoken of that forever changed mathematics. Being referred to as “an electric flashlight sent to a lightless world. . .” one was left to wonder why nobody thought of the process sooner (Gleick 85). It is intriguing to wonder why technological/mathematical advancements happen at certain times. Is it out of necessity? Most likely not, due to the fact that we would be living perfectly fine without a good amount of the technology that we are lucky enough to have. The advancements sometimes seem to be driven by the human need for our endeavours to be easier or faster. In some cases, these advancements help us to diminish possible errors while attempting to make new advancements. Henry Briggs wondered why once the thought process or technology was discovered it seemed so obvious to us. Why didn’t someone simply think to invent things sooner? Most likely because certain technology needs other technology in order to help it progress, but are we truly advancing as fast as we can? When a man landed on the moon it wasn’t necessarily due to our longing for technological advancement, we did it in order to flaunt our advantages to other countries. In an ideal world, advancement would be made for the sake of advancing, having the ability to help people when they need it whether it be academically, mentally, medically and so on. All in all, it doesn’t matter too much what the purpose of the advancement is, as long as the result is put to good use. 

Thinking about the unrealized potential of our technology is almost frustrating. There is no way to guarantee that we are doing the best with what we have in regards to our society and culture. One of the only ways to promote using our resources to their full potential is by spreading awareness of the technology we have and the good that we can do with it. Classes on using technology are important, but I almost wonder if there needs to be more of an emphasis put on the thought process of what needs to be invented. How long have we been searching for a cure for cancer amongst other horrible illnesses and have come away empty handed? There must be a better way for developing our technology apart from things being accidentally discovered or advancements being made to spite other countries. It is likely that this would involve prioritizing certain sciences and thoughts that are often overlooked. It is even possible that the sciences we need haven’t even fully developed yet.

            Th invntion of th computr and th intrnt wr transformational for t Oxford nglish Dictionary. Indd, th OD bcam accssabl to th ntir world via th intrnt, as Jams Glick nots: “[there now existed] instantaneous connection to a worldwide network of proxy amateur lexicographers and access to a vast, interlocking set of databases growing asymptotically towards the ideal of All Previous Text” (Gleick 65). This massiv xpansion of accss to all of thos who had intrnt across th glob is rmarkabl, and indd is a major part of th rason to push forward th dvlopmnt of th digital humanitis. This prolifration of accss to lxicographical information throughout th world, much lik what is currntly occurring in spurts with litratur, allows a much largr audinc not just to apprciat ths txts but to study thm. Similarly, such a databas for th OD or a work of litratur allows for analysis in mannrs that would not hav bn fficint bfor, such as statistical analysis of languag on a larg scal.

            This is not without problms, howvr. It is th natur of litratur that on is unabl to fully tak account of vry individual word in a work. Just lik how Jams Glick uss th xampl of th word “mackerel” for th OD, th automatd statistical analysis that is mad much asir, mor accssabl, and mor fficint by th bginnings of litrary txts prolifrating onlin, on also has to b wary of looking to hard at ach individual word, missing th forst for th trs, if on will. Just as thirty diffrnt spllings of “mackerel” ar usd in an impossibl qust for compltnss, it can also b possibl to look too far into manings or pattrns that ar not rally thr. On could crtainly mak a litrary intrprtation basd on how many tims on word is usd in a txt or anothr is not, but not all such things ar so dlibrat. As a studnt of litratur, on must by natur assum that vry word is as dlibrat, or othrwis analysis can fall apart. But not vry charactr in vry grat work of litratur is anothr strok of gnius. Somtims word choic is simply coincidntal, and somtims looking for analysis lads to a blif in manings that ar not rally thr. Th digitization of th humanitis allows for a much fficnt dgr of diffrnt typs of analysis, but it can also lad to thirty diffrnt spllings of “mackerel” imbud with a maning that thy hav nvr rally had.

            Some attempts at cleverness in writing are clear, such as my deliberate avoidance of the letter “e” (sans in quotes) in the words above. But, as my eleventh grade AP English teacher put it, “sometimes the curtains are just blue.” There does not need to be meaning in everything. But the more we are able to use technology to search for meanings, especially with the decrease in labor that is made possible by said technologies, it is important we also are careful not to create patterns and meanings that were never there. And, at the same time, one must remember that a database or a digitized version of a text is only so accessible as the original text was. That is, a search function may find words and their frequency well, so long as they are not missing their e’s. But that is devoid of context, and while being able to search a dictionary for information is nice, and literature can to some extent be the same way. But it is not each individual word that makes a work of literature, just as a definition out of context defines nothing. Accessibility and different functionalities for searching and automated data analysis for a text could be incredibly useful, as can the different format. But one must not forget that books were written to be books, not text on a screen.