‘A cannon's burst discharged against a ruinated wall’: A Critique of Quantitative Methods in Shakespearean Authorial Attribution

Authorship studies has, over the last two decades, absorbed a number of quantitative methods only made possible through the use of computers. The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion presents a number of studies that utilize such methods, including some based in machine learning or “deep lea...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: David Auerbach
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Ghent University 2018-12-01
Series:Authorship
Online Access:https://www.authorship.ugent.be/article/view/9737
id doaj-27be39d408524590aeeba7b9aaef3ad4
record_format Article
spelling doaj-27be39d408524590aeeba7b9aaef3ad42020-11-24T23:04:24ZengGhent UniversityAuthorship2034-46432018-12-017210.21825/aj.v7i2.9737‘A cannon's burst discharged against a ruinated wall’: A Critique of Quantitative Methods in Shakespearean Authorial AttributionDavid Auerbach Authorship studies has, over the last two decades, absorbed a number of quantitative methods only made possible through the use of computers. The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion presents a number of studies that utilize such methods, including some based in machine learning or “deep learning” models. This paper focuses on the specific application of three such methods in Jack Elliott and Brett Greatley-Hirsch’s “Arden of Faversham and the Print of Many.” It finds that their attribution of the authorship of Arden to William Shakespeare is suspect under all three such methods: Delta, Nearest Shrunken Centroid, and Random Forests. The underlying models do not sufficiently justify the attributions, the data provided are insufficiently specific, and the internals of the methods are too opaque to bear up to scrutiny. This article attempts to depict the internal flaws of the methods, with a particular focus on Nearest Shrunken Centroid. These methodological flaws arguably arise in part from a lack of rigor, but also from an impoverished treatment of the available data, focusing exclusively on comparative word frequencies within and across authors. A number of potentially fruitful directions that authorship studies are suggested, that could increase the robustness and accuracy of quantitative methods, as well as warn of the potential limits of such methods. https://www.authorship.ugent.be/article/view/9737
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author David Auerbach
spellingShingle David Auerbach
‘A cannon's burst discharged against a ruinated wall’: A Critique of Quantitative Methods in Shakespearean Authorial Attribution
Authorship
author_facet David Auerbach
author_sort David Auerbach
title ‘A cannon's burst discharged against a ruinated wall’: A Critique of Quantitative Methods in Shakespearean Authorial Attribution
title_short ‘A cannon's burst discharged against a ruinated wall’: A Critique of Quantitative Methods in Shakespearean Authorial Attribution
title_full ‘A cannon's burst discharged against a ruinated wall’: A Critique of Quantitative Methods in Shakespearean Authorial Attribution
title_fullStr ‘A cannon's burst discharged against a ruinated wall’: A Critique of Quantitative Methods in Shakespearean Authorial Attribution
title_full_unstemmed ‘A cannon's burst discharged against a ruinated wall’: A Critique of Quantitative Methods in Shakespearean Authorial Attribution
title_sort ‘a cannon's burst discharged against a ruinated wall’: a critique of quantitative methods in shakespearean authorial attribution
publisher Ghent University
series Authorship
issn 2034-4643
publishDate 2018-12-01
description Authorship studies has, over the last two decades, absorbed a number of quantitative methods only made possible through the use of computers. The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion presents a number of studies that utilize such methods, including some based in machine learning or “deep learning” models. This paper focuses on the specific application of three such methods in Jack Elliott and Brett Greatley-Hirsch’s “Arden of Faversham and the Print of Many.” It finds that their attribution of the authorship of Arden to William Shakespeare is suspect under all three such methods: Delta, Nearest Shrunken Centroid, and Random Forests. The underlying models do not sufficiently justify the attributions, the data provided are insufficiently specific, and the internals of the methods are too opaque to bear up to scrutiny. This article attempts to depict the internal flaws of the methods, with a particular focus on Nearest Shrunken Centroid. These methodological flaws arguably arise in part from a lack of rigor, but also from an impoverished treatment of the available data, focusing exclusively on comparative word frequencies within and across authors. A number of potentially fruitful directions that authorship studies are suggested, that could increase the robustness and accuracy of quantitative methods, as well as warn of the potential limits of such methods.
url https://www.authorship.ugent.be/article/view/9737
work_keys_str_mv AT davidauerbach acannonsburstdischargedagainstaruinatedwallacritiqueofquantitativemethodsinshakespeareanauthorialattribution
_version_ 1725630669488390144