Comments by Commenter
[…] to create by digitally mapping Medieval places. This type of map is discussed in more detail in “GIS for Language and Literary Study,” which details other maps that allow for manipulation by users depending on their needs. The […]
[…] Stéfan (et al). Information Visualization for Humanities Scholars, In Literary Studies in the Digital Age, NY: Modern Language […]
[…] Charles, Mark Olsen, and Glenn Roe. “The Notion of the Texbase: Design and Use of Textbases in the Humanities.” N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Literary Studies in the Digital Age. MLA Commons. Web. 5 Feb. […]
[…] Milena, Stan Ruecker, and Stéfan Sinclair. “Information Visualization for Humanities Scholars.” N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Literary Studies in the Digital Age. MLA Commons. Web. 5 Feb. […]
[…] Tanya. “Text Analysis, Data Mining, and Visualizations in Literary Scholarship.” N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Literary Studies in the Digital Age. MLA Commons. Web. 5 Feb. […]
[…] Daniel, Constance Crompton, and Ray Siemens. “Glossary.” N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Literary Studies in the Digital Age. MLA Commons. Web. 5 Feb. […]
[…] Cooney, et al. “The Notion of the Textbase: Design and Use of Textbases in the Humanities.” LSDA Sharon Daniel, “The Database: An Aesthetics of Dignity.” from Database […]
[…] New Language.” from Visual Complexity (PDF) (Companion Site) Stéfan Sinclair, et al., “Information Visualization for Humanities Scholars.” […]
[…] Clement, “Text Analysis, Data Mining, and Visualizations in Literary Scholarship.” LSDA Johanna Drucker, “Graphesis: Visual knowledge production and […]
[…] visualization tools we read about in Sinclair, Stéfan, Stan Ruecker, and Milena Radzikowska. “Information Visualization for Humanities Scholars” back in Week 5 are but one category of software developed by humanities scholars.3 And all this […]
[…] “Electronic Scholarly Editions” and Susan Schreibman’s even more recent “Digital Scholarly Editing” give us the view from our present – McGann’s future – looking back at what has […]
[…] McKenzie’s definition of text, as paraphrased in Susan Schreibman’s “Digital Scholarly Editing” and quoted in in the introduction to this week’s readings, pushes our notion of text […]
[…] McKenzie’s definition of text, as paraphrased in Susan Schreibman’s “Digital Scholarly Editing” and quoted in the introduction to this week’s readings, pushes our notion of text far […]
[…] using the tools of social computing made possible by web 2.0 technologies. In their Introduction, Introduction, Kenneth M. Price and Ray Siemens make the following […]
[…]  Stéfan Sinclair, et al,, ”Information Visualization for Humanities Scholars”, Literary Studies in the Digital Age: An Evolving Anthology, MLA Commons, http://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/information-visualization-for-humanities-scholars/ […]
[…] digital methodologies, which are supposedly geared toward simplifications and fast solutions”.2 Återigen måste jag åberopa det humanistiska ansvaret och den kritiska blicken som vi kan […]
[…] http://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/introduction/ Introduction […]
[…]  David L. Hoover: “Textual Analysis”, i Literary Studies in the Digital Age. An Evolving Anthology, § 1, http://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/textual-analysis/ […]
[…]  Tanya Clement: “Text Analysis, Data Mining, and Visualizations in Literary Scholarship”, i Literary Studies in the Digital Age. An Evolving Anthology, § 24. http://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/text-analysis-data-mining-and-visualizations-in-literary-scholar… […]
[…] about distant reading abound. In “Text Analysis, Data Mining, and Visualizations in Literary Scholarship,” Tanya Clement writes: “One main thrust of the argument that literary study and digital […]
[…] ¶ 2Leave a comment on paragraph 20Of course, the sociality of literature has recently been an important theme in a variety of literary-critical approaches—including new historicism, cultural criticism, multiculturalism, the new textual editing, the history of the book, and others I will later mention. But the concept, tools, and—not to be underestimated—growing audience of social computing make it tempting to think that such sociality might now also be implemented in new practices, and not just in themes, of literary scholarship. […]
[…] Hoover, David L., ”Textual Analysis”, Price, Kenneth M. & Siemens, Ray, Literary Studies in the Digital Age. An Evolving Anthology, http://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/textual-analysis/ […]
[…] Sinclair, Stéfan; Ruecker, Stan och Radzikowska, Milena: ”Information Visualization for Humanities Scholars”, Price, Kenneth M. & Siemens, Ray, Literary Studies in the Digital Age. An Evolving Anthology, http://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/information-visualization-for-humanities-scholars/ […]
[…] Clement, Tanya, “Text Analysis, Data Mining and Visualizations in Literary Scholarship”, Price, Kenneth M. & Siemens, Ray, Literary Studies in the Digital Age. An Evolving Anthology, http://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/text-analysis-data-mining-and-visualizations-in-literary-scholar… […]
[…] their introduction to the MLA Commons’ anthology Literary Studies in the Digital Age, Kenneth Price and Ray Siemens […]
[…] Third presentation: Literary Periodization and the (D)evolution of Distinctive Gender Markers, based on research done by Sean G. Weidman and James O’Sullivan, and presented by Weidman. According to Weidman, this study was meant to build off a paper by David Hoover titled “Textual Analysis.” Hoover compared 13 male and female contemporary poets and apparently used this to make claims about gendered differences in word use. Pulling a quote from the paper: “Relatively common words like mother are found in twenty women’s sections but only eleven men’s […] Female markers like children and mirrors and male markers like beer and lust seem almost stereotypical, but there are also surprises, like the female marker fist and the male markers song and dancing.” (Source: https://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/textual-analysis/.) […]
[…] à partir de l’article collectif de Stéfan Sinclair, Stan Ruecker et Milena Radzikowska : « Information Visualization for Humanities Scholars », MLA […]
[…] As far as the LRG’s opinion on what to call our project, our consensus seems to be to stay away from the word “archive” if at all possible. “Archive” connotes a certain amount of broader inclusion and extensiveness that reaches beyond the scope of the BeardStair project, especially because our “list” of entries is literally three items that somebody decided they didn’t want anymore. That seems a little random to be called an archive; “collection” seems more fitting, especially in regards to some of the categories of classification Susan Schreibman outlines in her article “Digital Scholarly Editing.” […]
[…] I thought about that for a bit before I formulated a plan for a poem written by me with the help of … . […]
[…] SINCLAIR, Stéfan et al., “Information Visualization for Humanities Scholars” in Literary Studies in the Digital Age: an evolving anthology. Disponível em http://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/information-visualization-for-humanities-scholars/ […]
[…] the mere click of a button thanks to this new digital age we find ourselves living in. Something Kenneth Price and Ray Siemens mention is also that this new age brings with it a need for people to undertake jobs to support and […]
[…] Schreibman, S. (2013). Digital scholarly editing http://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/digital-scholarly-editing/ […]
[…] anthology project, Literary Studies in the Digital Age (another good place to start exploring), “From Reading to Social Computing.” This conceptual model gave me the handle I needed to grasp social computing from a critical […]
[…] http://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/text-analysis-data-mining-and-visualizations-in-literary-scholar… […]
[…] past views connect more with what Price and Siemens describe as (http://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/introduction/) Digital Humanities has many “Open Source” attributes emerging from the […]
[…] is minimal. (Another example of this kind of text is Kenneth M. Price and Ray Siemens’s Literary Studies in the Digital Age: An Evolving Anthology.) Print texts are edited and re-released with great frequency. The immediacy of the editability of […]
[…] Stéfan Sinclair, Stan Ruecker, and Milena Radzikowska discuss the issues and benefits of using data visualization in humanities studies. One of the biggest problems within humanities studies is that, as with the CASS work on representation in media, researchers often “ [begin] with no hypothesis about what [is] happening in the data” (Baker, Gabrielatos, & McEnery). Sinclair, Ruecker, & Radzikowska suggest that “[i]nformation visualization for humanities scholars needs to accommodate a mix of evidence and argumentation” (para. 1). Since humanities research is not generally falsifiable, any tool for research needs to offer the ability to “examin[e] the objects of study from as many reasonable and original perspectives as possible to develop convincing interpretations” (Sinclair, Ruecker, & Radzikowska). This group suggests that data visualization processes, particularly interactive processes, are perfectly poised to aid in such research at least as much as they aid in presentation. Interactive visualizations offer a representation of large data sets and allow the researcher the opportunity to go back and make changes as they data offers new arguments and perspectives. Ultimately, they decide that “visualizations can be useful to humanities scholars by providing additional insight into small amounts of text/data, thus supporting what John Unsworth calls ‘scholarly primitives,’ especially for showing patterns that result from filtering, sorting, grouping, and otherwise visually rearranging the material” (para. 10). […]
[…] Paragraph 26 of “From Reading to Social Computing,” Alan Liu addresses “why literary scholarship should take an interest in social […]
[…] some imaginative and thoughtful attempts to negotiate such an approach, by such scholars as Liu, Julia Flanders, and others. (I’ve listed just a few in “References,” below.) This post, and a […]
[…] Charles, Mark Olsen, and Glenn Roe. “The Notion of the Texbase: Design and Use of Textbases in the Humanities.” Literary Studies in the Digital Age. MLA Commons. […]
[…] Milena, Stan Ruecker, and Stéfan Sinclair. “Information Visualization for Humanities Scholars.” Literary Studies in the Digital Age. MLA Commons. […]
[…] Tanya. “Text Analysis, Data Mining, and Visualizations in Literary Scholarship.” Literary Studies in the Digital Age. MLA Commons. […]
Should “by doting” be “by endowing”? Unclear.
I’m interested in whether your group has explored the Hypothes.is web annotation tool — http://hypothes.is. Was surprised it’s not mentioned here.
Perhaps more substantive reasons to address the ‘why’? Perhaps a further expansion on the suspicion of digital technologies?
What are the present ethical standings on social computing in this context where PieSky is just another spy tool?
Thank you for the fine work, Stéfan, Stan, and Milena! A great entry for an exciting new publication venue, as is the whole anthology.
I wish this paragraph had been the starting point of the discussion. The article was informative with great links (those that worked) to inspiring projects and a somewhat technical discussion, but what I really would have wanted to read about is the idea of “spatial thinking” and why it matters to the humanities, not only from a philosophical perspective but also a cognitive one. I should disclose that I teach Italian Studies and I am interested in both literary and linguistic aspects of this question. Thank you.
Although an excellent paper, I think that one of the issues with this formulation is that it is not clear about the kinds of scale the author is suggesting in relation to these “research portfolios”. That is, is “expressive sociality”, bounded in some sense by a limit. If not, it seems to me that the research programme would become rapidly impossible to manage. I wondered whether three analytical versions of this might help in relation to the textual “seed” for the research:
1. Short-form: where the size of the text(s) under computational study is relatively short and localized. This could be a short book(s), blog-post(s) and so forth.
2. Long-form: A larger entity such as a monograph(s), blog (including a number of blogs), or so on. See http://stunlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-author-signal-nietzsches-typewriter.html
3. Big Data: Where it is a larger collection of textual entities or “chunks” of text.
Additionally, some sense of the “proper” or “correct” level of network analysis would also help to both scope the network analysis (e.g. three degrees, six degrees?), and also give an insight into the kind of complexity that you envision as a research project under this programme.
An exploratory example of these thoughts can be found here,
where we document an attempt to use similar techniques to map the digital humanities. This was a “short-form” datasprint, which limited our source to books, but also the depth or degree of the searches. It was also in as much as we formulated the notion of “seed” books that started the search for the “expressive sociality” we wanted to map, and which was limited algorithmically to a certain number of degrees (and which were later cropped/filtered in Gephi).
Still seeing computational technology as the basis for DH (rather then merely the historical roots) seems quite limiting with regard to the dynamic and flexible possibilities in research and publishing associated with the goals of the Humanities (i.e., multi-platform eguides to books, both their content and complex context).
When it comes to reading and writing in the contemporary times, the social network is having greater influence when it comes to the way people read and the way they write (especially their spelling) and also the way they speak! I believe that it is the job of the social linguists to study this and I am aware that the University of Nigeria Nsukka http://arts.unn.edu.ng has scholars devoted to this.
My understanding here is that Liu wants us not to conceive of the literary act of reading, termed the transmission, but the medium in which we process reading, the book, or the electronic ballad, or even the oral culture.
Perhaps Liu is displacing the emphasis on reading as a textual process and hoping to reduce the connotations of reading with paper text. Thereby, broadening reading to other mediums, specifically digital text.
Reading and writing communities have been established long ago, as Liu relinquishes but could you not go back even further than the 18th and 10th century and regard the Greek Symposium as an example where works were read in communal fashion, responded to immediately at times and even changed as a result of its reception?
You can see this need for contemporary Literature to adopt the “cool” or “passionate” ethos in the mountainous terrain of internet “clickbait” and literary adverting that has dominated online publication.
It is an unfortunate fact that this “cool” factor adopts more of an audience than the well researched and more “honest” post. Stranger still is that this drawn audience will evoke the “wisdom of crowds” where bigger viewcounts/followers will be mistakenly translated to more authority and truth.
While Liu sees the possibility of synthesis between literary scholarship and social computing, he also reiterates that one cannot be simply adopted but rather, the literary scholar has to undergo the process of learning – to not just assimilate digital text into their work but legitimately learn a new area of study.
Such a digital rendering has usurped the author’s authority over the work by allowing readers to elaborate upon characters. While such a rendering is to be applauded for its experimental qualities and what must be some comedic dialogue. There is also a danger inherent here to authorship itself, that writing (even digital text) can be manipulated in ways unintended. Whether this is a danger we need to be apprehensive or a progression we should be aware us, is up for debate.
Liu seems to be making the argument that commercialization of the internet has motivated this shift in the Web 1.5 paradigm and Figure 4. suggests that the ability to comment changed the static relationship of delineated roles by allowing users to become authors.
I have to disagree with Liu here. The ability to comment does not produce co-authorship, because the role is still established. The authority of the author is still regarded above the interactive reader/user even within the website formatting. Web 2.0 just allowed a forum for discussion and increased interactivity but did not usurp the authorship role completely as he seems to suggest.
A wiki however, is closer to true co-authorship because users are indistinguishable from authors from a Web-page presentation (authorship can still be traced based on account and IP address) and because in more recent wikis, privileged users can actually edit website code itself. MLA commons, like a blog, attempts a similar process by incorporating comments into the readers experience of a text but only increases interactivity while maintaining Web 2.0’s roles. Therefore, I would distinguish Web 2.0 as the blogs or interactive sites and I would regard wiki-based platforms as the new paradigm or Web 3.0 because it allows users access to truer co-authorship by making these binary roles indistinguishable.
Social computing belongs to Web 2.0 and can be distinguished from previous iterations because of the bidirectional network and the unified community that has transcended the commercial relationship of user/buyer and website/seller of the Web 1.5 that Liu distinguished as commercially initiated and the Web 1.0 that was privately partitioned (isolated).
“twentieth-century letters, the contents of which” : errors easier to see online!
Thank you, Jessica!
I think so, Siobhan, and EMLO is pretty good at doing this with early modern letters collections. I’m working this summer on thinking about translation mechanisms from basically any form into a useable database, along with a research assistant.
OpenRefine is a good start on merging existing data or spreadsheets, if you haven’t yet seen it. http://openrefine.org/
If you have data you’d like to use as a case study, by the way, I’m looking for more examples right now.
Thank you, Marcel! I just saw Correspsearch, and I should make those new elements much more prominent in the final piece. If you have a working title for the paper, or draft, I’d be interested to see it.
The Salem Witch Trials link is not working.
[new practices, and not just in themes, of literary scholarship]
For someone who went to college in the early 90s, this emphasis on themes passing over into practices resonates with the first wave of hypertext narratives, which seemed to embody so much of what deconstruction had been saying about textuality in more abstract ways.
Fascinating reading of the ambivalent role of “writerly” reader on dynamic pages, especially via provocative example of shopping!
Juxta can actually compare many more than two versions of a text; I’ve fed in up to eight or nine. But it’s worth doing small extracts at a time if you have so many different versions.
Consider striking the second sentence “Briefly reviewing the theory and practice of editors of letters . . .” In the preceding paragraph, the second-to-last sentence similar information is included: “In the following I first briefly outline the history of editorial theory and practice in regards to modern edition of letters.” I realize it is slightly different in meaning but I’m not sure anything is lost in not stating the second sentence in paragraph 5.
It is not obvious at all that writing online is more honest, given that the author knows he has an audience. Added to that is the problem that anonymous tends to be cruel, which suggests that what appears online is not really what is TRUE but what can be GOTTEN AWAY WITH.
I find very interesting that the concept of representativness, typical for corpus linguistics, is used now in the literary studies.
An evocative phrase in Jerome McGann’s new book, A New Republic of Letters, regarding the ‘fractal archive’, perhaps provides something like this ‘geometry in which the instance and aggregation both appear’.
In his final chapter, McGann represents the title page of a particular edition of The Pioneers as ‘a compressed and encrypted file’ that requires ‘unzipping’ through detailed book historical analysis. The collection of ‘all these files’ – the unzipped title page of every edition of The Pioneers, or even of every existing copy of the book – that is, ‘the entire production and reception history’ of the book, would comprise a ‘fractal archive’ (173).
McGann does not elaborate on this evocative term, but it clearly references the mathematical concept of fractal dimensions: a ratio wherein the detail and complexity of an object or pattern – or even the distance between point A and point B – changes depending on the scale at which it is measured. The archetypal example of this ratio is the measurement of the coastline of a country, which changes depending on the length of the measuring stick used. While a kilometre long stick will produce a different measurement to one that is a centimetre long, or shorter, no single measurement is the correct one: rather the different measurements are an index of the level of detail, the scale, at which the measurement is taken.
Understood in this way, the notion of a fractal archive resonates with McGann’s broader argument: that we can never know the meaning of a document or tell the truth about an archive because we can never know the entire network – including the current moment of interpretation – that the document or archive connects to. As McGann writes, the ‘radical uncertainties’ of the textual condition (160) call for a ‘scholarship of indeterminacy’ (158) wherein our task is not to know, but to thicken our knowledge of, the dynamic network that constitutes print culture in any time or place.
I find the connection made to Barthe’s types of literary text particularly interesting, though I’m not sure if I agree with the comparison being made between the rendering of HTML across hardware in a Web 1.0 paradigm and writerly texts. Perhaps it is only because I grew up predominantly understanding the web as the Web 2.0, but I would offer a different comparison, where texts presented in a Web 1.0 paradigm would be “readerly” and those in a Web 2.0 paradigm as “writerly”.
Please see the new elements , and (http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/de/html/ref-correspDesc.html) and the TEI Correspondence SIG’s wiki (http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/SIG:Correspondence).
A paper about the development of and the theoretical considerations behind these new elements by Seifert/Illetschko/Stadler (SIG conveners) will be published in jTEI 9 (hopefully…).
… as well as the web service correspSearch (http://correspsearch.bbaw.de/index.xql), based on the new elements.
Wonderful as these collective foci of Web 2.0 sound in theory, they may be why those who always enjoyed reading as a solitary activity, or a Socratic dialogue with a worthy teacher, and only occasionally a group discussion endeavor, have had a hard time adapting to the recommended speculative journey into technology and digital humanities as literature’s next best thing, or phase of development. No Luddite here, doing my best to adapt, but still grieving paper and pencil.
See Catherine Tumber’s article “Bulldozing the Humanities,” published in The Baffler on August 1, 2014, in which she takes on this anthology in general, and specifically Julia Flanders’ take on “DH’s inherent shift in humanistic consciousness.” http://www.thebaffler.com/blog/bulldozing-the-humanities/
Maybe a slight problem with the figure or caption when it says the novels are arranged by publication dates with the earliest at the bottom. Datewise, they’re mixed up.
I worked on the production of TACT, and I was so jealous that it wasn’t around when I was doing research in grad school. I feel the same way about the Literary Research Guide now that it’s available in an electronic version. Having an easily searchable version would have saved me so many hours in the library. Thumbing through my paper version again and again was mind numbing but vital at the time.
“Where does the knowledge and experience of literature occur? It occurs distributed through combinations of authors, documents, readers, and scholar-critics—that is, in the social networks of all the above.” In Out of Our Heads, Alva Noë asks much the same question – and reaches much the same conclusion – about consciousness. He refutes the proposition that consciousness is located in the brain, contending that it lies, instead, at the interface, and in the interactions, between the whole organism and its environment. If we think that thinking takes place inside the brain, we miss the social and relational dimensions of not only consciousness but selfhood. Much speculation about “meaning” in literature makes the same mistake. We conceive it as “in” the head of the author (in the form of an “intention”) or “in” the head of the reader (in the form of a “construction”); or we suppose it to reside in both places independently, and worry about how to determine whether the two meanings, “author’s” and “reader’s”, are aligned; or (with more nuance, but still missing the point) we conceive it as occupying some mysterious space between author and reader, or as a kind of dance between the two. However, social computing points us towards a way of understanding meaning that gets us out of our heads and away from mysterious, ethereal interstices; it leads us to think of meaning as an effect of networked bodies and as embodied in the multidimensional relations among people, documents, and conversations.
Kansas City Literary Map is a dead link
I am working on cultural studies approach to science fiction film which creates a theory of narrative especially for film. I riff off of both Donna Haraway and Bakhtin. Does something like this fit into your rubric? I only see more technical subjects whereas I am addressing how the visual narratives we have are changing narrative itself. Also, we lack good terminology as the distinction between film, television, online videos with or without music tracks makes discussing these various types of input into our senses problematic.
Also, will we get notifications that our comments have been answered because remembering to check back and then finding an answer is difficult.
I notice a lot of comments are awaiting moderation, something else that makes it difficult to keep up.
Streamline the process. We are all responsible intellectuals here. This is not a board where we would find the kind of verbal violence we might elsewhere on the innertoobs or maybe I am wrong to assume that?
Hi Steven — Thanks for your comment / question!
As we note in our introduction, we are pleased to consider building on this foundation of articles over time, adding to its breadth and depth of address in response to our field’s engagement with the digital.
Please join the group DLS Anthology, upload your draft, and invite the community to comment. The draft will become part of the collection’s expanding archive. Essays deemed to be of especially high quality and of interest to a sufficient number of people will be chosen for inclusion in subsequent evolutions of Literary Studies in the Digital Age: with the author’s permission, a selected essay will be copyedited and added to the collection. (Authors are free to submit their essays elsewhere for publication at any time, but please be advised that the draft uploaded to MLA Commons will remain part of the collection’s public archive.)
The controversial thing that comes because of web 2.0 is the blurred line between author and user. It is beneficial in the way that it web 2.0 gets everyone involved in a text, but detrimental in the way that with several authors and multiple intentions the original author may get lost in the text.
This is extremely useful. Theoretically, collections could aggregate this metadata in any form (Excel, even) and “feed” a Union-catalog-type project or other aggregation?
What is the likelihood that such editorial structures will in fact be created, especially in the field of academia? Who will create these editorial structures? Will they be restricted to universities or archives or will they be public forums akin to social media?
Very nice catch! You are absolutely right–an error in the description of the visualization. They are not in the order of publishing date at all. They are ordered in accordance to how they can make evident this: “The graph also makes visible the fact that the low number of unique words (or words that are used at least once in each text) and the high average frequency of words in The Making of Americans are almost exactly the inverse of the numbers for Joyce’s Finnegans Wake.” In other words, the other texts have very little to show in terms of these differences. I believe, after having made this visualization almost ten years ago, that the visualization is positioning the texts in such a way to maximize the space for showing the percentage ranges (on the y-axis) for the indicators on the x-axis. Thanks, Paul!
This makes sense to me… Web 1.0 was structured in the traditional sense of publishing. Just like ebooks are structured in the traditional sense of a book.
Web 2.0 aka the web as its known to digital natives.
my comment — that is, question — is whether the editors would be interested in an article about digital humanities, the study of literature AND the publishing of scholarship online, an area that — if discussed at all — does not happen in digital humanities
i am looking forward to receiving your reply, thanks and best,
September 21, 2016 at 11:55 pm
See in context
March 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm
February 5, 2016 at 3:49 pm
January 28, 2016 at 3:54 pm
January 20, 2016 at 7:56 pm
January 20, 2016 at 7:45 pm
January 20, 2016 at 7:39 pm
January 20, 2016 at 7:31 pm
January 20, 2016 at 7:25 pm
January 20, 2016 at 7:05 pm
Modern Language Association
85 Broad Street, suite 500
New York, NY 10004-2434