A basic understanding of how language works should be part of what every educated person knows....There are more links in that passage than the one that I copied, by the way. That one just jumped out at me. There's no link, however, on "Digital Humanities," which puzzled me, so I googled and found a number of things, including — in The Chronicle of Higher Education — "Stop Calling It 'Digital Humanities'" and an easy-to-absorb Wikipedia article. Excerpt:
[A]t least in the U.S., my suggestion would be to turn away from English departments, and pursue a plan based on an alliance of linguists with people in computer science, psychology, statistics, medicine, law, sociology, business, etc., who increasingly see linguistic analysis (e.g. in the form of "text mining" or "text analytics") as an interesting object of study in itself, and as a means to enable research on other (applied or fundamental) topics. This alliance — which eventually might even include some people from Digital Humanities — is a plausible basis for college-level courses in "grammar" as practical text analysis.
Many conventional humanities scholars dismiss digital humanities as "whimsical." The literary theorist Stanley Fish claims that the digital humanities pursue a revolutionary agenda and thereby undermine the conventional standards of "pre-eminence, authority and disciplinary power."That links to a column Fish wrote a couple years ago that began:
This is a blog. There, I’ve said it. I have been resisting saying it — I have always referred to this space as a “column” — not only because “blog” is an ugly word (as are clog, smog and slog), but because blogs are provisional, ephemeral, interactive, communal, available to challenge, interruption and interpolation, and not meant to last; whereas in a professional life now going into its 50th year I have been building arguments that are intended to be decisive, comprehensive, monumental, definitive and, most important, all mine.Hey, remember when every article about blogging had to begin with wheelspinning about the word "blog"? It's ugly, you know? Frankly, Fish's long column doesn't seem bloggy at all, so I question his claim and why he wants to make it.
Funny thing about blogging, it provokes people to insist that they are out or — when the climate changes — in. Myself, I am in, so in that I've lost the knack of being out. For example, I know it's New Year's Eve Eve today, but I can't look back on the year that's ending or ahead to the year that's itching to take over, because I'm always in the day, or really, more accurately, the moment. And the moment for this post is past. Time to swim forth into the cruel, crawling foam of time.