2019
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1911.05652
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relative contributions of Shakespeare and Fletcher in Henry VIII: An Analysis Based on Most Frequent Words and Most Frequent Rhythmic Patterns

Petr Plecháč

Abstract: The versified play Henry VIII is nowadays widely recognized to be a collaborative work not written solely by William Shakespeare. We employ combined analysis of vocabulary and versification together with machine learning techniques to determine which authors also took part in the writing of the play and what were their relative contributions. Unlike most previous studies, we go beyond the attribution of particular scenes and use the rolling attribution approach to determine the probabilities of authorship of p… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, for projects that work with larger text corpora, close reading and extensive manual annotation are neither practical nor affordable. While the speech processing community explores end-toend methods to detect and control the overall personal and emotional aspects of speech, including fine-grained features like pitch, tone, speech rate, cadence, and accent (Valle et al, 2020), applied linguists and digital humanists still rely on rulebased tools (Plecháč, 2020;Anttila, 2016;Kraxenberger and Menninghaus, 2016), some with limited generality (Navarro-Colorado, 2018;Navarro et al, 2016), or without proper evaluation (Bobenhausen, 2011). Other approaches to computational prosody are based on words in prose rather than syllables in poetry (Talman et al, 2019;Nenkova et al, 2007), rely on lexical resources with stress annotation such as the CMU dictionary, (Hopkins and Kiela, 2017;Ghazvininejad et al, 2016), are in need of an aligned audio signal (Rosenberg, 2010;Rösiger and Riester, 2015), or model only narrow domains such as iambic pentameter (Greene et al, 2010;Hopkins and Kiela, 2017;Lau et al, 2018) or Middle High German (Estes and Hench, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, for projects that work with larger text corpora, close reading and extensive manual annotation are neither practical nor affordable. While the speech processing community explores end-toend methods to detect and control the overall personal and emotional aspects of speech, including fine-grained features like pitch, tone, speech rate, cadence, and accent (Valle et al, 2020), applied linguists and digital humanists still rely on rulebased tools (Plecháč, 2020;Anttila, 2016;Kraxenberger and Menninghaus, 2016), some with limited generality (Navarro-Colorado, 2018;Navarro et al, 2016), or without proper evaluation (Bobenhausen, 2011). Other approaches to computational prosody are based on words in prose rather than syllables in poetry (Talman et al, 2019;Nenkova et al, 2007), rely on lexical resources with stress annotation such as the CMU dictionary, (Hopkins and Kiela, 2017;Ghazvininejad et al, 2016), are in need of an aligned audio signal (Rosenberg, 2010;Rösiger and Riester, 2015), or model only narrow domains such as iambic pentameter (Greene et al, 2010;Hopkins and Kiela, 2017;Lau et al, 2018) or Middle High German (Estes and Hench, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%