Quantitative literary research has a history stretching back to the early twentieth century and has attracted criticism for almost as long. But most critics of the project have argued, along with Stanley Fish, that numbers are useless because they fail to produce humanistic meaning. By contrast, Nan Z. Da’s “Computational Case against Computational Literary Studies” takes its stand inside the world of numbers in order to argue that mathematical approaches to literature must fail on mathematical grounds (see Nan Z. Da, “Computational Case against Computational Literary Studies,” Critical Inquiry 45 [Spring 2019]: 601–39). Internal critiques can sometimes bridge the gap between hardened positions, and Da deserves credit for trying to produce one. But it appears that critics of computation disagree with practitioners even about math. An online forum shortly after the article’s publication included eight scholars, including several who had escaped Da’s criticism. Of that group, only one (whose work doesn’t emphasize computation) was persuaded by Da’s quantitative argument.

中文翻译：

---

关键反应 II. 理论分歧引发关于计算的争论

定量文学研究的历史可以追溯到 20 世纪初，并且几乎同样长时间受到批评。但该项目的大多数批评者以及斯坦利·菲什都认为，数字毫无用处，因为它们无法产生人文意义。相比之下，南志达的“反对计算文学研究的计算案例”站在数字世界内部，以论证文学的数学方法必须在数学基础上失败（见南志达，“反对计算文学的计算案例”研究，”批判性调查 45 [2019 年春季]：601-39。内部批评有时可以弥合强硬立场之间的差距，而 Da 试图提出这一立场值得称赞。但似乎计算的批评者甚至在数学方面也不同意从业者的意见。这篇文章发表后不久，一个在线论坛就包括了八位学者，其中有几位逃脱了达的批评。在这组人中，只有一个人（他们的工作不强调计算）被达的定量论证说服了。