University of Toronto Correspondence Adam Hammond, University of Toronto. Email: adam.hammond@utoronto.ca Abstract The digital humanities (DH) is currently in the phase of the “hype cycle” known as the “trough of disillusionment.” Franco Moretti, perhaps the most prominent practitioner of the most prominent discipline of DH—“distant reading,” the computational analysis of large quantities of literary texts—recently expressed his exasperation with the state of DH, reflecting “our work could have been better” and asking why, “considering the amount of energy, talent, and tools, going into [DH], that we have such difficulty producing great results.” Surveying leading recent work in distant reading by Moretti, Matthew L. Jockers, Laura Mandell, Ryan Heuser, Long Le‐Khac, and Joanna Swafford, this paper provides a twofold explanation to the field's failure to produce “great results.” Both explanations relate to “validation,” the process by which quantitative results are shown to be reliable and trustworthy. Many distant reading projects have produced disappointing results because they have been more interested in validating their tools—showing that their computational methods are able to confirm existing stereotypes—than in pursuing genuine discoveries. Many others, meanwhile, produce provocative results that cannot be meaningfully validated. Although the double bind of validation is real, I propose collaboration and “interdisciplinary adaptation” as promising solutions.

中文翻译：

---

验证的双重约束：远距离阅读和数字人文科学的“幻灭低谷”

多伦多大学通信多伦多大学亚当·哈蒙德。电子邮件：adam.hammond@utoronto.ca摘要数字人文科学（DH）当前正处于“炒作周期”阶段，即“幻灭低谷”。佛朗哥·莫雷蒂（Franco Moretti），也许是DH最杰出学科的最杰出实践者-“远距离阅读”，是对大量文学文本的计算分析-最近表达了对DH状况的愤怒，反映了“我们的工作本可以做得更好”并问为什么“考虑到[DH]的精力，才能和工具的数量，我们很难产生出色的结果。” 通过对Moretti，Matthew L.Jockers，Laura Mandell，Ryan Heuser，Long Le-Khac和Joanna Swafford的远距离阅读最新研究的调查，本文为该领域提供了双重解释。无法产生“出色的结果”。两种解释都涉及“验证”，即定量结果被证明是可靠和可信赖的过程。许多遥远的阅读项目产生了令人失望的结果，因为与追求真正的发现相比，他们对验证工具更感兴趣（表明其计算方法能够确认现有的刻板印象）。同时，许多其他产品所产生的挑衅性结果也无法得到有效验证。尽管验证的双重约束确实存在，但我还是建议将协作和“跨学科适应”作为有前途的解决方案。许多遥远的阅读项目产生了令人失望的结果，因为与追求真正的发现相比，他们对验证工具更感兴趣（表明其计算方法能够确认现有的刻板印象）。同时，许多其他产品所产生的挑衅性结果也无法得到有效验证。尽管验证的双重约束确实存在，但我还是建议将协作和“跨学科适应”作为有前途的解决方案。许多遥远的阅读项目产生了令人失望的结果，因为与追求真正的发现相比，他们对验证工具更感兴趣（表明其计算方法能够确认现有的刻板印象）。同时，许多其他产品所产生的挑衅性结果也无法得到有效验证。尽管验证的双重约束确实存在，但我还是建议将协作和“跨学科适应”作为有前途的解决方案。