i need help please
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
i need help please
hello mates,
i really need your help: i want to know the difference between TEXTUAL COMMENTARY AND TEXTUAL ANALYSIS.
thanks
i really need your help: i want to know the difference between TEXTUAL COMMENTARY AND TEXTUAL ANALYSIS.
thanks
bilinda- Number of posts : 250
Age : 35
Location : neverland
Registration date : 2009-11-03
Re: i need help please
Hi Bilinda. Your question is a bit hard, not because there is no answer for it or that there is no difference between the two. Only because people tend to see them as being the same thing.
When some mates ask me to read their papers on literature, I often tell them "but this is not criticism." All what they were writing was a commentary. One think to keep in mind: Criticism = textual analysis
When we were taught criticism, we were often told to be analytical.
Analysis is part of literary criticism. We analyse a passage, or more (passages), or the text as a whole. We analyse the structure of the text, the adopted literary style. A literary text is composed of passages (parts), right? These passages are the constituent elements of the text, right? In the same way, style, meaning (themes), all sorts of devices used, are the constituent elements of the literary text that are to be analysed. (How does form affect meaning is also part of what we stydy in an analysis, a textual analysis as it is.
As for the commentary, the reason why you'll find everywhere that people think it's the same it's because they do study and include (if not mixing up) certain features of textual analysis within their commentary believing that what they are doing is criticism or that textual analysis is the same as a commentary.
I can't really say that a commentary will be giving your own appreciation on a text or your point of view concerning why the author did this or said this or adopted this style. A commentary does not deeply study ('analyse') a text as criticism (or textual analysis ) does; simply because it doesn't have the 'sharp' tools we use in criticism or analysis. I will just say that a commentary is giving your interpretation, or explanation (I prefer the latter) on a text. Giving a commentary may of course deal with the themes, context and the meaning of the text (but this does not require dealing with further or deeper stylistic or analytic elements of the text).
When I ask you to give me a textual commentary, all I expect from you is to show me how well you have understood the text.
What we are concerned in textual analysis is the HOW (how does the author succeed to achieve this or that) And this is why criticism is harder than giving a comment.
Maybe the only difficult thing in textual commentary is to pick up the elements and features of the text which have something to say.
Sorry if my explanation is too long
P.S.: There is a technique in criticism called close reading (which was introduced by I.A. Richards). This technique is often considered as synonym of literary commentary (This is partly true. In close reading we read passages and comment them in order to find an interpretation or an explanation for the text. So you see, it's all about meaning. Once again a comment serves showing that you've understood the text's general meaning. )
When some mates ask me to read their papers on literature, I often tell them "but this is not criticism." All what they were writing was a commentary. One think to keep in mind: Criticism = textual analysis
When we were taught criticism, we were often told to be analytical.
Analysis is part of literary criticism. We analyse a passage, or more (passages), or the text as a whole. We analyse the structure of the text, the adopted literary style. A literary text is composed of passages (parts), right? These passages are the constituent elements of the text, right? In the same way, style, meaning (themes), all sorts of devices used, are the constituent elements of the literary text that are to be analysed. (How does form affect meaning is also part of what we stydy in an analysis, a textual analysis as it is.
As for the commentary, the reason why you'll find everywhere that people think it's the same it's because they do study and include (if not mixing up) certain features of textual analysis within their commentary believing that what they are doing is criticism or that textual analysis is the same as a commentary.
I can't really say that a commentary will be giving your own appreciation on a text or your point of view concerning why the author did this or said this or adopted this style. A commentary does not deeply study ('analyse') a text as criticism (or textual analysis ) does; simply because it doesn't have the 'sharp' tools we use in criticism or analysis. I will just say that a commentary is giving your interpretation, or explanation (I prefer the latter) on a text. Giving a commentary may of course deal with the themes, context and the meaning of the text (but this does not require dealing with further or deeper stylistic or analytic elements of the text).
When I ask you to give me a textual commentary, all I expect from you is to show me how well you have understood the text.
What we are concerned in textual analysis is the HOW (how does the author succeed to achieve this or that) And this is why criticism is harder than giving a comment.
Maybe the only difficult thing in textual commentary is to pick up the elements and features of the text which have something to say.
Sorry if my explanation is too long
P.S.: There is a technique in criticism called close reading (which was introduced by I.A. Richards). This technique is often considered as synonym of literary commentary (This is partly true. In close reading we read passages and comment them in order to find an interpretation or an explanation for the text. So you see, it's all about meaning. Once again a comment serves showing that you've understood the text's general meaning. )
sassy86- Number of posts : 1227
Age : 37
Location : Where I truly belong
Registration date : 2011-09-03
Re: i need help please
Thanks a lot sassy for your help. I appreciate it. The problem is that i need to know the difference between analysing and commenting historical texts in british civilization. If it were literature it would be something easy especially with the close textual reading that is central to new criticism. thanks again for your help and precious time. May Allah reward you.
bilinda- Number of posts : 250
Age : 35
Location : neverland
Registration date : 2009-11-03
Re: i need help please
Hi again. You're welcome. Wish I could do more but...
As for civilization, this is all I could find concerning textual commentary (it explains all the steps ...etc)
http://seacoast.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/fre320/commentary.htm
http://seacoast.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/occupied/tca2001.htm
Salam
As for civilization, this is all I could find concerning textual commentary (it explains all the steps ...etc)
http://seacoast.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/fre320/commentary.htm
http://seacoast.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/occupied/tca2001.htm
Salam
sassy86- Number of posts : 1227
Age : 37
Location : Where I truly belong
Registration date : 2011-09-03
Re: i need help please
Hi again Bilinda While I was arraging my papers I found this and I think it's just what you needed. It was Mr Rich who gave it to us and he's very good at selecting good documents of methodology
sassy86- Number of posts : 1227
Age : 37
Location : Where I truly belong
Registration date : 2011-09-03
Re: i need help please
sassy thanks a lot. only GOD can reward you. thanks again
bilinda- Number of posts : 250
Age : 35
Location : neverland
Registration date : 2009-11-03
Re: i need help please
May Allah protect you dear. Good luck (Do you need a thesis proposal in civilization?? I have got a sample with me and it's a very good one, a teacher from Tizi-Ouzou gave it to me. If you need it I'll scan it for you.
sassy86- Number of posts : 1227
Age : 37
Location : Where I truly belong
Registration date : 2011-09-03
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|