Reading Geoffrey Rockwell’s research notes often makes me want to poke some more around TAPoR. Today, I found there a wonderfully elegant definition of text – “any record of human communication that can be digitally represented.” Certainly not a definition that would have been possible even a decade ago; but now that we Have The Technology, it is exactly appropriate. Nicely done.
3 Replies to “definition of “text””
Comments are closed.
So … er … a digitally-stored video clip of two people giving each other subtle signals through facial expression could be called “text?” That’s really broad.
Not that I’m disagreeing — that example would at least be referred to as ‘subtext.’ =) It’s just that I don’t understand how such a form of text could be parsed, even with extremely powerful equipment.
I think it’s text, yes. It involves a language — symbols/signals that are understood as carrying semantic meaning.
Yeah, it’s broad! Human communication takes on many forms, eh? Note also that the definition does not stipulate that text has to be digitally represented.
My instinct is that what’s imporant about Geoff’s definition is the sense of digital as discrete, not (necessarily) digital as computer.