P5: TEIガイドライン

11.3.1 Core elements for Transcriptional WorkTEI: Core elements for Transcriptional Work¶

The following sections describe how the core elements just named may be used in the transcription of primary source materials.

11.3.2 Abbreviation and ExpansionTEI: Abbreviation and Expansion¶

The writing of manuscripts by hand lends itself to the use of abbreviation to shorten scribal labour. Commonly occurring letters, groups of letters, words, or even whole phrases, may be represented by significant marks. This phenomenon of manuscript abbreviation is so widespread and so various that no taxonomy of it is here attempted. Instead, methods are shown which allow abbreviations to be encoded using the core elements mentioned above.

A manuscript abbreviation may be viewed in two ways. One may transcribe it as a particular sequence of letters or marks upon the page: thus, a ‘p with a bar through the descender’, a ‘superscript hook’, a ‘macron’. One may also interpret the abbreviation in terms of the letter or letters it is seen as standing for: thus, ‘per’, ‘re’, ‘n’. Both of these views are supported by these Guidelines.

In many cases the glyph found in the manuscript source also exists in the Unicode character set: for example the common Latin brevigraph ⁊, standing for et and often known as the ‘Tironian et’ can be directly represented in any XML document as the Unicode character with code point U+204A (see further Character References and vi.1. Language identification). In cases where it does not, these Guidelines recommend use of the g element provided by the gaiji module described in chapter 5 Representation of Non-standard Characters and Glyphs. This module allows the encoder great flexibility both in processing and in documenting non-standard characters or glyphs, including the ability to provide detailed documentation and images for them.

As implied in the preceding discussion, making decisions about which of these various methods of representing abbreviation to use will form an important part of an encoder's practice. As a rule, the abbr and am elements should be preferred where it is wished to signify that the content of the element is an abbreviation, without necessarily indicating what the abbreviation may stand for. The ex and expan elements should be used where it is wished to signify that the content of the element is not present in the source but has been supplied by the transcriber, without necessarily indicating the abbreviation used in the original. The decision as to which course of action is appropriate may vary from abbreviation to abbreviation; there is no requirement that the one system be used throughout a transcription, although doing so will generally simplify processing. The choice is likely to be a matter of editorial policy. If the highest priority is to transcribe the text literatim, while indicating the presence of abbreviations, the choice will be to use abbr or am throughout. If the highest priority is to present a reading transcription, while indicating that some letters or words are not actually present in the original, the choice will be to use ex or expan throughout.

If more than one expansion for the same abbreviation is to be recorded, multiple notes may be supplied. It may also be appropriate to use the markup for critical apparatus; an example is given in section 12.3 Using Apparatus Elements in Transcriptions.

11.3.3 Correction and ConjectureTEI: Correction and Conjecture¶

Note that the corr element is used to provide a corrected form which is not present in the source; in the case of a correction made in the source itself, whether scribal, authorial, or by some other hand, the add, del, and subst elements described in 11.3.4 Additions and Deletions should be used.

As with expan and abbr, the choice as to whether to record simply that there is an apparent error, or simply that a correction has been applied, or to record both possible readings within a choice element is left to the encoder. The decision is likely to be a matter of editorial policy, which might be applied consistently throughout or decided case by case. If the highest priority is to present an uncorrected transcription while noting perceived errors in the original, the choice will typically be to use only sic throughout. If the highest priority is to present a reading transcription, while indicating that perceived errors in the original have been corrected, the choice will be to use only corr throughout.

Further information may be attached to instances of these elements by the note element and resp and cert attributes. Instances of these elements may also be classified according to any convenient typology using the type attribute.

For a given project, it may well be desirable to limit the possible values for the type or subtype attributes automatically. This is easily done but requires customization of the TEI system using techniques described in 23.2 Personalization and Customization, in particular 23.2.1.4 Modification of Attribute and Attribute Value Lists, which should be consulted for further information on this topic.

Like the resp attribute, the cert attribute may be used with both corr and rdg elements. When used on the rdg element, these attributes indicate confidence in and responsibility for identifying the reading within the sources specified; when used on the corr element they indicate confidence in and responsibility for the use of the reading to correct the base text. If no other source is indicated (either by the source attribute, or by the wit attribute of a parent rdg), the reading supplied within a corr has been provided by the person indicated by the resp attribute.

If it is desired to express aspects of certainty and responsibility for some other aspect of the use of these elements, then the mechanisms discussed in chapter 21 Certainty, Precision, and Responsibility may be found useful. See also 11.4.2 Hand, Responsibility, and Certainty Attributes for further discussion of the issues of certainty and responsibility in the context of transcription.

11.3.4 Additions and DeletionsTEI: Additions and Deletions¶

If deletions are classified systematically, the type attribute may be useful to indicate the classification; when they are classified by the manner in which they were effected, or by their appearance, however, this will lead to a certain arbitrariness in deciding whether to use the type or the rend attribute to hold the information. In general, it is recommended that the rend attribute be used for description of the appearance or method of deletion, and that the type attribute be reserved for higher level or more abstract classifications.

The place attribute is also available to indicate the location of an addition. For example, consider the following passage from a draft letter by Robert Graves:

At the end of this extract, the writer inserts the word ‘cant,’ above the line, with a stroke to indicate insertion. Assuming that we have previously defined the identifier RG somewhere:

<listPerson>
 <person xml:id="RG">
<!-- information about Robert Graves here -->
 </person>
</listPerson>

, this extract might now be encoded as follows:

The O.E.D. is not a dictionary so much as a corpus of
precedents <del hand="#RG">in the</del>: current,
obsolete, <add hand="#RG" place="above">cant,</add>
cataphretic and nonce-words are all included.

bibliography

A little earlier in the same extract, Graves writes ‘for an abridgement’ above the line, and then deletes it. This may be encoded similarly:

As for 'significant artist.' You quote the O.E.D <add hand="#RG" place="above">
 <del>for an abridgement</del>
</add>in
explanation...

bibliography

Similarly, in the margin, the word ‘Norton’ has been added and then deleted:

You quote the <add hand="#RG" place="margin">
 <del>Norton</del>
</add>
O.E.D...

bibliography

The word ‘O.E.D.’ in this first sentence has also clearly been the result of some redrafting: it may be that Graves started to write ‘Oxford’, and then changed it; it may be that he inserted other punctuation marks between the letters before replacing them with the centre dots used elsewhere to represent this acronym. We do not deal with these possibilities here, and mention them only to indicate that any encoding of manuscript material of this complexity will need to make decisions about what is and is not worth mentioning.

The add and del elements defined in the core module suffice only for the description of additions and deletions which fit within the structure of the text being transcribed, that is, which each deletion or addition is completely contained by the structural element (paragraph, line, division) within which it occurs. Where this is not the case, for example because an individual addition or deletion involves several distinct structural subdivisions, such as poems or prose items, or otherwise crosses a structural boundary in the text being encoded, special treatment is needed. The addSpan and delSpan elements are provided by this module for that purpose. (For a general discussion of the issue see further 20 Non-hierarchical Structures).

The text deleted must be at least partially legible, in order for the encoder to be able to transcribe it. If all of part of it is not legible, the gap element should be used to indicate where text has not not transcribed, because it could not be. The unclear element described in section 11.5.1 Damage, Illegibility, and Supplied Text may be used to indicate areas of text which cannot be read with confidence. See further section 11.3.7 Text Omitted from or Supplied in the Transcription and section 11.5.1 Damage, Illegibility, and Supplied Text.

11.3.5 SubstitutionsTEI: Substitutions¶

Substitution of one word or phrase for another is perhaps the most common of all phenomena requiring special treatment in transcription of primary textual sources. It may be simply one word overwriting another, or deletion of one word and its replacement by another written above it by the same hand at the one time; the deletion and replacement may be done by different hands at different times; there may be a long chain of substitutions on the one stretch of text, with uncertainty as to the order of substitution and as to which of many possible readings should be preferred.

As a more complex example, consider the following passage in one of the manuscripts of Wilfred Owen's Dulce et decorum est:

This passage might be encoded as follows:

<l>And towards our distant rest began to trudge,</l>
<l>
 <subst>
  <del>Helping the worst amongst us</del>
  <add>Dragging the
     worst amongt us</add>
 </subst>, who'd no boots
</l>
<l>But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame;
<subst>
  <del status="shortEnd">half-</del>
  <add>all</add>
 </subst> blind;</l>
<l>Drunk with fatigue ; deaf even to the hoots</l>
<l>Of tired, outstripped <del>fif</del> five-nines that dropped behind.</l>

bibliography

In this representation,

• the false start fif in the last line is simply marked as a deletion;
• the other two authorial corrections are marked as substitutions, each combining a deletion and an addition.
• the authorial slip (amongt for amongst) is retained without comment.

11.3.6 Cancellation of Deletions and Other MarkingsTEI: Cancellation of Deletions and Other Markings¶

This element bears the same attributes as the other transcriptional elements. These may be used to supply further information such as the hand in which the restoration is carried out, the type of restoration, and the person responsible for identifying the restoration as such, in the same way as elsewhere.

Another feature commonly encountered in manuscripts is the use of circles, lines, or arrows to indicate transposition of material from one point in the text to another. No specific markup for this phenomenon is proposed at this time. Such cases are most simply encoded as additions at the point of insertion and deletions at the point of encirclement or other marking.

11.3.7 Text Omitted from or Supplied in the TranscriptionTEI: Text Omitted from or Supplied in the Transcription¶

As noted above, the gap element should only be used where text has not been transcribed. If partially legible text has been transcribed, one of the elements damage and unclear should be used instead (these elements are described in section 11.5.1 Damage, Illegibility, and Supplied Text); if the text is legible and has been transcribed, but the editor wishes to indicate that they regard it is superfluous or redundant, then the element surplus may be used in preference to the core element sic used to indicate text regarded as erroneous.

11.4.1 Document HandsTEI: Document Hands¶

For many text-critical purposes it is important to signal the person responsible (the hand) for the writing of a whole document, a stretch of text within a document, or a particular feature within the document. A hand, as the name suggests, need not necessarily be identified with a particular known (or unknown) scribe or author; it may simply indicate a particular combination of writing features recognized within one or more documents. The examples given above of the use of the hand attribute with coding of additions and deletions illustrate this.

A handNote element, with an identifier given by its xml:id attribute, may appear in either of two places in the TEI Header, depending on which modules are included in a schema. When the transcr module defined by the present chapter is used, the element handNotes is available, within the profileDesc element of the Header, to hold one or more handNote elements. When the msdescription module defined in chapter 10 Manuscript Description is included, the handDesc element described in 10.7.2 Writing, Decoration, and Other Notations also becomes available as part of a structured manuscript description. The encoder may choose to place handNote elements identifying individual hands in either location without affecting their accessibility since the element is always addressed by means of its xml:id attribute. The handDesc element may be more appropriate when a full cataloguing of each manuscript is required; the handNotes element if only a brief characterization of each hand is needed. It is also possible to use the two elements together if, for example, the handDesc element contains a single summary describing all the hands discursively, while the handNotes element gives specific details of each. The choice will depend on individual encoders' priorities.

A single hand may employ different writing styles and inks within a document, or may change character. For example, the writing style might shift from ‘anglicana’ to ‘secretary’, or the ink from blue to brown, or the character of the hand may change. Simple changes of this kind may be indicated by assigning a new value to the appropriate attribute within the handShift element. It is for the encoder to decide whether a change in these properties of the writing style is so marked as to require treatment as a distinct hand.

Where such a change is to be identified, the new attribute is used to indicate the hand applicable to the material following the handShift. This will ordinarily, but not necessarily, be the order in which the material was originally written.

As might be expected, one hand may employ different renditions within the one writing style, for example medieval scribes often indicate a structural division by emboldening all the words within a line. These should be indicated by use of the rend attribute on an element, in the same manner as underlining, emboldening, font shifts, etc. are represented in transcription of a printed text, rather than by introducing a new handShift element.

When a more precise or nuanced discussion of the writing in a manuscript is required, the handNote and scriptNote elements discussed in 10.7.2 Writing, Decoration, and Other Notations should be used. Either element may serve as the target for a handShift.

11.4.2 Hand, Responsibility, and Certainty AttributesTEI: Hand, Responsibility, and Certainty Attributes¶

The resp attribute, by contrast, indicate the person responsible for deciding to apply the element carrying it to this part of the text, and hence has a slightly different interpretation. In the case of the add element, for example, the resp attribute will indicate the responsibility for identifying that the addition is indeed an addition, and also (if the hand attribute is supplied) to which hand it should be attributed. In this case, Bowers is credited with identifying the hand as that of William James. In the case of the corr element, the resp attribute indicates who is responsible for supplying the intellectual content of the correction reported in the transcription: here, Bowers' correction of ‘One’ to ‘one’. In the case of a deletion, the resp attribute will similarly indicate who bears responsibility for identifying or categorising the deletion itself, while other attributes (hand most obviously) attribute responsibility for the deletion itself.

In cases where both the resp and cert attributes are defined for a particular element, the two attributes refer to the same aspect of the markup. The one indicates who is intellectually responsible for some item of information, the other indicates the degree of confidence in the information. Thus, for a correction, the resp attribute signifies the person responsible for supplying the correction, while the cert attribute signifies the degree of editorial confidence felt in that correction. For the expansion of an abbreviation, the resp attribute signifies the person responsible for supplying the expansion and the cert attribute signifies the degree of editorial confidence felt in the expansion.

This close definition of the use of the resp and cert attributes with each element is intended to provide for the most frequent circumstances in which encoders might wish to make unambiguous statements regarding the responsibility for and certainty of aspects of their encoding. The resp and cert attributes, as so defined, give a convenient mechanism for this. However, there will be cases where it is desired to state responsibility for and certainty concerning other aspects of the encoding. For example, one may wish in the case of an apparent addition to state the responsibility for the use of the add element, rather than the responsibility for identifying the hand of the addition. It may also be that one editor may make an electronic transcription of another editor's printed transcription of a manuscript text — here, one will wish to assign layers of responsibility, so as to allow the reader to determine exactly what in the final transcription was the responsibility of each editor. In these complex cases of divided editorial responsibility for and certainty concerning the content, attributes, and application of a particular element, the more general mechanisms for representing certainty and responsibility described in chapter 21 Certainty, Precision, and Responsibility should be used.

The above discussion supposes that in each case an encoder is able to specify exactly what it is that one wishes to state responsibility for and certainty about. Situations may arise when an encoder wishes to make a statement concerning certainty or responsibility but is unable or unwilling to specify so precisely the domain of the certainty or responsibility. In these cases, the note element may be used with the type attribute set to ‘cert’ or ‘resp’ and the content of the note giving a prose description of the state of affairs.