Developing Quantitative Methodologies for the Digital Humanities: A Case Study of 20th Century American Commentary on Russian Literature

Using scientific methods in the humanities is at the forefront of objective literary analysis. However, processing big data is particularly complex when the subject matter is qualitative rather than numerical. Large volumes of text require specialized tools to produce quantifiable data from ideas and sentiments. Our team researched the extent to which tools such as Weka and MALLET can test hypotheses about qualitative information. We examined the claim that literary commentary exists within political environments and used US periodical articles concerning Russian literature in the early twentieth century as a case study. These tools generated useful quantitative data that allowed us to run stepwise binary logistic regressions. These statistical tests allowed for time series experiments using sea change and emergency models of history, as well as classification experiments with regard to author characteristics, social issues, and sentiment expressed. Both types of experiments supported our claim with varying degrees, but more importantly served as a definitive demonstration that digitally enhanced quantitative forms of analysis can apply to qualitative data. Our findings set the foundation for further experiments in the emerging field of digital humanities.

REVOLUTIONARY VIOLIN LITERATURE IN THE TRANSFORMATIVE PERIOD OF THE 20TH CENTURY, 1900-1970

In satisfaction of requirements for a Doctor of Musical Arts degree at the University of Maryland, College Park, three recitals were given consisting of works of the early 21st Century European composers. The works performed on these recitals showcase a variety of compositional styles that explore different qualities of the violin. The purpose of this project was to demonstrate how the war and conflict in Europe and attendant radical cultural and social developments affected these composers. The first recital program includes: Sonata for Violin and Cello and Piece en Forme de Habanera by Maurice Ravel; Op. 30 Mythesfor Violin and Piano by Karol Szymanowski; Concertina for Violin and Piano and Sonata No.2 for Violin Solo by Grazyna Bacewicz. The second recital program consists of: Sonata for Violin and Piano by Leos Janacek; Quartet for the End of Time: movement VIII "Louange a l'Immortalite de Jesus" by Oliver Messiaen; Sonata for Solo Violin by Erwin Schulhoff; and Passacaglia & Fuga for String Trio by Hans Krasa. The third recital highlights the works of Russian composers: Sonata for Violin and Piano Op.134 by Dmitri Shostakovich; and Violin Sonata No.2 in D major Op. 94 by Sergei Prokofiev. These composers represent individual, distinct and fascinating adaptation to events beyond their control as well as their power of transformation. The first recital was performed in collaboration with Hsiang-Ling Hsiao on piano and Gozde Yasar on cello. The second recital was given with Hsiang-Ling Hsiao on piano, Gozde Yasar on cello, and Asli Gultekin Ozek on viola. The third recital was performed with David Ballena on piano. The recitals were recorded on compact discs and are archived within the Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (DRUM).

Reconciling History and International Law: Territorial and Maritime Claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea

High-ranking Chinese military officials are often quoted in international media as stating that China cannot afford to lose even an inch of Chinese territory, as this territory has been passed down from Chinese ancestors. Such statements are not new in Chinese politics, but recently this narrative has made an important transition. While previously limited to disputes over land borders, such rhetoric is now routinely applied to disputes involving islands and maritime borders. China is increasingly oriented toward its maritime borders and seems unwilling to compromise on delimitation disputes, a transition mirrored by many states across the globe. In a similar vein, scholarship has found that territorial disputes are particularly intractable and volatile when compared with other types of disputes, and a large body of research has grappled with producing systematic knowledge of territorial conflict. Yet in this wide body of literature, an important question has remained largely unanswered - how do states determine which geographical areas will be included in their territorial and maritime claims? In other words, if nations are willing to fight and die for an inch of national territory, how do governments draw the boundaries of the nation? This dissertation uses in-depth case studies of some of the most prominent territorial and maritime disputes in East Asia to argue that domestic political processes play a dominant and previously under-explored role in both shaping claims and determining the nature of territorial and maritime disputes. China and Taiwan are particularly well suited for this type of investigation, as they are separate claimants in multiple disputes, yet they both draw upon the same historical record when establishing and justifying their claims. Leveraging fieldwork in Taiwan, China, and the US, this dissertation includes in-depth case studies of China’s and Taiwan’s respective claims in both the South China Sea and East China Sea disputes. Evidence from this dissertation indicates that officials in both China and Taiwan have struggled with how to reconcile history and international law when establishing their claims, and that this struggle has introduced ambiguity into China's and Taiwan's claims. Amid this process, domestic political dynamics have played a dominant role in shaping the options available and the potential for claims to change in the future. In Taiwan’s democratic system, where national identity is highly contested through party politics, opinions vary along a broad spectrum as to the proper borders of the nation, and there is considerable evidence that Taiwan’s claims may change in the near future. In contrast, within China’s single-party authoritarian political system, where nationalism is source of regime legitimacy, views on the proper interpretation of China’s boundaries do vary, but along a much more narrow range. In the dissertation’s final chapter, additional cases, such as South Korea’s position on Dokdo and Indonesia’s approach to the defense of Natuna are used as points of comparison to further clarify theoretical findings.