Computational Hermeneutics: Machine Reading and the Epistemology of Literary Interpretation
Main Article Content
Abstract
This review evaluates the article "Computational Hermeneutics: Machine Reading and the Epistemology of Literary Interpretation," situating it within the emerging interdisciplinary discourse on artificial intelligence and literary studies. The article advances a theoretically ambitious thesis: that machine reading constitutes not a positivist or anti-hermeneutic practice but a distinctive form of interpretation that both challenges and enriches traditional humanistic hermeneutics. The software code, and even quantified models, has, the article develops three interlocking arguments: that the hermeneutic-positivistic divide in digital humanities is a false dichotomy; that machine reading operates through "interpretive lenses" that shape interpretive attention; and that machine-generated interpretations require renewed engagement with the hermeneutic concepts of situatedness, plurality, and ambiguity. The article's most significant contributions are its rigorous articulation of the epistemological stakes of computational hermeneutics and its nuanced treatment of the "simulated hermeneutic." However, three limitations constrain its impact: an uneven empirical foundation, particularly in its comparative study of human and machine readings; a limited engagement with non-Western and multilingual contexts; and an underdeveloped treatment of power, ideology, and material conditions. The review identifies Habermas's emancipatory interest of hermeneutics of suspicion, and political economy of AI as theoretical resources capable of addressing these gaps. The article ultimately stands as both an important intervention and an invitation to develop an emancipatory computational hermeneutics that integrates critical theory with computational practice.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.Penulis.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (Refer to The Effect of Open Access).
References
Barta, W. (2024). Black boxes and knowledge: The epistemological dilemma of computational humanities. International Review of Information Ethics, 34(1), 1–12.
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
Dole, A. (2020). Reframing the masters of suspicion: Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 88(2), 615–618. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfz096
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Harvard University Press.
Jockers, M. L. (2013). Macroanalysis: Digital methods and literary history. University of Illinois Press.
Kestemont, M. (2012). Le Moriaen et l’attribution de textes: Un problème de style? Queeste: Tijdschrift over Middeleeuwse Letterkunde in de Nederlanden, 19(2), 120–142.
Kirschenbaum, M. (2014). What is "digital humanities," and why are they saying such terrible things about it? differences, 25(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-2399125
Kommers, C., Ahnert, R., Antoniak, M., Benetos, E., Benford, S., Bunz, M., Caramiaux, B., Concannon, S., & others. (2025). Generative AI as a cultural technology: A hermeneutic framework for evaluation. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8, 1753041. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1753041
Kwok, J. (2026). Retrieving context, re-centring interpretation: AI hermeneutics and the democratisation of reading [Webinar recording]. DARIAH-Campus. https://hdl.handle.net/21.11159/019bbda8-86a1-738e-9e8a-7d7a15b159fb
Kwok, J. (2026). Retrieving context, re-centring interpretation: AI hermeneutics and the democratisation of reading. DARIAH-Campus Webinar Recording. https://hdl.handle.net/21.11159/019bbda8-86a1-738e-9e8a-7d7a15b159fb
Lévy, P. (2024). Towards a pragmatic approach to computational hermeneutics. Revue Intelligibilité du Numérique, 6. https://hal.science/hal-04927577
Mallery, J. C., Hurwitz, R., & Duffy, G. (1986). Hermeneutics: From textual explication to computer understanding? Proceedings of the 1986 AAAI Workshop on Knowledge Representation.
Mohr, J. W., Wagner, R., & Breiger, R. (2026). Computational hermeneutics: Evaluating generative AI as a cultural technology. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 9, Article 1753041. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2026.1753041
Moretti, F. (2007). Graphs, maps, trees: Abstract models for a literary history. Verso.
Nie, Z. (2025). AI reading and computational analytical criticism of literature. Foreign Literature Studies, 47(5), 22–32.
Nie, Z. (2025). AI reading and computational analytical criticism of literature. Foreign Literature Studies, 47(5), 22–32.
Packer, M. (2010). Emancipatory inquiry as rational reconstruction. In The science of qualitative research (pp. 235–256). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779947.013
Phillips, D. Z. (2009). Hermeneutics and the philosophical future of religious studies. In Religion and the hermeneutics of contemplation (pp. 1–24). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511659348.002
Ramsay, S. (2011). Reading machines: Toward an algorithmic criticism. University of Illinois Press.
Ramsay, S. (2011). Reading machines: Toward an algorithmic criticism. University of Illinois Press.
Ridge, M. (2024, October). Hold steady: Centering the human in the hype of AI [Conference presentation]. Digikult 2024, Göteborg, Sweden. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13880550
Ringler, H. (2022). "We can't read it all": Theorizing a hermeneutics for large-scale data in the humanities with a case study in stylometry. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 37(4), 1157–1172. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqab100
Schmidt, L. K. (2025). Gadamer's ontological turn towards language. In Understanding hermeneutics (pp. 1–15). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617829.007
Scott-Baumann, A. (2011). Ricoeur and the hermeneutics of suspicion. Continuum.
Synthetic hermeneutics: A protocol for reading literature in the age of generative AI. (2026). International Journal of English Language, Literature and Translation Studies, 13(1), 1–15.
Van Dalen-Oskam, K. (2011). Stylometry and the Dutch Arthurian tradition: On the authorship of Moriaen. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 5(2).
Van Dalen-Oskam, K., & Van Zundert, J. (2007). Authorship attribution and stylometry in the Dutch language area. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 22(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqm018
Van Zundert, J. (2014). Screwmeneutics and hermenumericals: The computationality of hermeneutics. Paper presented at the Digital Humanities Conference.
Van Zundert, J. J. (2016). Screwmeneutics and hermenumericals: The computationality of hermeneutics. In S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, & J. Unsworth (Eds.), A new companion to digital humanities (pp. 331–347). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118680605.ch23
Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905285847