6 research outputs found
HyperHamlet – intricacies of data selection
No full textHyperHamlet is a database of allusions to and quotations from Shakespeare's Hamlet, which is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation as a joint venture between the Departments of English and German Philology, and the Image & Media Lab at the University of Basel. The compilation of a corpus, whose aim is to document the "Shakespeare phenomenon", is intricate on more than one level: the desired transdisciplinary approach between linguistics, literary and cultural studies entails data selection from a vast variety of sources; the pragmatic nature of intertextual traces, i.e. their dependence on and subordination to new contexts, further adds to formal heterogeneity. This is not only a challenge for annotation, but also for data selection. As the recognition of intertextual traces is more often than not based on intuition, this paper analyses the criteria which underlie intuition so that it can be operationalised for scholarly corpus compilation. An analogue to the pragmatic model of ostensive-inferential communication with its three constitutive parts of speaker's meaning, sentence meaning and hearer's meaning has been used for analytical heuristics. Authorial intent - in a concrete as well as in an abstract historical sense - origin and specific encyclopaedic knowledge have been found to be the basic assumptions underlying data selection, while quantitative factors provide supporting evidence
Casual Shakespeare: Three Centuries of Verbal Echoes
No full textCasual Shakespeare is the first full-length study of the thousands of quotations both in and of Shakespeare's works which represent intertextuality outside of what is conventionally appreciated as literary value. Drawing on the insights from a major, ongoing Digital Humanities project, the HyperHamlet database (www.hyperhamlet.unibas.ch) , this study posits a historical continuum of casual quotation which informs Shakespeare's own works as well as their afterlives. This groundbreaking, rigorous analysis offers a new approach and understanding of the uses to which phrases like 'To be or not to be' have been put from the sixteenth century to the Romantic age. The hot post-Shakespeare topics of editing and adaptation fail to address one question in a systematic manner: Where has all the language gone? Small-scale, phrase-size adaptation and repetition of bits of Shakespeare, more or less casual references in novels, book titles, advertisements, parliamentary debates, journalism and everyday conversation represent a kind of reproduction that is far more widespread than even the most popular of adaptations. Casual Shakespeare proposes pay, for the first time, sustained attention to a truly popular aspect of the Shakespeare success story: the way in which his language continues to flourish out of context. The intrinsic qualities of Shakespeare’s plays and his monumental fame certainly had a part in popularizing those bits of language, but “surely greatness alone can not be sufficient” (Balz Engler). Indeed, quotability is a more specific quality than greatness. Quotable phrases can work with or without reference to an original author or context, indeed they are typical not only of proverbial Shakespearean tags but of our use of those proverbs and idioms of which there really is no ‘original version’. Casual Shakespeare discusses these qualities as typical of the way in which Shakespeare worked with language, of the patterns of phrasing, framing and modification that make Shakespeare’s language literally “memory-able”. Many utterances of Shakespearean characters sound like famous sayings because that is what they have become to us, but also because they were famous already to him. So how is a phrase like “a sea of troubles” Shakespeare’s? Why do we remember it as his, although it could be credited to Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides or Erasmus, and was immensely popular in 17 th -century Protestant discourse? The question recalls Sixties’ notions of “intertextualité”, of “text” supplanting “work” and of “The Author” yielding pride of place to “readers”. Such radical concepts have rarely been applied to Shakespeare, but thinking in these lately neglected terms enables us to interrogate the role we assign to Shakespeare as an author, as well as the workings of the mind of the writer behind the author. Claiming that Shakespeare is a genius of quotation requires the courage of stepping away from him. We must look beyond the author and beyond meaning -laden literary reference to his works in order to explore artistically inferior, casual and even unintentional re-productions of his motifs and words
HyperHamlet. Corpus of references to and quotations from Shakespeare’s Hamlet
No full textHyperHamlet is a database of references to Shakespeare's most famous play. Structured as a hypertext of Hamlet, it gives access to thousands of extracts from later texts that quote particular lines. Extracts which mention certain characters or scenes can be searched for these names and motifs.
HyperHamlet could be described as a dictionary-in-progress which does not tell us where phrases come from (as other dictionaries do), but rather where Shakespeare's phrases have gone.
But HyperHamlet is also an edition of Shakespeare's play.
In other words, HyperHamlet offers material to reconstruct the cultural history of the play, of which "the dream of the master text",2 in Stephen Greenblatt's apt phrase, has become part.
References to Hamlet in literature, in the visual arts, in political discourse, and, more recently, in advertising and merchandising can tell us a great deal about the status and the understanding of the play. The database can help to address questions like: How could "to be or not to be" become a favourite phrase of the Nazi elite? What notions shape Lawrence Sterne's use of Yorick in Tristram Shandy, and how has Sterne, in turn, affected our understanding of the play? Are phrases like "something rotten in Denmark" recognized as Hamlet quotations or have they simply become part of the language? Were they indeed idioms before Shakespeare used them, and just became more "successful" by being used in such a successful text?
Intertextual research in literary and cultural studies still tends to be interested in origins and influences. Many later uses which HyperHamlet records go beyond this author-centred focus of source studies, but the findings of source studies represent a substantial part of the databank. HyperHamlet documents thousands of references that have been pointed out in annotated editions or publications in the fields of Shakespeare studies or literary and cultural studies in general.
These quotations are now contextualized with re-used Hamlet phrases that are commented on in linguistic studies and have been spotted by private reading of contributors worldwide or by searches in electronic full text databases. Such verbal echoes have often gone unreported because they are unmarked and may even be used without any awareness of their origin. They illustrate process the synchronous universe of texts described in intertextuality theory.
HyperHamlet is the first project to approach these issues with a data-driven approach.3 Questions like the above can contribute the shift of attention "from the triad constituted by author/work/tradition to another constituted by text/discourse/culture"4 and thus move practical intertextuality studies forward. The model can be re-applied with any other much-quoted text as its basis to document, for example, the afterlife of the Bible, of further Shakespeare plays or of other influential literary works.
In the first reference to the corpus in your paper, please use the full name. After that reference, feel free to use something shorter, like HyperHamlet (for example: "...and as seen in HyperHamlet, there are...")
Nephrectomy in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: A consensus statement of the ERA Genes & Kidney Working Group
No full text\ua9 2025 The Author(s). A substantial number of patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) undergo a nephrectomy, especially in workup for a kidney transplantation. Currently, there is no evidence-based algorithm to guide clinicians about which patients should undergo nephrectomy, the optimal timing of this procedure, or the preferred surgical technique. This systematic review-based consensus statement aimed to answer important questions regarding nephrectomy in ADPKD. A literature review was performed and extended to a meta-analysis when possible. For this purpose, PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to May 2024. Fifty-four publications, describing a total of 2391 procedures, were included. In addition, an exploratory questionnaire was sent to urologists, nephrologists, and transplant surgeons. These sources were used to develop practice points about indications, complications, mortality, and timing and technique of nephrectomy. In addition, data on renal embolization as a potential alternative to nephrectomy were explored and summarized. To reach consensus, practice points were defined and improved in three Delphi survey rounds by experts of the European Renal Association Working Group Genes & Kidney and the European Association of Urology Section of Transplantation Urology. A total of 23 practice points/statements were developed, all of which reached consensus. Among others, it was deemed that nephrectomy can be performed successfully for various indications and is an intermediate risk procedure with acceptable mortality and minimal impact on kidney graft function when performed before, in the same session or after transplantation. The complication rate seems to increase when the procedure is performed as an emergency. During the workup for transplantation, patient complaints should be assessed routinely by questionnaires to indicate symptom burden. Deciding on the need for nephrectomy and exploring potential alternatives such as kidney embolization should be a process of shared decision-making, preferably after multidisciplinary consultation
RIvaroxaban and VAscular Surgery (RIVAS): insights from a multicenter, worldwide web-based survey
No full textno abstract availabl
Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial
No full textBackground: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics
