[Update (9/3/13 8:15 CST): Contributors list now active at the main Text Analysis with R for Students of Literature Resource Page]

Below this post you will find a link where you can download a draft of Text Analysis with R for Students of Literature. The book is under review with Springer as part of a new series titled “Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences.”

Springer agreed to let me post the draft manuscript here (thank you, Springer), and my hope is that you will download the manuscript, take it for a test drive, and then send me your thoughts. I’m especially interested to hear about areas of confusion, places where you get lost, or where you feel your students might get lost. I’m also interested in hearing about the errors (hopefully not too many), and, naturally, I’ll be delighted to hear about anything you like.

I’m open to suggestions for new sections, but before you suggest that I include another chapter on “your favorite topic,” please read the Preface where I lay out the scope of the book. It’s a beginner’s book, and helping “literary folk” get started with R is my primary goal. This is not the place to get into debates or details about hyper parameter optimization or the relative merits of p-values.*

Please also read the Acknowledgements. It is there that I hint at the spirit and intent behind the book and behind this call for feedback. I did not learn R without help, and there is still a lot about R that I have to learn. I want to acknowledge both of these facts directly and specifically. Those who offer feedback will be added to a list of contributors to be included in the print and online editions of the final text. Feedback of a substantial nature will be acknowledged directly and specifically.

Book is now in production and draft has been removed.That’s it. Download Text Analysis with R for Students of Literature (1.3MB .pdf)

* Besides, that ground has been well-covered by Scott Weingart

The recently (yesterday) published issue of JDH is all about topic modeling. It’s a great issue, and it got me thinking about some of the lessons I have learned over seven or eight years of modeling literary corpora. One of the important things I have learned is that the quality of the final model (which is to say the coherence and usefulness of the topics) is largely dependent upon preprocessing. I know, I know: “that’s not much fun.”

Fun or no, it is the reality, and there’s no getting around it. One of the first things you discover when you begin modeling literary materials is that books have a lot of characters. And here I don’t mean the letters “A, B, C,” but actual literary characters as in “Ahab, Beowulf, and Copperfield.” These characters can cause no end of headaches in topic modeling. Let me explain. . .

As I write this blog post, I am running a smallish topic modeling job over a corpus of 50 novels that I have selected for use in a topic modeling workshop I am teaching next week in Milwaukee. Without any preprocessing I get topics that look like these two:

There is nothing wrong with these topics except that one is obviously a “Moby Dick” topic and the other a “Dracula” topic. A big part of the reason these topics formed in this way is because of the power of the character names (yes, “whale” is a character). The presence of the character names tends to bias the model and make it collect collocates that cluster around character names. Instead of getting a topic having to do with “seafaring” (a theme, by the way, that appears in both Moby Dick and Dracula) we get these broad novel-specific topics instead.

That is not what we want.

To deal with this character “problem,” I begin by expanding the usual topic modeling “stop list” from the 100 or so high frequency, closed class words (such as “the, of, a, and. . .”) to include about 5,600 common names, or “named entities.” I posted this “expanded stoplist” to my blog some months ago as ancillary material for my book; feel free to copy it for your own work. I built my expanded stop list through a combination of named entity recognition and the scraping of baby name web sites:-)

Using the exact same model parameters that produced the two topics above, but now with the expanded stop list, I get topics that are much less about individual novels and much more about themes that cross novels. Here are two examples.

The first topic cloud seems pretty good. In the previous run of the model, without the expanded stop list, there was no such topic. The second one; however, is still problematic, largely because my expanded stopwords list, even at 5,631 words, is still imperfect. “Heyward” is a character from Last of the Mohicans whose name is not in my stop list.

But in addition to this imperfection, I would argue that there are other problems as well, at least if our objective is to harvest topics of a thematic nature. Notice, for example, the word “continued” just to the left of “heyward” and then notice “demanded” near the bottom of the cloud. These words do not contribute very much at all to the thematic sense of the topic, so ideally they too should be stopped out.

As a next step in preprocessing, therefore, I employ Part-of-Speech tagging or “POS-Tagging” in order to identify and ultimately “stop out” all of the words that are not nouns! Since I can already hear my friend Ted Underwood screaming about “discourses,” let me justify this suggestion with a small but important caveat: I think this is a good way to capture thematic information; it certainly does not capture such things as affect (i.e. attitudes towards the theme) or other nuances that may be very important to literary analysis and interpretation.

POS tagging is well documented, so I’m not going to foreground it here other than to say that it’s an imperfect method. It does make mistakes, but the best taggers (such as the Stanford Tagger that I usually use) have very (+97%) accuracy (see, for example Manning 2011).

After running a POS tagger, I have a simple little script that uses a simple little regular expression to change the following tagged sentences:

The/DT family/NN of/IN Dashwood/NNP had/VBD been/VBN long/RB settled/VBN in/IN Sussex./NNP Their/PRP$ estate/NN was/VBD large,/RB and/CC their/PRP$ residence/NN was/VBD at/IN Norland/NNP Park,/NNP in/IN the/DT centre/NN of/IN their/PRP$ property,/NN where,/, for/IN many/JJ generations,/NNS they/PRP had/VBD lived/VBN in/IN so/RB respectable/JJ a/DT manner,/JJ as/IN to/TO engage/VB the/DT general/JJ good/JJ opinion/NN of/IN their/PRP$ surrounding/VBG acquaintance./NN

into

family estate residence centre property generations opinion acquaintance

Just with this transformation to nouns alone, you can begin to see how a theme of “property” or “family estates” might eventually evolve from these words during the topic modeling process. But there is still one more preprocessing step before we can run the LDA. The next step (which can really be the first step) is text chunking or segmentation.

Topic models like to have lots of texts; or more precisely they like to have lots of bags of words. Topic models such as LDA do not take into account word order, they assume that each text or document is a bag of words. Novels are very big bags, and if we don’t chunk them up into smaller pieces we end up getting topics of a very general nature. By chunking each novel into smaller pieces, we allow the model to discover themes that occur only in specific places within novels and not just across entire novels. Consider the theme of death, for example. While there may be entire novels about death, more than likely death is going to pop up once or twice in every novel. In order for the topic model to detect or find a death topic, however, it needs to encounter bags of words that are largely about death. If the whole novel is a single bag of words, then death might not be prominent enough to rise to the level of “topicdom.”

I have found through lots and lots of experimentation that 500-1000 word chunks are pretty darn good when modeling novels. It might help to think in terms of pages: 500-1000 words is roughly 2-4 pages. The argument for this length goes something like this: a good death scene takes several pages to develop. . . etc.

Exactly what chunk length I choose is a matter of some witchcraft and alchemy; it is similar to the witchcraft and tarot involved in choosing the number of topics. I’ll not unpack either of those here, but you can read more in chapter 8 of my book (plug). Here the point is to simply say that some chunking needs to happen if you are working with big documents.

So here, finally, is my “secret” recipe in pseudo code:

Of course, there is a lot more to it than this: you need to keep track of which chunks go with which novels and so on. But this is the general recipe.* Here are two topics derived from the same corpus of novels, now without character names and without non-nouns.

* The word “Secret” in my title is in quotes because there is nothing secret about the ingredients in this particular recipe. The idea of combining POS tagging, text chunking, and LDA is well established in various papers, including, for example, “TagLDA: Bringing document structure knowledge into topic models” (2006) and Reading Tea Leaves: How Humans Interpret Topic Models (2009).