:: Friday, January 23, 2004 ::

hypertext and semantics search engine

I've been exploring some different works on hypertext arguments in my quest to convert one of my academic papers to hypertext. I'm rather disappointed with the quality of the paper as a linear argument with two pages of endnotes and since the paper is about shifting definitions of writing and the use of new technologies in the writing classroom, hypertext seems to better suit the content of my argument. However, I find that some hypertext arguments are difficult for me to fully comprehend. They're great for gleaning relevant information during research but seem a little distracting to me when trying to read them in their entirety. I suppose that may be my problem: I'm trying to read them in the same way that I would read a linear, strictly print-based argument. Of course, this shouldn't be too surprising since I've had years of training based on linear models of writing and reading linearly seems most natural. On the other hand, with the exception of works of fiction, I have not necessarily followed that mode in practice. I'm not certain if my style of reading could be considered non-linear simply based on my tendency to jump to other books for more information as I am reading other texts. Actually, now that I think about it, I also tend to continue that jumping around based on what I found in the second book and so on. No wonder I end up with fifteen books in my bed at a time! So, I'm just wondering if my reading practices have always been this way and if not when they changed. I seem to remember doing this even as a child but it's so difficult to trace something like this, something so unobtrusive and seemingly natural. It's something that I'd never thought about until I started investigating hypertext.


According to a few articles that I've seen (nothing extensive and I don't want to make any claims until I know more), hypertext is more closely aligned with human cognitive functioning. I know that it would be more aligned with my cognitive functioning since my patterns of thought tend to be a bit schizophrenic and oh so far from linear. According to my mother, who has referred to this quality as "being scatterbrained," I have been like this since I was quite young, but I wouldn't consider myself to be a good case-study of "normal" human brain activity. I guess that what I'm getting at is: how has the proliferation of digital media influenced these similarities between human cognition and hypertext? Does hypertext reflect the influence of human cognition on new technologies (allowing new forms of writing)? Or has human cognition altered as a result of technologies like hypertext (although not necessarily hypertext specifically)? And I suppose more specifically, how have our students been influenced by them?


This whole line of thought has come out of an article that I found on a type of search engine being developed. The engine uses artificial intelligence and an XML link based set of search properties instead of the usual key stroke based search engine. (Please do not consider this as a definition because I don't fully understand it yet.) I just wondered what connection this has to the study of semantics in linguistics. I'm going to try to find out more (with all that spare time of mine) but if anyone reads this who has more information, send me an email.


See, I told you my trains of thought are schizophrenic.

:: Cat 10:51 PM [+] ::
...