Transforming Literary Analysis with Chatbots: A Case Study of Waiting for Godot
Name:- Dhatri Parmar
Batch:- M.A. Sem 4 (2023-2025)
Enrollment Number:- 5108230032
E-mail Address:-dhatriparmar291@gmail.com
Roll Number:- 6
Assignment Details:-
Topic:- Transforming Literary Analysis with Chatbots: A Case Study of Waiting for GodotPaper & subject code:- Paper 22417 Dissertation Writing
Compare traditional literary analysis with AI-assisted methods.
Examine AI’s ability to detect patterns in Waiting for Godot (e.g., repetition, circular structure).
Explore AI-generated images as tools for visualizing abstract literary themes.
Assess the accuracy, reliability, and critical depth of AI interpretations.
Justification of the Hypothesis :
The hypothesis that AI chatbots enhance literary analysis by providing personalized, dynamic, and diverse interpretive possibilities is strongly supported by the findings of this research. Traditional literary analysis methods often rely on established critical perspectives, scholarly interpretations, and historical contexts. While these approaches offer valuable insights, they may not always accommodate the evolving and subjective nature of literary texts. AI chatbots, on the other hand, introduce a new dimension by adapting their responses based on user input, allowing for a more interactive and exploratory engagement with texts like Waiting for Godot.
One of the key advantages of AI chatbots in literary analysis is their ability to present multiple interpretations. Waiting for Godot is a complex play with deep existential and absurdist themes, and its meaning is often debated among scholars. AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, and Claude AI provide users with varied perspectives, drawing from different critical frameworks, philosophical traditions, and literary theories. This multiplicity of viewpoints enables readers and researchers to engage with the text more comprehensively, moving beyond a single authoritative interpretation.
Another strength of AI chatbots lies in their dynamic adaptability. Unlike traditional methods, which often involve passive reading of scholarly texts, AI chatbots allow users to refine their queries, request clarifications, and explore alternative viewpoints in real time. For instance, if a user asks about the religious symbolism in Waiting for Godot, AI can provide interpretations from Christian, existentialist, and nihilist perspectives, enriching the analytical process. This level of interactivity encourages critical thinking and deeper engagement with the text.
5.2 Reader-Response Theory and AI :
The study demonstrated that chatbots function as intermediaries in literary analysis, enabling multiple interpretative possibilities. This aligns with Wolfgang Iser’s Reader-Response Theory, where meaning is generated through the interaction between the reader and the text.
Personalization is another major factor justifying the hypothesis. Each reader approaches a literary text with unique questions and interests. AI chatbots tailor their responses based on user input, adjusting their focus to specific themes, characters, or structural elements. For example, a researcher interested in the role of repetition in Waiting for Godot can receive targeted insights into how the play’s cyclical structure reinforces themes of stagnation and existential despair. This personalized approach is difficult to achieve through traditional literary analysis, where interpretations are often pre-determined by academic discourse.
Furthermore, AI chatbots enhance accessibility and efficiency in literary studies. Traditional literary research involves extensive reading of critical essays, books, and journals, which can be time-consuming. AI chatbots can summarize key arguments, compare different scholarly perspectives, and even generate diagrams or visual representations of thematic patterns in a text. This efficiency allows researchers to engage with a broad range of interpretations quickly, facilitating a more comprehensive understanding of literary works.
Moreover, chatbots offer valuable insights into thematic complexities and ambiguities. Waiting for Godot is filled with ambiguous dialogues, unresolved philosophical questions, and symbolic imagery. AI tools can break down these complexities by analyzing linguistic patterns, historical references, and intertextual connections. For example, when exploring the symbolic significance of the willow tree in the play, AI can provide interpretations that link it to biblical, existentialist, and ecological readings, thus broadening the scope of analysis. However, while AI chatbots significantly enhance literary analysis, they do not entirely replace traditional methodologies. Human interpretation remains essential for assessing nuances, emotional depth, and cultural contexts that AI may overlook. Nevertheless, the integration of AI tools with human scholarship creates a more holistic analytical model, where traditional literary criticism is complemented by AI-driven insights.
5.3 AI vs. Traditional Literary Analysis
Traditional literary analysis remains indispensable due to its ability to contextualize historical, philosophical, and socio-political elements. However, AI chatbots provided a structured approach to detecting textual patterns, generating thematic breakdowns, and offering alternative interpretations. The findings support the hypothesis that AI tools enhance, but do not replace, human literary analysis. Survey responses indicated that 78% of users found AI useful for recognizing repetitive linguistic patterns and providing structured explanations.
AI’s Role in Identifying Repetition and Existential Patterns
AI chatbots successfully detected key repetitive phrases in Waiting for Godot, such as “Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it’s awful!” This pattern reinforces the play’s existential stagnation. Chatbots like ChatGPT and Claude AI effectively linked these repetitions to existentialist concepts, such as Sartre’s “bad faith” and Camus’ “absurd.” However, inconsistencies arose across chatbots, with Gemini and Copilot occasionally missing deeper thematic connections. The research concluded that AI provides an analytical advantage in textual pattern recognition but requires human validation for interpretive depth.
AI-Generated Visuals for Literary Analysis : AI-generated images helped visualize core symbols from Waiting for Godot, including the barren landscape, the willow tree, and the ambiguous figure of Godot. Different AI models produced varied interpretations ChatGPT’s visual emphasized existential emptiness, while Copilot’s images leaned toward a more literal representation. Survey results showed that 84% of respondents found AI-generated images useful for conceptualizing abstract themes, yet 40% noted that some visuals oversimplified Beckett’s complex symbolism.
5.4 Medium as the Message :
In line with Marshall McLuhan’s theory, chatbots reshape the reader-text relationship by actively engaging users in an interactive dialogue. McLuhan’s assertion that "the medium is the message" underscores the transformative impact of digital tools in reshaping cognitive and interpretative practices. AI chatbots, as an extension of digital humanities, facilitate multimodal engagement with Waiting for Godot, providing textual analysis alongside visual and thematic mapping. This challenges the conventional, linear approach to literary studies by allowing readers to navigate texts non-linearly, engaging with AI-generated insights as part of a fluid and evolving discussion.
Furthermore, chatbots introduce a participatory aspect to literary interpretation, positioning readers as active collaborators rather than passive recipients of knowledge. By allowing users to input queries, test hypotheses, and receive real-time feedback, AI chatbots personalize the analytical process, making literary studies more accessible and interactive. This dissertation highlights that chatbots, beyond serving as tools, become integral to the interpretative process, shaping contemporary methodologies in literary analysis.
5.5 AI Accuracy, Reliability, and Critical Depth
AI chatbots provided insightful yet inconsistent analyses. Inaccuracies were identified in historical and philosophical contextualization, requiring cross-referencing with academic sources. When AI provided misleading interpretations, 89.7% of users cross-checked with scholarly literature, while 60.3% requested clarification from the chatbot itself. These findings confirm the hypothesis that AI tools, though helpful, lack the critical depth and contextual accuracy necessary for standalone literary analysis.
Figure 5.1 Handling the Limitation of AI Chatbots
The chart presents responses from 58 participants on how they handled incorrect or misleading interpretations provided by AI chatbots. The key findings are:
Cross-checking with academic sources (89.5%): The majority (52 respondents) validated AI-generated interpretations by referring to academic literature. This highlights a strong reliance on traditional scholarly resources to ensure accuracy.
Asking AI for clarification (61.4%): A significant number (35 respondents) preferred engaging with the AI further, seeking rephrased or refined explanations. This suggests a willingness to use AI as an iterative learning tool rather than a static source of knowledge.
Ignoring AI insights and relying on personal analysis (17.5%): A smaller proportion (11 respondents) dismissed chatbot interpretations altogether, indicating skepticism or confidence in their own critical thinking abilities.
5.6 Analysis and Implications :
The data underscores that while AI chatbots contribute to literary analysis, users still prioritize human-led validation. The high percentage of cross-checking suggests that AI is seen as a supplementary rather than a definitive analytical tool. Additionally, the fact that over 60% sought AI clarification implies that users acknowledge AI’s potential but recognize its limitations. Overall, these findings reinforce the need for a hybrid approach, where AI aids but does not replace critical human engagement in literary studies.
Limitations of AI Chatbots in Literary Analysis :
Figure 5.2 Limitation of Chatbot in Analyzing WfG
This survey question asks respondents to identify the main limitations of AI chatbots in analyzing Waiting for Godot, based on 58 responses. The results highlight key weaknesses:
Key Findings:
Difficulty in Contextualizing Historical and Philosophical Background (42 responses, 72.4%)
The most common limitation, indicating that AI struggles to provide the necessary historical and philosophical depth needed for analyzing Waiting for Godot, which heavily draws from existentialist and absurdist traditions.
Lack of Deep Critical Engagement (35 responses, 60.3%)
AI responses may be too surface-level, failing to offer profound literary critique. This suggests that users expect deeper textual analysis and engagement with critical perspectives.
Inconsistencies in Responses Across Different Chatbots (32 responses, 55.2%)
More than half of the respondents found that different AI models provide varying and sometimes contradictory interpretations. This suggests a lack of standardization in literary analysis by AI.
Limited Ability to Interpret Abstract Themes (22 responses, 37.9%)
AI struggles with abstract and existential themes, which are central to Waiting for Godot. This indicates that chatbots may have difficulty unpacking complex literary symbolism and philosophical ambiguity.
Minimal Concerns About Exploration and No Issues (1 response each, 1.7%)
Only two respondents saw no major issues, reinforcing that AI chatbots still have significant gaps in literary analysis.
Implications for Dissertation:
AI chatbots have shown significant potential in literary analysis, but they still face several limitations when dealing with complex works such as Waiting for Godot. One of the main challenges is the difficulty in contextualizing historical and philosophical backgrounds. Existentialist and absurdist literature requires an understanding of the intellectual traditions that shaped these movements, including the ideas of thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. AI chatbots, while trained on vast amounts of data, often struggle to integrate these historical and philosophical perspectives seamlessly into their analysis. This limitation reduces their effectiveness in providing deep and meaningful interpretations of such texts.
Another major drawback is the lack of deep critical engagement. AI-generated analyses tend to be simplistic and formulaic, often failing to capture the complexities of literary discourse. Academic research requires nuanced arguments and critical insights, which chatbots are not yet capable of producing with the same depth as human scholars. This makes AI-generated responses useful for introductory discussions but insufficient for advanced literary studies. Without the ability to critically evaluate and challenge different perspectives, AI remains a supplementary tool rather than a replacement for human literary analysis.
For instance, in the analysis of Lucky’s speech in Waiting for Godot, chatbots provide varied but somewhat surface-level interpretations. ChatGPT defines the terms “Apathia, Aphasia, Athambia” by linking them to existential inertia, the failure of speech, and philosophical emptiness. Gemini highlights the cyclical nature of Lucky’s words, emphasizing their reflection of stasis. Claude AI frames the speech as a critique of rational discourse in an irrational world, drawing connections to post-structuralist ideas on language breakdown. While these interpretations align with key themes of the play, survey participants noted that the chatbots often lacked deeper philosophical context. This example illustrates how AI can identify important motifs but struggles to engage in the layered, critical discourse that human scholars bring to literary analysis.
A significant issue also arises from inconsistencies in responses. Different AI chatbots provide varying interpretations of the same text, making it difficult to establish a standardized understanding. These inconsistencies stem from differences in training data, algorithmic approaches, and contextual processing. As a result, researchers and students who rely on AI for literary interpretation must cross-verify responses and use their own judgment to determine the most accurate insights. This highlights the need for further refinement in AI-driven literary analysis tools.
The ability to interpret abstract themes is another area where AI falls short. Waiting for Godot explores existential despair, absurdity, and the human condition, which require deep philosophical reflection. ChatGPT and Claude AI were able to capture the essence of these themes, but Gemini and Copilot struggled. For example, when asked to interpret the characters allegorically as representations of different countries, the AI chatbots failed. This was likely due to a lack of available data, as relevant articles and journals were not included in their training. In such cases, AI chatbots are unable to provide accurate answers, making human assistance essential to fill the gaps.
AI models often struggle to grasp the full depth of abstract concepts and tend to provide rigid or overly structured interpretations. While AI can recognize patterns and summarize ideas, it lacks the intuitive understanding that human readers develop through experience and cultural knowledge. For example, when comparing one literary text with another from a native tradition, AI may not offer meaningful insights unless it has been trained on relevant sources. Each reader brings different knowledge to literary analysis. If a reader is familiar with Indian texts, they might draw comparisons that make the analysis richer and more relatable. Here, human input becomes essential to provide cultural and contextual depth.
However, AI’s performance can improve with better prompts. A well-structured prompt can guide the chatbot to generate more relevant and insightful responses. This highlights the importance of prompt engineering, where carefully crafted questions help AI produce more meaningful interpretations. By refining the way prompts are designed, users can enhance AI's ability to analyze literature more effectively.
To improve AI’s effectiveness in literary analysis, researchers could focus on refining models to better understand historical and philosophical contexts. Enhancing AI’s ability to engage in critical discourse, reducing inconsistencies in responses, and improving its interpretation of abstract themes could make it a more reliable resource for students and scholars. Additionally, addressing ethical concerns and biases in AI training data is essential to ensure fair and balanced interpretations.
5.7 Limitations of the Dissertation and Research Gaps
The study focused solely on Waiting for Godot, which limited the scope of literary works analyzed. While this play is a key example of existentialist and absurdist literature, future studies could expand to other works within these movements. Exploring plays like The Bald Soprano by Eugène Ionesco or novels like The Stranger by Albert Camus could provide a broader perspective on how AI interprets existentialist and absurdist themes. By analyzing a wider range of texts, researchers can determine whether AI’s limitations in deep engagement and contextual understanding persist across different literary works.
Another key limitation of this study was the reliance on AI-generated outputs. While responses from chatbots were cross-verified, assessing the accuracy of AI interpretations still involved human judgment. This introduces the possibility of bias, as different researchers may interpret chatbot-generated content differently. AI tools do not function independently; they require human input for prompt creation and interpretation of results. Future research could develop standardized evaluation methods to assess AI-generated literary analysis more objectively.
The study also had a limited participant base, primarily consisting of postgraduate students. While this group possesses academic expertise in literature, their views do not necessarily represent the perspectives of undergraduate students, literary enthusiasts, or researchers from different fields. A more diverse participant pool could provide richer insights into how various groups perceive AI’s role in literary analysis. Expanding the survey sample to include literature professors, general readers, and even AI specialists could enhance the depth of the findings.
Additionally, this research focused on English-language AI models, leaving non-English literary analysis unexplored. Many important existentialist and absurdist works were originally written in languages such as French, German, and Russian. AI’s ability to analyze texts in their original language remains an open question. Future studies could examine whether AI chatbots can provide accurate literary interpretations in different languages and cultural contexts. This would help determine whether language barriers affect AI’s understanding of complex literary themes.
Another area for further exploration is the comparative aspect between AI-driven and traditional literary analysis. While this study highlights AI’s contributions, a more detailed comparison with conventional methods would offer a clearer picture of AI’s strengths and weaknesses. Traditional analysis often involves critical reading, scholarly discourse, and historical contextualization areas where AI struggles. A structured comparison could reveal whether AI can supplement human analysis or if it falls short in providing deep, nuanced interpretations.
Despite these limitations, the study provides a foundation for understanding AI’s role in literary analysis. By addressing these gaps, future research can refine AI models, making them more effective tools for interpreting literature. As AI continues to evolve, its potential impact on literary studies remains an exciting area for further exploration.
5.8 Recommendations for Improving AI in Literary Studies
Figure 5.3 Improvements Suggestion for Literary Analysis
The survey question asks respondents to suggest improvements for AI chatbots in literary analysis, with up to two choices. The data is based on 58 responses and highlights four key areas for improvement:
Improved Accuracy in Thematic Interpretations (42 responses, 72.4%) – The most frequently selected improvement, suggesting that AI chatbots struggle with accurately identifying and analyzing literary themes. This indicates a need for AI to refine its ability to differentiate between surface-level and deeper thematic meanings.
Enhanced Ability to Compare Multiple Interpretations (40 responses, 69%) – A significant number of respondents want AI to present diverse perspectives rather than a single, definitive interpretation. This suggests a demand for AI tools that facilitate critical thinking by offering multiple viewpoints.
More Contextualized Historical and Philosophical Insights (39 responses, 67.2%) – Many users find AI lacking in providing historical and philosophical context, essential for interpreting complex literary works. This emphasizes the need for AI to incorporate more nuanced literary criticism.
Better Visualization Tools for Literary Structures (37 responses, 63.8%) – A considerable number of respondents believe AI should improve its ability to generate visual representations of literary elements. This suggests that users find visual aids beneficial for understanding complex texts but feel current AI tools are insufficient in this area.
5.9 Direction for further Research :
AI has the potential to revolutionize literary studies by offering new ways to compare, analyze, and even create texts. However, its role must be carefully examined to ensure it enhances rather than replaces human literary critique. Several key areas highlight AI’s expanding role in literary analysis and the challenges it faces.
One important application of AI is in comparative literary analysis. AI tools can help compare works across different literary traditions, identifying patterns, themes, and stylistic similarities that might not be immediately apparent. For instance, AI could analyze existentialist literature from both Western and Indian traditions, highlighting commonalities and differences in themes like absurdity, fate, and human freedom. This could provide scholars with a more global understanding of literature and its cross-cultural influences.
Another promising development is the use of multimodal AI approaches. While AI is currently focused on text-based analysis, future advancements could integrate image and audio processing to analyze dramatic texts. Plays like Waiting for Godot rely heavily on stage directions, tone, and performance elements, which are difficult to capture through text alone. By incorporating visual and auditory analysis, AI could provide deeper insights into the performance aspects of drama, such as how different stage interpretations affect the meaning of a play.
Ethical considerations are also a critical part of AI-driven literary analysis. AI models are trained on pre-existing data, which can introduce biases in their interpretations. These biases may reinforce dominant perspectives while overlooking marginalized voices in literature. For instance, AI may prioritize widely studied Western literary theories over indigenous or regional critical approaches. Examining and addressing these biases is essential to ensure that AI-generated literary interpretations are fair, inclusive, and reflective of diverse viewpoints.
Beyond analysis, AI is increasingly being explored for its potential role in creative writing. Some studies suggest that AI can generate new literary works inspired by existing styles, imitating the patterns and themes of famous authors. However, this raises important questions about originality and creativity: can AI truly "write," or is it merely replicating human creativity? Scholars like Nick Montfort (2003) and Mark Marino (2020) argue that AI-generated texts, while structurally coherent, lack the intentionality and emotional depth that define human authorship.
The issue of authorship becomes central as AI chatbots gain recognition as creative writers. AI models such as ChatGPT can produce well-structured and stylistically accurate poetry and fiction, often mimicking established literary voices. However, as Katherine Hayles (1999) notes in How We Became Posthuman, AI lacks self-awareness and creative agency, making it unclear whether it can be considered a true author. This debate is particularly relevant in cases where AI-generated works are published or commercially distributed. If an AI-written novel gains literary acclaim, who should be credited as the author, the AI itself, the developers who trained it, or the user who crafted the prompts? These questions highlight the growing tension between machine-generated creativity and human intellectual ownership, making authorship a crucial issue in the future of AI-driven literature.
Contextual meaning-making is another area where AI must improve. While AI can identify literary themes and patterns, it often struggles to fully grasp deeper symbolic and philosophical meanings within a text. Waiting for Godot, for example, is rich in existential and absurdist themes, which require nuanced interpretation. AI often provides structured but overly literal responses, missing the layered meanings that human scholars can extract from the text. Enhancing AI’s ability to understand context could significantly improve its contributions to literary studies.
5.10 Conclusion: Toward a Hybrid Model of Literary Analysis
This study concludes that AI chatbots and AI-generated images serve as valuable augmentative tools rather than replacements for traditional literary analysis. The hybrid model, which integrates AI-assisted pattern recognition and visualization with human interpretive depth, presents the most effective approach for literary studies in the digital age. While AI enhances textual and visual analysis, human insight remains irreplaceable in navigating the complexities of literature. As AI technology evolves, its role in humanities research will likely expand, offering new methodologies for reinterpreting classic texts while reinforcing the necessity of critical, human-centered engagement.
Among AI chatbots, ChatGPT has demonstrated higher accuracy in literary analysis compared to some other models. It provides structured, detailed, and context-aware interpretations, making it a valuable tool for researchers. However, other chatbots, such as Gemini, Copilot, and Claude, often struggle with consistency, historical contextualization, and thematic accuracy. Some chatbots provide conflicting interpretations of the same text, making cross-verification necessary. While ChatGPT is not without limitations, its responses tend to be more reliable and insightful, particularly when analyzing complex literary works.
A more balanced approach would involve developing a hybrid analytical model that combines AI’s computational capabilities with human literary critique. AI can process large amounts of text, identify patterns, and provide data-driven insights, while human scholars can interpret and refine these findings within broader literary and cultural contexts. This collaboration can lead to more nuanced analyses, bridging the gap between AI-driven objectivity and human interpretative depth.
In conclusion, AI’s role in literary studies is expanding beyond simple text analysis. Its application in comparative studies, multimodal approaches, ethical scrutiny, creative writing, and hybrid analytical models offers exciting possibilities. However, AI should be seen as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human literary scholarship. By addressing its limitations and integrating it thoughtfully, AI can contribute to a more dynamic and inclusive approach to literary interpretation.
Bibliography :
Primary Sources :
Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. Faber Drama, 2010.
ChatGPT. chatgpt.com/c/67a87ab4-50fc-800b-b71b-957d3b04191b. Accessed 14 Feb. 2025.
Claude. claude.ai/chat/a536258b-76ff-499c-bdb7-393b513672fd.
“Gemini - Waiting for Godot: Repetition Analysis.” Gemini, g.co/gemini/share/51f025b10b9a.
“Microsoft Copilot: Your AI Companion.” Microsoft Copilot: Your AI Companion, copilot.microsoft.com/chats/6Wmtw4RU7ptLjnQmGT52S.
Survey on AI Chatbots and Literary Analysis of Waiting for Godot. forms.gle/PLPzBM7b5GbB6wcv8. Accessed 28 Feb. 2025.
Secondary Sources :
Akiba, Daisuke, and Michelle C. Fraboni. “AI-Supported Academic Advising: Exploring ChatGPT’s Current State and Future Potential Toward Student Empowerment.” Education Sciences, vol. 13, no. 9, Aug. 2023, p. 885, doi:10.3390/educsci13090885.
Amirjalili, Forough, et al. “Exploring the Boundaries of Authorship: A Comparative Analysis of AI-generated Text and Human Academic Writing in English Literature.” Frontiers in Education, vol. 9, Mar. 2024, doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1347421.
Balaji, Yogesh, et al. “eDiff-I: Text-to-Image Diffusion Models With an Ensemble of Expert Denoisers.” arXiv.org, 2 Nov. 2022, arxiv.org/abs/2211.01324.
Banga, Gurneesh Singh, et al. “Applications of Chatbots and AI Image Generators.” ADBU-Journal of Engineering Technology, journals.dbuniversity.ac.in/ojs/index.php/AJET/article/download/4147/pdf.
Barad, Dilip. “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Ph.D. Thesis Writing.” ResearchGate, Dec. 2021, www.researchgate.net/publication/387322842_Frequently_Asked_Questions_FAQs_for_PhD_Thesis_Writing.
Barthes, Roland. Image-Music-Text. Macmillan, 1977.
Belcic, Ivan, and Cole Stryker. “Claude AI.” IBM, 25 Nov. 2024, www.ibm.com/think/topics/claude-ai.
Berry, D. Understanding Digital Humanities. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Bhullar, Pritpal Singh, et al. “ChatGPT in Higher Education - a Synthesis of the Literature and a Future Research Agenda.” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 29, no. 16, May 2024, doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12723-x.
Bloom, Benjamin S. “The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring.” Educational Researcher, vol. 13, no. 6, American Educational Research Association, June 1984, pp. 4–16, facultycenter.ischool.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2-sigma.pdf.
Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus. 1942, apelitsurvivalguide.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/0/6/21064976/the_myth_of_sisyphus._short.pdf.
Cho, Ha Na, et al. “Task-Specific Transformer-Based Language Models in Health Care: A Scoping Review (Preprint).” JMIR Medical Informatics, vol. 12, Oct. 2024, p. e49724, doi:10.2196/49724.
A Companion to Digital Humanities. companions.digitalhumanities.org/DH/?chapter=content/9781405103213_intro.html.
Dakhel, Arghavan Moradi, et al. “GitHub Copilot AI Pair Programmer: Asset or Liability?” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 203, May 2023, p. 111734, doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111734.
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. JHU Press, 1998.
Drucker, Johanna. Graphesis: Visual Forms of Knowledge Production. metaLABprojects, 2014.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. U of Minnesota Press, 2008.
Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. 1961, web.iitd.ac.in/~angelie/courses_files/TOA/esslin%20essay%20tdr.pdf.
Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class?: The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Harvard UP, 1980.
Frontoni, Emanuele, et al. “Frontiers | Artificial Intelligence: The New Frontier in Digital Humanities.” Frontiers, www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/61509/artificial-intelligence-the-new-frontier-in-digital-humanities.
Gupta, Bulbul, et al. “ChatGPT: A Brief Narrative Review.” Cogent Business & Management, vol. 10, no. 3, Nov. 2023, doi:10.1080/23311975.2023.2275851.
Hayles, N. Katherine. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. University of Chicago Press, 1999.
---. How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. University of Chicago Press, 2012.
---. Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious. University of Chicago Press, 2017.
Imran, Muhammad, and Norah Almusharraf. “Google Gemini as a Next Generation AI Educational Tool: A Review of Emerging Educational Technology.” Smart Learning Environments, vol. 11, no. 1, May 2024, doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00310-z.
Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. 1980.
Jain, Rishab, and Aditya Jain. “Generative AI in Writing Research Papers: A New Type of Algorithmic Bias and Uncertainty in Scholarly Work.” arXiv (Cornell University), Jan. 2023, doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.10057.
Jebaselvi, C. Alice Evangaline, et al. “The Rise of AI in English Language and Literature.” Shanlax International Journal of English, vol. 12, no. 2, Mar. 2024, pp. 53–58, doi:10.34293/english.v12i2.7216.
Kassorla, Michelle. “Teaching With GAI in Mind.” EDUCAUSE Review, er.educause.edu/articles/2023/12/teaching-with-gai-in-mind.
Kirschenbaum, Matthew G. Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination. MIT Press, 2012.
---. “What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments?” Modern Language Association, www.maps.mla.org/bulletin/article/ade.150.55.
Lumivero. “Lumivero - Software Solutions for Data Analysis and Management.” Lumivero, 20 Dec. 2024, lumivero.com.
McIntyre, Dan. “Integrating Multimodal Analysis and the Stylistics of Drama: A Multimodal Perspective on Ian McKellen’s Richard III.” Language and Literature International Journal of Stylistics, vol. 17, no. 4, Oct. 2008, pp. 309–34, doi:10.1177/0963947008095961.
Mcluhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. MIT Press, 1994.
Moretti, Franco. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History. Verso Books, 2007.
O’Halloran, Kieran. “Digital assemblages with AI for creative interpretation of short stories.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 657–89, doi:10.1093/llc/fqad050.
Onal, Sinan, and Derya Kulavuz-Onal. “A Cross-Disciplinary Examination of the Instructional Uses of ChatGPT in Higher Education.” Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 52, no. 3, Sept. 2023, pp. 301–24, doi:10.1177/00472395231196532.
P. Levy, Eric. “False Innocence in Waiting for Godot.” Jstor, Feb. 2025, www.jstor.org/stable/26468121.
Polyportis, Athanasios. “A Longitudinal Study on Artificial Intelligence Adoption: Understanding the Drivers of ChatGPT Usage Behavior Change in Higher Education.” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, Jan. 2024, doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1324398.
Presner, Todd. “Comparative Literature in the Age of Digital Humanities: On Possible Futures for a Discipline.” Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Sept. 2011, pp. 193–207, doi:10.1002/9781444342789.ch13.
Ramsay, Stephen. Reading Machines. Edited by Susan Schreibman and Raymond C. Siemens, University of Illinois Press, 2011, www.dansinykin.com/uploads/8/4/0/2/84026824/ramsay_algorithmic_criticism.pdf.
Research Guides: AI-Based Literature Review Tools: Home. tamu.libguides.com/c.php?g=1289555.
Research Guides: Analyzing Text Data: Text Analysis Methods. libguides.gwu.edu/textanalysis/methods#s-lg-box-31721306.
Roy, Debanjali, and Tanmoy Putatunda. “From Textbooks to Chatbots: Integrating AI in English Literature Classrooms of India.” Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society - SIe-L - the Italian e-Learning Association, Oct. 2023, doi:10.20368/1971-8829/1135860.
Sartre, Jean Paul. Being and Nothingness. 1943, dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203827123.
Schreibman, Susan, et al. A Companion to Digital Humanities. companions.digitalhumanities.org/DH/?chapter=content/9781405103213_intro.html.
Scsc, None Sr. Dr. Grace, and None Dr. Gita Rani Sahu. “Navigating Narrative Frontiers: Influence of Generative AI on Creative Literature.” Deleted Journal, vol. 2, no. 05, May 2024, pp. 1315–23, doi:10.47392/irjaem.2024.0179.
Selvi, Thami, and Ramya P. “Application of AI in Literature: A Study on Evolution of Stories and Novels.” Recent Research Reviews Journal, irojournals.com/rrrj/article/download/3/2/3.
TED. “How AI Could Save (Not Destroy) Education | Sal Khan | TED.” YouTube, 1 May 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJP5GqnTrNo.
Torbarina, Lovre, et al. “Challenges and Opportunities of Using Transformer-based Multi-task Learning in NLP Through ML Lifecycle: A Position Paper.” Natural Language Processing Journal, vol. 7, Apr. 2024, p. 100076, doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2024.100076.
No comments:
Post a Comment