{"word_count": 443, "character_count": 2666}
I have run the text "Text und Werk - zwei Begriffe auf dem Prüfstand" written by Johnny Kondrup, translated from Danish by Frederik Moche and published in Internationales Jahrbuch für Editionswissenschaft, 01/2013, Vol. 27(1), pp. 1-14 - through the digital online-tool "Voyant Tools". Although short, the text, analyzing the word-cloud shows somehow a couple of remarkable things, which help when reading the article for the first time.I'm pretty sure that martens (with 19 hits), shillingsburg (15), reusz (15), duriez (11) are names of researchers upon whom Kondrup bases his argumentation, and would for sure start in the reference-list looking for the probably four titles (perhaps 3 if shillingsburg writes together with reusz) and from these titles also build an impression of the context of Kondrups article.Further on the words lediglich (12 hits), mehr (11) and etwa (11) tell me both that Kondrup (probably) tries to be balanced - lediglich (eng. although) indicates that he's doing pro et contra - and that he are weighing either arguments, views or utterings against each other, graduating them - mehr (eng. more) - and etwa (eng. like) - tell that he for certain are doing humanistics, and that sort where a high niveau of precicion have to be counterbalanced by this kind of unprecise word in order not to say too much.One distinction, whose precise definition I would look out for and anticipating when reading the text would be realtext - idealtext (resp. 19 hits and 10).What my results don't show are first and foremost the line of argumentation or any conclusion. I have no clue of the structure of the text/article. The title coincides with the major hits (text and werk), it only tells me that he sticks to his them, what's no surprise.When startin the close-reading - the text is divided in 28 numbered paragraphs, so no headings are visible before Abstract show up in the end - I quite quicly discover the expected reflection over realtext and idealtext. The ideal-text is a platonic idea, who only by increased grades of similarity never can be reaches... and a real-text is also in a way immaterial... So this distinciton turns out to be rahter philosophical.I jump to the abstract and am surprised by being told about the connection between critical editing and literary criticism ... by second thought it's not surprising at all, it only didn't show up at the analysis of the word-cloud. The abstract furthermore sum up the termes real- and ideal- text: " With regard to the term ‘text’, the concept is separated into the ‘ideal text’, the ‘real text’, and the ‘material text’ – which are again distinguished from the ‘document’." (p.14).