ONLAYN PLATFORMALAR ORQALI KITOBXONLAR INTERPRETATSIYASINI TAHLIL QILISH TAMOYILLARI
Downloads
This article examines the principles and methods for analyzing readers’ interpretations on online platforms. It draws upon digital social reading (DSR) research, Retseptiv poetikatheory, and computational linguistic approaches to user-generated content. The study investigates how interpretive communities form on platforms such as Goodreads, Wattpad, and online news comment sections, how emotional and narrative structures emerge in readers' comments, and how these can be modeled through content analysis, discourse analysis, sentiment analysis, narrative network modeling, and deep-learning-based classification. The findings demonstrate that integrating qualitative literary approaches with quantitative computational tools provides a comprehensive understanding of reader interpretation in digital environments.
1. Cordón-García J. A. and Gómez-Díaz R. (eds.) (2019). Lectura, Sociedad y Redes. Colaboración, Visibilidad y Recomendación En El Ecosistema Del Libro. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
2. Cordón-García J.-A. et al. (2013). Social Reading. Oxford: Chandos.
3. Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? Cambridge: Harvard UP.
4. Holur, Pavan; Shahsavari, Shadi; Ebrahimzadeh, Ehsan; Tangherlini, Timothy R.; Roychowdhury, Vwani (2021). Supplementary material from "Modelling social readers: novel tools for addressing reception from online book reviews". The Royal Society. Collection. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5754141.v1
5. Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP.
6. Karolides, N. (1992). Reader-response in the classroom. In N. Karolides (Ed.). The transactional theory of literature (pp. 21-32). NY: Longman.
7. Leveratto J.-M., Leontsini M. (2008). Internet et la sociabilité littéraire. Éditions de la Bibliothèque publique d’information. doi:10.4000/books.bibpompidou.197.
8. Montesi M. (2015). La lectura en las redes sociales: posibilidades de análisis para el investigador. Revista Ibero-Americana de ciencia da informacao, 8(1): 67–81.
9. Pianzola F. et al. (2019). Digital Social Reading Public Bibliography. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3525468.
10. Pianzola F., Rebora S., Lauer G. (2020). Wattpad as a resource for literary studies. Quantitative and qualitative examples of the importance of digital social reading and readers’ comments in the margins. PLoS One, 15(1). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226708
11. Rehfeldt M. (2017). Leserrezensionen als Rezeptionsdokumente. Zum Nutzen nicht-professioneller Literaturkritiken Für Die Literaturwissenschaft. In Bartl A. and Behmer M. (eds.), Die Rezension. Aktuelle Tendenzen Der Literaturkritik. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, pp. 275–89.
12. Rosenblatt, L. (1983). Literature as exploration (4th ed.). NY: MLA.
13. Rosenblatt, L. (2002). Literary theory. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, and J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (pp. 67-73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Copyright (c) 2025 «ACTA NUUz»
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
.jpg)
1.png)
