The <foreign> element has been part of the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) standard from its earliest editions. Defined as identifying “a word or phrase as belonging to some language other than that of the surrounding text,” its purpose is both functional—to be able to identify words that do not belong to the declared primary language of the text—and descriptive, providing a semantic equivalent for marking phrases that, in the Western print tradition, are usually signalled by typographical difference (e.g. italics). It is also, as the TEI Guidelines make clear, an element of last resort: since every element in XML can specify the language of its content using the @xml:lang attribute, <foreign> is arguably meant to be used when there is no more specific element on which to place @xml:lang.

Yet, as we will suggest, the <foreign> element is neither semantically neutral nor purely functional. Emerging from cross‑project discussions of shared challenges, this co-authored paper examines the practical, interpretive, and political challenges that arose out of attempts to represent editorial decisions in multilingual texts. Drawing on case studies of distinct projects spanning various linguistic, cultural, and historical contexts, this paper describes how the <foreign> element, while perhaps technically appropriate, was, at best, conceptually insufficient and, at worst, actively working against the project's social and political aims. As we will outline, for texts where languages co‑exist, overlap, and mutually constitute the content, the label “foreign” risks reinscribing hierarchical language ideologies, especially in contexts shaped by colonial histories, racialization, and language suppression. We will also describe the ways that our projects have taken different approaches to better represent the multilingual nature of the text and the critical decisions that inform the final editions.

To be sure, this paper is not an attempt to do away with the <foreign> element completely. Rather, in focusing on the <foreign> element and its drawbacks, we hope not only to argue for changes to the TEI standard, but also showcase what we see as a generative moment of friction between the TEI standards and editorial practice—a case study in the blurry lines between textual interpretation and technical protocols that underscores how seemingly neutral technical features carry with them significant assumptions about shared norms and practices. In doing so, this paper hopes to demonstrate how critical collaboration and dissent, to use Julia Flanders’ framing, not only advances the TEI standard and editorial practice, but ultimately testifies to the critical and interpretive value of digital scholarship.

Problématique

En contexte numérique, le texte édité se comporte vite comme un objet stabilisé, indexé, cité, réutilisé, parfois même adopté comme « référence ». Cette stabilisation transforme une chaîne de choix interprétatifs en résultat apparemment évident, alors même que la numérisation multiplie les opérations qui pèsent sur le sens (segmentation, normalisation, encodage, alignement, visualisation). En philologie classique, pourtant, cette chaîne est le cœur du travail. Les textes issus de la tradition manuscrite sont instables et lacunaires, et l’apparat critique signale des variantes sans toujours expliciter la logique des arbitrages ni les cadres linguistiques, métriques, stylistiques et stemmatiques qui orientent une leçon plutôt qu’une autre. La transition vers le numérique rend ce décalage plus aigu lorsque des catégories computationnelles figent ce qui demeure graduel, contextuel et argumentatif dans l’atelier.

La thèse défendue est que l’unité critique fondamentale d’une édition numérique n’est pas seulement le texte et ses variantes, mais la décision éditoriale elle‑même, conçue comme un objet adressable, traçable et discutable. L’objectif n’est pas de mécaniser le jugement philologique, mais de le rendre vérifiable, auditable dans le temps, comparable entre projets et interrogeable par requêtes. Un modèle argumentatif minimal, inspiré de Toulmin, déplace ainsi l’édition d’un « texte et apparat » vers une « édition‑argument », où les raisons, objections et qualifications sont éditées au même titre que la leçon.

Méthodologie

Une décision est formulée comme une conclusion liée à une cible textuelle stable. Elle s’appuie sur des données (témoins, tradition éditoriale, cohérence linguistique, plausibilité métrique, vraisemblance stylistique), explicite une garantie comprise comme règle d’inférence, documente des appuis épistémiques, enregistre des contre‑lectures et situe un degré de certitude. La proposition est démontrée sur une édition‑prototype de l’Anthologia Graeca, centrée sur un court ensemble d’épigrammes funéraires, choisi pour la densité des cas limites.

Le travail s’appuie sur Philographos, atelier web créé pour le projet, conçu pour lier chaque intervention au dossier de justification qui l’accompagne et pour en conserver les versions. L’architecture articule deux couches : une couche textuelle sérialisée en TEI‑XML (texte établi, segmentation, apparat) et une couche argumentative sérialisée en JSON‑LD, où les décisions et leurs relations forment un graphe. L’alignement repose sur des identifiants stables, notamment des URN, de sorte qu’un locus précis puisse être visé, audité, comparé et révisé sans dépendre d’un affichage particulier.

Conclusion

La contribution originale est en deux temps. D'abord, un schéma de données réutilisable pour éditer des décisions comme objets évaluables, et un principe d’architecture (texte hiérarchique d’un côté, justification réticulaire de l’autre) compatible avec la lecture, l’audit et la pérennisation. Le dispositif rend visibles des médiations souvent implicites, permet de cartographier des zones d’incertitude et d’explorer des désaccords, tout en assumant qu’une part du sens résiste au calcul. Formaliser la décision ne supprime pas cette résistance, mais la rend situable et discutable, et oblige l’édition numérique à porter explicitement la responsabilité de ses transformations.

The computer and the artifact are not the same kind of object. They differ in many ways such as materiality, scale, durability, and mode of encounter. As Robinson and Solopova (1993) argue, digital systems cannot offer transparent access to the source. Therefore, editorial work consists of a sequence of interpretive decisions; this condition becomes unavoidable in the digital world, where ambiguity cannot remain unresolved. A system must decide what each mark is in order to register it at all, even when such decisions distort the source. As Barbara Cassin (2016) asserts, there is no equivalence in translation, only negotiation, and that process always exposes loss. Drawing from this framework, this paper asks what is lost when monumental stone crosses in the Visionary Cross Project are translated into data, and how a 3D edition might respond responsibly to those losses.

The Visionary Cross Project emerged from a shared interest in developing a new kind of digital scholarly edition, one that not only preserved Old English texts but also integrated them meaningfully with cultural artifacts. Specifically, the project focuses on 3D visualizations of monumental Old English stone crosses. These artifacts are significant not only for their inscriptions and iconography but also for their connection to Old English religious poetry, which shares thematic and visual motifs with the crosses. The goal of the Visionary Cross Project is to move beyond traditional print/static digital editions by linking these 3D models with annotated texts, translations, and scholarly commentary, and thus creating a 3D edition that facilitates deeper engagement for scholars and the public.

While the scans capture details such as texture, colour, and weathering with accuracy, aspects such as scale and physical presence resist translation. Encountering the crosses digitally offers little sense of their mass, height, or bodily impact, as monumentality is necessarily flattened into a screen-based interaction. Place, similarly, is abstracted as the crosses circulate as mobile digital objects detached from their setting. Editorial interventions and technological limitations further induce untranslatability. As storage and hosting limits encourage us to display either smaller models or divided forms of the cross, each approach confronts us with the reality of making a 3D edition. Additionally, as we deal with linguistic data in the form of runic inscriptions, which resist stable representation: retaining the runes preserves visual and historical specificity, transliteration introduces approximation, and translation imposes interpretive constraints. By treating untranslatability not as a failure but as a productive condition, this paper positions the 3D edition as a site where loss, mediation, and interpretive choice are made visible. In doing so, it argues for a model of digital scholarship that acknowledges the limits of this translation while using them to generate new forms of critical engagement with material, textual, and cultural heritage.

References

Cassin, Barbara. "Translation as paradigm for human sciences." The journal of speculative philosophy 30, no. 3 (2016): 242-266.

Robinson, Peter, and Elizabeth Solopova. "Guidelines for Transcription of the Manuscripts of the Wife of Bath’s Prologue." The Canterbury Tales Project Occasional Papers 1 (1993): 19-52.