Canonicity is central to literary studies. Even if scholars are not explicitly concerned with it, canonicity shapes their selection of texts and authors—and that, in turn, may reinforce the latter’s canonicity. In recent years, several articles, especially in the field of computational literary studies, have sought to make canonicity visible by reconstructing it empirically. However, the theoretical basis of these works is often rather vague. This article aims to bridge this theoretical gap. The authors propose an explication of the central concept of canonicity and relate it to the notions of canon and canonization. They then outline different strategies for reconstructing canonicity, discuss the systematic aspects that need to be considered, and propose ways to evaluate such reconstructions. Their framework is intended to help contextualize existing work and, more importantly, to provide theoretical guidance for future efforts to reconstruct canonicity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hilger et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: