Cover not available
Article published In:
Empirical Studies of Literariness
Edited by Massimo Salgaro and Paul Sopčák
[Scientific Study of Literature 8:1] 2018
► pp. 114–134

Intermediate states of literariness

Poetic lining, sociological positioning, and the activation of literariness

| Indiana University of Pennsylvania
This study utilizes texts which sit between the literary and non-literary to explore the outcomes and mechanisms of literariness. Literariness can be activated by (a) linguistic foregrounding and (b) paratextual specification. In a 2 × 2 design, manipulated versions of two soldier narratives were produced (poetry/fiction; poetry/fact; prose/fiction; prose/poetry). 215 participants were randomly assigned to read one of the textual versions and respond to rating scales dealing with perception of textual features, empathy, sympathy, and cognitive perspective-taking. The results show that poetic form elicits significantly higher ratings for empathy and sympathy and that paratextual information specifying that a text is factual elicits significantly higher ratings for empathy and cognitive perspective-taking. Two structural equation models were defined: (a) a literariness model and (b) a factual accuracy model. The results suggest an additive dual model of processing in which both poetic form and factual definition contribute to outcomes characteristic of literariness. These results offer some support for the hypotheses of the Neuro-Cognitive Poetics Model proposed by (Jacobs, 2011).
Keywords: literariness, poetry, paratextual information, foregrounding, ethnography
Article outline
  • Positions on literariness
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Instrument
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Analytical approach
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • References
Published online: 17 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.18001.han
References (25)
References
Altmann, U., Bohrn, I. C., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M. (2014). Fact vs fiction: How paratextual information shapes our reading processes. SCAN, 91, 22–29.Google Scholar
Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erlich, V. (1981). Russian formalism: History-doctrine (3rd ed.) New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hanauer, D. (1996). Integration of phonetic and graphic features in poetic text categorization judgments. Poetics, 231, 363–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998a). Reading poetry: An empirical investigation of formalist, stylistic and conventionalist claims. Poetics Today 191, 565–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998b). The genre-specific hypothesis of reading: Reading poetry and reading encyclopedic items. Poetics 26(2), 63–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Experiencing the Blitz: A poetic representation of a childhood in wartime London. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 584–599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanauer, D. I. (2015). Being in the Second Iraq War: A poetic ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(1), 83–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoorn, J. (1997). A Renaissance perspective on the empirical study of literature. In D. Schram and G. Steen (Eds.), The psychology and sociology of literature (pp. 67–74). Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, A. M. (2011). Neurokognitive poetik: elemente einesmodells des literarischen lesens (Neurocognitive poetics: Elements of a model of literary reading). In R. Schrottand & A. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Gehirn und Gedicht: Wie Wir Unsere Wirklichkeiten Konstruieren (Brain and poetry: How we construct our realities) (pp. 492–520): München, Germany: Carl Hanser Verlag.Google Scholar
(2015a). Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading. In R. Willems (Ed.), Towards a cognitive neuroscience of natural language use. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). Neurocognitive poetics: Methods and modals for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 91, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Linguistics and Poetics, in: Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language, New York 1960, 350–377.Google Scholar
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342(6156), 377–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koopman, E. M., & Hakemulder, F. (2015). Effects of literature on empathy and self-reflection: A theoretical-empirical framework. Journal of Literary Theory, 9(1), 79–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspective on Psychological Science, 3(3), 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McQuarrie, Edward F. & Phillips, Barbara J. (2005) INDIRECT PERSUASION IN ADVERTISING: How Consumers Process Metaphors Presented in Pictures and Words, Journal of Advertising, 34:2, 7–20.Google Scholar
Miall, David & Kuiken, Don. (1994). Foregrounding, Defamiliarization, and Affect: Response to Literary Stories, Poetics 221, 389–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1999). What is literariness? Three components of literary reading. DiscourseProcesses, 28(2), 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukařovský, Jan. (1976). On Poetic Language. The Peter de Ridder Press: Lisse.Google Scholar
Sopčák, P. (2007). ‘Creation from nothing’: A foregrounding study of James Joyce’s drafts for Ulysses. Language and Literature, 16(2), 183–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Peer, W. (1986). Stylistics and psychology: Investigations in foregrounding. London, United Kingdom: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (1996). Toward a model of literary comprehension. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 241–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Green, Melanie C. & Markus Appel
2024. Narrative transportation: How stories shape how we see ourselves and the world [Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 70], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hanauer, David I.
2024. Ars Poetica in a World of Change: A First Editorial Commentary on Our New Platform. Scientific Study of Literature 12:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Nishihara, Takayuki
2022. EFL learners’ reading traits for lexically easy short poetry. Cogent Education 9:1 DOI logo
Nicholes, Justin
2020. Science fiction prototyping’s features and impact on college students’ perceptions of writing. Scientific Study of Literature 10:1 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo
Postarnak, Svetlana, São Luís Castro & Susana Silva
2020. The role of linguistic prosody in the responses to recited poetry. Scientific Study of Literature 10:2 ► pp. 228 ff. DOI logo
Statham, Simon & Rocío Montoro
2019. The year’s work in stylistics 2018. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 28:4 ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Creative Writing Across the Curriculum [Linguistic Approaches to Literature, 40], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. A Life with Poetry [Linguistic Approaches to Literature, 41], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.