Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2018Edited by Bert Le Bruyn and Janine Berns
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 35] 2018
► pp. 125–138
Edited by Bert Le Bruyn and Janine Berns
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 35] 2018
► pp. 125–138
Empathy for the inanimate
Narrative fiction may invite us to share the perspective of characters which are very much unlike ourselves. Inanimate objects featuring as protagonists or narrators are an extreme example of this. The way readers experience these characters was examined by means of a narrative immersion study. Participants (N = 200) judged narratives containing animate or inanimate characters in predominantly Agent or Experiencer roles. Narratives with inanimate characters were judged to be less emotionally engaging. This effect was influenced by the dominant thematic role associated with the character: inanimate Agents led to more defamiliarization compared to their animate counterparts than inanimate Experiencers. I argue for an integrated account of thematic roles and animacy in literary experience and linguistics in general.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Animacy and empathy
- 2.1Linguistic reflections of narrative empathy
- 3.The inanimate character: A narrative immersion study
- 3.1Participants
- 3.2Stories
- 3.3Questionnaires
- 3.4Design & procedure
- 4.Results
- 4.1Comprehension questions
- 4.2ART & literary experience
- 4.3Emotional engagement
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].
References
Acheson, Daniel. J., Justine B. Wells & Maryellen C. MacDonald
2008 “New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students.” Behavior Research Methods 40(1): 278–289. 
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
2015 “Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48.
Bernaerts, Lars, Marco Caracciolo, Luc Herman & Bart Vervaeck
2014 “The storied lives of non-human narrators.” Narrative 221: 68–93.
Bruner, Jerome
1986 Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Comrie, Bernard
1989 Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dahl, Östen
2008 “Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny.” Lingua 1181: 141–150.
de Graaf, Anneke, Hans Hoeken, José Sanders & Johannes W. J. Beentjes
2012 “Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion.” Communication Research 391: 802–823.
de Swart, Peter & Helen de Hoop
2018 “Shifting Animacy.” Theoretical Linguistics 44(1/2). 1–23.
Dowty, David
1991 “Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.” Language 671: 547–619.
Fagel, Suzanne, Ninne Stukker & Loes van Andel
2012 Hoe telbaar is stijl? – Een kwantitatieve analyse van observatie en participatie in de stijl van Arnon Grunberg. Nederlandse letterkunde 17(3): 178–203.
Fowler, Roger
1977 Linguistics and the novel. London: Routledge.
Grimm, Scott M.
2005 “The Lattice of Case and Agentivity.” Master’s thesis, Amsterdam University.
Hartung, Franziska, Michael Burke, Peter Hagoort & Roel M. Willems
2016 “Taking perspective: Personal pronouns affect experiential aspects of literary reading.” PLoS One 11(5): e0154732.
Keen, Suzanne
2007 Empathy and the Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kidd, David C., & Emanuele Castano
2013 “Reading literary fiction improves Theory of Mind.” Science 3421: 377–380.
Koopman, Emy
2015 “Empathic reactions after reading: The role of genre, personal factors and affective responses.” Poetics 501: 62–79.
Kuijpers, Moniek, Frank Hakemulder, Ed Tan, & Miruna Doicaru
2014 “Exploring absorbing reading experiences – developing and validating a self-report scale to measure story world absorption.” Scientific Study of Literature 4(1): 89–122.
Kuno, Susumu & Etsuko Kaburaki
1977 “Empathy and Syntax.” Linguistic Inquiry 8(4): 627–672.
Langacker, Ronald
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol II, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Nijhof, Annabel D. & Roel M. Willems
2015 “Simulating Fiction: Individual Differences in Literature Comprehension Revealed with fMRI.” PLoS One 10(2): e0116492.
Primus, Beatrice
2012 “Animacy, generalized semantic roles, and differential object marking.” Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension ed. by M. J. A. Lamers & P. de Swart, 65–90. Dordrecht: Springer.
Radanović, Jelena, Chris Westbury & Petar Milin
2016 “Quantifying Semantic Animacy: How much are words alive?” Applied Psycholinguistics 371: 1477–1499.
Rosenbach, Anette
2008 “Animacy and grammatical variation – Findings from the English genitive variation.” Lingua 1181: 151–171.
Schneider, Ralf
2001 “Toward a Cognitive Theory of Literary Character: The Dynamics of Mental-Model Construction.” Style 351: 607–42.
Stanovich, Keith E. & Richard F. West
1989 “Exposure to print and orthographic processing.” Reading Research Quarterly 241: 402–433.
Szewczyk, Jakub M. & Herbert Schriefers
2011 “Is animacy special? ERP correlates of semantic violations and animacy violations in sentence processing.” Brain research 13681: 208–221.
Trompenaars, Thijs, Lotte Hogeweg, Wessel Stoop & Helen de Hoop
To appear. “The language of an inanimate narrator.” Open Linguistics.
Vogels, Jorrig, Emiel Krahmer & Alfons Maes
2013 “When a stone tries to climb up a slope: The interplay between lexical and perceptual animacy in referential choices.” Frontiers in Psychology 41: 154.
Yamomoto, Matsumi