The scientific study of literature
What can, has, and should be done
Peter Dixon | Department of Modern Language and Cultural Studies, University of Alberta
In the present editorial, we briefly describe some aspects of the domain of the scientific study of literature, the methods that have been used, and the nature of the theories that have been developed. We discuss some of the prior work that has been done on cognitive processing of and affective reactions to literary texts and how this interacts with the nature of the reader. We note that there is a need for further work on how the literary reactions vary with the reading context. We also describe some of the methods that have commonly been used, such as reading time, questionnaire responses, and protocol analysis. The potential for applying methods from cognitive neuroscience, such as the measurement of event-related potentials and brain imaging, is an exciting opportunity in the future. Finally, we identify some of the types of explanations that have been developed in the scientific study of literature, including variable relations and processing accounts. Other kinds of theoretical approaches, such as those based on complexity theory, might be needed in the future. Our conclusion is that although a great amount of further work needs to be done in understanding literature, there are a wide range of exciting possibilities.
Cited by
Cited by 15 other publications
Allington, Daniel & Stephen Pihlaja
2016.
Reading in the age of the internet.
Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 25:3
► pp. 201 ff.

Even-Zohar, Itamar, Elias J. Torres Feijó & Antonio Monegal
2019.
The End of Literature; or, What Purposes Does It Continue to Serve?.
Poetics Today 40:1
► pp. 7 ff.

Gavaler, Chris & Dan Johnson
Inohara, Keisuke, Ryoko Honma, Takayuki Goto, Takashi Kusumi & Akira Utsumi
Laffer, Alexander
2021.
When readers talk about characters as if they were real, how do they talk about them? Empathy and gossip in reading group discourse.
Poetics 85
► pp. 101503 ff.

McCarthy, Kathryn S.
McIntyre, Dan
2012.
The year’s work in stylistics 2011.
Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 21:4
► pp. 402 ff.

Nenadić, Filip, Dušan Vejnović & Slobodan Marković
2019.
Subjective experience of poetry: Latent structure and differences between experts and non-experts.
Poetics 73
► pp. 100 ff.

Nishihara, Takayuki
2022.
EFL learners’ reading traits for lexically easy short poetry.
Cogent Education 9:1

R. Avramova, Yana, Patrick De Pelsmacker & Nathalie Dens
2022.
Reader and author attitudes towards brand placement in fiction.
International Journal of Advertising ► pp. 1 ff.

Riese, Katrin, Mareike Bayer, Gerhard Lauer & Annekathrin Schacht
Tucan, Gabriela
2022.
The Human Mind Mapped through Literary Readings.
Analele Universității de Vest. Seria Științe Filologice :59
► pp. 205 ff.

Yan, Ming & Werner Sommer
2019.
The effects of emotional significance of foveal words on the parafoveal processing of N + 2 words in reading Chinese sentences.
Reading and Writing 32:5
► pp. 1243 ff.

[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 february 2023. 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.