Article published in:
Empirical Studies of Literariness
Edited by Massimo Salgaro and Paul Sopčák
[Scientific Study of Literature 8:1] 2018
► pp. 77113
References

References

Allington, D.
(2012) Private experience, textual analysis, and institutional authority: The discursive practice of critical interpretation and its enactment in literary training. Language and Literature, 21(2), 211–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Attridge, D.
(2013) Moving words: Forms of English poetry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bálint, K., Hakemulder, F., Kuijpers, M., Doicaru, M., & Tan, E. S.
(2016) Reconceptualizing foregrounding: Identifying response strategies to deviation in absorbing narratives. Scientific Study of Literature, 16(2), 176–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, A.
(1922) William Wordsworth: His doctrine and art in their historical relations. Madison: University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature 17.Google Scholar
Blohm, S., Menninghaus, W., & Schlesewsky, M.
(2017) Sentence-level effects of literary genre: Behavioral and electrophysical evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M.
(2012) Old proverbs in new skins – An fMRI study on defamiliarization. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) When we like what we know – A parametric fMRI analysis of beauty and familiarity. Brain & Language, 124, 1–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P.
(1993) The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Brooke, S. A.
(1920) Naturalism in English poetry. London, United Kingdom: J. M. Dent.Google Scholar
Bruhn, M. J.
(2017) ‘The history and science of feeling’: Wordsworth’s affective poetics, then and now. In Wehrs, D. R., & Blake, T. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of affect studies and textual criticism (pp. 671–693). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(in progress). Philosophy, methodology, and theory development in the scientific study of literary response, experience, and interpretation.
Coleridge, S. T.
(2000) The major works, including Biographia Literaria. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 111 ]
Dolin, S.
(1993) Enjambment and the erotics of the gaze in Williams’s poetry. American Imago, 50(1). Retrieved from http://​www​.press​.jhu​.edu​.dml​.regis​.edu
Fialho, O., Zyngier, S. & Miall, D. S.
(2011) Interpretation and experience: Two pedagogical interventions observed. English in Education, 45(3), 236–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fish, S.
(1980) Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, A.
(1991) The two histories. In Perkins, D. (Ed.), Theoretical issues in literary history (pp. 114–130). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, R.
(1966) ‘Prose rhythm’ and ‘meter’. In Fowler, R. (Ed.), Essays on Style and Language (pp. 82–99). New York, NY: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, D. C.
(1968) On the primes of metrical style. Language and Style, 1, 63–101.Google Scholar
Golomb, H.
(1979) Enjambment in poetry: Language and verse in interaction. Tel Aviv, Israel: Porter Institute.Google Scholar
Hanauer, D. I.
(1998) Reading poetry: An empirical investigation of formalist, stylistic, and conventionalist claims. Poetics Today, 19(4), 565–580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The scientific study of poetic writing. Scientific Study of Literature, 1(1), 79–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heiden, B.
(2014) Narrative in poetry: A problem of narrative theory. Narrative, 22(2), 269–283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heller, J. R.
(1977) Enjambment as a metrical force in romantic conversation poems. Poetics, 6, 15–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, P. C.
(2011) Affective narratology: The emotional structure of stories. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, J.
(1975) Vision and resonance: Two senses of poetic form. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. M.
(2015a) The scientific study of literary experience: Sampling the state of the art. Scientific Study of Literature, 5(2), 139–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Neurocognitive poetics: methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015c) Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading. In Williams, R. M. (Ed.), Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use (pp. 135–159). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, A. M., Lüdtke, J., Aryani, A., Meyer-Sickendieck, B., & Conrad, M.
(2016) Mood-empathic and aesthetic responses in poetry reception: A model-guided, multilevel, multimethod approach. Scientific Study of Literature, 6(1), 87–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, A. M., Schuster, S., Xue, S., and Lüdtke, J.
(2017) What’s in the brain that ink may character …: A quantitative narrative analysis of Shakespeare’s 154 sonnets for use in (Neuro-)cognitive poetics. Scientific Study of Literature, 7(1), 4–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koops van’t Jagt, R., Hoeks, J. C. J., Dorleijn, G., & Hendriks, P.
(2014) Look before you leap: How enjambment affects the processing of poetry. Scientific Study of Literature, 4(1), 3–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 112 ]
Kraxenberger, M., & Menninghaus, W.
(2016) Emotional effects of poetic phonology, word positioning and dominant stress peaks in poetry reading. Scientific Study of Literature, 6(2), 298–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, D.
(2015) The implicit erasure of “literary experience” in empirical studies of literature: Comment on “The scientific study of literary experience: Sampling the state of the art” by Arthur Jacobs. Scientific Study of Literature, 15(2), 171–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N.
(1969) A linguistic guide to English poetry. London, United Kingdom: Longman.Google Scholar
Logan, J. V.
(1961) Wordsworthian criticism: A guide and bibliography. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Margolin, U.
(2008) Studying literature and being empirical: A multifaceted conjunction. In Zyngier, S., Bortolussi, M., Chesnokova, A., & Auracher, J. (Eds.), Directions in empirical literary studies (pp. 8–19). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, K. S.
(2015) Reading beyond the lines: A critical review of cognitive approaches to literary interpretation and comprehension. Scientific Study of Literature, 5(1), 99–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Menninghaus, W., Bohrn, I. C., Knoop, C. A., Kotz, S. A., Schlotz, W., & Jacobs, A. M.
(2015) Rhetorical features facilitate prosodic processing while handicapping ease of semantic comprehension. Cognition, 143, 48–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miall, D. S.
(2006) Literary reading: Empirical and theoretical studies. New York, NY:
Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2011) Science in the perspective of literariness. Scientific Study of Literature, 1(1), 7–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D.
(1994) Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 389–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) What is literariness? Three components of literary reading. Discourse Processes, 28(2), 121–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salgaro, M.
(2015) How literary can literariness be? Methodological problems in the study of foregrounding. Scientific Study of Literature, 5(2), 229–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K.
(1989) Shakespeare’s sonnets: The case of and for single-case historiometry. Journal of Personality, 57(3), 695–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) Lexical choices and aesthetic success: A computer content analysis of 154 Shakespeare sonnets. Computers and the Humanities, 24(4), 251–264.Google Scholar
van Peer, W.
(1986) Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London, United Kingdom: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
(2007) Introduction to foregrounding: A state of the art. Language and Literature, 16(2), 99–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F., & Zyngier, S.
(2007) Lines on feeling: Foregrounding, aesthetics and meaning. Language and Literature, 16(2), 197–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F. & Zyngier, S.
(2012) Scientific methods for the humanities. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, W. C.
(1923) Spring and all. Dijon, France: Robert McAlmon.Google Scholar
Wordsworth, W.
(1983) Poems, in two volumes, and other poems, 1800–1807. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 113 ]
(1992) Lyrical ballads, and other poems, 1797–1800. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wuescher, H. J.
(1980) Liberty, equality, fraternity in Wordsworth, 1791–1800. Stockholm, Sweden: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Zöllner, K.
(1990) “Quotation analysis” as a means of understanding comprehension processes of longer and more difficult texts. Poetics, 19, 293–322. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A.
(1991) Some parameters of literary and news comprehension: Effects of discourse-type perspective on reading rate and surface structure representation. Poetics, 20(2) 139–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Aspects of literary comprehension. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Kuiken, Don & Shawn Douglas
2018. Living metaphor as the site of bidirectional literary engagement. Scientific Study of Literature 8:1  pp. 47 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 september 2020. 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.