Cover not available
Article published In:
Scientific Study of Literature
Vol. 12:1/2 (2022) ► pp.28–48

Swirling currents

Identifying predominant themes and processes through a digital analysis of American nature writing

ORCID logo | Wright State University – Lake CampusCelinaOH
 | Wright State University – Lake CampusCelinaOH
 | Wright State University – Lake CampusCelinaOH
Understanding how humans relate to and think about nonhuman nature has never been more important. To begin exploring that question, our study compares literature (nature-writing) that explicitly addresses this relationship with literature of the same genre that does not address nonhuman nature (creative nonfiction) using the tools of digital humanities and ecological analysis. We used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and Meaning Extraction Method (MEM) to examine 228 texts. Resulting scores were then examined for gradients, patterns, and trends across texts using principal components analysis (PCA). Overall, we found that nature writing texts scored higher in analytical and authenticity scores; were associated with psychological processes such as perception, cognition, politics, and power; and were typified by individual word choice clouds associated with clusters of text such as tree/human/see/time/form/place than non-nature creative nonfiction. This analysis serves as a foundation for understanding the genre of nature-writing and the ways that humans think about nonhuman nature.
Keywords: nature writing, creative nonfiction, textual analysis, digital humanities, multivariate analysis
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Discussion
    • Overarching summary variables: Analytical thinking and authenticity
    • LIWC psychological variables: Spatial perception, tentative cognitive processing, and culture and politics
    • MEM analysis – perception and natural elements
    • Conclusions and limitations
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.22003.jun
References (37)
References
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnhill, D. L. (2010). Surveying the landscape: A new approach to nature writing. Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment. 17 (2), 273–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennet, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bonch-Osmolovskaya, A. and Skorinkin, D. (2017). Texting mining War and Peace: Automatic extraction of character traits from literature. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. 32 (1), 17–24.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. L., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2015). Did Shakespeare write Double Falsehood? Identifying individuals by creating psychological signatures with text analysis. Psychological Science. 26(5), 570–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. L., Ashokkumar, A., Seraj, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2022). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. [URL]
Boyd, R. L. (2017). Psychological test analysis in the digital humanities. In Hai-Jew, S. (ed.) Data analysis in digital humanities. Springer International Publishing. 161–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buell, L. (2005). The future of environmental criticism: Environmental crisis and literary imagination. Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Chung, C. and Pennebaker, J. (2008). Revealing dimensions of thinking in open-ended self-descriptions: An automated meaning extraction method for natural language. Journal of Research in Personality. 42 (1), 96–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elder, J. and Finch, R. (2002). The Norton Book of Nature Writing. W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Dowell, N. and Moldovan, C. (2011). A computer’s understanding of literature. Scientific Study of Literature. 1 (1), 24–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutkind, L. (2006). Creative nonfiction: A movement, not a moment. Creative Nonfiction. (29), 6–18.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. J. (2008). When species meet. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hesse, D. (2003). The place of creative nonfiction. College English. 65 (3), 237–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hueser, R., Le-Khac, L. and Moretti, F. (2011). Learning to read data: Bringing out the humanistic in the digital humanities. Victorian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Social, Political, and Cultural Studies. 54 (1), 79–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johns-Putra, A. (2016). Climate change in literature and literary studies: From cli-fi, climate change theater and ecopoetry to ecocriticism and climate change criticism. WIREs Climate Change. 7 (2), 266–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenton, R. (2016). Text-mining short fiction by Zora Neale Hurston and Richard Wright using Voyant tools. CLA Journal. 59 (3), 251–258.Google Scholar
Lopate, P. (1997). The art of the personal essay: An anthology from the classical era to the present. Anchor Press.Google Scholar
Lui, M., et al. (2019). Literary intelligence analysis of novel protagonists’ personality traits and development. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. 34 (1), 221–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lott, B. (2000). Toward a definition of creative nonfiction. Fourth Genre: Explorations in Nonfiction. 2 (1), 192–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyon, T. J. (2001). This incomporable land: A guide to American nature writing. Milkweed Editions.Google Scholar
McCune, B., and Mefford, M. J. (2018). PC-ORD Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 7.08. MjM Software Design, Wild Blueberry Media LLC.Google Scholar
Murphy, P. D. (2000). Farther afield in the study of nature-oriented literature. University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Naber, F. and Boot, P. (2019). Exploring the features of naturalist prose using LIWC in Nederlab. Journal of Dutch Literature. 10 (1), 50–70.Google Scholar
Newman, M. et al. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 29 (5), 665–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, R., Lynn, J. and Purzycki, B. G. (2014). Toward a science of science fiction: Applying quantifying methods to genre individuation. Scientific Study of Literature. 4 (1), 24–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peck, J. E. (2010). Multivariate analysis for community ecologists: Step-by-step using PC-ORD. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR, 162 pp.Google Scholar
Pennebaker Conglomerates. (No date). LIWC analysis. [URL]
Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Frazee, J., Lavergne, G. M. and Beaver, D. I. (2014). When small words foretell academic success: The case of college admissions essays. PLoS ONE. 9 (12). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Pennebaker, J. W. and Ireland, M. E. (2011). Using literature to understand authors: The case for computerized text analysis. Scientific Study of Literature. 1 (1), 34–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, D. (2003). The truth of ecology: Nature, culture, and literature in America. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piper, A. (2016). Fictionality. CA: Journal of Cultural Analytics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roorbach, B. (2001). Contemporary Creative Nonfiction: The art of truth. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Root Jr., R. L. and Steinberg, M. (1999). The Fourth Genre: Contemporary Writers of/on Creative Nonfiction. 1st ed. Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. (2018). Prelude as lifespan gauge: Quantifying psychological processes over time. Scientific Study of Literature. 7 (2), 232–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warnock, J. (1989). Representing reality: readings in literary nonfiction. St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar