Article published in:
Scientific Study of Literature
Vol. 5:2 (2015) ► pp. 229–249

How literary can literariness be?

Methodological problems in the study of foregrounding

| University of Verona
In literary theory, there are two common proposals about the nature of literature: that literariness is a distinctive characteristic of literary texts and that literariness is mostly characterized by highly foregrounded textual features. Our studies focused on the effects of genre expectations. In two experiments, we examined whether particular rhetorical figures (features, such as oxymora, synesthesia, and personification) are processed differently when readers think they are embedded in literary sentences. Participants were first induced to think that the sentences they were reading were taken either from literary texts (literary group) or from newspaper articles (news group). They then read sentences containing rhetorical figures and control sentences that did not contain figurative language. Results of Experiment 1 were consistent with prior research indicating that genre expectations influence how a text is processed (Zwaan, 1991, 1994). Moreover, specifically in the news group, genre expectations similarly affect reading times for sentences with rhetorical figures and sentences containing low frequency and long words, suggesting that foregrounding presents a lexical challenge elicited by micro-level linguistic and rhetorical “obstacles.” However, Experiment 2 did not replicate the findings of Experiment 1. These conflicting results prompt consideration of the limitations of an exclusive focus on foregrounding; in literary texts there is always an interchange between backgrounding and foregrounding elements.
Keywords: literariness, rhetorical figures, foregrounding, low frequency words
Published online: 28 July 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.5.2.06sal
References
Ablali, D
(2006) Écrire en critique: Exploration morpho-syntaxique sur corpus. In C. Duteil & B. Foulquié (Eds.), Corpus en Lettres et Sciences sociales: des documents numériques à l’interprétation. Actes du colloque international d’Albi, juillet 2006 (pp. 207–214). Paris, France: Editeru Textot. Retrieved from www​.revue​-texto​.netGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G
(2013) Aspects of word length. In R. Köhler & G. Altmann (Eds.), Issues in quantitativel linguistics, 31, 23–38. Lüdenscheid, Deutschland: RAM.Google Scholar
Altmann, U., Bohrn, I.C., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A.M
(2012) Fact vs fiction—how paratextual information shapes our reading processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(1), 22–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M
(1984) Problems of Dostoesvsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bortolussi, M., & Dixon, P
(2003) Psychonarratology. Foundations for the empirical study of literary response. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dimigen, O., Sommer, W., Hohlfeld, A., Jacobs, A.M., & Kliegl, R
(2011) Co-registration of eye movements and EEG in natural reading: Analyses and review. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 552–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eagleton, T
(1983) Literary theory: An introduction. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eco, U
(1979) Lector in fabula. Milano, Italia: Bompiani.Google Scholar
Fish, S
(1980) Is there a text in this class. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Forgacs, B., Bohrn, I.C., Baudewig, J., Hofmann, M.J., Pleh, C., & Jacobs, A.M
(2012) Neural correlates of combinatorial semantic processing of literal and figurative noun-noun compound words. Neuroimage, 63(3), 1432–1442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grzybek, P
(2014) Word Length. In: Taylor, John R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grzybek, P., & Altmann, G
(2002) Oscillation in the frequency-length relationship. Glottometrics, 61, 97–107.Google Scholar
Grzybek, P., & Stadlober, E
(2007) Do we have problems with Arens’ law? A new look at the sentence-word relation. In P. Grzybek & R. Köhler (Eds.), Exact methods in the study of language and text. Dedicated to Gabriel Altmann on the occasion of his 75th birthday (pp. 205–217). Berlin, Deutschland: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grzybek, P., Stadlober, E., & Kelih, E
(2007) The relationship of word length and sentence length. The Inter-Textual Perspective. In R. Decker & H.-J. Lenz (Eds.), Advances in data analysis (pp. 611–618). Berlin, Deutschland: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanauer, D
(1998) The genre-specific hypothesis of reading: Reading poetry and reading encyclopedic items. Poetics, 26(2), 63–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Integration of phonetic and graphic features in poetic text categorization judgments. Poetics, 231, 363–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffstaedter, P
(1986) Poetizität aus der Sicht des Lesers. Eine empirische Untersuchung der Rolle von Text-, Leser- und Kontexteigenschaften bei der poetischen Verarbeitung von Texten. Hamburg, Deutschland: H. Buske.Google Scholar
Hofmann, M.J., & Jacobs, A.M
(2014) Interactive activation and competition models and semantic context: From behavioral to brain data. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46(1), 85–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutzler, F., Braun, M., Vo, M.L.H., Engl, V., Hofmann, M., Dambacher, M., et al.
(2007) Welcome to the real world: Validating fixation-related brain potentials for ecologically valid settings. Brain Research, 11721, 124–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iser, W
(1976) The act of reading. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A.M
(2011) Neurokognitive Poetik: Elemente eines Modells des literarischen Lesens (Neurocognitive poetics: Elements of a model of literary reading). In R. Schrott, & A.M. Jacobs (Eds.), Gehirn und Gedicht: Wie wir unsere Wirklichkeiten konstruieren (pp. 492–450). München, Deutschland: Hanser.Google Scholar
Jakobson R
(1987) Language in literature (K. Pomorska & S. Rudy, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jauss H.R
(1967) Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft. Konstanz, Deutschland: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A., & Wooley, J.D
(1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 228–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kao J., Ryan R., Dye M., & Ramscar M
(2010) An acquired taste: How reading literature affects sensitivity to word distributions when judging literary texts. Proceedings of the 32nd Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , Portland, OR. Retrieved from http://​psych​.stanford​.edu​/~michael​/papers​/2010​_ramscar​_literary​.pdf
Karlgren, J., & Cutting, D
(1994) Recognizing text genres with simple metrics using discriminant analysis proceeding COLING ‘94. Proceedings of the 15th conference on Computational linguistics , 21, 1071–1075. Crossref
Kneepkens, L.J., & Zwaan, R.A
(1994) Emotion and cognition in literary understanding. Poetics, 231, 125–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, D. Philipps, L., Gregus, M., Miall, D.S., Verbitsky, M., & Tonkonogy, A
(2004) Locating self-modyfying feelings within literary reading. Discourse processes, 381, 267–286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., & Short, M
(2007) Style in fiction. A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Levin, S.R
(1963) Deviation–statistical and determinate–in poetic language. Lingua 121, 276–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lüdtke, J., Meyer-Sickendieck, B., & Jacobs, A.M
(2014), Immersing in the stillness of an early morning: Testing the mood empathy hypothesis of poetry reception. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3), 363–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McQuarrie, E.F., & Mick, D.G
(1996) Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 191, 424–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meutsch, D
(1987) Literatur verstehen. Eine empiristische Studie. Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Vieweg & Teubner. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miall, D., & Kuiken, D
(1994), Foregrounding, defamiliarization and affect, Response to literary stories. Poetics, 221, 389–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness. Poetics, 251, 327–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) What is literariness? Three components of literary reading. Discourse Processes, 281, 121–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mukarovský, J
(1932/1964) Standard language and poetic language. In P.L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague School Reader on aesthetics, literary structure, and style. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sanford, A., & Emmott, C
(2012) Mind, brain and narrative. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, A.J, Dawydiak, E., & Emmott
(2006) External and internal sources of attention control: Findings from change detection. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse . Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Schmidt, S
(1980) Grundriß der empirischen Literaturwissenschaft. Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Vieweg & Teubner.Google Scholar
Sereno, S.C., Rayner, K., & Posner, M
(1998) Establishing a time-line of word recognition: Evidence from eye movements and event-related potentials. NeuroReport, 91, 2195–2200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shklovsky, V
(1917/1965) Art as technique. In L.T. Lemon & M.J. Reis (Eds.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 3–24). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Sopčák, P
(2007) Creating from nothing. A foregrounding study of James Joyce’s drafts for Ulysses. Language and Literature, 161, 183–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, P
(2002) Cognitive poetics. An introduction. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T
(1979) Advice on theoretical poetics. Poetics, 81, 569–608. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Peer, W., Hakemulder, J, & Zygnier, S
(2007) Lines on feeling: Foregrounding, aesthetics and meaning. Language and Literature, 16(2), 197–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Peer, W., & Hakemulder, J.F
(2006) Foregrounding. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Peer, W
(1986) Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London, United Kingdom: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Vespignani, F., Egidi, G., & Salgaro, M
(2013)  Literary attitude affects lexical access, Escop (Eighteenth Meeting of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology) , Budapest 29 August – 1 September. Crossref
Xiao, Z., & McEnery, A
(2005) Two approaches to genre analysis: Three genres in modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 33(1), 62–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winko, S., Jannidis, F., & Lauer, G
(2009) Grenzen der Literatur. Zu Begriff und Phänomen des Literarischen. Berlin, Deutschland: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yong, B.L., & Myaeng, S.H
(2002) Text genre classification with genre-revealing and subject-revealing features. In Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval , 145–150.
Zwaan, R
(1991) Some parameters of literary and news comprehension: Effects of discourse-type perspective on reading rate and surface structure representation. Poetics, 201, 139–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Effects of Genre Expectations on Text Comprehension. Learning Memory and Cognition, 20(4), 920–933. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Bruhn, Mark J.
2018. Citation analysis. Scientific Study of Literature 8:1 ► pp. 77 ff. Crossref logo
Form, Sven
2019. Reaching Wuthering Heights with Brave New Words: The Influence of Originality of Words on the Success of Outstanding Best‐Sellers. The Journal of Creative Behavior 53:4 ► pp. 508 ff. Crossref logo
Jacobs, Arthur M.
2018. (Neuro-)Cognitive poetics and computational stylistics. Scientific Study of Literature 8:1 ► pp. 165 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2022. 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.