Cognitive Poetics

Ellen Spolsky
{"title":"Cognitive Poetics","authors":"Ellen Spolsky","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Northrup Frye expressed a scholarly impatience with what seemed to him the inconsequentiality of literary study, asking if criticism might provide “a coordinating principle, a central hypothesis, which, like the theory of evolution in biology, will see the phenomena it deals with as parts of a whole\" (1957). Cognitive literary theory did not actually answer to Frye’s scientism until almost fifty years later, and when it did, it moved quickly in many directions. But it did not (and still has not) coalesced into a unified theory. The vigor and excitement of the field derive from its openness to many different areas of brain science, the wide reach of its attention to so many varieties of works of imagination—their production, their reception, and their history— and its resistance to a centralizing dogma. In her introduction to the Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Literary Studies, Lisa Zunshine, scholar in the field and its best historian, describes cognitive literary critics as working “not toward consilience with science but toward a richer engagement with a variety of theoretical paradigms in literary and cultural studies\" (2015). Scholars from most traditional humanities fields: philosophers (both analytical and phenomenological and philosophers of mind and of language), cultural, literary, and art historians, literary critics and linguists, for example, and social scientists as well (anthropologists, archaeologists, and ethologists), have found the various fields of brain science to offer new perspectives on some persistent questions. Studies by developmental psychologists have made major contributions. And as brain imaging has become more powerful and widely used, the hypotheses of neurophysiologists and neurobiologists have come into the picture. Evolutionary biology has made perhaps the largest contribution by providing the overriding argument in the field—namely that human potential, individual behavior, and group dynamics can be studied as emerging phenomena. This begins with bodies that have over the millennia grown into worlds in which competition and cooperation have built and continue to build cultural life.","PeriodicalId":207246,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.968","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Northrup Frye expressed a scholarly impatience with what seemed to him the inconsequentiality of literary study, asking if criticism might provide “a coordinating principle, a central hypothesis, which, like the theory of evolution in biology, will see the phenomena it deals with as parts of a whole" (1957). Cognitive literary theory did not actually answer to Frye’s scientism until almost fifty years later, and when it did, it moved quickly in many directions. But it did not (and still has not) coalesced into a unified theory. The vigor and excitement of the field derive from its openness to many different areas of brain science, the wide reach of its attention to so many varieties of works of imagination—their production, their reception, and their history— and its resistance to a centralizing dogma. In her introduction to the Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Literary Studies, Lisa Zunshine, scholar in the field and its best historian, describes cognitive literary critics as working “not toward consilience with science but toward a richer engagement with a variety of theoretical paradigms in literary and cultural studies" (2015). Scholars from most traditional humanities fields: philosophers (both analytical and phenomenological and philosophers of mind and of language), cultural, literary, and art historians, literary critics and linguists, for example, and social scientists as well (anthropologists, archaeologists, and ethologists), have found the various fields of brain science to offer new perspectives on some persistent questions. Studies by developmental psychologists have made major contributions. And as brain imaging has become more powerful and widely used, the hypotheses of neurophysiologists and neurobiologists have come into the picture. Evolutionary biology has made perhaps the largest contribution by providing the overriding argument in the field—namely that human potential, individual behavior, and group dynamics can be studied as emerging phenomena. This begins with bodies that have over the millennia grown into worlds in which competition and cooperation have built and continue to build cultural life.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认知诗学
诺斯鲁普·弗莱(Northrup Frye)对文学研究的无关紧要表达了一种学术上的不耐烦,他问批评是否可以提供“一种协调原则,一种中心假设,就像生物学中的进化论一样,将其处理的现象视为整体的一部分”(1957)。认知文学理论直到近50年后才真正回应弗莱的科学主义,当它回应时,它在许多方向上迅速发展。但它没有(现在也没有)整合成一个统一的理论。这个领域的活力和兴奋源于它对脑科学许多不同领域的开放,它对各种各样的想象作品的广泛关注——它们的产生、它们的接受和它们的历史——以及它对集中教条的抵制。在《牛津认知文学研究手册》(Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Literary Studies)的导言中,该领域的学者、该领域最好的历史学家丽莎·桑西(Lisa Zunshine)将认知文学批评家描述为“不是朝着与科学一致的方向努力,而是朝着更丰富地参与文学和文化研究中的各种理论范式的方向努力”(2015)。大多数传统人文学科领域的学者:哲学家(分析学、现象学、心灵和语言哲学家)、文化、文学和艺术史学家、文学评论家和语言学家,以及社会科学家(人类学家、考古学家和行为学家),都发现脑科学的各个领域为一些持久存在的问题提供了新的视角。发展心理学家的研究做出了重大贡献。随着脑成像变得越来越强大和广泛应用,神经生理学家和神经生物学家的假设也开始出现。进化生物学做出的最大贡献可能是提供了该领域最重要的论据,即人类潜能、个人行为和群体动力学可以作为新兴现象来研究。这始于几千年来成长为世界的身体,在这个世界中,竞争和合作已经建立并将继续建立文化生活。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Turkish Novel as Transnational Planetary Urbanization and Contemporary Fiction Ethology: The Narrative Turn The Reception of Ancient Greece and Rome in the Victorian Period Early Modern Literature and Food in Britain
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1