This perspective paper discusses four general desiderata of current computational stylistics and (neuro-)cognitive poetics concerning the development of (a) appropriate databases/training corpora, (b) advanced qualitative-quantitative narrative analysis (Q2NA) and machine learning tools for feature extraction, (c) ecologically valid literary test materials, and (d) open-access reader-response data banks. In six explorative computational stylistics studies, it introduces a number of tools that provide QNA indices of the foregrounding potential at the sublexical, lexical, inter- and supralexical levels for poems by Shakespeare, Blake, or Dickens. These concern lexical diversity and aesthetic potential, sentiment analysis, sublexical sonority scores or phrase structure, and topics analysis. The results illustrate the complex interplay of stylistic features and the necessity for theoretical guidance and interdisciplinary cooperation in selecting adequate training corpora, QNA tools, test texts, and response measures.
{"title":"(Neuro-)Cognitive poetics and computational stylistics","authors":"A. Jacobs","doi":"10.1075/SSOL.18002.JAC","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SSOL.18002.JAC","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This perspective paper discusses four general desiderata of current computational stylistics and\u0000 (neuro-)cognitive poetics concerning the development of (a) appropriate databases/training corpora, (b) advanced\u0000 qualitative-quantitative narrative analysis (Q2NA) and machine learning tools for feature extraction, (c) ecologically valid\u0000 literary test materials, and (d) open-access reader-response data banks. In six explorative computational stylistics studies, it\u0000 introduces a number of tools that provide QNA indices of the foregrounding potential at the sublexical, lexical, inter- and\u0000 supralexical levels for poems by Shakespeare, Blake, or Dickens. These concern lexical diversity and aesthetic potential,\u0000 sentiment analysis, sublexical sonority scores or phrase structure, and topics analysis. The results illustrate the complex\u0000 interplay of stylistic features and the necessity for theoretical guidance and interdisciplinary cooperation in selecting adequate\u0000 training corpora, QNA tools, test texts, and response measures.","PeriodicalId":222412,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Studies of Literariness","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126619605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study utilizes texts which sit between the literary and non-literary to explore the outcomes and mechanisms of literariness. Literariness can be activated by (a) linguistic foregrounding and (b) paratextual specification. In a 2 × 2 design, manipulated versions of two soldier narratives were produced (poetry/fiction; poetry/fact; prose/fiction; prose/poetry). 215 participants were randomly assigned to read one of the textual versions and respond to rating scales dealing with perception of textual features, empathy, sympathy, and cognitive perspective-taking. The results show that poetic form elicits significantly higher ratings for empathy and sympathy and that paratextual information specifying that a text is factual elicits significantly higher ratings for empathy and cognitive perspective-taking. Two structural equation models were defined: (a) a literariness model and (b) a factual accuracy model. The results suggest an additive dual model of processing in which both poetic form and factual definition contribute to outcomes characteristic of literariness. These results offer some support for the hypotheses of the Neuro-Cognitive Poetics Model proposed by (Jacobs, 2011).
{"title":"Intermediate states of literariness","authors":"D. Hanauer","doi":"10.1075/SSOL.18001.HAN","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SSOL.18001.HAN","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study utilizes texts which sit between the literary and non-literary to explore the outcomes and mechanisms\u0000 of literariness. Literariness can be activated by (a) linguistic foregrounding and (b) paratextual specification. In a 2 × 2\u0000 design, manipulated versions of two soldier narratives were produced (poetry/fiction; poetry/fact; prose/fiction; prose/poetry).\u0000 215 participants were randomly assigned to read one of the textual versions and respond to rating scales dealing with perception\u0000 of textual features, empathy, sympathy, and cognitive perspective-taking. The results show that poetic form elicits significantly\u0000 higher ratings for empathy and sympathy and that paratextual information specifying that a text is factual elicits significantly\u0000 higher ratings for empathy and cognitive perspective-taking. Two structural equation models were defined: (a) a literariness model\u0000 and (b) a factual accuracy model. The results suggest an additive dual model of processing in which both poetic form and factual\u0000 definition contribute to outcomes characteristic of literariness. These results offer some support for the hypotheses of the\u0000 Neuro-Cognitive Poetics Model proposed by (Jacobs, 2011).","PeriodicalId":222412,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Studies of Literariness","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115562336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Historical introduction to the special issue on literariness","authors":"M. Salgaro","doi":"10.1075/SSOL.00005.SAL","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SSOL.00005.SAL","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":222412,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Studies of Literariness","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127202415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper presents series of historiometric studies that exemplify the value of “citation analysis” as an empirical approach to professional literary-critical interpretation, especially with respect to the question of the “literariness” of literary texts. Specifically, the studies show that professional interpreters of Wordsworth’s poetry, across more than a century of time and despite widely varying critical approaches, tend to pay more attention to and therefore more frequently cite lines that involve prospective enjambments. Lines involving nominative noun phrase and retrospective enjambments, however, did not reveal the same correlation with frequency of citation. The studies thus suggest that literariness does indeed have a relatively stable textual component that may be discriminated through citation analysis of professional interpretations of individual literary texts by authors writing in distinct genres of literature and in different periods in literary history.
{"title":"Citation analysis","authors":"M. Bruhn","doi":"10.1075/SSOL.17009.BRU","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SSOL.17009.BRU","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper presents series of historiometric studies that exemplify the value of “citation analysis” as an\u0000 empirical approach to professional literary-critical interpretation, especially with respect to the question of the “literariness”\u0000 of literary texts. Specifically, the studies show that professional interpreters of Wordsworth’s poetry, across more than a\u0000 century of time and despite widely varying critical approaches, tend to pay more attention to and therefore more frequently cite\u0000 lines that involve prospective enjambments. Lines involving nominative noun phrase and retrospective enjambments, however, did not\u0000 reveal the same correlation with frequency of citation. The studies thus suggest that literariness does indeed have a relatively\u0000 stable textual component that may be discriminated through citation analysis of professional interpretations of individual\u0000 literary texts by authors writing in distinct genres of literature and in different periods in literary history.","PeriodicalId":222412,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Studies of Literariness","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114774952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction to the special issue","authors":"Paul Sopcak, M. Salgaro, D. Hanauer","doi":"10.1075/ssol.00004.int","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.00004.int","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":222412,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Studies of Literariness","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126249772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Towards an empirical model of literariness","authors":"David S. Miall","doi":"10.1075/SSOL.00007.MIA","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SSOL.00007.MIA","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":222412,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Studies of Literariness","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131075460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Articulation of an interactive model of literariness calls for separate specification of (a) a text’s perceptible mode of representation, (b) a reader’s mode of engagement with a text so perceived, and (c) the generative (e.g., creative, expressive) effects of the interaction between this mode of representation and mode of reader engagement. We present a model that identifies two aspects of metaphoric textual representation: structured sequences of nominal metaphors and quasi-metaphoric structures with optional metaphoric construal. This model also distinguishes two modes of reader engagement: expressive enactment and integrative comprehension (Kuiken & Douglas, 2017). The generativity of literary reading is located especially within the interplay between expressive enactment and sequences of metaphoric (and quasi-metaphoric) modes of representation. Evidence suggests that readers reporting expressive enactment also report inexpressible realizations and a temporal progression leading through epistemic tensions that comprise “living metaphor” (Ricoeur, 1981). Thus the generativity – and aesthetic effects – of literary reading are found within the departures from conventionality that comprise the emergent meanings of complex metaphoric structures.
{"title":"Living metaphor as the site of bidirectional literary engagement","authors":"Don Kuiken, Shawn Douglas","doi":"10.1075/SSOL.18004.KUI","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SSOL.18004.KUI","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Articulation of an interactive model of literariness calls for separate specification of (a) a text’s perceptible\u0000 mode of representation, (b) a reader’s mode of engagement with a text so perceived, and (c) the generative (e.g., creative,\u0000 expressive) effects of the interaction between this mode of representation and mode of reader engagement. We present a model that\u0000 identifies two aspects of metaphoric textual representation: structured sequences of nominal metaphors and quasi-metaphoric\u0000 structures with optional metaphoric construal. This model also distinguishes two modes of reader engagement: expressive enactment\u0000 and integrative comprehension (Kuiken & Douglas, 2017). The generativity of\u0000 literary reading is located especially within the interplay between expressive enactment and sequences of metaphoric (and\u0000 quasi-metaphoric) modes of representation. Evidence suggests that readers reporting expressive enactment also report inexpressible\u0000 realizations and a temporal progression leading through epistemic tensions that comprise “living metaphor” (Ricoeur, 1981). Thus the generativity – and aesthetic effects – of literary reading are found within the\u0000 departures from conventionality that comprise the emergent meanings of complex metaphoric structures.","PeriodicalId":222412,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Studies of Literariness","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131403477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Metaphors occur frequently in literary texts. Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT; e.g., Steen, 2017) proposes that metaphors that serve a communicative function as metaphor are radically different from metaphors that do not have this function. We investigated differences in processing between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphors, compared to non-metaphorical words in literary reading. Using the Deliberate Metaphor Identification Procedure (Reijnierse et al., 2018), we identified metaphors in two literary stories. Then, eye-tracking was used to investigate participants’ (N = 72) reading behavior. Deliberate metaphors were read slower than non-deliberate metaphors, and both metaphor types were read slower than non-metaphorical words. Differences were controlled for several psycholinguistic variables. Differences in reading behavior were related to individual differences in reading experience and absorption and appreciation of the story. These results are in line with predictions from DMT and underline the importance of distinguishing between metaphor types in the experimental study of literary reading.
隐喻经常出现在文学文本中。刻意隐喻理论;例如，Steen, 2017)提出，具有交际功能的隐喻与不具有这种功能的隐喻有着根本的不同。我们研究了有意隐喻和非有意隐喻在文学阅读中的加工差异。使用刻意隐喻识别程序(Reijnierse et al.， 2018)，我们识别了两个文学故事中的隐喻。然后，使用眼动追踪来调查参与者(N = 72)的阅读行为。刻意隐喻的阅读速度比非刻意隐喻慢，两种隐喻类型的阅读速度都比非隐喻词慢。对几个心理语言学变量的差异进行了控制。阅读行为的差异与个体在阅读体验、故事吸收和欣赏方面的差异有关。这些结果与DMT的预测一致，并强调了在文学阅读实验研究中区分隐喻类型的重要性。
{"title":"Eye movements reveal readers’ sensitivity to deliberate metaphors during narrative reading","authors":"C. D. Vries, W. G. Reijnierse, Roel M. Willems","doi":"10.1075/SSOL.18008.VRI","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SSOL.18008.VRI","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Metaphors occur frequently in literary texts. Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT; e.g., Steen, 2017) proposes that metaphors that serve a communicative function as metaphor are\u0000 radically different from metaphors that do not have this function. We investigated differences in processing between deliberate\u0000 and non-deliberate metaphors, compared to non-metaphorical words in literary reading. Using the Deliberate Metaphor Identification\u0000 Procedure (Reijnierse et al., 2018), we identified metaphors in two literary stories.\u0000 Then, eye-tracking was used to investigate participants’ (N = 72) reading behavior. Deliberate metaphors were\u0000 read slower than non-deliberate metaphors, and both metaphor types were read slower than non-metaphorical words. Differences were\u0000 controlled for several psycholinguistic variables. Differences in reading behavior were related to individual differences in\u0000 reading experience and absorption and appreciation of the story. These results are in line with predictions from DMT and underline\u0000 the importance of distinguishing between metaphor types in the experimental study of literary reading.","PeriodicalId":222412,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Studies of Literariness","volume":"34 7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115737433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Who is David Miall?","authors":"M. Salgaro","doi":"10.1075/SSOL.00006.SAL","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SSOL.00006.SAL","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":222412,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Studies of Literariness","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122906382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：