文学阅读中风格敏感度的个体差异:来自眼动追踪的见解

Collabra Pub Date : 2016-12-19 DOI:10.1525/COLLABRA.39
E.A.W.H. van den Hoven, Franziska Hartung, M. Burke, Roel M. Willems
{"title":"文学阅读中风格敏感度的个体差异:来自眼动追踪的见解","authors":"E.A.W.H. van den Hoven, Franziska Hartung, M. Burke, Roel M. Willems","doi":"10.1525/COLLABRA.39","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Style is an important aspect of literature, and stylistic deviations are sometimes labeled foregrounded, since their manner of expression deviates from the stylistic default. Russian Formalists have claimed that foregrounding increases processing demands and therefore causes slower reading – an effect called retardation. We tested this claim experimentally by having participants read short literary stories while measuring their eye movements. Our results confirm that readers indeed read slower and make more regressions towards foregrounded passages as compared to passages that are not foregrounded. A closer look, however, reveals significant individual differences in sensitivity to foregrounding. Some readers in fact do not slow down at all when reading foregrounded passages. The slowing down effect for literariness was related to a slowing down effect for high perplexity (unexpected) words: those readers who slowed down more during literary passages also slowed down more during high perplexity words, even though no correlation between literariness and perplexity existed in the stories. We conclude that individual differences play a major role in processing of literary texts and argue for accounts of literary reading that focus on the interplay between reader and text.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"30","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Individual Differences in Sensitivity to Style During Literary Reading: Insights from Eye-Tracking\",\"authors\":\"E.A.W.H. van den Hoven, Franziska Hartung, M. Burke, Roel M. Willems\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/COLLABRA.39\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Style is an important aspect of literature, and stylistic deviations are sometimes labeled foregrounded, since their manner of expression deviates from the stylistic default. Russian Formalists have claimed that foregrounding increases processing demands and therefore causes slower reading – an effect called retardation. We tested this claim experimentally by having participants read short literary stories while measuring their eye movements. Our results confirm that readers indeed read slower and make more regressions towards foregrounded passages as compared to passages that are not foregrounded. A closer look, however, reveals significant individual differences in sensitivity to foregrounding. Some readers in fact do not slow down at all when reading foregrounded passages. The slowing down effect for literariness was related to a slowing down effect for high perplexity (unexpected) words: those readers who slowed down more during literary passages also slowed down more during high perplexity words, even though no correlation between literariness and perplexity existed in the stories. We conclude that individual differences play a major role in processing of literary texts and argue for accounts of literary reading that focus on the interplay between reader and text.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Collabra\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"30\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Collabra\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.39\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collabra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.39","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

摘要

风格是文学的一个重要方面,风格偏差有时被标记为前景,因为它们的表达方式偏离了风格默认。俄罗斯形式主义者声称,前景会增加处理需求,从而导致阅读速度变慢——这种效应被称为迟滞。我们通过实验测试了这一说法,让参与者阅读短篇文学故事,同时测量他们的眼球运动。我们的研究结果证实,与没有前景的文章相比,读者确实阅读得更慢,对前景文章的记忆也更多。然而,仔细观察就会发现,对前景的敏感性存在显著的个体差异。事实上,一些读者在阅读前景文章时一点也不放慢速度。文学性的减速效应与高困惑(意外)词的减速效应相关:阅读文学段落时速度越慢的读者在阅读高困惑词时速度也越慢,尽管故事中的文学性和困惑性之间不存在相关性。我们得出结论,个体差异在文学文本的处理中起着重要作用,并主张关注读者和文本之间相互作用的文学阅读解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Individual Differences in Sensitivity to Style During Literary Reading: Insights from Eye-Tracking
Style is an important aspect of literature, and stylistic deviations are sometimes labeled foregrounded, since their manner of expression deviates from the stylistic default. Russian Formalists have claimed that foregrounding increases processing demands and therefore causes slower reading – an effect called retardation. We tested this claim experimentally by having participants read short literary stories while measuring their eye movements. Our results confirm that readers indeed read slower and make more regressions towards foregrounded passages as compared to passages that are not foregrounded. A closer look, however, reveals significant individual differences in sensitivity to foregrounding. Some readers in fact do not slow down at all when reading foregrounded passages. The slowing down effect for literariness was related to a slowing down effect for high perplexity (unexpected) words: those readers who slowed down more during literary passages also slowed down more during high perplexity words, even though no correlation between literariness and perplexity existed in the stories. We conclude that individual differences play a major role in processing of literary texts and argue for accounts of literary reading that focus on the interplay between reader and text.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Having a Positive Attitude or Doing Good Deeds? An Experimental Investigation of Poker Players’ Responses to the Gambling Fallacies Measure The Association Between Smokers’ Approach Bias and Heaviness of Use: A Focus on Light Smokers The Interplay of Time-of-day and Chronotype Results in No General and Robust Cognitive Boost Individual Difference Correlates of Being Sexually Unrestricted Yet Declining an HIV Test Explaining Why Headlines Are True or False Reduces Intentions to Share False Information
×
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