7/24/2019 What is Literariness

1/4

What is literariness? Empirical traces of reading

David S. Miall and Don Kuiken

Departments of English and Psychology,

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2E

David!"iall#$alberta!ca % d&$i&en#psych!$alberta!cahttp'%%(((!$alberta!ca%)dmiall%reading%inde*!htm

Paper presented at the +th -iann$al GE. Conference, Utrecht, A$g$st 26/20, 100

Abstract

t is no( (idely maintained that the concept of 3literariness3 has been critically e*amined and fo$nd deficient!Prominent literary theorists have arg$ed that there are no special characteristics that disting$ish literat$re from other

te*ts! 4imilarly, cognitive science has often s$bs$med literary $nderstanding (ithin a general theory of disco$rse

processing!

5o(ever, a revie( of empirical st$dies of literary readers reveals traces of literariness that appear irred$cible to either

of these e*planatory frame(or&s! $r analysis of readers7 responses to several literary te*ts 8short stories and poems9

indicates processes beyond the e*planatory po(er of c$rrent inferential or sit$ation models! 4$ch findings s$ggest athree/component model of literariness involving foregro$nded te*t feat$res, readers7 defamiliari:ing responses to

them, and the modification of personal meaning as a conse;$ence!

7/24/2019 What is Literariness

2/4

feat$res are identifiable in relation to the norms of lang$age or narrative apparent in ordinary disco$rse 8e!g!, the

lang$age of ne(spaper articles, or the narrative str$ct$res they deploy9, b$t they may also occ$r in relation to local

norms created by a prevailing style or narrative strategy of the te*t itself 85$nt +ipond7s 81069 disco$rse

eval$ations are defined against local norms9! 4econd, readers7 attention is capt$red by s$ch feat$res' they tend to find

them stri&ing and evocative, and the effect of s$ch feat$res is $s$ally to render a familiar concept or sit$ation seemless familiar, re;$iring e*tra interpretive effort of the reader! Third, the interpretive effort res$lts in the modification

or transformation of readers7 concepts or feelings, $s$ally follo(ing an interval d$ring (hich readers search 8not

necessarily conscio$sly9 for an appropriate conte*t for locating or generating s$ch ne( $nderstanding! $r empiricalst$dies tend to sho( that feeling is the primary vehicle for this search! 9, pp! 1?/119! n this vie(, there are no components of an eval$ative B$dgement that

are not derived from the social position of the eval$ator nothing is dependent on the ;$alities of the (or& of art itself'

3there are no f$nctions performed by art(or&s that may be specified as generically $ni;$e3 8p! >9! To the e*tent that

a reader identifies feat$res or properties of a (or& for attention, these 3are all the variable prod$cts of the s$bBect7s

engagement (ith his or her environment $nder a partic$lar set of conditions3 8pp! >1/29! Th$s (e are as&ed to

s$ppose that the reader (e cited earlier singles o$t the metaphor in Coleridge7s line beca$se she has been s$bBectedto certain ed$cational practices that promote s$ch activities!

4mith s$ggests that those in control of aesthetic B$dgement 8$s$ally in academia9 expect te*ts to perform the

f$nctions they find proper or desirable, finding any other f$nctions irrelevant or improper! This controlling gro$p is

also said to deem as necessary the conditions $nder (hich it engages (ith te*ts, other conditions being fo$nd

irreg$lar or s$bstandard 8p! F19! This imp$tes m$ch more po(er to the gro$p than it possesses' o$r o(n st$dies of

st$dent readers, s$ch as the reader (e have cited, sho( far more divergent reading practices and variant$nderstandings of literat$re than 4mith7s acco$nt (o$ld allo(! -$t this only becomes apparent thro$gh empirical

st$dy of act$al readers! -oth in terms of the interpretations they ma&e and in their val$ations, readers go their o(n

(ay, especially (hen $nconstrained by classroom str$ct$res of a$thority! That s$ch reading is not irresponsible or

(himsical 8p! 11, a spectre also raised by ish, 100, p! >9, is sho(n by the persistant role of formal feat$res of a

te*t as an infl$ence on the reading process 8"iall and @$i&en, 100Fa9!

The role of foregro$nded feat$res in transcending the c$lt$ral bac&gro$nd of readers is s$ggested by a st$dy8c$rrently in progress9, based on Coleridge7s long poem 3The Hime of the Ancient "ariner,3 (hich contains 62

lines! 5ere, ta&ing the e*tensive critical literat$re on the poem from 10?? to 1001, (e co$nted the occ$rrence of

;$otations from the poem in over 16? articles and boo& chapters! Then, d$ring the st$dy from (hich (e have already

cited, >? readers nominated and commented on five passages from the poem that they fo$nd stri&ing! The fre;$ency

(ith (hich lines (ere selected from the poem by the t(o gro$ps 8critics and st$dent readers9 (as then compared' the

6 correlation (as highly significant, r862>9 I !FF1,p J !???1! t is noticeable that the most fre;$ently selected lines ofthe poem are either high in foregro$nding, or capt$re moments of great narrative importance 8$s$ally ambivalent in

meaning, hence the tendency to select them for critical disc$ssion9! The poem th$s appears to have the po(er to

attract attention in (ays that transcend either time, literary e*perience, or critical perspective!

t is, at one level, ;$ite tr$e, as 4mith says, that 3literary val$e is not the property of an obBect or a s$bBect b$t, rather,

the product of the dynamics of a system3 8p! 19! -$t (hat is missing from this acco$nt, (e s$ggest, is that val$efollows from first having noticed feat$res of a literary te*t and having fo$nd them stri&ing! 3As readers and critics ofliterat$re, (e are (ithin that system,3 states 4mith th$s, beca$se (e 3have partic$lar interests, (e (ill, at any given

moment, be vie(ing it fromsomeperspective3 8p! 169!

-$t, (e s$ggest, it is that perspective that the enco$nter (ith the literary te*t calls into ;$estion' if o$r interests (ere

invariably in control, as 4mith s$pposes, the stri&ing nat$re of the literary te*t (o$ld be inconceivable! -$t the

stri&ingness of literat$re is a phenomenon partic$larly attrib$table to the individ$al basis of o$r literary reading,

(here it is the perspectives (hich (e have, perhaps $nconscio$sly, ac;$ired from o$r c$lt$re that are especiallyli&ely to be ;$estioned! f this is correct, it points to the adaptive val$e

of literat$re in t$ning o$r cognitive frames and providing $s (ith greater fle*ibility, especially in impelling $s to

reconsider o$r system of val$es!

A similar arg$ment follo(s from the second main perspective in (hich literary response has been e*amined, that of

disco$rse processing!

7/24/2019 What is Literariness

3/4

relationships 8connections bet(een referents9 and the need to register shifts in time, space, and narrative ca$sation!

The codings of the segments of a short story for these components has been fo$nd to predict reading times, an

indication of the varying processing re;$irements that readers enco$nter in constr$cting the sit$ation model (ith each

segment! A sit$ation model, ho(ever, represents the array of cognitive processes necessary for $nderstanding any

narrative, a perspective basic to all narrative comprehension! t is this perspective that literary narratives seempartic$larly li&ely to challenge!

!2F,p I ?, o$r analysis sho(ed the infl$ence of foregro$nding on readers to be e;$al

in its effects to the e( Arg$ments component and stronger than any of the other variables of the sit$ation model! t

sho$ld also be noted that foregro$nding and e( Arg$ments are independent infl$ences on reading times' partialcorrelation 8controlling for n$mber of syllables9, r81FK9 I !?0! 8!!!9

The sit$ation model components represent the basic bloc&s or prototypes of comprehension that are probably

obligatory for all readers and also probably virt$ally identical for all readers! oregro$nding, in contrast, appears to

provide a significant point of depart$re for individ$al differences in response to a literary te*t, partic$larly since it

evo&es feeling! eeling appears to implicate the reader7s self concept and to provide a ro$te to specific iss$es relating

to the self, as (ell as to e*periences or memories that may provide a ne( interpretive conte*t follo(ing the momentof defamiliari:ation! Th$s, (hile all readers appear to be sensitive to foregro$nding in literary te*ts, their constr$als

of its meaning often differ (idely, as st$dies s$ch as the 3"ariner3 set of protocols demonstrate!

The modification or transformation of readers7 concepts or feelings, the third component (e introd$ced earlier, is th$s

also specific to the individ$al reader' it is in this respect, indeed, that literat$re seems to invo&e (hat is individ$al in

the individ$al! A second e*ample from the same participant in the 3"ariner3 st$dy sho(s the $nfolding of this

process in response to the fifth passage from the poem selected by this reader! t is a mode of response 8sho(n in onlysome of the protocols in this st$dy9 that (e term enactment, since it seems to involve actively living thro$gh a

partic$lar e*perience conse;$ent on reading! The verse selected by the reader comes late in the poem'

.i&e one, that on a lonesome road

Doth (al& in fear and dread,

And having once t$rned ro$nd (al&s on,

And t$rns no more his head-eca$se he &no(s, a frightf$l fiend

Doth close behind him tread!

8Mariner, FF6 / F19

7m B$st going to share the emotion of being alone, in the dar&, (ith this threat! @no(ing that there7s nothing yo$ can

do abo$t it, &eeping on (al&ing and pretending it7s not happening, B$st beca$se there7s no other (ay to cope (ith it,

yo$ can7t r$n from it! ! ! ! also sense there7s no point in fighting this beca$se, li&e it7s a g$ilt thing, he7s the one that7sresponsible for (hat7s happened, he7s the reason that this thing is follo(ing him, so there is no point in trying to get

a(ay from it beca$se, it7s yo$r fate! t7s B$st a bit of a reminder that everybody dies!

7/24/2019 What is Literariness

4/4

References

Eagleton, Terry 810>9!Literary theory: An introduction! *ford' -asil -lac&(ell!

ish, 4tanley 81009!Doing what comes naturally: Change rhetoric, and the practice of

theory in literary and legal studies! D$rham, C' D$&e University Press!

Graesser, A! C! 81019!rose comprehension !eyond the word! e( Mor&' 4pringer/+erlag!

5$nt, H! A! +ipond, D! 81069! Eval$ations in literary reading! "ext, 6, >/K1!

"iall, D! 4! 81009! -eyond the schema given' Affective comprehension of literarynarratives! Cognition and #motion, >, /K!

"iall, D! 4!, @$i&en, D! 8100Fa9! oregro$nding, defamiliari:ation, and affect'Hesponse to literary stories!oetics, 22, >0/F?K!

"iall, D! 4!, @$i&en, D! 8100Fb9! -eyond te*t theory' Understanding literary response!

Discourse rocesses, 1K, >>K/>2!

4mith, -arbara 5errnstein 8109! Contingencies of Value: Alternative erspectives for

Critical "heory! Cambridge, "A' 5arvard University Press!

+an DiB&, T! 810K09! Advice on theoretical poetics!oetics, , 60/6?!L(aan, H! A!, "agliano, N! P!, Graesser, A! C! 81009! Dimensions of sit$ation model

constr$ction in narrative comprehension!$ournal of #xperimental sychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, >6/>0K!

F