What is literariness? Three components of literary reading
- 1 January 1999
- journal article
- conference paper
- Published by Informa UK Limited in Discourse Processes
- Vol. 28 (2), 121-138
- https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545076
Abstract
It is now widely maintained that the concept of literariness has been critically examined and found deficient. Prominent postmodern literary theorists have argued that there are no special characteristics that distinguish literature from other texts. Similarly, cognitive psychology has often subsumed literary understanding within a general theory of discourse processing. However, a review of empirical studies of literary readers reveals traces of literariness that appear irreducible to either of these explanatory frameworks. Our analysis of readers’ responses to several literary texts (short stories and poems) indicates processes beyond the explanatory reach of current situation models. Such findings suggest a three‐component model of literariness involving foregrounded stylistic or narrative features, readers’ defamiliarizing responses to them, and the consequent modification of personal meanings.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- The form of reading: Empirical studies of literarinessPoetics, 1998
- The form of reading: Empirical studies of literarinessPoetics, 1998
- Situation models in language comprehension and memory.Psychological Bulletin, 1998
- DISCOURSE COMPREHENSIONAnnual Review of Psychology, 1997
- Conscious understanding during comprehensionDiscourse Processes, 1996
- The Construction of Situation Models in Narrative Comprehension: An Event-Indexing ModelPsychological Science, 1995
- Beyond text theory: Understanding literary responseDiscourse Processes, 1994
- Beyond the schema given: Affective comprehension of literary narrativesCognition and Emotion, 1989
- The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review, 1988
- Evaluations in literary readingText & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 1986