What literature does to our emotions, and how do we know? Empirical studies will tell
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28925/2311-259x.2019.1.1Keywords:
Literary Studies, empirical methodology, emotions, foregrounding, narrative perspective, empathyAbstract
The general feeling of malaise, if not crisis, in Literary Studies forces us to urgently look for solutions that will bring the discipline forward. This article is a call for a concentration on fundamental issues in the study of literature, and at the same time for a more rigorous and accountable methodology in studying both the content and the form of literary texts as well as readers’ reactions to them.
Some illustrations of work in the area of Empirical Study of Literature are provided, showing how fiction is a powerful regulator of human emotion, especially by formal features of the text. Case 1 reports a study which looks at the influence of narrative perspective (internal focalization in the first place) on judgements of readers. Case 2 delves into the textual ingredients by which readers’ absorption in a narrative world is enhanced. These ingredients are foremost of a kind that goes under the name of “foregrounding” devices in literary studies. The conclusion from the research is that texts that are rich in foregrounding are better able to elicit a more complex response, i.e., a more powerful impact, from readers. In its turn Case 3 looks at how readers react to literary pieces dealing with deep human suffering. The findings indicate that literature is able to evoke strong feelings of empathy through its formal make-up. The results also support the argument that one’s exposure to literature is the main variable to have an impact on prosocial behaviour, irrespective of personality, gender, age or social situation.
Thus we claim that literary texts exert a powerful influence on readers’ value sharing, absorption and empathy, and the impact can only be studied empirically. The article shows a way out of the current crisis, not by just opening up a new fashion, in which literary texts are “interpreted” in yet another way, mostly academically, but by taking literary texts seriously in their workings on the minds and hearts of readers — which is ultimately what texts are written for.
Downloads
References
Bod, R. (2016). A new history of the Humanities. The search for principles and patterns from antiquity to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bunge, A. (2001). Philosophy in crisis. The need for reconstruction. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Bussele, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260903287259
Chesnokova, A., Zyngier, S., & van Peer, W. (2017). Learning through research: Invigorating the Humanities. Pedagogika, 125(1), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.15823/p.2017.14
Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01
Cumming, G. (2013). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966
Delbanco, A. (1999, November 4). The decline and fall of literature. New York Review of Books, 46.
Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gottschall, J. (2008). Literature, science, and a new Humanities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230615595
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
Gross, N. & Simmons, S. (2007). The social and political views of American professors [PDF file]. (Working paper). Retrieved February 18, 2019, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.147.6141&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Hakemulder, F. (2008). The more you see the more you get: How spectators use their limited capacity for attention in responses to formal aspects of film. In J. Auracher & W. van Peer
(Eds.), New beginnings in literary studies (pp. 332–351). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hakemulder, F., Kuijpers, M., Tan, E., Balint, K., & Doicaru, M. (Eds.). (2017). Narrative absorption. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.27
Hakemulder, F., & van Peer, W. (2015). Empirical stylistics. In V. Sotirova (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to stylistics (pp. 251–274). London: Continuum.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). New York: Wiley.
Koopman, E. (2011). Predictors of insight and catharsis among readers who use literature as a coping strategy. Scientific Study of Literature, 1(2), 241–259.
Koopman, E. (2016). Reading suffering. An empirical inquiry into empathic and reflexive responses to literary narratives. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.1.2.04koo
Kuijpers, M. (2014). Absorbing stories. The effects of textual devices on absorption and evaluative responses. Ridderkerk: Ridderkerk BV.
Leech, G. N. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.
Leech, G. N., & Short, M. H. (2007). Style in fiction (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Lindauer, M. (2009). Psyche and the literary muses. The contribution of literary content to scientific psychology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.7
McGann, J. (2004). A note on the current state of Humanities scholarship. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 409-413. https://doi.org/10.1086/421142
Menand, L. (2010). The marketplace of ideas. Reform and resistance in the American university. New York: W.W. Norton.
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Hanich, J., Wassiliwizky, E., Jacobsen, T., & Koelsch, S. (2017). Negative emotions in art reception: Refining theoretical assumptions and adding variables to the distancing-embracing model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 40.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17000309
Meyer, H., & Berlina, A. (2018). One hundred years of ostranenie. Lausanne: Sdvig Press.
Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1994a). Beyond text theory: Understanding literary response. Discourse Processes, 17, 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544873
Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1994b). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94)00011-5
Mitchell, W. J. T. (Ed.). (2004). The future of criticism — A critical inquiry symposium. Critical Inquiry, 30(2).
Mukařovský, J. (1965). Standard language and poetic language. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds.), Russian Formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 31–69). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Nell, V. (1988). Lost in a book. The psychology of reading for pleasure. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1ww3vk3
Oakley, F. (1997). Ignorant armies and nighttime clashes. In A. Kernan (Ed.), What’s happened to the Humanities (pp. 63–83). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pattai, D., & Corrall, W. (Eds.). (2005). Theory’s empire: An anthology of dissent. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rule, J. R. (1997). Theory and progress in social science. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511600883
Shklovsky, V. (1965). Art as technique. (L. T. Lemon and M. J. Reis, Trans.). In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds.), Russian Formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 3–24). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. (Original work published 1917.)
Shklovsky, V. (1990). Theory of prose. (B. Sher, Trans.). Elmwood Park, IL: Dalkey Archive Press. (Original work published 1929).
Short, M. H. (1996). Exploring the language of poems, plays and prose. London: Longman.
Simpson, P. (2014). Stylistics. A resource book for students (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173–191.
Tal-Or, N., & Cohen, J. (2010). Understanding audience involvement: conceptualizing and manipulating identification and transportation. Poetics, 38(4), 402–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2010.05.004
van Peer, W. (1986). Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.
van Peer, W. (2001). Justice in perspective. In W. van Peer & S. Chatman (Eds.), New perspectives on narrative perspective (pp. 325-338). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
van Peer, W. (2008). The inhumanity of the Humanities. In J. Auracher & W. van Peer
(Eds.), New beginnings in literary studies (pp. 1–22). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
van Peer W., Chesnokova, A., & Springer, M. (2017). Distressful empathy in reading literature: The case for terror management theory. Science and Education 1, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.24195/2414-4665-2017-1-6
van Peer, W., & Hakemulder, F. (2006). Foregrounding. In K. Brown (Ed.), The Pergamon encyclopaedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 4). (pp. 546–551). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/
1016/B0-08-044854-2/00511-3
van Peer, W., Hakemulder, J., & Zyngier, S. (2007). Lines on feeling: Foregrounding, aesthetics, and meaning. Language and Literature, 16, 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007075985
van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F., & Zyngier, S. (2012). Scientific methods for the Humanities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.13
van Peer, W. & Nousi, A. (2006). What reading does to readers. Stereotypes, foregrounding, and language learning. In G. Watson & S. Zyngier (Eds.), Literature and stylistics for language learners (pp. 181–193). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
van Peer, W., Zyngier, S., & Hakemulder, F. (2007). Foregrounding: Past, present, future. In D. Hoover & S. Lattig (Eds.), Stylistics: Prospect and retrospect (pp. 1–21). Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: RODOPI.
Wales, K. (2001). A dictionary of stylistics. Pearson Education.
Zyngier, S., van Peer, W., & Hakemulder, F. (2007). Complexity and foregrounding: In the eye of the beholder? Poetics Today, 28, 653–682. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-2007-011
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
