1887
Volume 35, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Narrative fiction may invite us to share the perspective of characters which are very much unlike ourselves. Inanimate objects featuring as protagonists or narrators are an extreme example of this. The way readers experience these characters was examined by means of a narrative immersion study. Participants ( = 200) judged narratives containing animate or inanimate characters in predominantly Agent or Experiencer roles. Narratives with inanimate characters were judged to be less emotionally engaging. This effect was influenced by the dominant thematic role associated with the character: inanimate Agents led to more defamiliarization compared to their animate counterparts than inanimate Experiencers. I argue for an integrated account of thematic roles and animacy in literary experience and linguistics in general.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00009.tro
2018-12-03
2019-09-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acheson, Daniel. J., Justine B. Wells & Maryellen C. MacDonald
    2008 “New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students.” Behavior Research Methods40(1): 278–289. 10.3758/BRM.40.1.278
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.278 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 “Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software67(1): 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernaerts, Lars, Marco Caracciolo, Luc Herman & Bart Vervaeck
    2014 “The storied lives of non-human narrators.” Narrative22: 68–93. 10.1353/nar.2014.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2014.0002 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bruner, Jerome
    1986Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Comrie, Bernard
    1989Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dahl, Östen
    2008 “Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny.” Lingua118: 141–150. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  7. de Graaf, Anneke, Hans Hoeken, José Sanders & Johannes W. J. Beentjes
    2012 “Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion.” Communication Research39: 802–823. 10.1177/0093650211408594
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211408594 [Google Scholar]
  8. de Swart, Peter & Helen de Hoop
    2018 “Shifting Animacy.” Theoretical Linguistics44(1/2). 1–23. 10.1515/tl‑2018‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2018-0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dowty, David
    1991 “Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.” Language67: 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fagel, Suzanne, Ninne Stukker & Loes van Andel
    2012 Hoe telbaar is stijl? – Een kwantitatieve analyse van observatie en participatie in de stijl van Arnon Grunberg. Nederlandse letterkunde17(3): 178–203. 10.5117/NEDLET2012.3.HOE_353
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDLET2012.3.HOE_353 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fowler, Roger
    1977Linguistics and the novel. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Grimm, Scott M.
    2005 “The Lattice of Case and Agentivity.” Master’s thesis, Amsterdam University.
  13. Hartung, Franziska, Michael Burke, Peter Hagoort & Roel M. Willems
    2016 “Taking perspective: Personal pronouns affect experiential aspects of literary reading.” PLoS One11(5): e0154732. 10.1371/journal.pone.0154732
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154732 [Google Scholar]
  14. Keen, Suzanne
    2007Empathy and the Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195175769.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195175769.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kidd, David C., & Emanuele Castano
    2013 “Reading literary fiction improves Theory of Mind.” Science342: 377–380. 10.1126/science.1239918
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239918 [Google Scholar]
  16. Koopman, Emy
    2015 “Empathic reactions after reading: The role of genre, personal factors and affective responses.” Poetics50: 62–79. 10.1016/j.poetic.2015.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2015.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kuijpers, Moniek, Frank Hakemulder, Ed Tan, & Miruna Doicaru
    2014 “Exploring absorbing reading experiences – developing and validating a self-report scale to measure story world absorption.” Scientific Study of Literature4(1): 89–122. 10.1075/ssol.4.1.05kui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.4.1.05kui [Google Scholar]
  18. Kuno, Susumu & Etsuko Kaburaki
    1977 “Empathy and Syntax.” Linguistic Inquiry8(4): 627–672.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Langacker, Ronald
    1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol II, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Nijhof, Annabel D. & Roel M. Willems
    2015 “Simulating Fiction: Individual Differences in Literature Comprehension Revealed with fMRI.” PLoS One10(2): e0116492. 10.1371/journal.pone.0116492
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116492 [Google Scholar]
  21. Primus, Beatrice
    2012 “Animacy, generalized semantic roles, and differential object marking.” Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehensioned. byM. J. A. Lamers & P. de Swart, 65–90. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑1463‑2_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_4 [Google Scholar]
  22. Radanović, Jelena, Chris Westbury & Petar Milin
    2016 “Quantifying Semantic Animacy: How much are words alive?” Applied Psycholinguistics37: 1477–1499. 10.1017/S0142716416000096
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716416000096 [Google Scholar]
  23. Rosenbach, Anette
    2008 “Animacy and grammatical variation – Findings from the English genitive variation.” Lingua118: 151–171. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Schneider, Ralf
    2001 “Toward a Cognitive Theory of Literary Character: The Dynamics of Mental-Model Construction.” Style35: 607–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Stanovich, Keith E. & Richard F. West
    1989 “Exposure to print and orthographic processing.” Reading Research Quarterly24: 402–433. 10.2307/747605
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747605 [Google Scholar]
  26. Szewczyk, Jakub M. & Herbert Schriefers
    2011 “Is animacy special? ERP correlates of semantic violations and animacy violations in sentence processing.” Brain research1368: 208–221. 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.10.070
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.10.070 [Google Scholar]
  27. Trompenaars, Thijs, Lotte Hogeweg, Wessel Stoop & Helen de Hoop
    . To appear. “The language of an inanimate narrator.” Open Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Vogels, Jorrig, Emiel Krahmer & Alfons Maes
    2013 “When a stone tries to climb up a slope: The interplay between lexical and perceptual animacy in referential choices.” Frontiers in Psychology4: 154. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00154
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00154 [Google Scholar]
  29. Yamomoto, Matsumi
    1999Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.46
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.46 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00009.tro
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00009.tro
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): emotional engagement , inanimate characters , narrative empathy and thematic roles
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error