1887
Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6740
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9935
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Using Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan novels as case study, this article presents a cognitive approach to fictionality and authorial intention using Text World Theory and Mind-Modelling. It investigates two forms of ontological distortion: readers’ (mis)classification of the novels’ genre (as autofiction or autobiography) and the problem posed by the author’s pseudonymic identity. The analysis has three parts: first, I conduct a Text World analysis of the novels’ syntactic/stylistic similarities to autobiography and, in doing so, reveal its ontological structure; second, I consider the ontological liminality of narration and the ways in which readers build an authorial mind-model of Ferrante; thirdly, I explore the assessment of critics and/as readers of the text’s fictionality and the impact of Ferrante’s pseudonym on perceptions of authorial intentionality and the authorial mind-model. Ultimately, I argue that a cognitive approach offers greatest insight into readers’ interpretations of authors and of fictionality.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ni.19017.gib
2019-10-16
2020-04-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abraham, A., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schubotz, R. I.
    (2008) Meeting George Bush versus meeting Cinderella: The neural response when telling apart what is real from what in fictional in the context of our reality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(6), 965–976. 10.1162/jocn.2008.20059
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20059 [Google Scholar]
  2. Altmann, U., Borhn, I. C., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2014) Fact vs fiction – how paratextual information shapes our reading processes. Scan, 9, 22–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Altmann, U., Bohrn, I. C., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., Jacobs, A. M.
    (2014) Fact vs Fiction – How Paratextual Information shapes our Reading Process. SCAN9: 22–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakopoulos, N.
    (2016) We are always us: The boundaries of Elena Ferrante. Michigan Quarterly Review, 55(3), 396–419.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Banfield, A.
    (1982) Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Abingdon/New York: Routledge & Kenan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bojar, K.
    (2018) In search of Elena Ferrante: The novels and the question of authorship. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Booth, W. C.
    (1983) The rhetoric of fiction. (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL,/London: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226065595.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226065595.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Briggs, J.
    (2015) I was blind, she was a falcon. London Review of Books, 37(17), 11–12. Online: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n17/joanna-biggs/i-was-blind-she-a-falcon
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Burke, S.
    (2008) The death and return of the author: Criticism and subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida. (3rd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Busselle, R. & Bilandzic, H.
    (2008) Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18, 255–280. doi:  10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2008.00322.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohn, D.
    (1978) Transparent minds. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1999) The distinction of fiction. Baltimore/London: The John Hopkins University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cummins, M.
    (2018, December11). The struggles of Karl Ove Knausgaard – and those of his readers – are finally over. Prospect. Retrieved fromhttps://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Darwin, V.
    (2016, September25). Book Review: Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan Novels. [Review of the Neapolitan novels, byE. Ferrante]. A Novel Journal. Retrieved fromhttps://anoveljournal.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/book-review-elena-ferrantes-neapolitan-novels/
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Doležel, L.
    (1998) Heterocosmica: Fiction and possible worlds. Baltimore, MA: The John Hopkins University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dow, G.
    (2016) The ‘biographical impulse’ and pan-european women’s writing. InJ. Batchelor and G. Dow (Eds) Women’s writing, 1600–1830: Feminisms and futures (pp.193–213). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E.
    (eds) (1995) Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dyx, H.
    (2018) Introduction: Autofiction in English: The story so far. InH. Dyx (ed.) Autofiction in English (pp.1–23). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑89902‑2_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89902-2_1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Emmott, C.
    (2002) “Split selves” in fiction and in medical “life stories”. InE. Semino & J. Culpeper (Eds). Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis (pp.153–181). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.1.09emm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.1.09emm [Google Scholar]
  20. Emre, M.
    (2018, October31). Elena Ferrante Stays Out of the Picture. The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Expert System Semantic Intelligence
    Expert System Semantic Intelligence (2017) Who is Elena Ferrante?Retrieved fromwww.expertsystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Report-Who-is-Elena-Ferrante.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ferrante, E.
    (2012) My Brilliant Friend. (A. Goldstein, Trans.). New York: Europa Editions.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2013) The Story of a New Name. (A. Goldstein, Trans.). New York: Europa Editions.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2014) Those who Leave and Those who Stay. (A. Goldstein, Trans.). New York: Europa Editions.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2015) The Story of the Lost Child. (A. Goldstein, Trans.). New York: Europa Editions.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2016) Frantumaglia: A writer’s journey. (pp.16–20), New York: Europa Editions.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fiske, S. T. & Neuberg, S. L.
    (1990) A continnum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. InM. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology, Volume 23 (pp.1–74). London: Academic Press, Inc.. 10.1016/S0065‑2601(08)60317‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fludernik, M.
    (2018) The fiction of the rise of fictionality. Poetics Today, 39(1), 67–92. doi:  10.1215/03335372‑4265071
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-4265071 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gatti, C.
    (2016, October2). Elena Ferrante: An Answer? [Review of the Neapolitan novels, byE. Ferrante]. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/10/02/elena-ferrante-an-answer/
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gavins, J.
    (2007) Text world theory: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748622993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748622993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gavins, J. & Steen, G.
    (2003) (Eds.) Cognitive poetics in practice. London/New York: Routlege. 10.4324/9780203417737
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203417737 [Google Scholar]
  32. Genette, G.
    (1993) Fiction & diction. (C. PorterTrans.). Ithacha/London: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Genilloud, G. & Roten, C-A.
    (2016, October11) Determination by Stylometry of the Probable Author of the Ferrante Corpus: Domenico Starnone. OrphAnalytics. Retrieved fromhttps://www.orphanalytics.com/en/news/ferrante-starnone
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gerrig, R.
    (1993) Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gerrig, R. & Rapp, D.
    (2004) Psychological processes underlying literary impact. Poetics Today, 25(2), 265–282. doi:  10.1215/03335372‑25‑2‑265
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-25-2-265 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gibbons, A.
    (2014) Fictionality and ontology. InP. Stockwell & S. Whiteley (Eds) The cambridge handbook of stylistics (pp.408–423), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139237031.031
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139237031.031 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2018) Autonarration, I, and odd address in Ben Lerner’s autofictional novel 10:04. InA. Gibbons & A. Macrae (Eds.) Pronouns in literature: Positions and perspectives in language (pp.75–96), London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑95317‑2_5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95317-2_5 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2019) Using life and abusing life in the trial of Ahmed Naji: Text world theory, Adab, and the ethics of reading. Journal of Language and Discrimination, 3(1): 4–31. 10.1558/jld.35809
    https://doi.org/10.1558/jld.35809 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gorman, D.
    (2005) Fiction, theories of. InD. Herman, M. Jahn, & M.-L. Ryan (Eds) Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory (pp.163–167), London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hamburger, K.
    (1973) The logic of literature. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hatavara, M. & Mildorf, J.
    (2017) Hybrid fictionality and vicarious narrative experience. Narrative, 25(1), 65–82. 10.1353/nar.2017.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2017.0004 [Google Scholar]
  42. Herman, D.
    (2002) Story logic: Problems and possibilities of narrative. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2013) Introduction. InD. Herman (Ed.) Emergence of mind: Representations of consciousness in fiction (pp.1–42). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hidalgo Downing, L.
    (2000) Negation, text worlds and discourse: The pragmatics of fiction. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Irvin, S.
    (2006) Authors, intentions and literary meanings. Philosophical Compass, ½, 114–123. 10.1111/j.1747‑9991.2006.00016.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00016.x [Google Scholar]
  46. Iser, W.
    (1993) The fictive and the imaginary: Charting literary anthropology. Baltimore, MD; London: The John Hopkins University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Iversen, S. & Nielsen, H. S.
    (2016) The politics of fictionality in documentary form: The act of killing and The ambassador. European Journal of English Studies, 20(3): 249–262. doi:  10.1080/13825577.2016.1230389
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13825577.2016.1230389 [Google Scholar]
  48. Jensen, M.
    (2018) How art constitutes the human: Aesthetics, empathy and the interesting in autofiction. InH. Dyx (ed.) Autofiction in English (pp.65–83). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑89902‑2_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89902-2_4 [Google Scholar]
  49. Klauk, T. & Köppe, T.
    (2014) Fiktonalität: Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110322606
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110322606 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kuiken, D., Miall, D. S., & Sikora, S.
    (2004) Forms of self-implication in literary reading. Poetics Today, 25(2), 171–203. 10.1215/03335372‑25‑2‑171
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-25-2-171 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kukkonen, K. & Nielsen, H. S.
    (2018) Fictionality: Cognition and exceptionality. Poetics Today, 39(3), 473–494. doi:  10.1215/03335372‑7032704
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-7032704 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lakoff, G.
    (1996) Sorry, I’m not myself today: The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self. In. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds) Spaces, worlds, and grammar (pp.91–123). Chicago, Il: Univeristy of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lanser, S.
    (2005) The “I” of the beholder: Equivocal attachments and the limits of structuralist narratology. InJ. Phelan & P. Rabinowitz (Eds.) A Companion to Narrative Theory (pp.206–219). Malden: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470996935.ch14
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996935.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lejeune, P.
    (1989) On autobiography. (K. Leary, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Leslie, A. M.
    (2001) Theory of mind. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioural sciences (pp.15652–15656). Pergamon. Online. doi:  10.1016/B0‑08‑043076‑7/01640‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01640-5 [Google Scholar]
  56. Lewis, D.
    (1973) Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Mallick, H.
    (2015, April25). Elena Ferrante and Karl Ove Knausgaard are writing true life in fiction. The Star. Retrieved fromhttps://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/04/25/elena-ferrante-and-karl-ove-knausgaard-are-writing-true-life-in-fiction.html
    [Google Scholar]
  58. McCleen, G.
    (2018, May22). Auto-nauts: Voyages of the self to the end of the novel. Boundless. Retrieved fromhttps://unbound.com/boundless/2018/05/22/auto-nauts-voyages-of-the-self-to-the-end-of-the-novel/
    [Google Scholar]
  59. McLoughlin, N.
    (2013) Negative polarity in Eavan Boland’s ‘The famine road’. New Writing: The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing, 10(2), 219–227. doi:  10.1080/14790726.2013.777460
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2013.777460 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2016) Being gone: A text world analysis of ambiguity in Eavan Boland’s ‘Suburban woman: A detail’. InJ. Kroll, A. Melrose & Jen Webb (Eds). Old and New, Tried and Untried: Creativity and Research in the 21st Century University (pp.123–140). Champaign, IL: Common Ground Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (2019) Resonance and absence: A text world analysis of ‘Tuonela’ by Philip Gross. New Writing: The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing, 16(1), 89–99. doi:  10.1080/14790726.2018.1511735
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2018.1511735 [Google Scholar]
  62. Nielsen, H. S., Phelan, J. & Walsh, R.
    (2015) ‘Ten theses about fictionality’, Narrative23(1), 61–73. doi:  10.1353/nar.2015.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2015.0005 [Google Scholar]
  63. Oatley, K.
    (1999) Why fiction may be twice as true as fact: Fiction as cognitive and emotional simulation. Review of General Psychology, 3(2), 101–117. 10.1037/1089‑2680.3.2.101
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.3.2.101 [Google Scholar]
  64. Pavel, T.
    (1986) Fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Phelan, J.
    (2016) Local fictionality within global non-fiction: Roz Chast’s Why can’t we talk about something more pleasant?. Enthymema, 16, 19–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. (2017) Fictionality. a/b: Auto/Biography Studies, 32(2), 235–238. doi:  10.1080/08989575.2017.1288008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08989575.2017.1288008 [Google Scholar]
  67. Ronen, R.
    (1994) Possible worlds in literary theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597480
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597480 [Google Scholar]
  68. Ryan, M.-L.
    (1991) Possible worlds, artificial intelligence and narrative theory. Bloomington/Indiapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. (2011) Meaning, intent, and the implied author. Style, 45(1), 29–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Schaeffer, J.-M.
    (2012) Fictional vs. factual narration. InP. Hühn (Eds.) The living handbook of narratology. Retrieved fromwww.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/article/fictional-vs-factual-narration
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Searle, J. R.
    (1975) The logical status of fictional discourse. New Literary History, 6(2), 319–332. 10.2307/468422
    https://doi.org/10.2307/468422 [Google Scholar]
  72. Segnini, E.
    (2017) Local flavour vs. global readership: The Elena Ferrante project and translatability. The Italianist, 37(1), 100–118. doi:  10.1080/02614340.2016.1273649
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02614340.2016.1273649 [Google Scholar]
  73. Stockwell, P.
    (2002) Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. (2009) Texture: A cognitive aesthetics of reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. (2013) The positioned reader. Language and Literature, 22(3), 263–277. 10.1177/0963947013489243
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947013489243 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2016) The texture of authorial intention. InJ. Gavins & E. Lahey (Eds.) World-building: Discourse in the mind (pp.147–163), London/New York: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Tuzzi, A. & Cortelazzo, M. A.
    (2018a) What is Elena Ferrante? A comparative analysis of a secretive bestselling Italian writer. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 33(3), 685–702. doi:  10.1093/llc/fqx066
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqx066 [Google Scholar]
  78. (2018b) (Eds.) Drawing Elena Ferrante’s Profile: Workshop Proceedings – Padova, 7 September 2017. Padova: Padova University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Walsh, R.
    (2007) The rhetoric of fictionality. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Werth, Paul
    (1999) Text worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Whiteley, S.
    (2010) Text world theory and the emotional experience of literary discourse. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield). Retrieved frometheses.whiterose.ac.uk/15112/1/527271.pdf
  82. (2011) Text world theory, real readers and emotional responses to The remains of the day. Language and Literature, 20(1), 23–42. doi:  10.1177/0963947010377950
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947010377950 [Google Scholar]
  83. Whiteley, S. & Canning, P.
    (2017) Reader response research in stylistics. Language and Literature, 26(2), 71–87. 10.1177/0963947017704724
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947017704724 [Google Scholar]
  84. Wilderkamp, A., van Montfoort, I. & van Ruiswijk, W.
    (1980) Fictionality and convention. Poetics, 9, 547–567. 10.1016/0304‑422X(80)90006‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(80)90006-6 [Google Scholar]
  85. Wimsatt, W. K. & Beardsley, M. C.
    (1946) The intentional fallacy. The Sewanee Review, 54(3), 468–488.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Yang, Jie & Xue, Jin
    (2014) ‘Distinguishing different fictional worlds during sentence comprehension: ERP evidence’, Psychophysiology, 51, 42–51. 10.1111/psyp.12149
    https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12149 [Google Scholar]
  87. (2015) ‘Reality/fiction distinction and fiction/fiction distinction during sentence comprehension’, Universal Journal of Psychology, 3(6), 165–175. 10.13189/ujp.2015.030603
    https://doi.org/10.13189/ujp.2015.030603 [Google Scholar]
  88. Zetterberg Gjerlevsen, S.
    (2016) Fictionality. InP. Hühn (Eds.) The living handbook of narratology. Retrieved fromwww.lhn.uni-hamberg.de/article/fictionality
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Zunshine, L.
    (2006) Why we read fiction: Theory of mind and the novel. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ni.19017.gib
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ni.19017.gib
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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