Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4372
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4380
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper presents series of historiometric studies that exemplify the value of “citation analysis” as an empirical approach to professional literary-critical interpretation, especially with respect to the question of the “literariness” of literary texts. Specifically, the studies show that professional interpreters of Wordsworth’s poetry, across more than a century of time and despite widely varying critical approaches, tend to pay more attention to and therefore more frequently cite lines that involve prospective enjambments. Lines involving nominative noun phrase and retrospective enjambments, however, did not reveal the same correlation with frequency of citation. The studies thus suggest that literariness does indeed have a relatively stable textual component that may be discriminated through citation analysis of professional interpretations of individual literary texts by authors writing in distinct genres of literature and in different periods in literary history.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allington, D.
    (2012) Private experience, textual analysis, and institutional authority: The discursive practice of critical interpretation and its enactment in literary training. Language and Literature, 21(2), 211–225. 10.1177/0963947011435864
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947011435864 [Google Scholar]
  2. Attridge, D.
    (2013) Moving words: Forms of English poetry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681242.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681242.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bálint, K., Hakemulder, F., Kuijpers, M., Doicaru, M., & Tan, E. S.
    (2016) Reconceptualizing foregrounding: Identifying response strategies to deviation in absorbing narratives. Scientific Study of Literature, 16(2), 176–207. 10.1075/ssol.6.2.02bal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.6.2.02bal [Google Scholar]
  4. Beatty, A.
    (1922) William Wordsworth: His doctrine and art in their historical relations. Madison: University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature 17.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blohm, S., Menninghaus, W., & Schlesewsky, M.
    (2017) Sentence-level effects of literary genre: Behavioral and electrophysical evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01887
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01887 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2012) Old proverbs in new skins – An fMRI study on defamiliarization. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–18. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00204
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00204 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2013) When we like what we know – A parametric fMRI analysis of beauty and familiarity. Brain & Language, 124, 1–8. 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bourdieu, P.
    (1993) The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brooke, S. A.
    (1920) Naturalism in English poetry. London, United Kingdom: J. M. Dent.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bruhn, M. J.
    (2017) ‘The history and science of feeling’: Wordsworth’s affective poetics, then and now. InWehrs, D. R., & Blake, T. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of affect studies and textual criticism (pp.671–693). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑63303‑9_25
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63303-9_25 [Google Scholar]
  11. (in progress). Philosophy, methodology, and theory development in the scientific study of literary response, experience, and interpretation.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Coleridge, S. T.
    (2000) The major works, including Biographia Literaria. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dolin, S.
    (1993) Enjambment and the erotics of the gaze in Williams’s poetry. American Imago, 50(1). Retrieved fromwww.press.jhu.edu.dml.regis.edu
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fialho, O., Zyngier, S. & Miall, D. S.
    (2011) Interpretation and experience: Two pedagogical interventions observed. English in Education, 45(3), 236–253. 10.1111/j.1754‑8845.2011.01103.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-8845.2011.01103.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Fish, S.
    (1980) Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fowler, A.
    (1991) The two histories. InPerkins, D. (Ed.), Theoretical issues in literary history (pp.114–130). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fowler, R.
    (1966) ‘Prose rhythm’ and ‘meter’. InFowler, R. (Ed.), Essays on Style and Language (pp.82–99). New York, NY: Humanities Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Freeman, D. C.
    (1968) On the primes of metrical style. Language and Style, 1, 63–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Golomb, H.
    (1979) Enjambment in poetry: Language and verse in interaction. Tel Aviv, Israel: Porter Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hanauer, D. I.
    (1998) Reading poetry: An empirical investigation of formalist, stylistic, and conventionalist claims. Poetics Today, 19(4), 565–580. 10.2307/1773260
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1773260 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2011) The scientific study of poetic writing. Scientific Study of Literature, 1(1), 79–87. 10.1075/ssol.1.1.08han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.1.1.08han [Google Scholar]
  22. Heiden, B.
    (2014) Narrative in poetry: A problem of narrative theory. Narrative, 22(2), 269–283. 10.1353/nar.2014.0015
    https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2014.0015 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heller, J. R.
    (1977) Enjambment as a metrical force in romantic conversation poems. Poetics, 6, 15–25. 10.1016/0304‑422X(77)90018‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(77)90018-3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hogan, P. C.
    (2011) Affective narratology: The emotional structure of stories. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 10.2307/j.ctt1df4gnk
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1df4gnk [Google Scholar]
  25. Hollander, J.
    (1975) Vision and resonance: Two senses of poetic form. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Jacobs, A. M.
    (2015a) The scientific study of literary experience: Sampling the state of the art. Scientific Study of Literature, 5(2), 139–170. 10.1075/ssol.5.2.01jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.5.2.01jac [Google Scholar]
  27. (2015b) Neurocognitive poetics: methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9. 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2015c) Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading. InWilliams, R. M. (Ed.), Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use (pp.135–159). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107323667.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107323667.007 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jacobs, A. M., Lüdtke, J., Aryani, A., Meyer-Sickendieck, B., & Conrad, M.
    (2016) Mood-empathic and aesthetic responses in poetry reception: A model-guided, multilevel, multimethod approach. Scientific Study of Literature, 6(1), 87–130. 10.1075/ssol.6.1.06jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.6.1.06jac [Google Scholar]
  30. Jacobs, A. M., Schuster, S., Xue, S., and Lüdtke, J.
    (2017) What’s in the brain that ink may character …: A quantitative narrative analysis of Shakespeare’s 154 sonnets for use in (Neuro-)cognitive poetics. Scientific Study of Literature, 7(1), 4–51. 10.1075/ssol.7.1.02jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.7.1.02jac [Google Scholar]
  31. Koops van’t Jagt, R., Hoeks, J. C. J., Dorleijn, G., & Hendriks, P.
    (2014) Look before you leap: How enjambment affects the processing of poetry. Scientific Study of Literature, 4(1), 3–24. 10.1075/ssol.4.1.01jag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.4.1.01jag [Google Scholar]
  32. Kraxenberger, M., & Menninghaus, W.
    (2016) Emotional effects of poetic phonology, word positioning and dominant stress peaks in poetry reading. Scientific Study of Literature, 6(2), 298–313. 10.1075/ssol.6.2.06kra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.6.2.06kra [Google Scholar]
  33. Kuiken, D.
    (2015) The implicit erasure of “literary experience” in empirical studies of literature: Comment on “The scientific study of literary experience: Sampling the state of the art” by Arthur Jacobs. Scientific Study of Literature, 15(2), 171–177. 10.1075/ssol.5.2.02kui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.5.2.02kui [Google Scholar]
  34. Leech, G. N.
    (1969) A linguistic guide to English poetry. London, United Kingdom: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Logan, J. V.
    (1961) Wordsworthian criticism: A guide and bibliography. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Margolin, U.
    (2008) Studying literature and being empirical: A multifaceted conjunction. InZyngier, S., Bortolussi, M., Chesnokova, A., & Auracher, J. (Eds.), Directions in empirical literary studies (pp.8–19). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.5.03mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.5.03mar [Google Scholar]
  37. McCarthy, K. S.
    (2015) Reading beyond the lines: A critical review of cognitive approaches to literary interpretation and comprehension. Scientific Study of Literature, 5(1), 99–128. 10.1075/ssol.5.1.05mcc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.5.1.05mcc [Google Scholar]
  38. Menninghaus, W., Bohrn, I. C., Knoop, C. A., Kotz, S. A., Schlotz, W., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2015) Rhetorical features facilitate prosodic processing while handicapping ease of semantic comprehension. Cognition, 143, 48–60. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.026
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.026 [Google Scholar]
  39. Miall, D. S.
    (2006) Literary reading: Empirical and theoretical studies. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2011) Science in the perspective of literariness. Scientific Study of Literature, 1(1), 7–14. 10.1075/ssol.1.1.01mia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.1.1.01mia [Google Scholar]
  41. Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D.
    (1994) Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 389–407. 10.1016/0304‑422X(94)00011‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94)00011-5 [Google Scholar]
  42. (1999) What is literariness? Three components of literary reading. Discourse Processes, 28(2), 121–138. 10.1080/01638539909545076
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545076 [Google Scholar]
  43. Salgaro, M.
    (2015) How literary can literariness be? Methodological problems in the study of foregrounding. Scientific Study of Literature, 5(2), 229–249. 10.1075/ssol.5.2.06sal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.5.2.06sal [Google Scholar]
  44. Simonton, D. K.
    (1989) Shakespeare’s sonnets: The case of and for single-case historiometry. Journal of Personality, 57(3), 695–721. 10.1111/j.1467‑6494.1989.tb00568.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00568.x [Google Scholar]
  45. (1990) Lexical choices and aesthetic success: A computer content analysis of 154 Shakespeare sonnets. Computers and the Humanities, 24(4), 251–264.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. van Peer, W.
    (1986) Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London, United Kingdom: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (2007) Introduction to foregrounding: A state of the art. Language and Literature, 16(2), 99–104. 10.1177/0963947007075978
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007075978 [Google Scholar]
  48. van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F., & Zyngier, S.
    (2007) Lines on feeling: Foregrounding, aesthetics and meaning. Language and Literature, 16(2), 197–213. 10.1177/0963947007075978
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007075978 [Google Scholar]
  49. van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F. & Zyngier, S.
    (2012) Scientific methods for the humanities. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.13 [Google Scholar]
  50. Williams, W. C.
    (1923) Spring and all. Dijon, France: Robert McAlmon.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wordsworth, W.
    (1983) Poems, in two volumes, and other poems, 1800–1807. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. (1992) Lyrical ballads, and other poems, 1797–1800. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wuescher, H. J.
    (1980) Liberty, equality, fraternity in Wordsworth, 1791–1800. Stockholm, Sweden: Uppsala University.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Zöllner, K.
    (1990) “Quotation analysis” as a means of understanding comprehension processes of longer and more difficult texts. Poetics, 19, 293–322. 10.1016/0304‑422X(90)90025‑Z
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(90)90025-Z [Google Scholar]
  55. Zwaan, R. A.
    (1991) Some parameters of literary and news comprehension: Effects of discourse-type perspective on reading rate and surface structure representation. Poetics, 20(2) 139–156. 10.1016/0304‑422X(91)90003‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(91)90003-8 [Google Scholar]
  56. (1993) Aspects of literary comprehension. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/upal.29
    https://doi.org/10.1075/upal.29 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): citation analysis; enjambment; foregrounding; interpretation; literariness; Wordsworth
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