Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4372
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4380
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In an experiment, the authors tried to find out how professional readers deal with unnatural narrators (such as a narrating parrot and a speaking coin). The hypotheses and research questions were mostly derived from Jan Alber’s proposed reading strategies and operationalized to be measured with the help of a close-ended questionnaire. Thirty-two students of English from RWTH Aachen University took part in the study and were presented with four text passages that featured two natural and two unnatural first-person narrators. These excerpts represented a gliding scale of defamiliarization or estrangement in the sense of Shklovsky that ranges from (1) a realist backpacking tourist in India to (2) a narrator who suffers from hallucinations (both natural), and from there to (3) a narrating parrot and, finally, (4) a speaking coin (both unnatural).

The results indicate that the participants perceived the narratives that featured unnatural narrators as being more estranging than the ones that contained natural narrators, and that unnaturalness was regarded as an indicator of fictionality. Furthermore, it was easier for the participants to emotionally engage with the natural (compared to the unnatural) narrators. The study also shows that blending was used as a strategy to make sense of the unnatural narrators, and that the participants thought that fictional worlds were relevant for their own world experiences – regardless of whether the narrators were unnatural or not. Furthermore, most of the participants were reminded of familiar genres (fantasy stories or fairy tales) when they dealt with the unnatural narrators.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alber, J.
    (2014) Postmodernist Impossibilities, the Creation of New Cognitive Frames, and Attempts at Interpretation. InJ. Alber & P. K. Hansen (Eds.). Beyond Classical Narration: Transmedial and Unnatural Challenges. (pp.261–80). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alber, J.
    (2016) Unnatural Narrative: Impossible Worlds in Fiction and Drama. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 10.2307/j.ctt1d4v147
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1d4v147 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2018) Logical Contradictions, Possible Worlds Theory, and the Embodied Mind. In A. Bell & M.-L. Ryan (Eds.) Possible Worlds Theory and Contemporary Narratology. (pp.157–176). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alber, J. , Caracciolo, M. , Iversen, S. , Kukkonen, K. & Nielsen, H. S.
    (2018) Introduction: Unnatural and Cognitive Perspectives on Narrative (A Theory Crossover). Poetics Today, 39 (3), 429–445. 10.1215/03335372‑7032676
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-7032676 [Google Scholar]
  5. Alber, J. , & Richardson, B.
    (2020) Afterword. In J. Alber & B. Richardson (Eds.) Unnatural Narratology: Extensions, Revisions, and Challenges. (pp.209–19). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press. 10.26818/9780814214190
    https://doi.org/10.26818/9780814214190 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bortolussi, M. , & Dixon, P.
    (2003) Psychonarratology: Foundations for the Empirical Study of Literary Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Butler, R. O.
    (1996) Jealous Husband Returns in Form of Parrot. InTabloid Dreams. (pp.71–81). New York: Henry Holt & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Culler, J.
    (1975) Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 10.4324/9780203449769
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203449769 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fludernik, M.
    (1996) Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203432501
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203432501 [Google Scholar]
  10. Herman, D.
    (2011) Introduction. InD. Herman (Ed.) The Emergence of Mind. (pp.1–40). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 10.2307/j.ctt1df4fwq.4
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1df4fwq.4 [Google Scholar]
  11. Kuijpers, Moniek ,
    (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]
  12. Nielsen, H. S.
    (2013) Naturalizing and Unnaturalizing Reading Strategies: Focalization Revisited. In J. Alber , H. S. Nielsen & B. Richardson (Eds.) A Poetics of Unnatural Narrative. (pp.67–93). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2014) The Unnatural in E. A. Poe’s ‘The Oval Portrait.’ In J. Alber & P. K. Hansen (Eds.). Beyond Classical Narration: Transmedial and Unnatural Challenges. (pp.239–260). Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Nieuwland, M. S. , & van Berkum, J. J. A.
    (2006) When Peanuts Fall in Love: N400 Evidence for the Power of Discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18 (7), 1098–1111. 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098 [Google Scholar]
  15. Olsen, Stein Haugom
    (1987) The End of Literary Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511983498
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511983498 [Google Scholar]
  16. Palmer, Alan
    (2005) Realist Novel. In D. Herman , M. Jahn , & M.-L. Ryan (Eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. (pp.491–92). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Richardson, B.
    (2011) What Is Unnatural Narrative Theory?InJ. Alber & R. Heinze (Eds.) Unnatural Narratives, Unnatural Narratology. (pp.23–40). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229042.23
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229042.23 [Google Scholar]
  18. Richardson, B.
    (2015) Unnatural Narrative: Theory, History, and Practice. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ryan, M.-L.
    (2014) Possible Worlds. In P. Hühn , J. Pier , W. Schmid & J. Schönert (Eds.). The Handbook of Narratology. Vol. II. (pp.726–42). Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Shklovsky, V.
    (1921 [1965]) Art as Technique. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds.). Russian Formalist Criticism. (pp.3–24). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Turner, M.
    (1996) The Literary Mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2003) Double-Scope Stories. In D. Herman (Ed.). Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. (pp.117–142). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Van Peer, W. , Hakemulder, F. & Zyngier, S.
    (2012) Scientific Methods for the Humanities. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lal.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.13 [Google Scholar]

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