1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Scientific Study of Literature
  4. Volume 12, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 2210-4372
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4380
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Understanding how humans relate to and think about nonhuman nature has never been more important. To begin exploring that question, our study compares literature (nature-writing) that explicitly addresses this relationship with literature of the same genre that does not address nonhuman nature (creative nonfiction) using the tools of digital humanities and ecological analysis. We used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and Meaning Extraction Method (MEM) to examine 228 texts. Resulting scores were then examined for gradients, patterns, and trends across texts using principal components analysis (PCA). Overall, we found that nature writing texts scored higher in analytical and authenticity scores; were associated with psychological processes such as perception, cognition, politics, and power; and were typified by individual word choice clouds associated with clusters of text such as tree/human/see/time/form/place than non-nature creative nonfiction. This analysis serves as a foundation for understanding the genre of nature-writing and the ways that humans think about nonhuman nature.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.22003.jun
2023-03-30
2024-12-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ssol.22003.jun
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barad, K.
    (2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv12101zq
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv12101zq [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnhill, D. L.
    (2010) Surveying the landscape: A new approach to nature writing. Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment. 17(2), 273–290. 10.1093/isle/isq028
     https://doi.org/10.1093/isle/isq028 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bennet, J.
    (2010) Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bonch-Osmolovskaya, A. and Skorinkin, D.
    (2017) Texting mining War and Peace: Automatic extraction of character traits from literature. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. 32(1), 17–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Boyd, R. L., & Pennebaker, J. W.
    (2015) Did Shakespeare write Double Falsehood? Identifying individuals by creating psychological signatures with text analysis. Psychological Science. 26(5), 570–582. 10.1177/0956797614566658
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614566658 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boyd, R. L., Ashokkumar, A., Seraj, S., & Pennebaker, J. W.
    (2022) The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. https://www.liwc.app
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Boyd, R. L.
    (2017) Psychological test analysis in the digital humanities. InHai-Jew, S. (ed.) Data analysis in digital humanities. Springer International Publishing. 161–189. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑54499‑1_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54499-1_7 [Google Scholar]
  8. Buell, L.
    (2005) The future of environmental criticism: Environmental crisis and literary imagination. Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chung, C. and Pennebaker, J.
    (2008) Revealing dimensions of thinking in open-ended self-descriptions: An automated meaning extraction method for natural language. Journal of Research in Personality. 42(1), 96–132. 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.04.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  10. Elder, J. and Finch, R.
    (2002) The Norton Book of Nature Writing. W. W. Norton & Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Graesser, A. C., Dowell, N. and Moldovan, C.
    (2011) A computer’s understanding of literature. Scientific Study of Literature. 1(1), 24–33. 10.1075/ssol.1.1.03gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.1.1.03gra [Google Scholar]
  12. Gutkind, L.
    (2006) Creative nonfiction: A movement, not a moment. Creative Nonfiction. (29), 6–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Haraway, D. J.
    (2008) When species meet. University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hesse, D.
    (2003) The place of creative nonfiction. College English. 65(3), 237–241. 10.2307/3594255
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3594255 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hueser, R., Le-Khac, L. and Moretti, F.
    (2011) Learning to read data: Bringing out the humanistic in the digital humanities. Victorian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Social, Political, and Cultural Studies. 54(1), 79–86. 10.2979/victorianstudies.54.1.79
     https://doi.org/10.2979/victorianstudies.54.1.79 [Google Scholar]
  16. Johns-Putra, A.
    (2016) Climate change in literature and literary studies: From cli-fi, climate change theater and ecopoetry to ecocriticism and climate change criticism. WIREs Climate Change. 7(2), 266–282. 10.1002/wcc.385
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.385 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kenton, R.
    (2016) Text-mining short fiction by Zora Neale Hurston and Richard Wright using Voyant tools. CLA Journal. 59(3), 251–258.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Lopate, P.
    (1997) The art of the personal essay: An anthology from the classical era to the present. Anchor Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Lui, M.,
    (2019) Literary intelligence analysis of novel protagonists’ personality traits and development. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. 34(1), 221–229. 10.1093/llc/fqy020
     https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy020 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lott, B.
    (2000) Toward a definition of creative nonfiction. Fourth Genre: Explorations in Nonfiction. 2(1), 192–200. 10.1353/fge.2013.0450
     https://doi.org/10.1353/fge.2013.0450 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lyon, T. J.
    (2001) This incomporable land: A guide to American nature writing. Milkweed Editions.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. McCune, B., and Mefford, M. J.
    (2018) PC-ORD Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 7.08. MjM Software Design, Wild Blueberry Media LLC.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Murphy, P. D.
    (2000) Farther afield in the study of nature-oriented literature. University of Virginia Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Naber, F. and Boot, P.
    (2019) Exploring the features of naturalist prose using LIWC in Nederlab. Journal of Dutch Literature. 10(1), 50–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Newman, M.
    (2003) Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 29(5), 665–675. 10.1177/0146167203029005010
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005010 [Google Scholar]
  26. Nichols, R., Lynn, J. and Purzycki, B. G.
    (2014) Toward a science of science fiction: Applying quantifying methods to genre individuation. Scientific Study of Literature. 4(1), 24–45. 10.1075/ssol.4.1.02nic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.4.1.02nic [Google Scholar]
  27. Peck, J. E.
    (2010) Multivariate analysis for community ecologists: Step-by-step using PC-ORD. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR, 162pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Pennebaker Conglomerates
    Pennebaker Conglomerates. (No date). LIWC analysis. https://www.liwc.app/help/liwc
  29. Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Frazee, J., Lavergne, G. M. and Beaver, D. I.
    (2014) When small words foretell academic success: The case of college admissions essays. PLoS ONE. 9(12). 10.1371/journal.pone.0115844
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115844 [Google Scholar]
  30. Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K.
    (2015) The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Pennebaker, J. W. and Ireland, M. E.
    (2011) Using literature to understand authors: The case for computerized text analysis. Scientific Study of Literature. 1(1), 34–48. 10.1075/ssol.1.1.04pen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.1.1.04pen [Google Scholar]
  32. Phillips, D.
    (2003) The truth of ecology: Nature, culture, and literature in America. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195137699.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195137699.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Piper, A.
    (2016) Fictionality. CA: Journal of Cultural Analytics. 10.22148/16.011
     https://doi.org/10.22148/16.011 [Google Scholar]
  34. Roorbach, B.
    (2001) Contemporary Creative Nonfiction: The art of truth. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Root Jr., R. L. and Steinberg, M.
    (1999) The Fourth Genre: Contemporary Writers of/on Creative Nonfiction. 1st ed.Allyn & Bacon.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Thomson, D.
    (2018) Prelude as lifespan gauge: Quantifying psychological processes over time. Scientific Study of Literature. 7(2), 232–256. 10.1075/ssol.16023.tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.16023.tho [Google Scholar]
  37. Warnock, J.
    (1989) Representing reality: readings in literary nonfiction. St. Martin’s Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.22003.jun
Loading
Swirling currents
Scientific Study of Literature 12, 28 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.22003.jun
/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.22003.jun
/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.22003.jun
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): creative nonfiction; digital humanities; multivariate analysis; nature writing; textual analysis

Most Cited

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