Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4372
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4380
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In literary theory, there are two common proposals about the nature of literature: that literariness is a distinctive characteristic of literary texts and that literariness is mostly characterized by highly foregrounded textual features. Our studies focused on the effects of genre expectations. In two experiments, we examined whether particular rhetorical figures (features, such as oxymora, synesthesia, and personification) are processed differently when readers think they are embedded in literary sentences. Participants were first induced to think that the sentences they were reading were taken either from literary texts (literary group) or from newspaper articles (news group). They then read sentences containing rhetorical figures and control sentences that did not contain figurative language. Results of Experiment 1 were consistent with prior research indicating that genre expectations influence how a text is processed (Zwaan, 1991, 1994). Moreover, specifically in the news group, genre expectations similarly affect reading times for sentences with rhetorical figures and sentences containing low frequency and long words, suggesting that foregrounding presents a lexical challenge elicited by micro-level linguistic and rhetorical “obstacles.” However, Experiment 2 did not replicate the findings of Experiment 1. These conflicting results prompt consideration of the limitations of an exclusive focus on foregrounding; in literary texts there is always an interchange between backgrounding and foregrounding elements.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ablali, D
    (2006) Écrire en critique: Exploration morpho-syntaxique sur corpus. In C. Duteil & B. Foulquié (Eds.), Corpus en Lettres et Sciences sociales: des documents numériques à l’interprétation. Actes du colloque international d’Albi, juillet 2006 (pp.207–214). Paris, France: Editeru Textot. Retrieved fromwww.revue-texto.net
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Altmann, G
    (2013) Aspects of word length. In R. Köhler & G. Altmann (Eds.), Issues in quantitativel linguistics, 3, 23–38. Lüdenscheid, Deutschland: RAM.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Altmann, U. , Bohrn, I.C. , Lubrich, O. , Menninghaus, W. , & Jacobs, A.M
    (2012) Fact vs fiction—how paratextual information shapes our reading processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(1), 22–29. doi: 10.1093/scan/nss098
    https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss098 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakhtin, M
    (1984) Problems of Dostoesvsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bortolussi, M. , & Dixon, P
    (2003) Psychonarratology. Foundations for the empirical study of literary response. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dimigen, O. , Sommer, W. , Hohlfeld, A. , Jacobs, A.M. , & Kliegl, R
    (2011) Co-registration of eye movements and EEG in natural reading: Analyses and review. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 552–572. doi: 10.1037/a0023885
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023885 [Google Scholar]
  7. Eagleton, T
    (1983) Literary theory: An introduction. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Eco, U
    (1979) Lector in fabula. Milano, Italia: Bompiani.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fish, S
    (1980) Is there a text in this class. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Forgacs, B. , Bohrn, I.C. , Baudewig, J. , Hofmann, M.J. , Pleh, C. , & Jacobs, A.M
    (2012) Neural correlates of combinatorial semantic processing of literal and figurative noun-noun compound words. Neuroimage, 63(3), 1432–1442. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.029
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.029 [Google Scholar]
  11. Grzybek, P
    (2014) Word Length. In: Taylor, John R . (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1–25. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641604.013.37
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641604.013.37 [Google Scholar]
  12. Grzybek, P. , & Altmann, G
    (2002) Oscillation in the frequency-length relationship. Glottometrics, 6, 97–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Grzybek, P. , & Stadlober, E
    (2007) Do we have problems with Arens’ law? A new look at the sentence-word relation. In P. Grzybek & R. Köhler (Eds.), Exact methods in the study of language and text. Dedicated to Gabriel Altmann on the occasion of his 75th birthday (pp.205–217). Berlin, Deutschland: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110894219.205
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894219.205 [Google Scholar]
  14. Grzybek, P. , Stadlober, E. , & Kelih, E
    (2007) The relationship of word length and sentence length. The Inter-Textual Perspective. In R. Decker & H.-J. Lenz (Eds.), Advances in data analysis (pp.611–618). Berlin, Deutschland: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑540‑70981‑7_70
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70981-7_70 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hanauer, D
    (1998) The genre-specific hypothesis of reading: Reading poetry and reading encyclopedic items. Poetics, 26(2), 63–80. doi: 10.1016/S0304‑422X(98)00011‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(98)00011-4 [Google Scholar]
  16. (1996) Integration of phonetic and graphic features in poetic text categorization judgments. Poetics, 23, 363–380. doi: 10.1016/0304‑422X(95)00010‑H
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(95)00010-H [Google Scholar]
  17. Hoffstaedter, P
    (1986) Poetizität aus der Sicht des Lesers. Eine empirische Untersuchung der Rolle von Text-, Leser- und Kontexteigenschaften bei der poetischen Verarbeitung von Texten. Hamburg, Deutschland: H. Buske.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hofmann, M.J. , & Jacobs, A.M
    (2014) Interactive activation and competition models and semantic context: From behavioral to brain data. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46(1), 85–104. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hutzler, F. , Braun, M. , Vo, M.L.H. , Engl, V. , Hofmann, M. , Dambacher, M ., et al.
    (2007) Welcome to the real world: Validating fixation-related brain potentials for ecologically valid settings. Brain Research, 1172, 124–129. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.07.025
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.07.025 [Google Scholar]
  20. Iser, W
    (1976) The act of reading. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jacobs, A.M
    (2011) Neurokognitive Poetik: Elemente eines Modells des literarischen Lesens (Neurocognitive poetics: Elements of a model of literary reading). In R. Schrott , & A.M. Jacobs (Eds.), Gehirn und Gedicht: Wie wir unsere Wirklichkeiten konstruieren (pp.492–450). München, Deutschland: Hanser.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2013) Neurocognitive model of literary reading. Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/235952745_Neurocognitive_Model_of_Literary_Reading
  23. Jakobson R
    (1987) Language in literature ( K. Pomorska & S. Rudy , Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jauss H.R
    (1967) Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft. Konstanz, Deutschland: Universität Konstanz.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Just, M.A. , Carpenter, P.A. , & Wooley, J.D
    (1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 228–238. doi: 10.1037/0096‑3445.111.2.228
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kao J. , Ryan R. , Dye M. , & Ramscar M
    (2010) An acquired taste: How reading literature affects sensitivity to word distributions when judging literary texts. Proceedings of the 32nd Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , Portland, OR. Retrieved frompsych.stanford.edu/~michael/papers/2010_ramscar_literary.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Karlgren, J. , & Cutting, D
    (1994) Recognizing text genres with simple metrics using discriminant analysis proceeding COLING ‘94. Proceedings of the 15th conference on Computational linguistics , 2, 1071–1075. doi: 10.3115/991250.991324
    https://doi.org/10.3115/991250.991324 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kneepkens, L.J. , & Zwaan, R.A
    (1994) Emotion and cognition in literary understanding. Poetics, 23, 125–138. doi: 10.1016/0304‑422X(94)00021‑W
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94)00021-W [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuiken, D. Philipps, L. , Gregus, M. , Miall, D.S. , Verbitsky, M. , & Tonkonogy, A
    (2004) Locating self-modyfying feelings within literary reading. Discourse processes, 38, 267–286. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3802_6
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3802_6 [Google Scholar]
  30. Leech, G. , & Short, M
    (2007) Style in fiction. A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Levin, S.R
    (1963) Deviation–statistical and determinate–in poetic language. Lingua12, 276–290. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(63)90038‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(63)90038-X [Google Scholar]
  32. Lüdtke, J. , Meyer-Sickendieck, B. , & Jacobs, A.M
    (2014), Immersing in the stillness of an early morning: Testing the mood empathy hypothesis of poetry reception. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3), 363–377. doi: 10.1037/a0036826
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036826 [Google Scholar]
  33. McQuarrie, E.F. , & Mick, D.G
    (1996) Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 424–437. doi: 10.1086/209459
    https://doi.org/10.1086/209459 [Google Scholar]
  34. Meutsch, D
    (1987) Literatur verstehen. Eine empiristische Studie. Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Vieweg & Teubner. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑14047‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-14047-4 [Google Scholar]
  35. Miall, D. , & Kuiken, D
    (1994), Foregrounding, defamiliarization and affect, Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 389–407. doi: 10.1016/0304‑422X(94)00011‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94)00011-5 [Google Scholar]
  36. (1998) The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness. Poetics, 25, 327–341. doi: 10.1016/S0304‑422X(98)90003‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(98)90003-1 [Google Scholar]
  37. (1999) What is literariness? Three components of literary reading. Discourse Processes, 28, 121–138. doi: 10.1080/01638539909545076
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545076 [Google Scholar]
  38. Mukarovský, J
    (1932/1964) Standard language and poetic language. In P.L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague School Reader on aesthetics, literary structure, and style. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sanford, A. , & Emmott, C
    (2012) Mind, brain and narrative. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139084321
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084321 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sanford, A.J , Dawydiak, E. , & Emmott
    (2006) External and internal sources of attention control: Findings from change detection. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse . Minneapolis, MN, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Schmidt, S
    (1980) Grundriß der empirischen Literaturwissenschaft. Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Vieweg & Teubner.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sereno, S.C. , Rayner, K. , & Posner, M
    (1998) Establishing a time-line of word recognition: Evidence from eye movements and event-related potentials. NeuroReport, 9, 2195–2200. doi: 10.1097/00001756‑199807130‑00009
    https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199807130-00009 [Google Scholar]
  43. Shklovsky, V
    (1917/1965) Art as technique. In L.T. Lemon & M.J. Reis (Eds.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp.3–24). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sopčák, P
    (2007) Creating from nothing. A foregrounding study of James Joyce’s drafts for Ulysses. Language and Literature, 16, 183–196. doi: 10.1177/0963947007075984
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007075984 [Google Scholar]
  45. Stockwell, P
    (2002) Cognitive poetics. An introduction. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Dijk, T
    (1979) Advice on theoretical poetics. Poetics, 8, 569–608. doi: 10.1016/0304‑422X(79)90034‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(79)90034-2 [Google Scholar]
  47. van Peer, W. , Hakemulder, J , & Zygnier, S
    (2007) Lines on feeling: Foregrounding, aesthetics and meaning. Language and Literature, 16(2), 197–213. doi: 10.1177/0963947007075985
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007075985 [Google Scholar]
  48. van Peer, W. , & Hakemulder, J.F
    (2006) Foregrounding. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. van Peer, W
    (1986) Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London, United Kingdom: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Vespignani, F. , Egidi, G. , & Salgaro, M
    (2013)  Literary attitude affects lexical access, Escop (Eighteenth Meeting of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology) , Budapest 29 August – 1 September.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Xiao, Z. , & McEnery, A
    (2005) Two approaches to genre analysis: Three genres in modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 33(1), 62–82. doi: 10.1177/0075424204273957
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424204273957 [Google Scholar]
  52. Winko, S. , Jannidis, F. , & Lauer, G
    (2009) Grenzen der Literatur. Zu Begriff und Phänomen des Literarischen. Berlin, Deutschland: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110210835
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110210835 [Google Scholar]
  53. Yong, B.L. , & Myaeng, S.H
    (2002) Text genre classification with genre-revealing and subject-revealing features. In Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval , 145–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Zwaan, R
    (1991) Some parameters of literary and news comprehension: Effects of discourse-type perspective on reading rate and surface structure representation. Poetics, 20, 139–156. doi: 10.1016/0304‑422X(91)90003‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(91)90003-8 [Google Scholar]
  55. (1994) Effects of Genre Expectations on Text Comprehension. Learning Memory and Cognition, 20(4), 920–933. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.20.4.920
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.920 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): foregrounding; literariness; low frequency words; rhetorical figures
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