1887
Volume 7 Number 1
  • ISSN 2210-4372
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4380
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Some purport that literary fiction is determined by high inference demands. The subgenre of science fiction is often defined by story-world tropes that may reduce inferential demands. However, science fiction with high inference demands may also constitute literary fiction. Instead of inferential demands, it may be readers’ responses to setting that distinguishes science fiction and narrative realism. In two experiments, a story was manipulated for contemporary and science-fiction settings. Also, a version of each text with and without explanatory statements manipulated inference demand. Readers perceived the science-fiction text as lower in literary quality. For science fiction, readers also exerted less inference effort for theory of mind, but more for understanding the world. Regardless of inference effort, participants who read the story in the science-fiction world performed more poorly on comprehension. Readers’ expectations triggered by setting tropes seem to be particularly potent determinants of literary quality perceptions, inference effort, and comprehension.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.7.1.04gav
2017-11-23
2018-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexandrov, V. E.
    (2007) Literature, literariness, and the brain. Comparative Literature, 59(2), 97–118. doi: 10.1215/‑59‑2‑97
    https://doi.org/10.1215/-59-2-97 [Google Scholar]
  2. Attebery, B.
    (2004) Fantasy as mode, genre, formula. In David Sandner (Ed.), Fantastic literature: a critical reader (pp.293–309). Westport, CT: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baldick, C.
    (2015) The Oxford dictionary of literary terms. Oxford, Oxford University Press. RetrievedNovember 11, 2016, fromwww.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.wlu.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780198715443.001.0001/acref-9780198715443-e-661?rskey=CDsJPv&result=1 doi: 10.1093/acref/9780198715443.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780198715443.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Benthian, C.
    (2012) The Literariness of new media art – a case for expanding the domain of literary studies. Journal of Literary Theory, 6, 311–336. doi: 10.1515/jlt‑2012‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2012-0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cawalti, R. G.
    (1976) Adventure, mystery and romance: formula stories as art and popular culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dixon, P. , & Bortolussi, M.
    (2005) Approach and selection of popular narrative genre. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 3–17. doi: 10.2190/JA6U‑5APV‑NERE‑PYGC
    https://doi.org/10.2190/JA6U-5APV-NERE-PYGC [Google Scholar]
  7. (2011) The scientific study of literature: what can, has, and should be done. Scientific Study of Literature, 1, 59–71. doi: 10.1075/ssol.1.1.06dix
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.1.1.06dix [Google Scholar]
  8. Djikic, M. , Oatley, K. , & Moldoveanu, M. C.
    (2013) Reading other minds: effects of literature on empathy. Scientific Study of Literature, 3, 28–47. doi: 10.1075/ssol.3.1.06dji
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.3.1.06dji [Google Scholar]
  9. Emmott, C. , Sanford, A. J. , & Dawydiak, E. J.
    (2007) Stylistics meet cognitive science: studying style in fiction and readers’ attention from an interdisciplinary perspective. Style, 41, 204–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Eason, S. H. , Goldberg, L. F. , Young, K. M. , Geist, M. C. , & Cutting, L. E.
    (2012) Reader – text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 515–528. doi: 10.1037/a0027182
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027182 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fong, K. , Mullin, J. B. , Mullin, & Mar, R. A.
    (2013) What you read matters: The role of fiction genre in predicting interpersonal sensitivity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(4), 370–376. doi: 10.1037/a0034084
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034084 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hanauer, D.
    (1998) Reading poetry: an empirical investigation of formalist, stylistic, and conventionalist claims. Poetics Today, 19, 565–580. doi: 10.2307/1773260
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1773260 [Google Scholar]
  13. Inference [Def. 1]
    Inference [Def. 1] (2016) Oxford English dictionary. RetrievedOctober 18, 2016, fromwww.oed.com.ezproxy.wlu.edu/view/Entry/95308?redirectedFrom=inference#eid
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Iza, M. , & Ezquerro, J.
    (2000) Elaborative inferences. anales de psicología, 16, 227–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kidd, D. C. , & Castano, E.
    (2013) Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342, 377–380. doi: 10.1126/science.1239918
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239918 [Google Scholar]
  16. Keegan, K.
    (2006) Why fabulist and new wave fabulist stories in an anthology named paraspheres?In Rusty Morrison and Ken Keegan (Eds.), Paraspheres: extending beyond the spheres of literary and genre fiction (pp.625–637). Richmond, CA: Omnidawn.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kintsch, W.
    (1998) Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Koopman, E. M.
    (2016) Effects of “literariness” on emotions and on empathy and reflection after reading. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 82–98. doi: 10.1037/aca0000041
    https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000041 [Google Scholar]
  19. Koopman, E. M. , & Hakemulder, F.
    (2015) Effects of literature on empathy and self-reflection: a theoretical-empirical framework. Journal of Literary Theory, 9, 79–111. doi: 10.1515/jlt‑2015‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2015-0005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Maslin, J.
    (2012) The lies that buoy, then break a marriage, ‘Gone Girl,’ by Gillian Flynn. The New York Times, May29. RetrievedNovember 11, 2016, fromwww.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/books/gone-girl-by-gillian-flynn.html
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Miall, D. S.
    (2009) The neuropsychology of literariness [Abstract]. Conference on Neuroaesthetics, September 24–26, Copenhagen. RetrievedNovember 11, 2016, fromhttps://sites.ualberta.ca/~dmiall/reading/confer.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2011) Science in the perspective of literariness. Scientific Study of Literature, 1, 7–14. doi: 10.1075/ssol.1.1.01mia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.1.1.01mia [Google Scholar]
  23. (2007) Foregrounding and the sublime: Shelley in Chamonix. Language and Literature, 16, 155–168. doi: 10.1177/0963947007075982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007075982 [Google Scholar]
  24. Mahapatra, S. , Das, J. P. , Stack-Cutler, H. , & Parrila, R.
    (2010) Remediating reading comprehension difficulties: a cognitive processing approach. Reading Psychology, 31, 428–453. doi: 10.1080/02702710903054915
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710903054915 [Google Scholar]
  25. McNamara, D. S. , Kintsch, E. , Songer, N. B. , & Kintsch, W.
    (1996) Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ozuru, Y. , Dempsey, K. , & McNamara, D. S.
    (2009) Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Panero, M. E. , Black, J. , Barnes, J. L. , Weisberg, D. S. , Goldstein, T. R. , Brownell, H. , & Winner, E.
    (2016) Does reading a single passage of literary fiction really improve theory of mind? An attempt at replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, e46–e54. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000064
    https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000064 [Google Scholar]
  28. Peretz, E.
    (2014) It’s Tartt – but is it Art?Vanity Fair, July. RetrievedNovember 11, 2016, fromwww.vanityfair.com/culture/2014/07/goldfinch-donna-tartt-literary-criticism
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rice, C.
    (2010) Literariness. In Patrick Colm Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp.450–453), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Shklovksy, V.
    (1970) Sterne’s Tristram Shandy: stylistic commentary. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds., Trans.), Russian formalist criticism: four essays (pp.25–57). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Shen, Y.
    (2007) Foregrounding in poetic discourse: between deviation and cognitive constraints. Language and Literature, 16(2), 169–181. doi: 10.1177/0963947007075983
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007075983 [Google Scholar]
  32. Simerka, B.
    (2012) Cognitive theories of genre: The prototype effect and early modern Spanish tragedy. Bulletin of the Comediantes, 64, 153–217. doi: 10.1353/boc.2012.0033
    https://doi.org/10.1353/boc.2012.0033 [Google Scholar]
  33. Steiner, P.
    (1984) Russian formalism: A metapoetics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Tomashevksy, B.
    (1970) Thematics. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds., Trans.), Russian Formalist criticism: four essays (pp.61–98). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Van Peer, W.
    (1986) Stylistics and psychology: investigations of foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2007) Introduction to foregrounding: a state of the art. Language and Literature, 16, 99–104. doi: 10.1177/0963947007075978
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007075978 [Google Scholar]
  37. Walczyk, J. J. , Wei, M. , Griffith-Ross, D. A. , Goubert, S. E. , Cooper, A. L. , & Zha, P.
    (2007) Development of the interplay between automatic processes and cognitive resources in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 861–887. doi: 10.1037/0022‑0663.99.4.867
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.867 [Google Scholar]
  38. Whalen, D. H. , Zunshine, L. , & Holquist, M.
    (2012) Theory of mind and embedding of perspective: A psychological test of a literary “sweet spot.”Scientific Study of Literature, 2, 301–315. doi: 10.1075/ssol.2.2.06wha.
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.2.2.06wha [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.7.1.04gav
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