(2017) Science and education, 11, 5-17. Odessa.

Willie van Peer,
PhD, professor,
Ludwig Maximilian University,
2, Professor-Huber-Platz, Munich, Germany,
Anna Chesnokova,
PhD (Candidate of Philological Sciences), professor,
Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University,
18/2, Bulvarno-Kudriavska Str., Kyiv, Ukraine

LITERARINESS IN READERS’ EXPERIENCE.
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH AND THEORY

In the past, several studies have found empirical support for the psychological notion of foregrounding. In this article we will present the results of a series of reading experiments investigating descriptive and evaluative reader reactions to poems, both in their original form (containing rather heavy foregrounding, both deviation and parallelism) and versions from which all foregrounding has been removed. In this sense the research presents a replication of earlier experiments as well as a comparison with some more recent ones that failed to find empirical evidence for the notion of foregrounding. It will also cast light on Bortolussi and Dixon’s (2003) ‘rereading paradigm’. The results will be combined with a reconsideration of the concept of literariness, which will be confronted with the variety within a reader population, as well as with the diversity within a text corpus. The latter will be confronted with Van Peer’s (1991) effort to develop a descriptive definition of literature, incorporating the heterogeneous nature of the corpus of texts that are regarded as literary. Revisiting these aspects of texts and their reception may illuminate persistent problems in the theory of literariness.

 literariness, empirical research, reading experiment, rereading paradigm, foregrounding.

1. Bortolussi, M. & Dixon, P. (2003). Psychonarratology. Foundations for the empirical study of literary response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Chesnokova, A.V. (2011). Yak vymiryaty vrazhennya vid poeziyi abo Vstup do empirychnyh metodiv doslidzhennya u movoznavstvi [Measuring the impression of poetry: Introduction to empirical research methods in linguistics]. Kiev: Lenvit [in Ukrainian].
3. Chesnokova, A. & van Peer, W. (2016). Anyone came to live here some time ago: A cognitive semiotics approach to deviation as a foregrounding device. Versus: Quaderni di studi semiotici 122, 5-22.
4. Field, A. (2002). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. London: Sage.
5. Fricke, H. (2008). How scientific can literary evaluation be? Arguments and experiments. The quality of literature: Linguistic studies in literary evaluation. W. van Peer (Ed.). (pp. 191–207). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, .
6. Hutcheson, G. & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage.
7. Koopman, E. (2016). Reading suffering. An empirical inquiry into empathic and reflective responses to literary narratives. Rotterdam: ERNeCC.
8. Language and Literature 16 (2). (2007). (= Thematic issue on ‘foregrounding’).
9. Leech, G.N. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.
10.Miall, D. S. & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Responses to literary stories. Poetics 22 (5), 389-407.
11.Moretti, F. (2005). Graphs, maps, trees. Abstract models for a literary history. London / New York: Verso.
12. Popper, K.R. (1972). Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
13. Shklovsky, V. (1917 / 1965). Art as technique. Russian Formalist criticism: Four essays. L.T. Lemon & M.J. Reis (Eds.). (pp. 3-57). Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press,
14. Simpson, P. (2014). Stylistics: A resource book for students. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
15. van Peer, W. (1986). Stylistics and psychology. Investigations of foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.
16. van Peer, W. (1991). But what is literature? Toward a descriptive definition of literary texts. Literary pragmatics, R.D. Sell (Ed.). (pp. 127-141). London: Routledge.
17. van Peer, W. (1993). Typographic foregrounding. Language and Literature 2 (1), 49-61.
18. van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F. & Zyngier, S. (2007). Lines on feeling: Foregrounding, aesthetic appreciation, and meaning. Language and Literature 16 (2), 197-213.
19. van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F. & Zyngier, S. (2012). Scientific methods for the Humanities. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
20.Weinberg, S. (2001). Facing Up. Science and its cultural adversaries. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.