32.2740, Review: Discourse Analysis; Philosophy of Language: Bell, Browse, Gibbons, Peplow (2021)
The LINGUIST List
linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Thu Aug 26 01:39:14 UTC 2021
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-2740. Wed Aug 25 2021. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 32.2740, Review: Discourse Analysis; Philosophy of Language: Bell, Browse, Gibbons, Peplow (2021)
Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn, Lauren Perkins
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Nils Hjortnaes, Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 21:38:35
From: Amélie Doche [amelie.doche at mail.bcu.ac.uk]
Subject: Style and Reader Response
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36720577
Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/32/32-1008.html
EDITOR: Alice Bell
EDITOR: Sam Browse
EDITOR: Alison Gibbons
EDITOR: David Peplow
TITLE: Style and Reader Response
SUBTITLE: Minds, media, methods
SERIES TITLE: Linguistic Approaches to Literature 36
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2021
REVIEWER: Amélie Doche, Birmingham City University
SUMMARY
In Chapter 1 “Responding to Style”, Alice Bell, Sam Browse, Alison Gibbons and
David Peplow justify the collection’s emphasis on “minds”, “media”, and
“methods”, which reflects the research landscape.
In fact, the “cognitive turn” (Steen, 1994) in the humanities has propelled
the establishment of the sub-discipline of Cognitive Poetics (hereafter CP).
CP draws from work carried out in Schema Theory (Schank & Abelson, 1977),
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (hereafter CMT: Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), Text-World
Theory (hereafter TWT: Gavins, 2007; Werth, 1999) and Cognitive Grammar
(hereafter CG: Langacker, 2008). Schema Theory (Schank & Abelson, 1977)
advances that human beings process the world around them through knowledge
structures that cognitively represent stereotypical situations. CMT (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980) is a cognitive approach to metaphor which refers to the
understanding of one idea in terms of another. TWT (Gavins, 2007; Werth, 1999)
is a cognitive grammar which separates a given discourse into various
ontological levels: the discourse-world (which we inhabit) and the
text-world(s) (i.e., the fictional worlds). CG (Langacker, 2008) rests on the
idea that grammar, semantics, and lexicon exist on a continuum.
In the context of online “participatory cultures” (Jenkins, 2009, pp. 5-6),
the section on “media” is particularly relevant as stylistic inquiries come to
include various monomodal and multimodal text-types. These changes lead to
questioning the soundness of the “methods” used as well as the co-dependency
between research questions and methodologies. The section devoted to “methods”
distinguishes two objects of inquiry in reader-response stylistics: the
cognitive phenomenon investigated through experimental methods and the
socio-cultural phenomenon investigated through naturalistic methods.
Chapter 2 “Interpretation in Interaction: On the Dialogic Nature of Response”
opens the section on “minds”. Peplow and Whiteley investigate how “social
reading” (Peplow et al., 2016, p. 30) sheds light on the inherently dialogic
nature of literary response. Bakhtinian dialogic theory functions as a
conceptual framework for identifying the instances where readers’ responses
are permeated by and/or directed towards other texts, readers, and the wider
socioculture (Bakhtin, 1984). To map out the interrelations between text and
response, the authors first carry out a stylistic analysis of the poem under
discussion: Armitage’s ‘Upon Opening the Chest Freezer’. Then, they use the
conversation transcripts of a Sheffield-based reading group to discuss
potential resonances between the poem and co-constructed responses to it. The
reading group focused on the metaphorical aspects of the poem. In light of
this finding, Peplow and Whiteley analyse their data using cognitive-dialogic
linguistic resources, namely Lakoff and Johnson’s CMT (1980) and Du Bois’s
dialogic syntax (2014). Findings reveal that readers collectively build on the
metaphorical connections between the couple’s relationship and the chest
freezer to establish, maintain, and develop various configurations of the
metaphor “relationship is a chest freezer”. Across multiple and disparate
turns, readers display linguistic resources parallel to the utterances which
have been previously uttered. The significance of parallelism creates
resonance at morphosyntactic, lexical and metaphorical levels (p. 39). The
dialogic interaction between discourse-participants manifests in their
engagement with past discourses and in their co-construction of interpretative
metaphors.
Jessica Norledge’s Chapter 3 “Modelling an Unethical Mind” examines the ways
in which the stylistic features permeating homodiegetic dystopian minds affect
readers’ interpretations of and responses to unethical narrators. In dystopian
narratives, the reader’s ability to make connections between the text-world
and the discourse-world comes from a perceived sense of estrangement (Suvin,
1979, p. 1). Using a productive TWT-driven response-oriented approach,
Norledge carries out a stylistic analysis of Bacigalupi’s “Pop Squad” and
subsequently qualitatively examines the interactional responses of three
readers. Norledge notes that, in “Pop Squad”, instances of characterisation
propel the text-world forward – thus constituting what TWT terms
‘function-advancing propositions’ – and shape readers’ mind-modelling of the
characters, especially those through which the narrative is focalised.
Processes of mind-modelling (Stockwell, 2009) implicate a blurring of
ontological boundaries between discourse- and text- worlds insofar as readers
temporarily inhabit a fictional mind to which they assign needs, thoughts, and
motives. Here, readers’ discussions emphasise the shifts in the narrative
voice, going from passivity to agency in the murders. Findings distinguish two
mind-modelling processes. Participants 2 and 3 challenge the narrator’s
actions and motives by mobilising their discourse-world ethics. Thus, a sense
of estrangement between immoral text-world events (fiction, text) and
real-world practices (reality, context) is emphasised. Participant 1 accepts
the narrator’s mind by mobilising their text-world logic (fiction, co-text).
These observations lead Norledge to suggest that mind-modelling effectively
‘builds’ text-worlds.
In Chapter 4 entitled “Towards an Empirical Stylistics of Critical Reception”,
Sam Browse uses the cognitive frameworks of TWT and CG to investigate Labour
readers’ hostile responses to a piece by Theresa May, published in 2018 in The
Observer. The study uses the “think aloud” data provided by 39 Labour
supporters. The research procedure involves having participants reading
excerpts from May’s piece and writing their thoughts immediately after the
reading. Then, participants answer three questions along a five-point Likert
scale asking them to explain their answers. Using TWT enables the author to
indicate two ontological levels at which readers form a critical attitude to
the text: the discourse-world, emphasising top-down resistance and the
text-world, featuring bottom-up resistance (Browse, p. 65). Three
discourse-world critical interpretative strategies are identified. Firstly,
some readers reject May’s textually constructed target identity by mobilising
their pre-existing knowledge frames. Secondly, some participants use
mind-modelling (Stockwell, 2009) to imagine the responses of other
readerships. Thirdly, some readers criticise The Observer for publishing the
piece (p. 71). Browse distinguishes two types of text-world critical
interpretative strategies: readers either use mind-modelling to explain the
cognitive dissonance between text-world and discourse-world or offer differing
“construals” of the text. In CG, “construal” refers to the choice between
alternating expressions: different grammatical choices construe different
situations (p. 73). Here, the participants’ disagreement with the bottom-up
construal “employment is up” lead them to “reconstrue” the text-world with
their own frames. Browse’s cognitively grounded framework for analysing
critical responses is summarised page 77.
In Chapter 5 “A Cognitive and Cultural Reader Response Theory of Character
Construction”, Julia Vaeßen and Sven Strasen present the affordances of
cultural models for examining the reception of literary characters. Cultural
Model Theory – which is rooted in the field of cognitive anthropology (e.g.,
Strauss and Quinn, 1997, Bennardo & de Munck, 2014) – refers to particular
types of schematic knowledge shared by members of a same culture through
repeated embodied socio-cultural experiences (Vaeßen & Strasen, p. 81). The
authors advance that the reader’s ability to construct characters and use
mind-modelling (Stockwell, 2009) strategies in the reception process depends
on both textual and extra-textual elements (p. 86). Cultural Models of
Characters (CMC) include terminals (i.e., slots that must be filled) and
default assignments (i.e., the standard expectations regarding these slots,
based on previous socio-cultural experiences) (p. 90). The authors illustrate
CMC by examining their own responses to Written on the Body (1993) by English
writer Jeanette Winterson. They argue that heterosexual norms in Western
societies lead Western readers to assign a masculine gender to Winterson’s
protagonist, whose gender remains undisclosed. CMC can be activated by
various textual cues, which entails that the moment of activation differs
across readers (p. 94). Vaeßen and Strasen suggest that corpora of readers’
responses taken from Amazon or Goodreads could enable researchers to identify
prevalent cultural models in a (sub-)culture and to empirically test the
relevance of CMC.
Alison Gibbons’s Chapter 6 “Why Do You Insist That Alana Is Not Real?” opens
the section devoted to “media”. This multimodal and multidisciplinary
reader-response research explores visitors’ perceptions of the protagonist
Alana in the fictional autobiographical exhibition “there’s no place like
time”. The study seeks to interrogate Paul John Eakin’s claim (1992, p. 29)
that the viewer’s perceived difference between fictional and non-fictional
autobiographies pertains to referentiality. To do so, Gibbons uses methods
drawn from CP and museum studies. Specifically, TWT is used in concordance
with Stockwell’s (2009, pp. 17-55) and Bitgood’s (2011, pp. 237-43) respective
models of attention-resonance and attention-value. Gibbons’s analysis finds
that three elements work towards blurring the boundary between reality and
fiction. Firstly, depending on whether visitors read paratextual fictionality
signposts (e.g., opening text-plate) and whether their attention is focused
(shallow-processing) or engaged (deeper-processing), ontological confusion is
created. Secondly, the apodeictic addresses contained in Aila’s text-world
lead viewers to assign a referential and representational status to the text.
Lastly, negation – which functions as an attentional foregrounding device –
prevails in Alana’s text-world, which attracts visitors’ attention (Gibbons,
p. 110). The researcher’s optional questionnaire to be completed by visitors
reveal that 43.5% of participants believe that Alana is real. 32.6% of
participants give ambiguous responses. These findings support prior research
in psychology regarding default belief: visitors without prior knowledge
predominantly interpreted Alana Olsen as real. The real-world museum context
and the autobiographical nature of the story – combined with the elements
aforementioned – enhances felt referentiality (p. 117).
Chapter 7 “Reading Hyperlinks in Hypertext Fiction” composed by Isabelle van
der Brom, Lyle Skains, Alice Bell and Astrid Ensslin, presents results from an
AHRC-funded reader-response study which sought to identify different types of
hyperlinks and to explore the cognitive effects of hyperlinks in digital
fiction. Hyperlinks prevail in hypertext fiction, which can be defined as a
form of digital fiction in which individual units of texts termed “lexias” are
connected (Ensslin & Skains, 2017). The research aims to empirically verify
the theory that “readers anticipate where a hyperlink will lead and then
retrospectively process the semantic associations they believe are implied by
that link” (van der Brom et al., p. 125). Building on Parker’s (2001, n. p.)
and Ryan’s (2006, pp.110-11) respective typologies of hyperlinks, the authors
develop a meta-typology comprising four links: Narrative Navigation (NN),
Affective Navigation (AN), Narrative Exploration (NE) and Affective
Exploration (AE). NN explicitly leads the reader down a narrative path; AN
implicitly leads the reader down a narrative path; NE provides the reader with
additional layers of narrative and AE generates an affective response on the
part of the reader (pp. 128-9). The study examines the responses of 19 student
participants, reading the purpose-built hypertext fiction in presence of the
researchers. Findings reveals that readers make inference about hyperlinks and
retrospectively engage in meaning-making (p. 139). The authors find that
readers recognise different types of links and privilege clear and relevant NN
links which advance the narrative plot.
In Chapter 8 entitled “Evaluating News Events”, Martine van Driel applies
media linguistics methods of text analysis to the study of reader-response.
The research seeks to explore whether readers respond differently to instances
of personalisation in live blogs as compared to traditional online news
articles. The news articles – dealing with the Gaza conflict and the Oregon
college shooting – are collected from the BBC and The Guardian websites.
Responses to the articles are collected through semi-structured interviews and
are examined qualitatively through the lens of Appraisal Theory (Martin &
White, 2005), which is a framework for analysing interpersonal meanings. The
interview comprises two types of questions: descriptive ‘event’ and evaluative
‘perspective’ questions. Analytically, the author uses the sub-system of
Appreciation within Appraisal, which pertains to the evaluation of objects.
Appreciation encompasses three resources: Reaction, Composition, and Valuation
(Martin & White, 2005, p. 56). Because preliminary analysis shows the
prevalence of the sub-category of Quality within Reaction in both mediums, the
author focuses on Quality. Quality includes positive and negative evaluations.
Findings reveal that respondents primarily use negative Quality, regardless of
formats. However, responses to traditional articles use negative Quality to
refer to the experiences of large groups of people (e.g., families) while
responses to live blogs use negative Quality to refer to the experience of
specific individuals. These findings suggest a link between negative Quality
evaluations of news events and the construction of the Personalisation news
value (van Driel, p. 158).
Chapter 9 “In Defence of Introspection” opens the section pertaining to
“methods”. Peter Stockwell begins by reminding stylisticians that
introspection plays an integral part in any stylistic research (p. 165). The
current difficulties with external empirical methods of investigating reading
are threefold: (i) they are indirect, (ii) they involve a spatial displacement
between two minds (i.e., the ‘researcher’ and the ‘researched’), and (iii)
they involve a temporal displacement between different states of mind (i.e.,
introspection and retrospection) (Stockwell, p. 168). For the sake of rigour,
introspective analyses should be triangulated with insights from cognitive
poetics and corpus stylistics (Stockwell & Mahlberg, 2015). To illustrate his
point, Stockwell carries out an analysis of the last poem in Thomas Hardy’s
Wessex, which deals with ageing. Introspective analyses are complemented by
TWT, etymology, and corpus analyses to ensure that the analytical frameworks
used do not determine a priori the findings. Stockwell shows that the poem
features two text-worlds: one framing text-world corresponding to Hardy’s
current life and one text-world featuring Hardy’s imagined life. The former
text-world is portrayed as emotional and exclamatory while the latter
text-world emphasises loneliness. The author argues that, although the
switching between worlds and the personalisation of the poem generate a strong
response on his part, introspection-driven stylistics requires readers to
recognise their own feelings in the analyst’s account. Thus, acknowledging the
relevance of introspection is essential to the study of literature as human
communication.
In Chapter 10 entitled “Reading the Readers”, Bronwen Thomas reflects on the
appropriate steps to be taken and methodologies to be adopted for the purpose
of carrying out ethical reader-response research in the context of new media.
In the early twenty-first century, the development of Web 2.0 – also known as
the ‘participatory web’ – entailed a blurring of boundaries between readers
and writers, hence the introduction of such terms as “wreader” (Landow, 1997,
p. 17). As Thomas notes, the growing access to textual content does not entail
“ethical access” (Giaxoglou, 2017). Questions arise as to whether to ensure
anonymity for online participants and whether to quote or paraphrase their
texts. Additionally, Thomas indicates that, in the context of reader-response,
the emphasis on the written text entails that multimodal elements remain
unattended (Spilioti, 2017, p. 13). Moving from the position of observer to
that of participant in online communities led the author to adopt a
mixed-method approach combining analytical observations with interactions with
participants to remedy the issues linked to ethics and monomodality in two
projects pertaining to digital reading. The author’s recent project, Reading
on Screen (2017-18), goes a step further by using creative participatory
methods to co-create the digital stories with participants through multimodal
resources, including animations, and oral narrations. The success of the
approach lies in the inclusion of varied – and perhaps conflicting –
individual narratives in the research and in the dissolution of the dichotomy
between ‘researcher’ and ‘object of analysis’ which still permeates literary
studies.
In Chapter 11 “Extra-Textuality and Affective Intensities”, Hugh Escott argues
that literary practices be deemed relational insofar as they are embedded
within affective assemblages of people, socio-material environments, and
artefacts. These assemblages – termed “affective intensities” (Leander &
Boldt, 2013, p. 22) – play a part in the reader’s/writer’s construction of
meaning throughout the reading/writing process. Although the significance of
so called “extratextual” socio-material relations for reader-response
stylistics has been acknowledged, the relational aspect of literary practices
has yet to be investigated. Focusing on affect entails an obligation of
openness to disruption, change, and newness (Burnett & Merchant, 2018, p. 67;
Massumi 2015, p. 8). The author notes that the longstanding boundary between
‘textual’ and ‘extratextual’ is opaque insofar as the ‘extra’ textual always
conditions the text (Escott, p. 207). Escott’s own research seeks to develop
new approaches to reading and writing through the use of participatory
research methods. In the context of the “Un-thinking” project – carried out in
collaboration between The University of Sheffield and the creative
organisation Grimm & Co – workshops encouraged participants aged 7-18 to use
their embodied experience of the immediate socio-material environment in the
production of texts. In a similar vein, the author’s experience of the writing
event – embedded in a network of relations – make up the field notes which
have become vignettes in the present chapter. This leads Escott to conclude
that attending to participants’ epistemologies requires researcher to develop
flexible methodologies which take into account the coming together of people,
places, and things (p. 213).
EVALUATION
Situated within the field of empirical reader-response stylistics, Style and
reader response: Minds, media, methods showcases ten studies in which
“verifiable insights from style and response are used to generate new
stylistic models and new understandings of texts across media” (p. 1). This
edited volume provides an eclectic selection of reader-response research
across three interrelated dimensions: minds, media, and methods. The opening
chapter “Responding to Style” first discusses the nature of the “reader” in
stylistics; then, it justifies the relevance of “minds”, “media”, and
“methods” through historically-informed and research-based considerations. The
postscript, written by Moniek M. Kuijpers, makes a case for closer
collaboration both amongst reader-response researchers and between
reader-response researchers and researchers specialised in such disciplines as
computational linguistics. Kuijpers judiciously points out that the increasing
importance of “minds”, “media”, and “methods” calls both for more varied
expertise and for the collection of a larger amount of data. It is noteworthy
that the first and last chapters imbricate the ten contributions in a
productive dialogue between past developments and future research. The book’s
solid temporal grounding certainly increases its relevance across audiences.
Not only will it appeal to (under)graduate students wishing to gain a deeper
understanding of the wide plethora of research falling in the remit of
reader-response stylistics, but it will also engage experienced researchers
willing to be challenged by the innovative methodologies and ethical
considerations featured in the volume.
In Chapter 9, Stockwell positions himself against “a view within literary
linguistics that can often seem to fetishise measurement and quantification to
the detriment of regarding literature as human communication” (p. 176). The
book contributions do not feature the reductive approach mentioned by
Stockwell. In fact, several chapters feature in-depth qualitative analyses.
Peplow and Whiteley’s chapter “Interpretation in Interaction” provides
insightful reports on the collaborative and discursive construction of meaning
among readers. In a similar vein, Norledge’s investigation of unethical minds
enables her to draw detailed conclusions about the functions of mind-modelling
processes in responses to dystopian narratives. As for Gibbons’s research, it
productively combines TWT and models of attention to explain why visitors may
believe that the fictional protagonist Alana is real. The research carried out
by Stockwell, Peplow and Whiteley, Norldege, and Gibbons clearly shows the
entanglement of style and response. Their respective research findings would
not have been as significant had they not analysed their data in such a
meticulous way.
The success of this edited volume does not solely lie in its overall
qualitative approach to data analysis. Although this aim is not stated by the
editors, it appears that various chapters challenge the longstanding
distinction – inherited from Cartesian dualism – between ‘analyst’ and ‘object
of analysis’. Norledge’s “introspective analysis” hints at the personal nature
of textual analysis. Stockwell’s, Escott’s, Thomas’s, and Vaeßen and Strasen’s
contributions embrace the situatedness and researcher-specificity of research
findings without falling into relativism. Both Escott and Thomas argue that
participants’ epistemologies should be taken care of. Stockwell emphasises the
importance of the researcher’s own intuition and emotion in stylistic analyses
while Vaeßen and Strasen highlight the cultural specificity of response. These
chapters suggest that the interrelation between style and response is always
supplemented – overtly or covertly – by the interrelation between ‘researcher’
and ‘researched’.
A few innovative methodological approaches and models deserve particular
attention. In terms of methodology, van Driel’s use of Attitudinal Appraisal
for the purpose of reader-response stylistics leads to a very incisive
discussion about readers’ responses to similar events on different mediums. On
a similar note, Thomas’s work with readers using creative participatory
methods allows for an inclusive reader-response analysis which does not
project the researcher’s bias onto the data. As far as models are concerned,
it must be noted that both Browse’s cognitive model of critical reception and
van der Bom, Skains, Bell and Ensslin’s typology of hyperlinks have
significant potential-use value. Browse’s rigorous framework – which
distinguishes two ontological levels of critical reception – could be applied
to other text-types. Similarly, van der Bom et al.’s typology – which offers a
categorisation of hyperlinks in terms of their respective functions during the
reading experience – could open up new opportunities for understanding
readers’ engagement with digital fiction.
Style and reader response conveys manifold strengths: its emphasis on “minds”,
“media” and “methods” shows the editors’ openness to various research
interests and approaches, which challenges academic dogma. Additionally,
various genres are investigated throughout the volume: poetry, dystopias,
hypertext fictions, news, and exhibitions. While the eclectic selection of
research constitutes a genuine strength, the richness of terminology would
have justified the inclusion of a glossary, particularly for students.
Following this observation, the first and last chapters shed light on the
rationale underpinning the book and provide readers with useful information
and clarifications of concepts. Thus, these chapters should be particularly
valuable to student-readers. In any case, this volume is comprehensive,
thought-provoking, and extremely insightful. Without doubt, the research
presented in Style and reader response: Minds, media, methods has the
potential to influence and shape future reader-response stylistic
investigations.
REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist,
Ed.) (C.
Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.
Bell, A., Browse, S., Gibbons, A. & Peplow, D. (2021). Style and reader
response:
Minds, media, methods. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bennardo, G., & de Munck, V. C. (2014). Cultural models: Genesis, methods, and
experiences. Oxford University Press.
Bitgood, S. (2011). Social design in museums: The psychology of visitor
studies:
Collected essays volume one. MuseumsEtc.
Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2018). Affective encounters: enchantment and the
possibility of reading for pleasure. Literacy, 52 (2): 62-69.
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25
(3): 359-
410.
Eakin, P. J. (1992). Touching the world: Reference in autobiography. Princeton
University Press.
Ensslin, A. & Skains, L. (2017). Hypertext: Storyspace to twine. In J. Tabbi
(Ed.), The
Bloomsbury Handbook of Electronic Literature (pp. 293-307). Bloomsbury.
Gavins, J. (2007). Text world theory: An introduction. Edinburgh University
Press.
Giaxoglou, K. (2017). Reflections on internet research ethics from
language-focused
research on web-based mourning: Revisiting the private/public distinction as a
language ideology of differentiation. Applied Linguistics Review, 8 (2/3):
169-90.
Jenkins, Henry. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture:
Media
education for the 21st century. The MIT Press.
Landow, G. (1997). Hypertext 2.0. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford
University
Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago
Press.
Leander, K., & Boldt, G. 2013. Rereading ‘A pedagogy of multiliteracies’.
Journal of
Literacy Research, 45 (1): 22-46.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal
in English. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Massumi, B. (2015). Politics of affect. Polity.
Parker, J. (2001). A poetic of the link. Electronic book review.
http://www.altx.com/ebr/ebr12/park/park.htm
Peplow, D., Swann, J., Trimarco, P. & Whiteley, S. (2016). Reading group
discourse:
Integrating cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. Routledge.
Ryan, M-L. (2006). Avatars of story. University of Minnesota Press.
Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. (1997). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spilioti, T. (2017). Media convergence and publicness: Towards a modular and
iterative approach to online research ethics. Applied Linguistics Review, 8
(2/3): 191-212.
Steen, G. (1994). Understanding metaphor. Longman.
Stockwell, P. (2009). Texture: A cognitive aesthetics of reading. Edinburgh
University
Press.
Stockwell, P. & Mahlberg, M. (2015). Mind-modelling with corpus stylistics in
David
Copperfield. Language and Literature, 24 (2): 129-47.
Strauss, C. & Quinn, N. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning.
Cambridge
University Press.
Suvin, D. (1979). Metamorphoses of science fiction: On the poetics of a
literary
genre. Yale University Press.
Werth, P. (1999). Text worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse.
Longman.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Amélie Doche is an AHRC-funded Doctoral Researcher in English Language and
Literature at Birmingham City University. Her PhD – carried out in
collaboration with the literature development agency Writing West Midlands –
uses linguistic tools to understand the intricacies of contemporary British
literary culture. Amélie’s research interests include Digital Literary
Discourse(s), Reader-response, Stylistics, and Systemic Functional Discourse
Analysis. Her most recent published work explores the poetics of Sylvia
Plath’s poem “Elm” (Iperstoria 2021).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*************************** LINGUIST List Support ***************************
The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list
Let's make this a short fund drive!
Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-2740
----------------------------------------------------------
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list