“How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

“How Literary Can Literariness Be?” by Massimo Salgaro first appeared in Scientific Study of Literature, volume 5, issue 2, in 2015, spanning pages 229–249 (doi: 10.1075/ssol.5.2.06sal). The article explores the methodological complexities inherent in studying “literariness,” particularly through the lens of foregrounding and its impact on readers’ cognitive and aesthetic engagement. Drawing on Roman Jakobson’s foundational concept of “literariness,” Salgaro interrogates how foregrounded linguistic elements, such as rhetorical figures, influence text processing under different genre expectations. The study employs experimental methods to examine how readers interpret texts presented as literary versus non-literary, revealing that genre perception significantly affects reading dynamics, such as attention to rhetorical features and lexical difficulty. Salgaro’s work underscores the interplay of textual features, cognitive schemas, and reader expectations, contributing to debates in literary theory about the nature of aesthetic experience. The study holds significant implications for understanding the cognitive and emotional mechanisms underpinning literary reading and broadens the methodological frameworks used in empirical aesthetics and literary criticism.

Summary of “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Key References
Literariness	The quality that makes a text distinctly “literary,” often linked to stylistic and rhetorical features.	Jakobson (1987), Shklovsky (1917), Mukarovský (1932)
Foregrounding	The use of stylistic and linguistic features to defamiliarize, making readers notice elements of a text.	Miall & Kuiken (1994), Mukarovský (1932)
Defamiliarization	A process by which habitual perceptions are disrupted through novel or unexpected uses of language.	Shklovsky (1917), Mukarovský (1932)
Backgrounding	Elements in a text that connect to familiar schemata, allowing for narrative coherence and emotional resonance.	Jacobs (2013), Kneepkens & Zwaan (1994)
Reader Response Theory	A framework focusing on the reader’s role in interpreting texts based on personal and contextual factors.	Fish (1980), Jauss (1967), Iser (1976)
Schema Theory	The idea that literature disrupts and refreshes mental schemata, enabling new experiences for readers.	Jauss (1967), Iser (1976), Stockwell (2002)
Genre Expectations	Readers’ preconceptions about a text’s genre, influencing how they process and interpret it.	Zwaan (1991, 1994), Hoffstaedter (1986)
Lexical Challenge	Cognitive effort required to process statistically rare or complex lexical items in a text.	Levin (1963), Miall & Kuiken (1994)
Cognitive Control Mechanisms	Processes guiding how textual features are interpreted, influenced by genre and reader expertise.	Zwaan (1994), Jacobs (2013)
Statistical Deviation	A linguistic feature that deviates statistically from the norm within a language or genre.	Levin (1963), van Peer (1986)
Determinate Deviation	A clear violation of grammatical, poetic, or cultural conventions within a given context.	Levin (1963), Salgaro (2015)
Neurocognitive Poetics	A model of literary reading that emphasizes dual-route processing: fast, automatic immersion and slower, aesthetic processing.	Jacobs (2013), Lüdtke et al. (2014)
Pragmatic Concept of Literature	An approach that considers literature as defined by its function and reception, rather than intrinsic features.	Winko, Jannidis, & Lauer (2009)
Ecological Validity	The need for experimental studies to mimic naturalistic reading conditions to capture genuine literary experiences.	Dimigen et al. (2011), Salgaro (2015)

Contribution of “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro to Literary Theory/Theories

• Russian Formalism
  • Reinforces the concept of literariness as a distinctive characteristic of literary texts, primarily defined through foregrounding and defamiliarization.
  • Expands the Formalist idea that literary language disrupts conventional patterns to enable deeper engagement.
  • References: Shklovsky (1917), Jakobson (1987), Levin (1963).
• Reader Response Theory
  • Emphasizes the dynamic interaction between reader expectations and textual features in shaping the perception of literariness.
  • Demonstrates how genre expectations influence cognitive processing, supporting theories of reader-based interpretation.
  • References: Iser (1976), Jauss (1967), Zwaan (1991, 1994).
• Schema Theory
  • Applies schema theory to literary reading, showing how literary texts disrupt and refresh cognitive frameworks through processes of defamiliarization and refamiliarization.
  • Highlights the role of backgrounding in complementing foregrounding to create schema disruptions.
  • References: Stockwell (2002), Miall & Kuiken (1998).
• Empirical Aesthetics
  • Introduces experimental methodologies to test cognitive and emotional responses to foregrounded textual features like rhetorical figures.
  • Challenges earlier unitary conceptions of literariness, proposing that it emerges from a combination of textual and reader-based factors.
  • References: Altmann et al. (2012), Miall & Kuiken (1994), van Peer (1986).
• Neurocognitive Poetics
  • Aligns with neurocognitive models of reading, highlighting dual processing routes—fast immersive processes for backgrounding and slower, aesthetic engagement with foregrounding.
  • References: Jacobs (2011, 2013), Lüdtke et al. (2014).
• Pragmatic Literary Theory
  • Advocates for a pragmatic approach to literature that integrates both text-oriented and reader-oriented perspectives across diverse contexts.
  • Supports the idea that literariness is a multifaceted phenomenon rather than a fixed textual property.
  • References: Winko, Jannidis, & Lauer (2009).
• Cognitive Linguistics and Deviation Theory
  • Examines linguistic deviation at a micro-level (e.g., statistical rarity of words) to assess how foregrounding challenges lexical processing.
  • Contributes to understanding how deviations at lexical and semantic levels impact literary cognition.
  • References: Levin (1963), Sanford & Emmott (2012).
• Experimental Stylistics
  • Validates the role of rhetorical figures like oxymora and synaesthesia in slowing reading and increasing cognitive engagement.
  • Explores the influence of micro-level textual elements on comprehension and memory.
  • References: Miall & Kuiken (1994), van Peer & Hakemulder (2006).
• Aesthetic and Emotional Engagement
  • Discusses how foregrounding elicits aesthetic and emotional reactions, bridging defamiliarization (surprise) and refamiliarization (integration).
  • References: Kneepkens & Zwaan (1994), Miall & Kuiken (1999).

Examples of Critiques Through “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

Literary Work	Theory Applied	Critical Analysis
Ulysses by James Joyce	Foregrounding and Defamiliarization	Joyce’s use of complex narrative techniques and unconventional language creates foregrounding that disrupts conventional schemas, requiring readers to engage in defamiliarization and cognitive realignment (Miall & Kuiken, 1998).
The Old Man and the Sea by Hemingway	Backgrounding and Foregrounding Interaction	Hemingway’s minimalist style serves as backgrounding, while rare descriptive elements (e.g., “gaunt with deep wrinkles”) foreground key narrative moments, engaging both aesthetic and empathetic responses (Jacobs, 2013).
The Metamorphosis by Kafka	Schema Disruption and Refreshment	Kafka disrupts reader expectations through the absurd premise (Gregor’s transformation), leading to schema renewal and reflection on existential themes, consistent with schema theory (Stockwell, 2002).
A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams	Lexical and Rhetorical Foregrounding	The play’s use of figurative language, such as Blanche’s poetic monologues, slows comprehension, enhancing emotional and aesthetic engagement through rhetorical foregrounding (van Peer, 1986).
Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov	Genre Expectations and Reader Response	Nabokov manipulates genre expectations by blending fictional commentary and poetry, prompting readers to shift cognitive frames and question literariness itself (Zwaan, 1994).
Paradise Lost by John Milton	Cognitive and Emotional Dual Processing	Milton’s epic evokes immersive backgrounding through its narrative structure and aesthetic foregrounding via rich rhetorical devices (e.g., epic similes), engaging both fast and slow cognitive routes (Jacobs, 2011).
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman	Statistical Deviation and Lexical Rarity	Whitman’s repetition of uncommon word patterns and distinctive typography foreground his free verse style, exemplifying statistical deviation in poetic language (Levin, 1963).
Beloved by Toni Morrison	Foregrounding Emotional and Cognitive Challenges	Morrison’s complex narrative structure and dense metaphorical language foreground emotional and psychological themes, demanding slower, deeper engagement from readers (Miall & Kuiken, 1994).
1984 by George Orwell	Defamiliarization of Political Language	Orwell’s use of Newspeak and dystopian settings defamiliarizes readers with political language, enhancing critical reflection on societal norms through linguistic and narrative deviation (van Peer, Hakemulder & Zygnier, 2007).

Criticism Against “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

• Limited Scope of Foregrounding Analysis
  The study’s focus on isolated sentences in self-paced reading experiments neglects the holistic context of literary works, where foregrounding interacts with backgrounding to produce meaning. This narrow scope reduces ecological validity.
• Overemphasis on Statistical Deviation
  The reliance on statistical deviation as a measure of literariness may oversimplify the complexity of literary language and ignore the interplay of cultural, historical, and thematic contexts that influence literary appreciation.
• Neglect of Macro-Level Literary Structures
  The micro-level focus on lexical rarity and rhetorical figures does not address how larger narrative structures and themes contribute to the overall literariness of a text, limiting the applicability to comprehensive literary critique.
• Inconsistent Experimental Findings
  The conflicting results between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 highlight methodological issues in replicating the effects of foregrounding, raising questions about the reliability of the study’s conclusions.
• Reductionist Approach to Reader Response
  The cognitive model of reader response focuses on measurable linguistic and lexical elements but overlooks the subjective, emotional, and cultural factors that significantly impact literary reading experiences.
• Dependence on Laboratory Settings
  The artificiality of laboratory-based, word-by-word reading procedures does not reflect natural reading habits, potentially distorting how literariness and foregrounding operate in real-world contexts.
• Limited Exploration of Genre Diversity
  The experiments predominantly focus on literary versus non-literary texts without addressing how different literary genres (e.g., poetry, drama, prose) may uniquely employ foregrounding and backgrounding.
• Insufficient Integration of Historical Literary Theory
  While the study references key theorists (e.g., Jakobson, Shklovsky), it does not thoroughly integrate historical insights into its empirical framework, potentially leading to a fragmented understanding of literariness.
• Minimal Engagement with Reader Expertise
  The study does not sufficiently account for how a reader’s literary expertise, cultural background, or reading habits influence their perception of foregrounding and genre expectations.

Representative Quotations from “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literariness cannot be considered a textual feature only, but is rather the effect of a multifaceted process integrating textual features and cognitive operations.” (p. 245)	Highlights the complexity of literariness as a dynamic interplay between text characteristics and reader cognition, challenging the notion of a fixed definition for literariness.
“Foregrounding induces not only deeper language processing but also extended emotional and psychological change.” (p. 234)	Suggests that foregrounded elements in texts can enhance cognitive engagement and provoke profound emotional reactions, supporting their role in distinguishing literary texts from non-literary ones.
“The defamiliarization effect of foregrounding elements does not work in isolation; it requires the presence of backgrounding elements.” (p. 243)	Emphasizes that both foregrounding and backgrounding are essential for creating literary effects, as foregrounding gains significance only when contrasted against a norm or contextual background.
“Genre expectations influence how texts are processed, demonstrating that literariness also involves top-down cognitive processes.” (p. 237)	Indicates that readers’ preconceived notions about a text’s genre affect their reading strategies, further blurring the line between intrinsic textual features and reader perceptions in defining literariness.
“The attempt to study foregrounding statistically is a methodological challenge, as deviation depends on the specific context in which it is observed.” (p. 243)	Acknowledges the difficulty in quantifying foregrounding, as its effect is context-dependent, necessitating nuanced experimental approaches to study its role in literariness.
“Slowed reading times for foregrounded elements indicate cognitive challenge and heightened attention, characteristics of literary processing.” (p. 239)	Suggests that the slowed processing of foregrounded linguistic features signals the reader’s deeper engagement with literary texts, distinguishing them from mundane reading experiences.
“Statistical rarity of words contributes to the literary effect, but it must be analyzed within micro- and macro-contexts.” (p. 240)	Proposes that linguistic deviation contributes to literariness but insists on examining how these rare elements interact with broader textual and thematic structures.
“Literary language provides occasion for dehabituation, for contemplating alternative modes of experience.” (p. 230)	Echoes the Russian Formalist idea that literary texts disrupt habitual ways of thinking, offering readers opportunities for fresh perspectives and experiences.
“Refamiliarization is an integral part of literariness, as it integrates the defamiliarized text into the reader’s existing cognitive frameworks.” (p. 238)	Highlights the cyclical nature of literary reading, where readers process and reconcile unfamiliar elements within their pre-existing knowledge and expectations.
“Empirical studies show that foregrounded elements elicit surprise and require longer reading times, affirming their role in cognitive and aesthetic literary experiences.” (p. 233)	Validates the significance of foregrounding in eliciting cognitive and emotional engagement, substantiating its importance in empirical investigations of literariness.

Suggested Readings: “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

1. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
2. McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
3. Merrett, Robert James. “Literariness: Aesthetic and Cultural Dialectic.” Imperial Paradoxes: Training the Senses and Tasting the Eighteenth Century, vol. 83, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2021, pp. 79–113. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1xp9pnm.6. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
4. Salgaro, Massimo. “How literary can literariness be? Methodological problems in the study of foregrounding.” Scientific Study of Literature 5.2 (2015): 229-249.