“Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov

“Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov first appeared in the Comparative Literature journal (Vol. 59, No. 2) in Spring 2007, published by Duke University Press on behalf of the University of Oregon. Alexandrov’s work engages deeply with the intersections of literature, linguistics, and neuroscience, probing into how literary qualities might uniquely interact with brain processes. He questions the traditional concept of “literature,” noting its evolving nature in the field of literary studies, where perspectives on its essence have grown increasingly skeptical and culturally relativistic. Alexandrov’s work draws on Jakobson’s theory of “literariness”—the quality that distinguishes literary language by focusing on the form of language itself, as opposed to mere communication. He aligns Jakobson’s insights with current findings in cognitive science and neuroscience, which suggest that the brain engages differently with language when it possesses literary qualities like metaphor and complex structure. His exploration proposes that structured literary discourse may activate distinct cognitive processes, which supports the possibility of a neuroscientific basis for literariness, thus bridging a gap between the humanities and cognitive science. This work underscores a potentially foundational role for literature in understanding language’s impact on the brain, suggesting that the unique processing involved in literary reading can deepen our grasp of both brain functions and cultural production.

Summary of “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov

• Exploring the Definition of Literature:
  • Alexandrov examines the ambiguous and contested nature of “literature” as a concept, noting that it is often viewed as “a social construct or a reader’s projection” (Alexandrov 98).
  • He critiques how various scholars, like E.D. Hirsch and Terry Eagleton, have suggested that “there is no ‘essence’ of literature whatsoever” (Alexandrov 98).
• The Influence of Post-Structuralism on Literariness:
  • The shift from essentialist views of literature to relativist perspectives is highlighted, with Alexandrov tracing this evolution to the influence of post-structuralism and cultural studies, which question the traditional notion of “literariness” (Alexandrov 98-99).
  • This shift has led to a reorientation in academia, prioritizing cultural artifacts and societal contexts over intrinsic literary features (Alexandrov 99).
• Linking Jakobson’s Poetic Function and Neuroscience:
  • Alexandrov explores Roman Jakobson’s idea of “literariness” as a “poetic function” that involves a “focus on the message itself” (Alexandrov 102).
  • He aligns this with recent neuroscientific evidence suggesting that structured language, which emphasizes literary devices, engages unique brain mechanisms (Alexandrov 104).
• Hemispheric Specialization in Language Processing:
  • The article presents findings that different brain hemispheres process language in distinct ways, with the left hemisphere generally managing “sequential, syntactically and grammatically organized linguistic meaning” and the right hemisphere engaging with “coarse” and metaphorical meanings (Alexandrov 113).
  • Alexandrov argues that this division aligns with Jakobson’s distinction between the “metaphoric” and “metonymic” poles of language (Alexandrov 107).
• Right Hemisphere and Literary Creativity:
  • The right hemisphere’s role in creating “global coherence” across a text and processing figurative language is noted, with Alexandrov citing that damage to the right hemisphere impairs abilities related to metaphor, irony, and overall narrative structure (Alexandrov 109).
  • He posits that creativity in literature involves the unique cooperation of both hemispheres, which may correspond to Jakobson’s concept of the “poetic function” (Alexandrov 111).
• Literariness as a Cognitive and Cultural Construct:
  • Alexandrov suggests that while neuroscience can shed light on the cognitive processes involved in reading literature, “literariness” may still be seen as a cultural construct, varying by tradition and function (Alexandrov 113).
  • He acknowledges that “within the realm of human beliefs, there is no absolute ground that can be used to adjudicate what individuals choose to view as true, good, and real” (Alexandrov 115).
• Implications for Literary Studies and Humanities:
  • By integrating cognitive science, Alexandrov argues that literary studies might reclaim the significance of “literariness” as an academic focus, potentially bridging divides between the humanities and sciences (Alexandrov 114).
  • He concludes that understanding literature’s impact on the brain could renew academic interest in the intrinsic qualities of literary texts (Alexandrov 114-115).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov

Literary Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation/Reference
Literature	A socially constructed term often viewed as a reader’s projection or value-laden category.	Alexandrov discusses how literature is perceived as “a social construct or a reader’s projection” and suggests that the concept lacks a universally accepted essence (Alexandrov 98).
Literariness	The inherent quality that distinguishes literary texts, often marked by the “poetic function” focusing on language itself.	Alexandrov explores “literariness” through Jakobson’s notion of the “poetic function” as it focuses on the structure and message of language, rather than its content alone (Alexandrov 102).
Poetic Function	Jakobson’s term for the function of language that emphasizes form, structure, and the message itself over content.	Alexandrov uses Jakobson’s concept to argue that literariness involves emphasizing the “message itself” and creating structured language that engages readers in unique cognitive ways (Alexandrov 102).
Metaphoric Pole	A type of language structure characterized by associative, spatial relations; associated with selection and substitution.	Alexandrov connects this “pole” to the right hemisphere’s ability to process metaphor and non-linear associations, linking it to Jakobson’s idea of literary language’s focus on similarity and metaphor (Alexandrov 107).
Metonymic Pole	A type of language structure characterized by syntagmatic, linear relations, often involving causal or sequential connections.	Associated with the left hemisphere, this pole reflects Jakobson’s view that language is also constructed through linear, syntactical connections, especially in everyday discourse (Alexandrov 107).
Defamiliarization	A literary technique making the familiar appear strange, thereby enhancing perception of language.	Linked to Viktor Shklovsky, this concept emphasizes how literary language “estranges” common phrases or ideas, aligning with the brain’s unique engagement with complex literary structures (Alexandrov 108).
Global Coherence	The brain’s process of integrating individual sentences into an overarching text structure or meaning.	Alexandrov highlights the right hemisphere’s role in achieving this coherence, which is crucial for understanding the overarching narrative structure in literary texts (Alexandrov 109).
Hemispheric Specialization	The brain’s division into left and right hemispheres, each processing language differently, with the left handling sequential, syntactical language and the right managing metaphor and “global coherence.”	Alexandrov details how each hemisphere’s specialization supports different aspects of language, suggesting that both hemispheres are essential in processing literariness in complex literary texts (Alexandrov 113).
Ideology in Literature	The view that literature is a construct shaped by historical, cultural, and social values rather than inherent qualities.	Alexandrov notes that post-structuralism questions “literature” as an essential concept, viewing it instead as ideologically shaped by “value judgments” and historical variability (Alexandrov 98).
Cultural Studies	An academic field focusing on broader human artifacts, practices, and social ideologies rather than purely traditional literary texts.	The rise of cultural studies has shifted focus away from traditional “literature,” broadening the scope of literary analysis to include cultural and sociopolitical factors (Alexandrov 99).
Empirical Universalism	Identifying cross-cultural invariants in human experience and cultural artifacts without imposing cultural norms universally.	Cited by Alexandrov as a balance between universalism and relativism, empirical universalism respects genuine human constants without cultural imposition, particularly relevant in comparative studies of literariness (Alexandrov 100).
Sequential vs. Spatial Processing	Left hemisphere’s preference for processing language sequentially and logically, while the right hemisphere focuses on spatial, metaphorical associations.	Alexandrov uses this distinction to explain how different structures in language engage each hemisphere, suggesting that literature’s metaphoricity requires both types of processing (Alexandrov 107).
Aesthetic Experience	The subjective engagement with beauty and form in literature, often linked with cognitive processes involving both hemispheres.	Alexandrov connects aesthetic experience in reading to cognitive processes like defamiliarization and coherence building, which demand the brain’s full engagement (Alexandrov 109).
Paranormal and Creativity Link	The association between creativity and cognitive processing in the right hemisphere, sometimes linked with unusual mental experiences, including paranormal beliefs or schizophrenia.	Alexandrov discusses studies connecting the associative, non-linear processes in the right hemisphere with traits like creativity and apophenia, or seeing connections among disparate elements (Alexandrov 111).

Contribution of “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov to Literary Theory/Theories

• Revisiting Formalist Theories of Literariness:
  • Alexandrov reaffirms Roman Jakobson’s Formalist idea of “literariness” by connecting it with neuroscience, suggesting that literary language’s unique structure (poetic function) has neurological implications (Alexandrov 102).
  • This connection revives Formalist emphasis on “what makes a text literary,” grounding it in cognitive science (Alexandrov 102).
• Supporting Structuralism through Language Processing:
  • By linking structured linguistic processing in the brain to Jakobson’s concepts, Alexandrov supports Structuralism’s focus on the deep structures of language, especially through binary oppositions like metaphoric vs. metonymic (Alexandrov 107).
  • He proposes that structured discourse, such as that found in literary texts, has distinct neural engagement, echoing Structuralist insights into underlying patterns and structures (Alexandrov 108).
• Engaging with Post-Structuralist Skepticism of “Essence” in Literature:
  • Alexandrov addresses Post-Structuralist critiques of essentialism in literature by examining the brain’s response to literariness. He suggests that, while cultural perspectives on literature are valid, there may also be neurological bases for experiencing literariness (Alexandrov 98).
  • This contribution allows for a “sliding scale” of literariness that aligns with Post-Structuralist notions of fluidity while exploring possible cognitive underpinnings (Alexandrov 114).
• Contribution to Cognitive Poetics and Reader-Response Theory:
  • The article contributes to Cognitive Poetics by exploring how the brain’s hemispheres process literary versus non-literary texts, suggesting that complex structures and metaphors require unique cognitive engagement (Alexandrov 104).
  • This aligns with Reader-Response Theory’s emphasis on the reader’s role, proposing that the neurological engagement with literariness impacts how meaning is constructed during reading (Alexandrov 109).
• Reinforcing Defamiliarization from Russian Formalism:
  • Alexandrov applies Viktor Shklovsky’s concept of “defamiliarization” by linking it with neural responses to metaphor and unusual language structures, suggesting that the brain processes defamiliarized language differently, making it more memorable and engaging (Alexandrov 108).
  • This neuroscientific grounding adds empirical support to the Formalist idea that literary texts make readers “see the world anew” (Alexandrov 109).
• Proposing a Bridge Between Humanities and Neuroscience:
  • The article contributes to Interdisciplinary Theory by demonstrating how literary theory can benefit from and contribute to cognitive science. Alexandrov suggests that literature scholars can engage with neuroscience without reducing literature to a purely scientific phenomenon (Alexandrov 114).
  • This bridge challenges the “two cultures” divide by proposing methods of studying literature that are informed by empirical evidence (Alexandrov 115).
• Highlighting the Role of Cultural Studies in Literary Definition:
  • Alexandrov acknowledges the shift toward Cultural Studies in literary departments, noting how the study of “literature” has broadened to include other cultural artifacts. He ties this trend to a reevaluation of traditional literary hierarchies (Alexandrov 99).
  • His work invites Cultural Studies to consider cognitive dimensions in the cultural production and reception of texts (Alexandrov 100).
• Encouraging Empirical Universalism within Literary Studies:
  • The article supports the concept of “empirical universalism,” proposing that while cultural variability in interpreting literature is valid, there may also be cross-cultural cognitive responses to structured literary forms (Alexandrov 100).
  • This approach suggests a balance between cultural relativity and cognitive constants in the appreciation of literariness (Alexandrov 100).

Examples of Critiques Through “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov

Literary Work	Critique Based on Alexandrov’s Concepts	Relevant Concept from Alexandrov
“The Waste Land” by T.S. Eliot	Eliot’s use of fragmented structure, cultural references, and varied voices can be seen as engaging both hemispheres of the brain, as it requires readers to make metaphorical and associative connections while navigating complex, layered meanings.	Hemispheric Specialization and Global Coherence: The right hemisphere engages with fragmented and associative elements, while the left processes the syntactic structure, making the text’s complexity cognitively engaging (Alexandrov 109).
“One Hundred Years of Solitude” by Gabriel García Márquez	The magical realism in García Márquez’s narrative defamiliarizes familiar concepts, leading readers to interpret supernatural events as part of daily life. This estrangement aligns with the brain’s preference for poetic function and metaphorical processing in literature.	Defamiliarization and Metaphoric Processing: The text’s defamiliarization challenges readers to reframe reality, requiring both hemispheres for metaphorical understanding and coherence, engaging the brain in unique interpretive processes (Alexandrov 108).
“Beloved” by Toni Morrison	Morrison’s exploration of trauma, memory, and fragmented identity reflects the right hemisphere’s engagement with associative and spatial memory processing, as readers connect past and present narrative fragments to construct a cohesive meaning.	Memory and Global Coherence: The non-linear narrative engages the right hemisphere in reconstructing fragmented memories, while the left hemisphere seeks narrative structure, mirroring trauma’s disjointed nature (Alexandrov 113).
“Ulysses” by James Joyce	Joyce’s stream-of-consciousness technique and linguistic play activate the poetic function, as readers must process unconventional syntax, multiple perspectives, and associative language, thus demanding unique cognitive involvement.	Poetic Function and Defamiliarization: The complex language structure forces readers into a state of heightened awareness and associative thinking, requiring both hemispheres to process Joyce’s wordplay and narrative shifts (Alexandrov 108).

Criticism Against “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov

• Over-Reliance on Neuroscience without Direct Literary Testing:
  • Alexandrov uses findings from neuroscience to infer how the brain might respond to literary texts, but he acknowledges that no studies have directly tested readers’ brain activity while reading complete literary works. This lack of direct evidence may weaken the link between neuroscience and literary theory (Alexandrov 114-115).
• Possible Reduction of Literature to Cognitive Mechanisms:
  • While Alexandrov aims to bridge humanities and science, some may argue that his approach risks reducing literature’s cultural and artistic value to mere neurological processes. This could overlook the complex historical, emotional, and ideological aspects that also shape literary engagement.
• Insufficient Engagement with Post-Structuralist Perspectives:
  • Alexandrov attempts to address post-structuralist skepticism but may not fully account for the field’s emphasis on the instability of meaning and the fluidity of language. Critics may feel his model inadvertently reintroduces an essentialist view of “literariness,” which post-structuralism critiques (Alexandrov 98).
• Limited Cultural Perspective in Defining Literariness:
  • Although Alexandrov acknowledges that definitions of literariness vary across cultures, his approach largely draws on Western literary traditions and theories, like Jakobson’s formalism. Critics might argue this narrow scope fails to account for diverse literary traditions where “literariness” could be defined differently (Alexandrov 113).
• Challenges in Applying Findings to Diverse Literary Genres:
  • Alexandrov’s focus on structured, metaphor-rich texts may not easily extend to all literary forms, such as minimalist prose or genre fiction, which don’t necessarily rely on dense linguistic complexity. This may limit his theory’s applicability across the broad spectrum of literary styles.

Representative Quotations from “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“What relevance, if any, does this work have for those of us who study what is customarily called ‘literature’?” (p. 97)	Alexandrov opens by questioning the connection between cognitive science and literary studies, setting the stage for his exploration of how neuroscience might inform our understanding of literariness.
“A widespread…view today…is that ‘literature’ is a social construct or a reader’s projection and thus a mystification.” (p. 98)	This quotation highlights the modern skepticism about the concept of literature, emphasizing how contemporary theory often sees literature as socially and culturally constructed rather than intrinsic.
“The ‘poetic function’ projects the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination.” (p. 102)	Citing Roman Jakobson, Alexandrov uses the poetic function to explain how literary language emphasizes structure and form, which can affect cognitive processing differently than everyday language.
“If certain kinds of structured discourse are shown to engage the human brain in ways that others do not, then there may be justification for…’literary.'” (p. 104)	Alexandrov suggests that if neuroscientific evidence shows distinct brain engagement with structured, literary language, it may support re-establishing “literariness” as a meaningful category, potentially giving literary theory a new empirical foundation.
“The right hemisphere quickly activates a loose or ‘coarse’ range of meanings associated with a word…while the left focuses on the most probable meaning.” (p. 113)	Here, Alexandrov explains how each hemisphere processes language differently, with the right handling broader, associative meanings and the left focusing on specific, contextually appropriate meanings—key for understanding how readers interpret layered literary language.
“Defamiliarization…can be seen as prefiguring Jakobson’s concept of the ‘poetic function.'” (p. 108)	Alexandrov links Viktor Shklovsky’s concept of defamiliarization with Jakobson’s poetic function, suggesting that making language strange or unfamiliar can deepen readers’ engagement, echoing Formalist theory.
“A literary work is one in which the poetic function dominates the other five but does not necessarily eliminate any of them.” (p. 102)	Alexandrov notes that literariness is marked by the dominance of the poetic function, but other language functions remain present, indicating that literary language is distinct in emphasis rather than fundamentally different.
“The success of literature professors in undermining ‘literature’ as a defining concept has resulted in their cutting off the academic branch they were sitting on.” (p. 99)	This critical observation suggests that by questioning the concept of “literature” so thoroughly, literary scholars have inadvertently weakened the foundations of their own field, leaving it vulnerable to challenges within academia.
“Beauty is information.” (p. 113)	Quoting Yuri Lotman, Alexandrov implies that literariness is not just about aesthetic pleasure but also about a densely layered structure of meaning, which cognitively enriches the reader’s experience.
“In short, a more prominent role for the right hemisphere would presumably cause an utterance to be structured differently.” (p. 107)	Alexandrov suggests that the right hemisphere’s associative processing might influence how literary language is structured, offering insights into how cognitive processing affects literary composition and style.

Suggested Readings: “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain” by Vladimir E. Alexandrov

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 6 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 6 Nov. 2024.
3. Zamora, Margarita. “Historicity and Literariness: Problems in the Literary Criticism of Spanish American Colonial Texts.” MLN, vol. 102, no. 2, 1987, pp. 334–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2905693. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.