Theory Article Summaries Archives - Page 17 of 48

“Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman: Summary and Critique

“Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom,” by Barbara Frey Waxman, first appeared in College English in March 2008.

Introduction: “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman

“Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom,” by Barbara Frey Waxman, first appeared in College English in March 2008, published by the National Council of Teachers of English. In this article, Waxman explores the appeal of food memoirs as literary texts that reveal personal histories, cultural identities, and communal values, often drawing on food as a metaphor for love, identity, and nostalgia. She argues that food memoirs are more than narratives filled with recipes and culinary descriptions; they represent profound reflections on family traditions, cross-cultural experiences, and the processes of self-discovery and identity formation. Waxman asserts that these memoirs offer readers, especially students, valuable insights into diverse cultures, historical traditions, and the universality of food as a social bond. By studying food memoirs, students can develop empathy and emotional intelligence, as well as deepen their understanding of literary techniques, such as metaphor and narrative voice. Waxman champions the inclusion of food memoirs in literature classrooms for their rich narrative styles, emotional depth, and their potential to broaden students’ perspectives on multiculturalism, personal growth, and the enduring human connection to food.

Summary of “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman

Defining Food Memoirs and Their Appeal
Food memoirs offer narratives where food memories reveal the growth and development of the writer. These memoirs often feature emotionally rich stories interwoven with vivid descriptions of food, creating a deep resonance with readers. Waxman argues that food memoirs are distinct from other food writing because they often begin with childhood memories or flashbacks, providing insights into family, culture, and identity. She describes how these texts blend culinary and cultural elements that give readers insight into the writers’ lives and perspectives, making them highly engaging and educational in a classroom setting (Waxman 365).
Autobiographical and Ethnographic Qualities
Food memoirs not only reflect personal experiences but often serve as a form of “auto-ethnography,” where the author explains their cultural background through the lens of food. This characteristic enables readers to learn about different traditions and customs from an insider’s perspective, fulfilling a dual role of personal narrative and cultural education. Waxman references Paul John Eakin’s theory that memoirists adopt an “ethnographic posture” toward their own past, sharing these customs and stories with a broader audience (Waxman 366).

Food as a Link in Diaspora Narratives
The memoirs Waxman examines often focus on the experience of living in the diaspora, where food becomes a medium for preserving cultural identity and memory. These narratives, such as those by Diana Abu-Jaber and Shoba Narayan, highlight the emotional struggle of immigrants attempting to recreate their native dishes with American ingredients. This struggle reflects both their connection to their heritage and the adaptation required to live in a new culture. Waxman argues that these memoirs offer valuable insights into the complexities of cultural adaptation and identity formation (Waxman 369-370).
The Food Memoir as Multicultural Literature
Food memoirs also serve as powerful multicultural texts, providing insight into how food traditions bridge cultural divides. For example, through detailed descriptions of traditional ceremonies and festive meals, authors like Leslie Li and Elizabeth Ehrlich invite readers into Chinese and Jewish cultural practices, respectively. This process helps demystify foreign customs and fosters empathy and understanding, reinforcing the role of food memoirs as vehicles for cultural education (Waxman 367).
Psychological Insights and Family Dynamics
Waxman discusses how food memoirs provide an intimate view of family relationships and psychological dynamics within different cultural contexts. She cites Madhur Jaffrey’s memoir, which portrays both idyllic and painful memories within her extended family. These personal stories offer readers a window into the emotional and sometimes challenging aspects of family life across cultures, highlighting universal themes such as love, loss, and resilience (Waxman 371).

Mentoring and Self-Reinvention Through Food
Many food memoirs highlight the role of mentors in the author’s culinary and personal growth, symbolizing a “second family” and guiding them toward self-reinvention. For instance, in Ruth Reichl’s “Tender at the Bone,” culinary mentors help her find independence and purpose, even as she distances herself from a difficult family background. These mentors often encourage the authors to overcome personal struggles and cultivate a fulfilling career in the food world, symbolizing the transformative power of food and mentorship (Waxman 376-377).
Eroticism and the Sensuality of Food
Waxman notes the erotic elements present in many food memoirs, which link the physical pleasure of eating with broader themes of desire and connection. In Reichl’s memoir, the sensuality of food is portrayed vividly, mirroring her personal relationships and romantic experiences. This erotic aspect appeals to readers on a primal level, adding another layer of intimacy to the food memoir genre and contributing to its popularity and allure (Waxman 378).
Life Lessons in Moral and Emotional Intelligence
Food memoirs convey life lessons that cultivate readers’ moral and emotional intelligence. Waxman suggests that by reading about other families’ challenges and dynamics, students can better understand and reflect upon their own relationships and values. The emotional depth and ethical dilemmas presented in these narratives foster empathy and encourage readers to appreciate the complexity of human connections and cultural identities (Waxman 380).

Justification for Food Memoirs in the Classroom
Waxman argues that food memoirs are valuable teaching tools, enriching literature classrooms by introducing students to diverse cultural perspectives, promoting introspection, and fostering emotional growth. The genre’s familiar subject matter—food—makes it approachable and engaging for students. By analyzing these memoirs, students can learn about narrative structure, cultural symbolism, and identity formation, making food memoirs a unique and effective addition to literature curricula (Waxman 381-382).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman

Literary Term/Concept	Description	Application in Food Memoirs
Auto-Ethnography	A form of self-reflection and writing that explores the writer’s personal experiences and connects them to broader cultural, political, and social meanings and understandings.	Food memoirists use their personal food stories to reveal and explain cultural practices to readers. For instance, Diana Abu-Jaber and Shoba Narayan provide insights into cultural customs and traditional foods, helping readers understand the immigrant experience and cultural heritage through food. (Waxman 366-367)
Diaspora	The dispersion of people from their original homeland and the cultural identity and nostalgia associated with it.	Food memoirs frequently discuss the role of food in preserving cultural identity for those in the diaspora. For example, memoirs by authors like Diana Abu-Jaber and Leslie Li reveal how food helps them connect with their heritage and navigate their dual cultural identity. (Waxman 369-370)
Bildungsroman	A literary genre focusing on the psychological and moral growth of the protagonist from youth to adulthood.	Waxman suggests that food memoirs often resemble a culinary bildungsroman, tracing the author’s journey toward maturity and professional identity in the food world, as seen in Ruth Reichl’s “Tender at the Bone,” which chronicles her growth as a food writer. (Waxman 365)
Sensory Imagery	Descriptive language that appeals to the senses, helping readers to visualize, smell, taste, hear, and feel scenes vividly.	Food memoirists use vivid sensory details to evoke strong responses in readers, often connecting food with memories and emotions. For instance, Ruth Reichl describes her first taste of brie as a sensual experience, using imagery that engages readers’ senses. (Waxman 378)
Metaphor and Symbolism	Using one thing to represent or symbolize another, often to convey deeper meanings or associations.	Waxman notes how food becomes a metaphor for love, family bonds, and emotional needs in memoirs. For instance, M. F. K. Fisher links the satisfaction of hunger with the satisfaction of love, showing food as a symbol for human connection and warmth. (Waxman 373)
Mentorship	A recurring theme in narratives where characters provide guidance, support, and life lessons, often leading to the protagonist’s growth.	Mentors in food memoirs guide authors through personal and professional growth. In Ruth Reichl’s memoir, mentors teach her about food and life, helping her gain independence and emotional resilience. This theme underscores the idea of food professionals as a “second family.” (Waxman 377)
Transculturalism	The blending and merging of cultures, often resulting from global interaction and exchange.	Waxman highlights how food memoirs explore the unifying power of food across cultural boundaries, such as Leslie Li’s description of Chinese New Year foods. This cultural blending makes food memoirs an effective tool for teaching multicultural literature. (Waxman 367)
Eroticism and Sensuality	The use of language to convey sensual pleasure or erotic attraction, often in connection with food.	Food memoirs often portray food experiences as sensual or erotic, linking physical taste to emotional or romantic desire. Waxman mentions Isabel Allende’s use of food’s seductive powers in “Aphrodite,” adding another layer of engagement for readers. (Waxman 378)
Emotional and Moral Intelligence	The development of empathy, self-awareness, and understanding of ethical values, often encouraged by literature that explores family dynamics and personal relationships.	Through stories of dysfunctional family relationships and personal growth, food memoirs encourage readers to reflect on moral and emotional values. Waxman asserts that Madhur Jaffrey’s memoirs, which depict complex family dynamics, help readers build empathy and moral understanding. (Waxman 380)
Nostalgia	A sentimental longing or wistful affection for the past, often idealized or remembered through specific experiences, symbols, or cultural practices.	Waxman describes how food memoirs convey a sense of nostalgia, as authors remember early food experiences tied to family and culture. Nigel Slater’s “Toast,” for example, recalls the taste and smell of foods from his childhood, which convey a deep sense of longing and identity. (Waxman 375)

Contribution of “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman to Literary Theory/Theories

Autobiographical Theory and Auto-Ethnography
Waxman’s analysis highlights the role of auto-ethnography in food memoirs, where memoirists serve as “insiders” offering personal yet culturally informative narratives. Waxman aligns with Paul John Eakin’s view that memoirists often function as auto-ethnographers who interpret their childhood communities for readers. She emphasizes that food memoirists explore their personal identities and family traditions through food, functioning as “cultural interpreters” who explain their cultural customs to outsiders (Waxman 366). This extension of autobiographical theory sees memoir as not only self-revelatory but as inherently cultural and didactic, linking individual memory to collective cultural identity.
Memory Theory
The article connects memory theory with food memoirs, particularly the constructed nature of memory in autobiographical writing. Waxman incorporates Eakin’s insights that “memory constructs the materials from the past,” and memoirists “refashion” these memories in their narratives (Waxman 366). In food memoirs, sensory experiences—especially taste and smell—are instrumental in accessing memories, a concept Waxman supports with Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin’s notion of “taste memories” and James Beard’s reflections on memory’s physical connection to food (Waxman 364). This contribution deepens memory theory by emphasizing the unique sensory and emotional access food offers to autobiographical memory.

Cultural Anthropology
Waxman’s work contributes to cultural anthropology by positioning food memoirs as key texts for examining cultural practices. Citing anthropologists’ views that cooking and eating mark social boundaries and reinforce group identities, she demonstrates how food memoirists like Shoba Narayan and Leslie Li convey cultural belonging and values through culinary rituals. Waxman aligns with Robin Fox’s idea that food helps define social boundaries (Waxman 367) while simultaneously expanding readers’ understanding of various cultural practices. This approach establishes food memoirs as significant texts in studying identity formation, assimilation, and the cultural significance of culinary practices in literary analysis.
Diaspora and Transcultural Theory
Waxman positions food memoirs as crucial to diaspora and transcultural theory, suggesting that food serves as a “contact zone” where diasporic individuals negotiate their identities between “here” and “there” (Waxman 369). Memoirs by authors like Diana Abu-Jaber depict this “Janus-faced” existence, using food to connect with their heritage while adapting to American culture. Waxman’s discussion of the symbolic role of food as a link to cultural roots emphasizes the diasporic individual’s negotiation of identity and belonging, contributing to transcultural theory by showing how food acts as a mediator of cultural memory and assimilation.
Feminist Theory
Waxman’s exploration of the feminist implications in food memoirs examines how these texts empower women by celebrating their culinary expertise and personal agency. She highlights the work of M.F.K. Fisher and Ruth Reichl, who gain self-identity and autonomy through food and cooking, transforming traditional domestic roles into forms of personal expression and professional identity (Waxman 365). By acknowledging women’s narratives in a traditionally domestic sphere, Waxman emphasizes the feminist potential of food memoirs in literary studies, where cooking becomes a form of self-discovery and empowerment, thus extending feminist literary theory’s analysis of domestic narratives.

Reader-Response Theory and Sensory Engagement
Waxman’s article contributes to reader-response theory by noting the intense sensory engagement food memoirs evoke, which activates readers’ “jouissance” as described by Roland Barthes. She observes that readers often feel hunger or cravings while reading these vivid descriptions (Waxman 379). This emotional and physical response to food memoirs exemplifies how texts can engage readers in bodily, affective ways, expanding reader-response theory to include multisensory reader experiences that blur the line between reading and tasting.
Narrative Theory and Structure of the Memoir
Waxman discusses the structure of food memoirs as similar to the bildungsroman or growth narrative, contributing to narrative theory by identifying the genre’s progression through childhood experiences with food, the influence of mentors, and the eventual formation of identity and professional role (Waxman 365). This developmental structure is unique to food memoirs, as it combines personal growth with sensory and cultural education, enriching narrative theory’s understanding of memoir as a medium that intertwines the personal and cultural through sensory and emotional experiences.

Examples of Critiques Through “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman

Literary Work	Author	Critique Through Waxman’s Themes	Relevant Theme/Concept
The Language of Baklava	Diana Abu-Jaber	Waxman discusses how Abu-Jaber’s memoir uses food as a way to navigate and portray Jordanian-American identity. In recounting her father’s attempts to recreate traditional Jordanian foods in the U.S., Waxman interprets food as a “Janus-faced” symbol, connecting the Jordanian diaspora’s experiences of “here” and “there.”	Diaspora and Transcultural Theory
The Gastronomical Me	M.F.K. Fisher	Fisher’s memoir explores the connection between food, emotional nourishment, and personal growth. Waxman highlights Fisher’s portrayal of sensual experiences with food as symbolic of her journey into adulthood, where food hunger reflects the broader hunger for love, acceptance, and self-expression.	Autobiographical Theory & Feminist Theory
Monsoon Diary	Shoba Narayan	Waxman analyzes how Narayan uses food memories to depict Indian cultural traditions. Descriptions of ceremonies like “choru-unnal” (a child’s first solid meal) function as cultural bridges, allowing non-Indian readers to engage with unfamiliar customs and deepen cross-cultural empathy.	Cultural Anthropology & Auto-Ethnography
Tender at the Bone	Ruth Reichl	Reichl’s memoir is used by Waxman to illustrate the development of identity and autonomy through food. Waxman emphasizes the role of Reichl’s mentors in teaching her the skills and emotional resilience to become a food professional, overcoming family dysfunction to create a “new home” in the culinary world.	Feminist Theory & Mentoring/Self-Reinvention

Criticism Against “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman

Overemphasis on Cultural and Ethnic Nostalgia: Waxman’s focus on food as a way to preserve cultural heritage and identity may be viewed as overly nostalgic, potentially oversimplifying the complexities of cultural identity in favor of idealized representations.

Limited Scope of Literary Analysis: The article primarily examines food memoirs through autobiographical and cultural lenses, potentially neglecting other literary theories and analytical approaches, such as psychoanalytic or postmodern perspectives, that could add depth to the analysis.
Potentially Narrow View of the Memoir Genre: By focusing on the thematic elements of food and cultural identity, Waxman may overlook how food memoirs intersect with broader themes common in other memoirs, such as trauma, gender identity, or socioeconomic factors.
Risk of Cultural Stereotyping: The portrayal of food as inherently representative of cultural identity could inadvertently reinforce stereotypes, suggesting that specific foods or culinary practices uniformly define a culture, which may not reflect individual or contemporary cultural diversity.

Assumed Accessibility for the Classroom: Waxman advocates for the inclusion of food memoirs in literature classrooms, but critics might argue that these works are less academically rigorous or challenging than traditional literary texts, potentially limiting critical engagement and interpretative depth.
Simplification of Diaspora Experience: Waxman’s interpretation of food as a bridge between “here” and “there” for diasporic communities might simplify the complexities of diaspora, overlooking the varied and sometimes contradictory experiences of those navigating multiple cultural identities.

Representative Quotations from “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
1. “Food memoirists intuitively grasp these important links among smells, tastes, strong emotions, and keen memories.”	Waxman emphasizes the sensory power of food memoirs, which invoke emotions and memories through detailed sensory descriptions, providing readers with visceral experiences that make the past come alive. This helps explain why food memoirs are both appealing and nostalgic for readers.
2. “Food is clearly a link among generations of immigrants and exiles; those who cook and write about food are ‘culture-tenders.'”	Here, Waxman connects food memoirs to cultural preservation. By cooking and sharing stories, authors protect and pass down cultural traditions, making food memoirs a powerful genre for exploring identity, heritage, and intergenerational bonds.
3. “Memoirists often ‘adopt an ethnographic posture’ toward their childhood food culture.”	This quote highlights the role of food memoirists as cultural translators, introducing readers to cultural traditions through a personal lens. This ethnographic approach allows readers to understand not only specific foods but the social and familial practices tied to them.
4. “Culinary memoirs generally trace the memoirists’ passage from youth to a maturity in which they have discovered a passion for food.”	Waxman observes that food memoirs often follow a growth arc similar to a bildungsroman. The narrative is typically a journey of personal discovery and maturity, where food symbolizes both personal and professional fulfillment.
5. “Many of these authors in telling their life stories give readers a little psychology on how to interact with others—even across cultures—and how to get to know themselves.”	Waxman emphasizes that food memoirs are more than personal stories; they offer psychological and social insights. By narrating their experiences with food, authors share life lessons about relationships, self-discovery, and empathy, fostering connections between readers and different cultures.
6. “Food memoirs […] can be both unifying and divisive: they draw boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and define notions of ‘here’ and ‘there.'”	This quotation speaks to the complexity of food as both a unifier and divider. Waxman acknowledges that while food can bridge cultures, it can also reinforce cultural boundaries, giving food memoirs the ability to explore issues of belonging, identity, and diaspora.
7. “The therapeutic value of writing a cross-cultural food memoir…appeals to American readers who may be the sons and daughters or grandchildren of immigrants.”	Waxman suggests that food memoirs can offer healing, particularly for those experiencing cultural dislocation or loss. This therapeutic angle makes these memoirs resonant for readers exploring their heritage and cultural identity.
8. “Writing about food hunger is really writing about love, and the hunger for it.”	Drawing a parallel between food and emotional nourishment, Waxman demonstrates that food memoirs often go beyond culinary appreciation, delving into universal human experiences like love, connection, and intimacy.
9. “Food memoirs […] often represent food as a Janus-faced signifier, pointing to the ‘here’ of diasporic life and the ‘there’ of a home they cannot really go back to.”	Waxman identifies the dual nature of food for diasporic individuals. Food serves as both a connection to the past and an adaptation to the present, allowing memoirists to explore complex feelings of nostalgia, identity, and assimilation.
10. “Food memoirs cultivate readers’ moral and emotional intelligence.”	Waxman argues that by confronting themes of family, ethics, and emotional conflict, food memoirs encourage readers to reflect on their values and cultivate empathy, making them valuable educational tools in the literature classroom.

“The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken: Summary and Critique

“The form of reading: Empirical Studies of Literariness” by David S. Miall and Don Kuiken first appeared in 1998 in the journal Poetics (Volume 25, pages 327–341).

Introduction: “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken

“The form of reading: Empirical Studies of Literariness” by David S. Miall and Don Kuiken first appeared in 1998 in the journal Poetics (Volume 25, pages 327–341). This study is seminal in challenging poststructuralist dismissals of formalist approaches to literature, which prioritize the text’s formal elements in influencing reader response. Miall and Kuiken argue against the poststructuralist view that perceives reader engagement with form as a socially constructed behavior, proposing instead that empirical research supports a psychological and cognitive basis for responses to literary features, such as style, structure, and linguistic “foregrounding.” Their research shows that, contrary to poststructuralist claims, readers often respond to these formal features naturally, regardless of external conventions or institutional training. This study is significant because it reinvigorates formalism within literary theory, suggesting that readers’ reactions to specific formal aspects of literature are not solely learned but are rooted in universal cognitive and psychobiological processes. The findings underscore the importance of formal structures in shaping literary experience, proposing that these structures play a central role in how literature functions to evoke feelings, inspire reflection, and cultivate deeper human understanding, reinforcing the unique cultural value of literary works.

Summary of “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken

Challenge to Poststructuralism:
Miall and Kuiken critique the poststructuralist dismissal of formalism in literature, arguing that the neglect of formal textual elements—such as style and structure—fails to recognize their intrinsic role in reader responses. Contrary to the claim that reader focus on form is purely socially constructed, the authors assert that formal features of texts invoke responses grounded in psychobiological and cognitive processes (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 329).
Foregrounding in Literary Texts:
Foregrounding, defined as the use of distinctive language forms (phonetic, grammatical, semantic), emerges as a primary element that influences literary response. Empirical studies reviewed by Miall and Kuiken suggest that these features naturally attract attention and evoke emotional engagement, challenging the view that “literariness” is merely an institutional construct (Mukarovsky, 1964/1932; Van Peer, 1986; Miall & Kuiken, 1994a).

Empirical Evidence Supporting Formalism:
Through analyses of Hoffstaedter (1987) and Hanauer (1996), Miall and Kuiken provide empirical support for formalism. Hoffstaedter’s study showed that poetic qualities were consistently recognized regardless of context, contradicting the conventionalist position. Similarly, Hanauer’s work demonstrated that novice and experienced readers alike recognized poetic elements, supporting the notion that responses are not solely due to educational conditioning (Hoffstaedter, 1987; Hanauer, 1996; Miall & Kuiken, 1998, pp. 332-336).
Defamiliarization and Cognitive Engagement:
The study of foregrounding revealed that “defamiliarization” or making the familiar strange heightens reader engagement by prompting deeper cognitive processing and emotional responses. This mechanism is particularly potent in passages with pronounced foregrounding, fostering a search for new interpretative contexts, and highlights literature’s unique capacity to evoke adaptive responses to the environment (Shklovsky, 1965; Miall & Kuiken, 1995).
Natural Basis for Literary Responses:
Miall and Kuiken propose that literary reading is driven by innate psychobiological and cognitive processes rather than solely by social conditioning. Their studies suggest that the recognition of foregrounded features and subsequent emotional responses are “natural” responses not restricted to trained or institutionally conditioned readers (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 340).

The Formalist Contract:
They introduce the concept of the “Formalist Contract,” wherein readers commit to engage with the text as a coherent whole and explore its communicative intent. This framework contrasts with poststructuralist notions that focus on deconstructing texts as dispersed cultural artifacts, reaffirming the role of literary reading in fostering empathy and reflective understanding (Barthes, 1977; Miall & Kuiken, 1998, pp. 339-341).
Implications for Literary Studies:
Miall and Kuiken argue that re-embracing formalist elements in literary studies would bridge the gap between academic discourse and the general reader’s experiential engagement with literature. They advocate for an “ecologically valid approach” that respects literature’s longstanding role in cultural and psychological development (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 340).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken

Literary Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Relevance in Miall & Kuiken’s Study
Formalism	A critical approach focusing on the inherent formal features of a text (e.g., structure, style) rather than its social or historical context.	Miall and Kuiken argue that formal features play a significant role in shaping reader response, countering poststructuralist views that dismiss formalism as purely socially constructed.
Foregrounding	The use of distinctive language features (e.g., unusual syntax, figurative language) that make certain parts of a text stand out, drawing readers’ attention.	Foregrounding is central to their argument; it is posited as a trigger for cognitive and emotional engagement, encouraging readers to interpret texts more deeply.
Literariness	Qualities that distinguish literary texts from non-literary ones, often associated with aesthetic or formal features that elicit a unique reader response.	The study suggests that literariness is perceived through inherent textual qualities (e.g., foregrounding) rather than being solely an institutional construct.
Defamiliarization	A technique where familiar objects or concepts are presented in a new way, creating a sense of estrangement or freshness in perception.	Following Shklovsky, Miall and Kuiken discuss defamiliarization as a key effect of literary texts that prompts readers to re-evaluate and engage with content more deeply.
Aesthetic Convention	A set of socially constructed norms that guide how readers interpret texts as “literary” or “aesthetic.”	The authors critique this concept, suggesting that literariness arises from intrinsic features of the text rather than purely from convention or reader expectations.
Psychobiological Response	A reaction based on psychological and biological mechanisms, such as emotional engagement and cognitive processing.	Miall and Kuiken argue that responses to formal features are rooted in psychobiological processes, challenging the notion that all responses are shaped by social constructs.
Empirical Study	A research approach based on observation and experimentation to test hypotheses, often involving data collection.	The authors emphasize the need for empirical studies in literary theory, presenting data that support the significance of formal features in reader response.
Interpretive Community	A term from Stanley Fish that suggests readers interpret texts based on shared cultural or institutional norms.	Miall and Kuiken dispute this, arguing that readers’ responses to formal features can be consistent across different educational backgrounds, suggesting a more universal basis for literary experience.
Schema Creation	A cognitive process where readers develop new frameworks or structures of understanding while reading.	They argue that literary texts prompt schema creation through foregrounding, enabling readers to explore new interpretive paths.
Formalist Contract	The implicit agreement between reader and text, wherein the reader approaches the text as a unified, coherent entity with meaning.	The concept of a Formalist Contract frames literary reading as an engagement in which readers explore formal structures, contributing to a richer interpretive experience.
Poststructuralism	A critical approach that deconstructs the idea of stable meaning, suggesting that meaning is fluid and shaped by cultural context.	Miall and Kuiken contrast their findings with poststructuralist views, proposing that certain text features have inherent qualities that guide interpretation independent of cultural constructs.
Textual Autonomy	The belief that a text has its own inherent meaning, independent of reader interpretation or external context.	The authors argue for a form of textual autonomy, suggesting that formal elements elicit consistent responses that transcend individual or cultural biases.

Contribution of “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken to Literary Theory/Theories

Challenge to Poststructuralism
Miall and Kuiken argue against the poststructuralist claim that literary meaning is fluid, shaped primarily by social constructs, and void of inherent textual structure. By empirically demonstrating that readers respond to foregrounded elements regardless of context, they suggest that certain formal features have universal appeal and function beyond cultural interpretation (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 329). This counters the poststructuralist focus on intertextuality and the “infinite deferment of meaning,” as noted by theorists like Barthes and Derrida, by emphasizing text-driven responses (Barthes, 1977).

Empirical Formalism
The authors contribute to formalism by grounding it in empirical research, particularly through the study of “foregrounding” and “defamiliarization.” They revisit classic formalist ideas (e.g., Shklovsky’s defamiliarization) to show that these techniques effectively evoke reader engagement and emotional response, thereby validating formalist claims through data. Their work suggests that literariness is based on universal cognitive and psychobiological reactions to form, rather than on social or institutional conventions alone (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 338; Shklovsky, 1965).
Foregrounding Theory
By focusing on foregrounding, Miall and Kuiken reinforce the concept that literary texts utilize unique language features that command attention and shape interpretation. Foregrounding, through techniques like distinctive syntax or phonetic choices, makes familiar experiences “strange,” prompting readers to engage in deeper cognitive processing (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 337). Their empirical data demonstrates that foregrounding influences readers consistently, supporting its role as a fundamental aspect of literariness and challenging theories that view literary interpretation as wholly context-dependent.
Cognitive Poetics
The study makes a significant contribution to cognitive poetics by proposing that literary responses are based on innate cognitive mechanisms. Miall and Kuiken argue that readers process foregrounded features intuitively, engaging in schema creation and defamiliarization, processes that are “natural” and universal rather than solely learned. They align with cognitive theorists like Reuven Tsur, who also views literary reading as a cognitive experience that goes beyond social constructs, suggesting that empirical approaches can explain the interpretive processes activated by formal features (Tsur, 1983).

Interpretive Community and Reader-Response Theory
The authors question Fish’s notion of interpretive communities, which asserts that literary meaning is determined by shared cultural conventions. By demonstrating that readers of diverse backgrounds respond similarly to foregrounded elements, they challenge the idea that interpretation is purely socially constructed. Their findings suggest a more universal basis for reader response, which contrasts with theories in reader-response criticism that emphasize interpretive variability based on social or cultural factors (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 331; Fish, 1980).
Ecological Validity in Literary Studies
Miall and Kuiken’s approach to understanding reader responses to literary texts through empirical research addresses a gap in literary theory for ecologically valid methods. They argue that studying actual readers’ reactions, rather than relying solely on theoretical models, provides a more accurate understanding of the function of literature in culture and individual psychology. This approach supports the development of literary theory that is grounded in empirical data, offering a model for integrating psychological and cognitive insights into the study of literature (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 340).

Examples of Critiques Through “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken

Literary Work	Critique Focus	Application of Miall & Kuiken’s Concepts
“To the Lighthouse” by Virginia Woolf	Foregrounding and Defamiliarization	Woolf’s fragmented narrative and syntax foreground language, slowing reading and inviting introspection. According to Miall and Kuiken, this foregrounding prompts defamiliarization, which deepens emotional engagement, allowing readers to access the consciousness of characters.
“The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” by T.S. Eliot	Cognitive Processing and Schema Creation	Eliot’s imagery and stream-of-consciousness defamiliarize modern alienation, requiring readers to create new interpretive schemas. Miall and Kuiken’s ideas on foregrounding and schema creation explain how Eliot’s unconventional language evokes disorientation and introspection.
“Beloved” by Toni Morrison	Empathy and Defamiliarization	Morrison’s poetic language and fragmented narrative structure foreground trauma, creating a defamiliarizing effect. Miall and Kuiken’s theories suggest that this disruption forces readers to confront historical trauma, fostering empathy and an emotional response.
“The Metamorphosis” by Franz Kafka	Defamiliarization and Foregrounding	Kafka’s surreal premise—Gregor’s transformation—immediately defamiliarizes the character’s life, creating emotional and cognitive distance. Miall and Kuiken’s emphasis on defamiliarization shows how Kafka’s foregrounded absurdity prompts readers to re-evaluate themes of alienation and humanity.

Criticism Against “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken

Over-reliance on Empirical Methods
Critics may argue that Miall and Kuiken’s reliance on empirical studies to understand literary response risks oversimplifying complex, subjective experiences of reading, which cannot be fully captured by quantitative data.

Neglect of Cultural and Historical Context
By focusing on universal psychobiological responses, the study potentially downplays the influence of cultural, historical, and social contexts that shape how different readers engage with and interpret texts.
Limitations in Generalizing Reader Response
The authors’ findings may not be universally applicable, as individual reader responses can vary widely based on personal background, education, and emotional state, challenging the notion of a “natural” response to foregrounded text features.
Underestimation of Interpretive Community Theory
Miall and Kuiken’s challenge to Stanley Fish’s interpretive community theory could be seen as limited, as they may overlook how deeply shared cultural norms influence literary interpretation, especially within educational settings.

Ambiguity in Defining Literariness
While the study attempts to define literariness through foregrounding and reader response, critics may find this approach reductive, arguing that literariness encompasses a broader range of elements, including thematic and symbolic depth, which are not fully addressed.
Reduction of Literature to Cognitive Processes
The emphasis on psychobiological and cognitive processes risks reducing literature’s value to a set of predictable reader responses, potentially undermining literature’s artistic and imaginative dimensions that resist empirical measurement.
Limited Scope of Foregrounding as a Literary Device
Miall and Kuiken’s focus on foregrounding as central to literariness may be seen as narrow, as literary texts often rely on various elements—such as narrative structure, genre conventions, and thematic complexity—that are not solely dependent on foregrounded language.

Challenge to Poststructuralism without Sufficient Nuance
Their critique of poststructuralist perspectives may be viewed as one-dimensional, as they dismiss the fluid and interpretative nature of meaning emphasized by poststructuralist theorists, potentially overlooking valuable insights on intertextuality and the variability of meaning.

Representative Quotations from “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The assumption that formal features in literary texts typically shape response… has been rejected by poststructuralist critics.”	This sets up the core argument of the paper, contrasting the authors’ belief in the power of formal features to shape literary experience with poststructuralist views, which minimize formal features in favor of sociocultural conventions.
“We argue that such views are misleading and ultimately self-defeating…”	The authors critique the poststructuralist focus on theory over readers’ actual experiences with texts, proposing that this disconnect undermines literature’s cultural relevance. They advocate returning focus to formal aspects of texts that directly engage readers.
“Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories.”	Here, Miall and Kuiken discuss key concepts they believe are central to literary experience: foregrounding (highlighting textual features), defamiliarization (making the familiar seem new), and affect (emotional response). They argue that these elements together create the distinct impact of literature.
“The encounter with foregrounded features plays a formative role in the interpretive effort of a reader.”	The authors emphasize that foregrounded text (e.g., vivid language, poetic devices) catalyzes readers’ interpretive processes, encouraging a deeper, more engaged reading experience that is distinct to literary texts.
“Readers… experience a text as literary depending on their linguistic competence, not on literary training.”	This suggests that the ability to recognize literary qualities is a general linguistic skill rather than an acquired academic one, challenging the idea that only trained readers can fully appreciate literariness.
“Our empirical studies suggest that all readers, regardless of experience, respond to foregrounding.”	Through studies comparing different groups, the authors found that all readers, trained or not, react to foregrounding, underscoring that certain textual qualities evoke universal reactions that are intrinsic to the text itself.
“Literariness… resides in foregrounded textual features.”	This reiterates the authors’ main argument that literary quality, or “literariness,” is a tangible property of the text, made manifest through stylistic and figurative features that distinguish it from non-literary text.
“Foregrounding initiates interpretive activity in the reader… arousing feeling, then uncertainty, which the reader must resolve.”	The authors propose a two-step process of literary engagement: foregrounded language first stirs emotions, then prompts readers to actively interpret the text to resolve any ambiguity, making reading an interactive process.
“The more poetic the text, the more judgments of it are independent of literary experience.”	In line with their empirical focus, the authors show that texts high in literary features are widely recognized as “poetic” regardless of a reader’s background, suggesting that literary qualities have an inherent, recognizable value.
“Literary reading is… more plausible than the view that has been emerging from the advocates of poststructuralist literary theory.”	Miall and Kuiken defend their formalist approach, advocating for the view that empirical study of reading can offer a more practical, accessible understanding of literature than poststructuralist theories, which often separate texts from readers’ actual experiences.

“Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson: Summary and Critique

“Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson first appeared in the Journal of Reading, Vol. 17, No. 2, in November 1973, published by Wiley on behalf of the International Reading Association.

Introduction: “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

“Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson first appeared in the Journal of Reading, Vol. 17, No. 2, in November 1973, published by Wiley on behalf of the International Reading Association. In this seminal article, Thompson argues for the importance of explicit instruction in literary devices—such as plot, character, theme, figurative language, and tone—as essential tools for enhancing students’ interpretive skills in literature. His study, conducted with ninth-grade students, compared traditional theme-based discussions to an experimental method incorporating targeted explanations and practice exercises on literary devices. Thompson’s findings suggest that while instructional methods alone may not significantly impact interpretive abilities, a skilled teacher can make a marked difference in student outcomes. This work emphasizes the potential of structured literary device instruction to deepen students’ engagement with texts, advocating for a balanced approach that combines thematic discussion with analytical skills in literary education.

Summary of “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

Purpose of the Study: Richard F. Thompson’s article explores the hypothesis that teaching literary devices directly enhances students’ ability to interpret literature. This stems from prior research indicating that authors often embed specific literary devices, expecting readers to understand them for full comprehension (Thompson, 1973, p. 113).
Methodology of Instructional Comparison: The study compared two instructional approaches: a traditional, theme-centered method and an experimental approach that incorporated explicit teaching of literary devices like plot, character, theme, figurative language, and tone. Thompson selected these devices based on their fundamental role in understanding fiction, as emphasized by literary critics and educators such as Brooks and Warren (1947) and Danziger and Johnson (1961) (Thompson, 1973, p. 114).

Sample and Testing: The experiment involved ninth-grade students from varying achievement levels. Their interpretive skills were evaluated using the Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED), chosen for its reliability and established use in literature comprehension studies (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Instructional Treatments and Exercises: For experimental instruction, Thompson implemented discussions, written exercises, and detailed explanations on interpreting specific devices. This method encouraged students to delve into plot events, character motivations, underlying figurative meanings, and overall tone (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Analysis and Findings: Using an ANOVA analysis, Thompson discovered no statistically significant difference in interpretive skills between students who received experimental instruction and those in the control group. Rather, the effectiveness was notably linked to the teacher’s instructional quality, suggesting that skilled teaching, rather than method, may be more critical for literature interpretation improvement (Thompson, 1973, p. 116).

Implications and Conclusions: Thompson’s study indicates that while literary devices are essential for deeper understanding, the role of a highly skilled teacher can substantially influence student outcomes. This challenges the notion that instructional methods alone can markedly enhance literary interpretation skills, underscoring the importance of teaching quality in literature education (Thompson, 1973, p. 117).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

Literary Term/Concept	Definition	Role in Thompson’s Study
Plot	The sequence of events in a story that form the main structure.	Analyzed as a fundamental device for understanding narratives; students practiced identifying main events to interpret literature better (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Character	The individuals in a narrative, whose traits, motivations, and development contribute to the story.	Studied as a key device; students examined character traits and motivations to enhance comprehension of literary themes (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Theme	The underlying message or central idea conveyed by the author.	Emphasized in both instructional methods; students discussed themes to connect literature to their own experiences (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Figurative Language	Non-literal language, such as metaphor, simile, and symbolism, used to create deeper meaning.	Taught in the experimental method to help students interpret underlying meanings beyond literal text (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Tone	The author’s attitude or emotional quality expressed in the writing.	Considered essential for interpretation; students learned to discern tone as part of their analysis of literary passages (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Interpretation	The process of deriving meaning, mood, or effect from a text based on its literary elements.	The primary skill measured; defined as determining the author’s implied meanings, ideas, and moods within a text (Thompson, 1973, p. 114).
Literary Device	Techniques used by writers to enhance storytelling, such as symbolism, imagery, and irony.	Central to the hypothesis that teaching these devices improves interpretative skills (Thompson, 1973, p. 113).
Instructional Methodology	Teaching strategies used to facilitate literary comprehension, including thematic and device-based approaches.	Compared traditional thematic instruction with device-based methods to assess the impact on student interpretation (Thompson, 1973, p. 113-114).
Experiment Design	The structure of the study, including pretests, posttests, and control/experimental groups.	Involved a factorial design to control for variables, emphasizing the importance of consistent methodology in educational research (Thompson, 1973, p. 116).
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)	A statistical method used to determine if there are significant differences between groups.	Applied to test the effectiveness of instructional methods, showing no significant difference in outcomes between methods (Thompson, 1973, p. 116).

Contribution of “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson to Literary Theory/Theories

Reader-Response Theory: Thompson’s study emphasizes that literary devices are crucial for readers to make meaningful interpretations of texts. In line with reader-response theory, which posits that readers actively construct meaning from their interactions with a text, Thompson argues that teaching literary devices such as plot, character, and tone enables students to engage more deeply with literature by guiding them in decoding an author’s intent and themes (Thompson, 1973, p. 113-115). By training students to recognize these devices, Thompson contributes to the reader-response theory by advocating a structured method to empower readers as active participants in the meaning-making process.
Formalist Literary Theory: Rooted in formalism, Thompson’s emphasis on literary devices as fundamental to understanding fiction reflects the formalist view that a text’s structure, language, and elements form the basis of its meaning. Formalists like Brooks and Warren (referenced by Thompson) argue that analyzing these components is essential for a comprehensive interpretation (Brooks and Warren, 1947; Thompson, 1973, p. 114). Thompson’s research reinforces this perspective by hypothesizing that literary devices provide the framework through which students can systematically interpret a text’s underlying meanings, thus aligning with formalist principles that prioritize intrinsic textual elements over external context.

Educational Theory in Literature: Thompson’s study advances educational theories on literature instruction by empirically testing how instructional methods impact students’ interpretative skills. His findings—that a teacher’s skill may outweigh the specific method in enhancing comprehension—add nuance to the debate on educational approaches in literature. He questions the effectiveness of method-centered teaching and instead highlights the importance of teacher quality, suggesting that pedagogy must balance method with teacher expertise (Thompson, 1973, p. 117). This insight resonates with constructivist education theories, which emphasize that skilled educators guide students to build knowledge actively rather than passively receiving information.

Examples of Critiques Through “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

Literary Work	Literary Device	Example of Critique Using Thompson’s Approach
“The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald	Theme, Tone	Through the lens of theme and tone, students explore the disillusionment and decay underlying the American Dream in the Jazz Age. By focusing on Fitzgerald’s critical tone and recurring theme of lost idealism, students interpret how the author critiques materialism and the moral decline of society (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
“To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee	Character, Figurative Language	Using character and figurative language, students analyze Atticus Finch’s moral integrity and Scout’s coming-of-age journey. By examining Lee’s nuanced language in describing racial tensions and justice, students gain a deeper understanding of the characters’ motivations and the broader social issues they reflect (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
“The Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger	Plot, Tone	Applying plot and tone, students interpret Holden Caulfield’s journey as an exploration of adolescence and alienation. Through discussions on Salinger’s melancholic tone and Holden’s erratic experiences, students grasp the thematic emphasis on personal identity and societal disillusionment (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen	Character, Theme	Using character analysis and theme, students explore Elizabeth Bennet’s evolving perception of Darcy and the theme of social class. This approach highlights Austen’s critique of class and gender expectations, as students evaluate character motivations and transformations as central to the social commentary (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).

Criticism Against “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

Limited Impact of Literary Device Instruction: Thompson’s study concludes that instruction in literary devices does not significantly improve students’ interpretive skills compared to traditional methods. Critics may argue that this finding undermines the article’s premise that teaching literary devices enhances comprehension, suggesting a need to reconsider the value of device-based instruction in isolation (Thompson, 1973, p. 117).
Teacher Effectiveness Overshadowing Methodology: The study reveals that teacher quality had a more substantial effect on student interpretation than the specific instructional method. This finding could lead to criticism that the study’s focus on instructional methods is less relevant if teacher proficiency plays a more significant role in learning outcomes, possibly limiting the article’s contributions to pedagogical theory (Thompson, 1973, p. 116-117).

Small Sample Size and Generalizability: With only four ninth-grade classes from a single junior high school, the sample size may be too small to generalize findings to broader educational settings. Critics may argue that the study’s conclusions are limited and may not apply to diverse educational contexts or age groups, reducing its impact in the field of educational research (Thompson, 1973, p. 114-115).
Lack of Consideration for Socio-Cultural Context: Thompson’s focus on formal literary devices overlooks the socio-cultural dimensions of literature. Critics might argue that this approach neglects how students’ backgrounds and identities can influence their interpretation, and that incorporating socio-cultural analysis could provide a more holistic educational approach to literature (Thompson, 1973, p. 113-115).
Reliance on Standardized Testing for Interpretation Assessment: The study uses the Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) to measure students’ interpretive skills, which could be critiqued for failing to capture the depth and nuance of literary interpretation. Standardized tests may not fully assess students’ abilities to engage with complex themes or ideas, potentially limiting the study’s conclusions on interpretive skill development (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).

Representative Quotations from “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“It was hypothesized that students would learn to interpret literature better if they had explanations and practice in interpreting literary devices.” (p. 113)	Thompson sets the foundation of his study, suggesting that teaching literary devices explicitly would enhance students’ ability to interpret texts more deeply and accurately.
“Authors use literary devices and expect their readers to be familiar with the devices if they are to understand what they are reading.” (p. 113)	This underscores Thompson’s belief in the inherent connection between literary devices and understanding, highlighting that authors assume a level of reader familiarity with these devices to convey complex ideas.
“Interpreting literature in this study meant determining the meanings, ideas, moods, or effects an author has expressed or implied within a particular piece of literature.” (p. 114)	Thompson clarifies what he means by “interpretation,” framing it as a comprehensive engagement with a text’s meaning, tone, and authorial intent, which serves as the study’s metric for success in teaching literary devices.
“The experimental instruction involved explanation and written practice exercises in interpreting the literary devices of plot, character, theme, figurative language, and tone.” (p. 115)	Here, Thompson outlines the experimental approach, which incorporated hands-on practice with specific literary devices, reinforcing the idea that structured exercises help students engage with texts more analytically.
“The practice periods for these exercises were short, about twenty minutes. And ample time was allowed to check the students’ responses to the exercises and to discuss any problems they encountered.” (p. 115)	This shows Thompson’s consideration of both instructional design and student support, as he ensures students have adequate time for feedback and clarification, which is critical in skill development.
“Neither instructional method was strong enough to dominate the other in the statistical test of their main effects or their effects on the three levels.” (p. 116)	Thompson reflects on the findings, acknowledging that neither the experimental nor the control method led to significantly better results, suggesting that the method alone may not be the defining factor in interpretive skill development.
“A superior teacher had more effect on improving students’ ability to interpret literature than either of the two instructional methods.” (p. 117)	Thompson reveals a key insight from his study: that teacher effectiveness plays a larger role in student success than the specific instructional method, suggesting the importance of skilled teaching in literature education.
“Consequently, the addition of explanations and written practice in interpreting literary devices to class discussions of themes… has no significant effect on ninth grade students’ ability to interpret literature.” (p. 117)	This conclusion challenges the initial hypothesis, indicating that explicit teaching of literary devices may not significantly enhance students’ interpretive skills, thereby questioning the utility of device-focused instruction in isolation.
“The relative differences existing among the classes and levels after the experiment could be accounted for by differences prior to the experiment.” (p. 117)	Thompson points to pre-existing differences in student ability as a factor in interpretive skill variance, suggesting that individual learning abilities may influence interpretative outcomes more than instructional strategies alone.
“The skills were reviewed according to a schedule that allowed for increased intervals between the initial instruction in the use of a device and review practices.” (p. 115)	This highlights Thompson’s structured approach to skill retention, suggesting a spaced repetition model, which is a pedagogically effective strategy for ensuring long-term retention of analytical skills in literature.

“Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes: Summary and Critique

“Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes first appeared in the Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry in September 2020.

Introduction: “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

“Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes first appeared in the Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry in September 2020. This article offers a reflective and critical examination of teaching literature in settings historically marked by colonial legacies, specifically South Africa and Canada. Noyes discusses “decolonizing” as creating a conceptual “outside” that provides context and meaning to the classroom’s “inside,” thus challenging the boundaries of traditional academic settings. His reflections emphasize the pervasive influence of neocolonial and neoliberal structures within universities, shaping both curricula and student demographics. Through the lens of critical theory, including insights from thinkers like Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, Theodor Adorno, and Frantz Fanon, Noyes argues that the classroom must acknowledge and actively counter the remnants of imperialism embedded in its structure, content, and teaching methods. He advocates for “critical literacy” as a means to engage students with the broader social forces that influence what is taught and how it is understood, a process he sees as crucial to resisting the commodification of knowledge in neoliberal institutions. The article is significant for literary theory and pedagogy as it challenges educators to consider how institutional and societal structures influence education, and calls for a more inclusive, critically engaged approach to literature that dismantles historical inequalities and empowers all students to interrogate the assumptions underlying their education.

Summary of “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

Defining Decolonization in the Classroom: John K. Noyes emphasizes that decolonizing the literature classroom involves constructing an “outside” that influences and gives meaning to the internal learning environment. His approach challenges traditional boundaries and seeks to address neocolonial dynamics within educational settings, particularly as he reflects on his teaching experiences in South Africa and Canada (Noyes, 2020, p. 266).
Imperialism versus Colonialism: Noyes argues for the use of “imperialism” and “neo-imperialism” rather than “colonialism” and “neocolonialism,” asserting these terms are historically accurate and conceptually precise. He contends that the term decolonization often fails to encompass the broader structures of imperial dominance affecting education (Noyes, 2020, p. 267).

Critical Literacy as a Pedagogical Tool: Noyes advocates for “critical literacy” in literature education, where students learn to interpret cultural products in relation to the social and political forces shaping them. This concept draws on the work of theorists like Raymond Williams and E.P. Thompson and enables students to engage with literature through a critical lens that questions established authority (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).
Intersection of Education and Neoliberalism: The article addresses the impact of neoliberalism in higher education, suggesting that the commodification of knowledge poses a threat to academic freedom and critical thought. Noyes argues that the neoliberal model restricts intellectual autonomy by favoring economically driven goals over critical engagement (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
Influence of Frankfurt School Critical Theory: Drawing from the Frankfurt School, particularly Theodor Adorno’s Negative Dialectics, Noyes underscores the value of critical theory in exposing the limitations imposed by late capitalism on educational practices. This theory supports a pedagogy that resists superficial “critical thinking” in favor of deeper, context-based critique (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).

Historical and Institutional Constraints: Noyes explores the South African university system under apartheid and post-apartheid conditions, noting how racial inequities shaped classroom dynamics and limited Black students’ access to education. He describes the residual institutional imbalances as a significant barrier to decolonizing the classroom (Noyes, 2020, p. 270).
Resistance through Education: Noyes highlights movements like #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall in South African universities, which advocate for accessible and decolonized education. These movements reflect students’ dual desire to deconstruct colonial legacies while achieving equal educational access for all, regardless of socioeconomic status (Noyes, 2020, p. 273).
Non-Instrumentalist Learning: Noyes argues for non-instrumentalist education that values critical inquiry over vocational training. He warns that instrumentalizing learning for economic productivity undermines the true purpose of higher education, which should prioritize critical and reflective thinking over economic utility (Noyes, 2020, p. 271).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

Term/Concept	Description	Reference
Decolonization	In the context of literature education, decolonization involves challenging colonial and neocolonial frameworks within the classroom, creating an “outside” influence that shapes and provides meaning to the educational “inside.” Noyes seeks to counter imperial legacies embedded in curricula and pedagogy.	Noyes, 2020, p. 266
Imperialism/Neo-Imperialism	Noyes prefers the terms “imperialism” and “neo-imperialism” over “colonialism” and “neocolonialism,” arguing that these terms better capture the lasting impact of imperial power structures on educational institutions and cultural studies.	Noyes, 2020, p. 267
Critical Literacy	A pedagogical approach focused on interpreting cultural texts in light of the social and political forces that shape them. Drawing from theorists like Raymond Williams, this concept encourages students to engage with literature critically rather than passively absorbing established narratives.	Noyes, 2020, p. 268
Kantian Critique	Refers to the Kantian idea of “putting reason on trial,” distinguishing between autonomous reasoning and reasoning dictated by authority. Noyes applies this concept to the classroom, encouraging students to question and contest dominant narratives.	Noyes, 2020, p. 268
Neoliberal University	The framework within which universities are increasingly influenced by market-driven priorities. Noyes argues that neoliberalism commodifies education, reducing it to an economic product rather than a space for critical and intellectual development.	Noyes, 2020, p. 269
Frankfurt School Critical Theory	A theoretical framework that critiques capitalism’s impact on social structures and cultural production. Noyes draws on Adorno’s Negative Dialectics to advocate for a critique that addresses the broader political and economic forces shaping education.	Noyes, 2020, p. 268
Immanent Critique	A method of critical analysis that examines a text or concept from within its own structure, exposing its contradictions. Noyes uses this approach to critique literature, teaching students to analyze works within their historical and social contexts.	Noyes, 2020, p. 270
Instrumentalism in Education	Refers to the view of education primarily as a means to economic ends. Noyes critiques this perspective, advocating instead for a non-instrumentalist approach that values critical inquiry and intellectual growth over vocational utility.	Noyes, 2020, p. 271
Humanist Idea of Wholeness	The notion of a cohesive, universal human experience, which is challenged by critical and postcolonial perspectives. In the African context, thinkers like Fanon and Biko critique this concept, advocating for recognition of diverse and fragmented realities.	Noyes, 2020, p. 269
Political Context of Interpretation	The understanding that interpretation is inherently shaped by the social and political environment. Noyes emphasizes that critique in the literature classroom must include recognizing these influences on both content and pedagogy.	Noyes, 2020, p. 271

Contribution of “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Postcolonial Theory

Contribution: Noyes’s reflections align with postcolonial theory by emphasizing the need to dismantle colonial and neocolonial influences in education. He discusses how the classroom can become a space to challenge colonial legacies by drawing on both imported and indigenous critical traditions, which destabilize dominant narratives in literature and culture (Noyes, 2020, p. 267).
Reference: Noyes advocates for the recognition of imperialism’s lasting impact on the curriculum, suggesting that imported literature must be taught alongside a critical understanding of its cultural and historical implications. He draws on thinkers like Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o and Frantz Fanon to demonstrate how postcolonial ideas can shape an alternative, decolonized educational model (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).

2. Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)

Contribution: Drawing from Adorno’s Negative Dialectics, Noyes uses Frankfurt School critical theory to critique the commodification of knowledge in the neoliberal university. He suggests that literature education should go beyond “critical thinking” to embrace a deeper “critical literacy” that recognizes the capitalist structures limiting educational spaces (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).
Reference: He adopts Adorno’s view of critique as a means to address the broader capitalist logic governing cultural and educational structures. This critical approach enables students to examine not only the text but also the sociopolitical and economic forces influencing it (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).

3. Educational Theory (Critical Pedagogy)

Contribution: Noyes’s work contributes to educational theory, particularly critical pedagogy, by redefining the classroom as a space where students confront and question power structures. He posits that teaching is incomplete if it ignores the institutional and societal limits within which it operates, advocating for an educational approach that encourages resistance to authority and traditional norms (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
Reference: His concept of “critical literacy” as opposed to mere “critical thinking” is rooted in the idea that education should engage students in challenging dominant ideologies, making literature classrooms spaces for political and social engagement (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).

4. Neocolonial Theory and Theory of Neoliberalism

Contribution: Noyes’s reflections address the influence of neoliberalism on higher education, critiquing its impact on academic freedom and the commodification of learning. He argues that neoliberal agendas in universities reinforce neo-imperial dynamics, thus stifling the critical examination of colonial legacies in literature (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
Reference: By highlighting the economic constraints that shape educational practices, Noyes connects neoliberalism to the persistence of imperial structures in academia, noting how divestment movements are attempting to counteract these links in Canadian universities (Noyes, 2020, p. 267).

5. Humanist Theory and Critique of Wholeness

Contribution: Noyes challenges the humanist idea of a cohesive and universal human experience, which often underpins literature education. He critiques this idea, particularly within the African context, where theorists like Fanon and Biko argue for recognizing fragmented realities shaped by racial and colonial histories (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
Reference: In this context, Noyes aligns with African humanist critiques that view the humanist ideal of “wholeness” as incompatible with the fragmented lives of those affected by colonial and apartheid histories. This perspective opens literature education to include diverse cultural experiences rather than universalizing Eurocentric narratives (Noyes, 2020, p. 270).

6. Kantian Epistemology and Critique of Authority

Contribution: Noyes’s notion of “putting reason on trial,” drawn from Kantian critique, aligns with epistemological approaches that encourage skepticism toward authority. In the classroom, this approach allows students to question prescribed knowledge, embracing multiple, contesting perspectives rather than passively receiving information (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).
Reference: By invoking Kant’s ideas on autonomy and reason, Noyes encourages a classroom environment where knowledge is produced through dialogue and critical engagement, which he considers crucial for a truly decolonized literature curriculum (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).

Examples of Critiques Through “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

Literary Work & Author	Critique Approach through “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom”	Reference to Noyes’s Concepts
Woyzeck by Georg Büchner	Critiqued as a reflection on class oppression and psychological fragmentation. Büchner’s indecision about the story’s coherence mirrors fragmented social realities in unjust societies, making it a powerful text to explore themes of societal and systemic injustice.	Emphasizes immanent critique and critical engagement with texts’ structure to expose societal inequalities (Noyes, 2020, p. 270).
The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon	Analyzed for its postcolonial critique of colonial violence and psychological oppression. In line with Noyes’s approach, this work can be studied to understand the mental impact of colonization and the struggle for decolonization.	Aligns with postcolonial theory and critiques of neocolonial legacies that impact identity and resistance (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
The Engagement in Santo Domingo by Heinrich von Kleist	Explored through race deconstruction and its portrayal of racial dynamics. In a decolonized classroom, students critically examine race as a social construct, questioning stereotypes and exploring broader racial inequalities.	Supports critical literacy and the critique of race-based narratives, inviting examination of race as a social and political construct (Noyes, 2020, p. 270).
Decolonizing the Mind by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o	Studied as an articulation of the cultural and linguistic impacts of colonialism, examining how language enforces imperial power structures and alienates individuals from their culture.	Reinforces critical pedagogy by addressing how language shapes power dynamics in colonial and postcolonial contexts (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).

Criticism Against “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

Abstract Approach Lacks Practical Implementation: While Noyes provides a theoretical foundation for decolonizing the classroom, critics may argue that his approach lacks specific, practical strategies for educators to apply within varied classroom settings.
Ambiguity Around “Outside” and “Inside” Framework: The idea of creating an “outside” to give meaning to the “inside” of the classroom might be seen as overly abstract, leaving educators without clear guidance on how to define and integrate these concepts effectively in practice.
Overemphasis on Western Critical Theory: Although Noyes advocates for decolonizing literature education, his reliance on Western critical theories, such as those of Adorno and the Frankfurt School, may seem contradictory, potentially limiting his perspective on indigenous and non-Western approaches to pedagogy.

Critique of Neoliberalism Lacks Depth on Institutional Constraints: While Noyes criticizes neoliberal forces within universities, he may not fully address the practical constraints educators face within these institutions, potentially making his critique feel detached from the realities of academic settings where resources and autonomy are limited.
Risk of Excluding Canonical Literature: The emphasis on destabilizing traditional canons and focusing on indigenous and postcolonial texts may lead to concerns that canonical Western texts will be marginalized, which some educators and students may view as an essential part of a balanced literary education.
Insufficient Exploration of Non-Western Educational Philosophies: Noyes could be criticized for not adequately incorporating or exploring educational frameworks and philosophies from diverse, non-Western traditions, which would strengthen his argument for a decolonized approach to literature education.

Representative Quotations from “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“What does it mean to decolonize the literature classroom?”	Noyes opens by questioning the definition of decolonization in a classroom context. This frames the discussion, prompting readers to consider how decolonization might apply to education and what it entails in practical terms.
“I prefer to speak of imperialism and neo-imperialism, rather than colonialism and neocolonialism.”	Noyes emphasizes the lasting influence of imperialism as a systemic force, suggesting that the term is conceptually stronger than colonialism. This distinction sets a foundation for understanding his view on the power structures within educational institutions and the terminology he believes better reflects their influence.
“The literature classroom… is best seen as a place where students acquire skills in advanced critical literacy.”	Noyes argues for a curriculum focused on “critical literacy,” where students learn to interpret literature within broader social contexts, not merely absorbing content but engaging analytically with the world around them. This aligns with his goal of producing students who question and understand societal structures.
“Ideally, knowledge in the classroom is not a finished product handed out in acts of authority.”	Here, Noyes advocates for a classroom where knowledge is not simply dispensed by the instructor but actively constructed by students through questioning and critique, challenging authoritative structures within education.
“Teachers in neoliberal universities have a responsibility to resist the building of walls designed to keep students out of the classroom.”	Noyes criticizes neoliberalism’s impact on education, which he views as prioritizing economic outcomes over accessibility and intellectual freedom. He calls on educators to counteract these trends, ensuring that education remains inclusive and resistant to financialization.
“Critical theory defines the outside of the classroom in order to produce meaning for its inside.”	Noyes applies critical theory’s notion of the “outside” to the classroom, suggesting that bringing external social and political contexts into education enriches the learning experience and allows students to see the classroom as connected to wider societal issues.
“One of the tools I find useful in negotiating this chasm is critical theory of the Frankfurt School.”	Noyes draws on Frankfurt School critical theory, particularly Adorno’s ideas, to critique late capitalism’s role in academia. He uses this theoretical framework to question how education can exist within capitalist structures while resisting the pressures of commodification.
“Ngũgĩ was right that the institutional imbalance in the teaching of indigenous versus imported languages and literatures is a relic of imperialism.”	By referencing Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, Noyes critiques the unequal representation of indigenous literature in education, arguing that prioritizing European literature reflects and sustains imperialist structures. He advocates for a curriculum that includes both imported and indigenous traditions.
“The project of de-imperializing the literature classroom is muddied by… complicity and critique.”	Noyes describes the inherent tension for educators who both operate within and seek to challenge institutional structures. This ambivalence between complicity with and critique of imperialist frameworks highlights the complexities educators face when attempting to decolonize their curricula.
“Students in South Africa wanted both [universalist and particularist education], and I believe they were right to want both.”	Noyes reflects on the dual goals of the #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall movements, supporting the idea that students should have access to education that is both inclusive and acknowledges specific historical and cultural contexts. He advocates for an approach that recognizes both the universal right to education and the unique needs of historically marginalized groups.

“Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan: Summary and Critique

“Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan first appeared in Stylistyka XI and examines how the concept of “literariness” is embedded within cultural and social contexts, rather than being an intrinsic quality of texts.

Introduction: “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

“Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan first appeared in Stylistyka XI and examines how the concept of “literariness” is embedded within cultural and social contexts, rather than being an intrinsic quality of texts. Building upon the ideas of literary theorists like Jonathan Culler, Juvan argues that literary theory has moved beyond formalist approaches that isolated literature’s distinct features, instead focusing on how literariness is socially constructed. He references Bourdieu’s sociology of art, suggesting that the identity of literature is shaped within social frameworks that include historical, ideological, and institutional influences. Juvan highlights that literature, as a category, is a construct reflecting the cultural, social, and ideological frameworks that determine what qualifies as literary. By grounding literariness in these external conventions, Juvan’s work challenges traditional definitions and emphasizes the mutable and context-dependent nature of literary texts. This study is crucial as it reshapes literary theory by underscoring that our understanding of “literary” qualities is contingent upon the cultural context, which broadens the scope for interdisciplinary approaches to studying texts.

Summary of “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

Literariness in the Context of Literary Theory’s Evolution
Juvan highlights how the concept of literariness has evolved alongside literary theory, particularly noting a shift away from the “distinctiveness of literature” as a primary theoretical concern, as stated by Jonathan Culler (2000: 274). The focus has shifted from purely aesthetic or formalist concerns to interdisciplinary issues, integrating concepts such as race, gender, and class. This shift reflects an understanding that the very notion of literariness is deeply embedded in cultural and evaluative frameworks, rather than isolated in the text itself (Juvan, Stylistyka XI).
The Crisis and Transformation of Literary Theory
The development of literary theory was significantly influenced by Eastern and Central European intellectual traditions, particularly post-World War II, in response to the decline of positivism and historicism. The establishment of literary theory as a distinct discipline helped solidify the field, moving beyond the practical norms of poetics and rhetoric to treat literature as an autonomous social system governed by its own internal rules (Tihanov 2001; Bourdieu 1996: 294). This institutionalization and historicity underlie current challenges to the discipline as postmodern critique questions literature’s unique ontological status.

Defining Literariness as an “Objective” Feature
Juvan examines the idea of literariness as an objective feature within texts, proposing two core criteria: unique language use and a distinct perspective on reality (Culler 1989: 34). However, Jan Mukarovsky’s (1948) observations indicate that poetic language is not entirely autonomous; rather, it exists in a spectrum of linguistic styles influenced by conventions. This view challenges the notion of an inherent literary language and suggests that literariness depends on the interplay of textual structure and the reader’s interpretative practices (Mukarovsky 1948: 82-83).
Polyvalence and Referentiality in Literary Texts
Juvan expands on literariness through the lens of polysemy and textual self-referentiality, emphasizing that literary texts invite layered, interconnected readings that transcend straightforward interpretation (Garcia-Berrio 1992: 39-79). Such qualities, termed “depragmatization,” lead to a text’s meaning being tied more to cultural memory than to specific contexts (Culler 1989: 34). The literary text, therefore, generates meaning through intertextual references and requires greater reader engagement for interpretation.
Literariness as Convention and Institutional Influence
Anti-essentialist perspectives, such as those of Eagleton (1983) and Leitch (1992), argue that literariness is not confined to traditionally literary genres but arises from interpretive frameworks and social conventions that can elevate any text, including journalism, to literary status (Leitch 1992: 42). Juvan’s discussion of Tomaz Salamun’s poem exemplifies how literariness is contextually assigned, where a shift in medium or authorial name reconfigures a text’s perceived literariness based on cultural expectations (Danto 1981: 51).

The Literary Canon as a Basis for Literariness
Canonical texts play a vital role in defining literariness by setting paradigms for what is considered exemplary in literary art. These works serve as cultural reference points, embedding norms, genres, and ethical standards that guide the broader understanding of literature (Juvan 1994: 277-289). This canonization process, supported by the social and educational institutions, creates a quasi-religious “belief” in literature’s transcendent qualities, reinforcing the culturally specific effects that define a text as literary (Bourdieu 1996: 170).
Interdependent Factors of Literariness
According to Juvan, literariness results from multiple interdependent factors, including authorial intent, thematic and stylistic organization, and cultural reception (Rusch 1997: 97). These elements collectively shape a text’s literariness, with the “appropriate expectations, frameworks, and conventions” activated through reader interaction and metatextual discourse.
Conclusion: Literariness as a Flexible, Culturally-Based Convention
Juvan concludes that literariness is not a fixed quality but a “historically, socially, and culturally differentiated convention” (Schmidt 1997: 144). Systems theory, as outlined by Bourdieu and Schmidt, offers a nuanced approach to understanding the socio-historical contexts that produce literariness, underscoring that literary theory practitioners are also participants in shaping these conventions within educational and scientific frameworks.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation
Literariness	The quality or feature that makes a text literary, often based on distinctive use of language and textual structure.
Cultural Construct	The idea that literature’s status and interpretation are shaped by cultural, social, and historical frameworks.
Formalism	A literary theory focusing on the form and structure of a text rather than its content or cultural influences.
Structuralism	An approach in literary theory that examines underlying structures in a text that determine its meaning and function.
Polysemy	The presence of multiple meanings within words or phrases, creating depth and complexity in interpretation.
Self-Referentiality	A feature where the text refers to itself or its elements, encouraging readers to focus on the structure over referential content.
Canon	A collection of literary works and authors considered exemplary, establishing norms and values within a culture.
Depragmatization	The process by which literature removes pragmatic concerns, emphasizing interpretative autonomy within the text.
Postmodernism	A movement critiquing absolute narratives and fixed meanings, questioning literature’s unique ontological status.
Heteroglossia	The inclusion of multiple voices or perspectives within a text, often reflecting social and historical diversity.
Aesthetic Function	The distinct use of language in a text that foregrounds artistic qualities, distinguishing literary from non-literary texts.
Intertextuality	The shaping of a text’s meaning through references to other texts, creating interconnected layers of interpretation.
Autonomy of Art	The notion that art exists independently of practical and social utility, governed by its own aesthetic principles.
Defamiliarization	A technique of presenting familiar elements in unfamiliar ways to enhance reader awareness and perception.
Possible Worlds	A theory proposing that fictional narratives can represent “possible worlds,” parallel yet distinct from reality.
Institutionalization	The establishment of literary studies as a formal, structured discipline, especially post-World War II.
Nomos (Auto-nomy)	A principle where the literary field operates by its own rules, independent of other social or political domains.
Ideological Investment	The role of ideological beliefs in shaping what is deemed literary, often reflecting societal power dynamics.
Objective Literary Features	Attributes believed to inherently distinguish literary from non-literary texts, such as stylistic or thematic features.
Anti-Essentialism	A view opposing fixed definitions of literariness, arguing it is a social convention rather than an intrinsic quality.

Contribution of “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Contribution to Formalist and Structuralist Theories

Renewing the Concept of Literariness
Juvan revisits the notion of literariness from a structuralist perspective, as initially outlined by Russian Formalism, which focused on the unique qualities distinguishing literary texts from other forms of writing. Drawing from Jan Mukarovsky’s insights, Juvan emphasizes that “poetic language is characterized only by a thin layer of ‘poeticisms’” yet shares linguistic elements with other styles, suggesting that literariness is shaped by its structural autonomy but remains culturally interconnected (Mukarovsky 1948: 82-83).
Polysemy and Textual Self-Referentiality
Juvan’s analysis reinforces structuralism’s focus on language as a system by highlighting polysemy and self-referentiality as markers of literariness. These traits, he explains, “encourage readers to pay more attention to structural homologies, ambivalent meanings, and patterns of parallelisms” rather than just the referential content, thus creating a layered, self-contained experience (Garcia-Berrio 1992: 39-79).

2. Contribution to Postmodern and Deconstructive Approaches

Literature as a Social Construct and Anti-Essentialism
Emphasizing the socially constructed nature of literature, Juvan challenges essentialist views of literariness, aligning with postmodern critiques. He draws on Vincent Leitch’s view that “literature turns into a modulated functionalist notion of ‘literatures,’” suggesting that literature should not be treated as a single, ontologically distinct category but as a heterogeneous practice embedded in various social discourses (Leitch 1992: 59).
Heteroglossia and the Polyphonic Nature of Texts
Inspired by Bakhtinian heteroglossia, Juvan illustrates how literature accommodates multiple voices and cultural contexts. He notes that “literature as a heteroglot discourse” reflects social and historical diversity, highlighting how literature engages with a multiplicity of meanings across cultural and historical boundaries (Bakhtin 1981).

3. Contribution to Reception Theory and Reader-Response Criticism

Interpretive Flexibility and Depragmatization
Juvan’s concept of “depragmatization” contributes to reception theory by showing how a text’s literary quality relies on its reception and the interpretive framework of its readers. He explains that “literariness originates in the interpretive and social interactions of readers,” emphasizing that what is considered “literary” depends on the reader’s background, expectations, and cultural context (Culler 1989: 34).
The Role of Canon in Constructing Literariness
By exploring how canonical status impacts a text’s literariness, Juvan contributes to the understanding of literature as an evolving institution. He asserts that “canonized works function as paradigms” in shaping aesthetic, ethical, and cognitive values, illustrating that literariness itself is a historically contingent effect arising from the collective literary canon (Juvan 1994: 277-289).

4. Contribution to Sociological and Institutional Theories of Literature

Literariness as an Ideological Construct
Drawing on Bourdieu’s sociological insights, Juvan examines how the status of literature is sustained by ideological and institutional practices. He argues that “the discourse surrounding artworks becomes a ‘literary doxa,’” through which literature gains quasi-religious status within a culture, demonstrating how literariness is reinforced by social power and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1996: 170).
Nomos and the Autonomous Function of Literature
Through his discussion of nomos (the autonomous domain within literature), Juvan reinforces the idea that literature functions within its own socially governed system. This concept aligns with Schmidt’s system theory, which sees literature as a “self-organizing social system” that operates autonomously yet is intertwined with broader socio-historical conditions (Schmidt 1989).

5. Contribution to Theories of Possible Worlds in Fiction

Fictional Worlds and Cultural Memory
Juvan expands on the theory of possible worlds, emphasizing that literature can create alternative, fictional realities distinct from the empirical world. Citing Lubomir Dolezel, he explains that literature builds “possible worlds that coexist with actual reality, having their own logic and chronology,” reinforcing the idea that literature, through fictional worlds, not only represents reality but reimagines it within culturally specific contexts (Dolezel 1990: 67).

Examples of Critiques Through “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

Literary Work	Critique through “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature”	Key Concepts
James Joyce’s Ulysses	Joyce’s work exemplifies heteroglossia, with multiple voices and linguistic styles reflecting the diversity of urban life, and challenges essentialist views of literariness.	Heteroglossia, Anti-Essentialism
Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude	García Márquez creates a “possible world” where magical realism defamiliarizes everyday events, encouraging a deeper interpretation of Latin American cultural history.	Possible Worlds, Defamiliarization
Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse	Woolf’s novel uses polysemy and self-referentiality, as Woolf’s language and themes require readers to engage deeply with symbols of time, memory, and perception.	Polysemy, Self-Referentiality, Interpretive Flexibility
T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land	The work’s intertextuality and reliance on cultural references construct its literariness; Eliot weaves a complex canon that evokes an atmosphere of Western cultural decay.	Canon, Intertextuality, Ideological Construct

Criticism Against “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

Overemphasis on Cultural Context
Critics may argue that Juvan’s theory places excessive emphasis on cultural, social, and historical contexts, potentially undermining the intrinsic qualities of a text that can contribute to its literariness. This perspective might challenge Juvan’s cultural relativism by asserting that certain formal or aesthetic qualities are universally literary, regardless of cultural framework.

Subjectivity of Literariness
By defining literariness as a culturally contingent concept, Juvan’s approach may lead to overly subjective interpretations of what is “literary.” Some critics may feel that this flexibility erodes any stable criteria for distinguishing literature from other discourses, making it difficult to maintain literary studies as a coherent field.
Neglect of Authorial Intent
Juvan’s emphasis on reception and cultural interpretation might be seen as neglecting the role of authorial intent in constructing literariness. Critics may argue that understanding an author’s intended artistic choices is essential to defining what makes a text literary, as opposed to relying solely on the interpretations of cultural institutions or readers.
Ambiguity in Canon Formation
Critics might question Juvan’s reliance on the literary canon as a determinant of literariness, arguing that canon formation is itself a contested and politically charged process. By aligning literariness with canonical status, Juvan’s theory risks perpetuating existing biases within the canon and marginalizing works from underrepresented cultures or voices.

Potential Reduction to Sociological Analysis
Juvan’s approach could be criticized for reducing literary analysis to a sociological investigation of cultural and institutional practices. Some may argue that this perspective overlooks the aesthetic and imaginative power of literature as art, risking a focus more on cultural frameworks than on the text itself.

Representative Quotations from “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The question of literariness has become surpassed or irrelevant” (p. 9)	Juvan discusses the shift away from traditional literary theory’s focus on “literariness,” reflecting modern cultural influences.
“To ask ‘what is literature?’ is a way of arguing about how literature should be studied” (p. 10)	This highlights how questioning literature’s nature influences the methodologies and perspectives adopted in literary studies.
“Art is the kind of thing that depends for its existence upon theories” (p. 10)	Juvan reflects on the notion that art is defined by theoretical frameworks, making theory essential for understanding literature.
“Literature as art is a special class of phenomena of extraordinary cultural value” (p. 11)	This emphasizes the cultural and societal significance placed on literature, beyond mere aesthetics.
“Modern literary theory was actually born… in East-Central Europe” (p. 11)	He notes the origins of modern literary theory, linking it to specific historical and regional developments.
“The literary field has become fully developed from Post-romanticism to Modernism” (p. 11)	This outlines how the literary field’s growth reflects broader cultural movements, emphasizing autonomy from external pressures.
“The term ‘literary work of art’ is the name of a function-class” (p. 23)	Juvan explains that literariness is seen as a function within specific cultural and social contexts, not merely a textual feature.
“The question of literariness… can have considerable implications for policies and the situation concerning the present study of literature” (p. 13)	This suggests that defining literariness affects academic and institutional approaches to literature.
“Literariness is a flexible, historically, socially and culturally differentiated convention” (p. 25)	He describes literariness as a dynamic, evolving concept influenced by cultural and historical shifts.
“Literariness appears to be a time-, culture-, and milieu-sensitive variable” (p. 25)	Juvan concludes that literariness is a contextual construct, shaped by its environment rather than inherent qualities.

“Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash: Summary and Critique

“Language and Literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash first appeared in Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism in 1983, published by Routledge.

Introduction: “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

“Language and Literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash first appeared in Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism in 1983, published by Routledge. This seminal work examines the characteristics that distinguish literary language from other forms of communication, exploring the elusive question, “What is literature?” The authors argue against a rigid binary between literary and non-literary language, suggesting instead that literariness exists along a continuum, or “cline,” where elements of literary style can appear even in “ordinary” language. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how stylistic effects and semantic density contribute to literariness. Carter and Nash emphasize that literariness is not merely about specific vocabulary or syntax but is found in the text’s ability to engage readers in multi-layered, polysemic interpretations. The text is thus self-contained, encouraging readers to explore meanings generated within its boundaries, which marks it as “sovereign” and distinct from functional, transactional texts. Their work is influential in literary theory, as it challenges traditional boundaries and enriches the study of prose by considering linguistic and stylistic elements as fundamental to literary appreciation and critique.

Summary of “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

Defining Literary Language: Carter and Nash argue that understanding what makes language “literary” is central to literary studies, as it addresses the essential question: “What is literature?” They critique the conventional literary-critical approach, which often involves interpreting established texts, proposing instead that literary language merits a dedicated investigation (Carter & Nash, 1983, p. 123).
Polarity in Language: The authors reject a strict division between literary and non-literary language, which, they claim, unnecessarily polarizes language types. They advocate for viewing literary qualities along a “cline” or continuum, recognizing that traits of literariness can appear in what might traditionally be considered “ordinary” or “scientific” language (p. 124).

Absence of Intrinsic Literary Properties: The authors assert that no inherent property makes language literary, arguing that while some words or phrases are associated with a “literary lexicon,” they do not independently constitute literariness. This is seen even in works with rich language structures, which may lack “literariness” on their own (p. 124-125).
Deviations from Norms: Many theories of literary language rely on deviations from linguistic norms (e.g., syntactic in e.e. cummings, phonological in Hopkins), yet Carter and Nash find such approaches lacking as they fail to account for the multi-layered stylistic interplay that gives rise to literariness (p. 125).
Semantic Density and Displaced Interaction: They propose “semantic density” as a marker of literariness, where meanings are layered and interconnected. They also introduce the concept of “displaced interaction,” wherein literary texts create indirect or complex interactions between author and reader, contrasting with straightforward transactional texts (p. 125-126).

Textual Sovereignty: A key feature of literariness, according to Carter and Nash, is the “sovereignty” of the text—its ability to generate meaning independently without needing external references or prior reader knowledge. This self-contained quality distinguishes literary texts from other types, like instructional manuals (p. 130).
Re-Registration and Polysemy: Literary language often re-registers non-literary expressions in new, symbolic contexts, fostering “polysemy” or multiple layers of meaning. This richness allows literature to operate on various levels simultaneously, thus enhancing its interpretative depth and literary value (p. 132-133).
Broadening Literary Criticism: The authors call for a shift in English studies toward “linguistic criticism,” focusing on detailed linguistic analysis across different genres, not only conventionally literary ones. This approach, they believe, would deepen understanding and appreciation of diverse texts’ stylistic qualities (p. 130-131

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation from Text
Literary Language	A form of language characterized by unique stylistic and semantic qualities.	Carter and Nash explore how “literary language” differs from ordinary language by its complex, layered meanings and unique structures (p. 123-124).
Cline of Literariness	A continuum that places language along a spectrum from ordinary to highly literary.	Instead of a strict division, literary qualities exist along a spectrum, with degrees of literariness across language types (p. 124).
Semantic Density	The quality of language having layered or complex meanings that contribute to literariness.	They use “semantic density” to indicate texts where meanings are richly interwoven, enhancing literary quality (p. 125).
Displaced Interaction	A form of indirect interaction between author and reader, often found in literary texts.	In literary texts, the interaction between author and reader is not straightforward; instead, meaning is layered and indirect, creating depth (p. 125-126).
Textual Sovereignty	The ability of a text to generate meaning independently, without relying on external references.	Literary texts are “sovereign,” meaning they do not depend on external aids (e.g., diagrams) to convey meaning, unlike instructional texts (p. 130).
Re-Registration	The adaptation of non-literary language or expressions within a literary context to give new, symbolic meaning.	Carter and Nash discuss how words from non-literary contexts can be adapted in literature, creating new meanings through re-registration (p. 132-133).
Polysemy	The presence of multiple meanings within a text or word, contributing to interpretative richness.	Literary texts often have polysemic structures, where multiple meanings exist simultaneously, allowing varied interpretations (p. 130).
Monosemy	The opposite of polysemy; language that has a single, clear meaning.	Found in functional texts (e.g., manuals or contracts), where language serves a specific purpose with no additional layers (p. 127).
Literary Lexicon	A set of words or phrases commonly associated with literary language.	Although some words or phrases are traditionally viewed as “literary,” Carter and Nash argue they don’t inherently confer literariness (p. 124-125).
Functional Language	Language used for practical or transactional purposes, often direct and unlayered.	Functional language is marked by single-purpose usage, such as instructional or contractual language, which contrasts with literary style (p. 127).
Norm and Deviation	The concept that literary language deviates from linguistic norms to create artistic effects.	Carter and Nash critique theories that limit literariness to deviations from norms, arguing for a more complex view (p. 125).
Self-Referentiality	A quality of literature where the text displays awareness of its own conventions and techniques.	Seen in passages where a text reflects on its own stylistic elements, adding a meta-level of meaning, which is a unique feature of literariness (p. 136).
Register Borrowing	The practice of adopting terms from specialized language fields (e.g., legal, technical) within literary texts.	Literary texts often incorporate specialized language for symbolic or aesthetic purposes, blending different registers creatively (p. 130).
Stylistic Effects	The cumulative impact of linguistic choices, such as syntax, phonology, and diction, that create a unique literary style.	Carter and Nash argue that the literariness of a text is due to multi-layered stylistic effects rather than isolated lexical choices (p. 125).

Contribution of “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash to Literary Theory/Theories

Theory	Contribution of Carter & Nash	Reference from the Article
Formalism and Structuralism	Carter and Nash challenge the formalist tendency to view literary language as entirely distinct from ordinary language. They argue instead that “literary language” operates along a continuum or cline, suggesting that elements of literariness can be found even in ordinary language.	“We hold that the division between literary language…and other kinds of language…is a harmful one” (p. 124).
Stylistics	Their work emphasizes the stylistic effects of literary language, encouraging a multi-layered linguistic analysis over a focus on isolated lexical or syntactic features. This approach enhances the understanding of stylistic choices across genres, not only in conventionally literary texts.	“Literariness in language…comes from the simultaneous operation and interrelation of effects at different levels” (p. 125).
Reader-Response Theory	Carter and Nash introduce displaced interaction, where the literary text becomes a space for indirect, interpretative engagement between author and reader. This interaction reflects reader-response theory’s emphasis on the active role of readers in co-creating meaning within texts.	“The interaction between author and reader is thus deferred or displaced, the text presenting an intermediate stage” (p. 139).
Deconstruction	They explore the idea of polysemy, or multiple layers of meaning, which resonates with deconstruction’s emphasis on the instability of meaning in texts. Carter and Nash argue that literary texts are inherently polysemic, allowing for interpretative openness and ambiguity.	“The ‘obscure’ literary text…is difficult by reason of its polysemic structure” (p. 140).
Post-Structuralism	In their critique of binary distinctions (e.g., literary vs. non-literary language), they align with post-structuralism’s questioning of rigid structures. They argue that literary language should be understood as part of a continuum rather than an isolated category.	“We prefer to think of ‘literary language’ as existing along a cline or gradation” (p. 124).
Linguistic Criticism	They propose linguistic criticism as a discipline, distinct from traditional literary stylistics, where detailed linguistic analysis is applied across genres. This approach extends stylistics into a broader critique applicable to both literary and non-literary texts.	“…students of English studies will practice linguistic criticism…to a range of texts…not only those conventionally marked as literary” (p. 130).
Intertextuality	By emphasizing re-registration, where language from non-literary registers is adapted in literature, Carter and Nash show how texts are enriched through intertextuality. This borrowing across genres creates new symbolic meanings, enhancing the interpretative possibilities of a text.	“…restructuring of technical terms so they enter into new relationships and acquire…symbolic value in the context of the literary work” (p. 130).

Examples of Critiques Through “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

Literary Work	Critique Using Carter & Nash’s Concepts	Relevant Concept from Carter & Nash
James Joyce’s Ulysses	Joyce’s use of polysemic language in Ulysses creates layers of meaning, encouraging readers to interpret the text through multiple perspectives, which aligns with Carter & Nash’s idea that literary language is inherently multi-layered, enabling expansive interpretative possibilities.	Polysemy: “The ‘obscure’ literary text…is difficult by reason of its polysemic structure” (p. 140).
Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse	Woolf’s narrative style employs displaced interaction, where the reader interprets indirect dialogues and internal monologues, enhancing the immersive literary experience. This aligns with Carter & Nash’s idea of indirect reader-author interaction in literary texts.	Displaced Interaction: “The interaction between author and reader is thus deferred or displaced…” (p. 139).
Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot	Beckett’s minimalist language reveals semantic density, where every line is charged with multiple meanings, creating a depth that compensates for the sparse dialogue. This concept resonates with Carter & Nash’s idea of condensed meaning as a hallmark of literariness.	Semantic Density: “Literariness in language…has something to do with the existence of what we term ‘semantic density’” (p. 125).
George Orwell’s 1984	Orwell’s integration of register borrowing (e.g., bureaucratic language in “Newspeak”) reflects Carter & Nash’s concept of re-registration, as he uses non-literary language to create an oppressive narrative style, enhancing the novel’s symbolic meaning.	Register Borrowing / Re-Registration: “…restructuring of technical terms so they enter into new relationships…” (p. 130).

Criticism Against “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

Overemphasis on Linguistic Analysis: Some critics argue that Carter and Nash’s focus on linguistic elements, such as syntax and vocabulary, may sideline the emotional and thematic elements of literature that are central to literary appreciation and interpretation.
Lack of Cultural Context Consideration: The framework presented may be critiqued for not adequately considering how cultural, historical, and societal factors influence what is perceived as “literary” or “non-literary,” which can vary significantly across different audiences.

Dismissal of Norm-Deviation Framework: Carter and Nash challenge the traditional notion of literary language as a deviation from norms, yet some critics believe this framework is useful for distinguishing unique literary styles, as it highlights the ways authors subvert or innovate upon linguistic norms.
Broad Definition of Literariness: Their concept of a “cline of literariness” can be seen as too broad or inclusive, potentially diminishing the uniqueness of literature by blurring distinctions between literary and non-literary texts.
Insufficient Attention to Reader Response: While Carter and Nash introduce “displaced interaction” between author and reader, critics might argue that their approach does not fully explore how individual reader interpretations and personal engagement contribute to the perception of literariness.

Limited Practical Application Across Genres: Although they propose that their model applies across genres, some might find the framework better suited to certain types of prose rather than poetry, drama, or other literary forms where structural and stylistic norms vary greatly.
Reduction of Literariness to Linguistic Features: Critics could argue that their analysis risks reducing literariness solely to linguistic features, overlooking how narrative techniques, genre conventions, and plot structure also contribute to the literary qualities of a text.
Insufficient Consideration of Authorial Intent: Some literary theorists might criticize the work for focusing more on textual analysis than on authorial intent, which can be essential in understanding why specific stylistic or lexical choices are made.

Representative Quotations from “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“We hold that the division between literary language and other kinds of language is a harmful one.”	Carter and Nash challenge traditional divisions between “literary” and “non-literary” language, arguing that this dichotomy restricts understanding of language’s full potential and value.
“We prefer to think of ‘literary language’ as existing along a cline or gradation.”	This statement introduces their idea of a spectrum, or “cline,” of literariness, rejecting fixed boundaries and allowing for literary qualities to be present in various language forms.
“There is no such thing as literary language insofar as there is any single property intrinsic to language which can be called literary.”	Here, they refute the idea of intrinsic properties defining literary language, suggesting instead that context and interaction contribute to literariness.
“Literariness in language comes from the simultaneous operation and interrelation of effects at different levels in the language system.”	This quotation underscores the complexity of literary language, emphasizing that multiple stylistic and linguistic layers contribute to its unique qualities.
“We do believe… degrees of literariness can and should be identified.”	Carter and Nash support nuanced analysis by recognizing that certain texts may display more “literary” characteristics than others, reinforcing their cline approach.
“Attempts to define literary language in terms of truth-conditions or of fictional v. non-fictional… run the risk of instituting the same divisions and polarities.”	The authors caution against definitions based on binary oppositions, which, they argue, oversimplify and constrain interpretations of literary texts.
“In literary discourse… text explains text, text expands text, text projects an extra-textual ‘reality.'”	This observation emphasizes the autonomy of literary texts, suggesting that they create and sustain their own realities independent of external references.
“The sovereignty of the text… enables the text to stand on its own terms.”	By “sovereignty,” Carter and Nash mean the text’s self-contained meaning and structure, a trait they argue is central to literariness.
“A literary text… is a creative end for the author and a primary object for the reader.”	This highlights the interactive role of literature, where the text serves as a point of co-creation between the author’s intentions and the reader’s interpretation.
“The ‘literary’ does not effectively exist without the ‘non-literary,’ and it draws constantly on ‘non-literary’ sources.”	The authors argue that literary texts frequently incorporate elements from non-literary contexts, a process they call “re-registration,” which allows language to adopt new meanings.

“Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman: Summary and Critique

“Introduction: Literariness and Linguistics by Vimala Herman first appeared in 1983 in the journal Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism.

Introduction: “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

“Introduction: Literariness and Linguistics by Vimala Herman first appeared in 1983 in the journal Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism. This seminal work examines the distinctions and intersections between literary and non-literary language, challenging the traditional boundaries that separate the two. Herman critically explores how “literariness” is often demarcated by unique linguistic properties—such as foregrounding and fictionalization—yet argues against viewing these as exclusively literary traits. Instead, she proposes that elements often attributed to literary language, such as metaphor and narrative structure, are ubiquitous across various forms of discourse, and their function is more nuanced than simply distinguishing literature. By incorporating insights from structural linguistics, pragmatics, and speech act theory, Herman dismantles binary oppositions of “literary” vs. “ordinary” language, suggesting a more fluid spectrum of language functions. Her work is significant for its influence on modern literary theory, encouraging a shift from essentialist views of literary language to a broader consideration of how language operates in context and across social functions.

Summary of “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

Interdependence of Literary and Non-literary Language
Herman argues that the concepts of “literary” and “non-literary” are interdependent, as defining one invariably involves engaging with the other (Herman, p. 99).
Fictionality and Literariness in Language
Traditional definitions of literary language emphasize “fictionality” and “literariness,” seen as mutually exclusive from “ordinary” language, which is referential and serves communicative purposes (p. 100).

Role of Linguistics in Literary Analysis
Modern linguistics, through structuralism and transformational grammar, has influenced the understanding of literary language. However, there is debate on its usefulness in interpreting literary texts (p. 100).
Russian Formalist Perspective
The Russian Formalists focused on “literariness,” highlighting “verbal devices” and “foregrounding” as central to literary language, emphasizing deviation from ordinary language norms to create poetic effects (p. 101-102).
Concept of Foregrounding
Foregrounding is a defining feature of poetic language, where linguistic elements are highlighted for aesthetic purposes, distinct from the communicative goal of standard language (Mukarovsky, p. 102).

Jakobson’s Poetic Function
Roman Jakobson’s model describes the “poetic function” as language focusing on the message itself. He argues that the poetic function is prevalent in all linguistic activities but is dominant in poetry (p. 104-105).
Challenges to Literary/Non-literary Dichotomy
Critics, such as Mary Louise Pratt, argue that the distinction between literary and non-literary language is circular, as it depends on pre-existing cultural recognition of a text as “literary” (p. 106).
Functionalist View of Language
Fowler suggests a functional definition of literature, viewing it as a socially recognized set of texts with institutional values, rather than possessing unique linguistic properties (Fowler, p. 111).

Speech Act Theory in Literary Analysis
Austin’s Speech Act Theory, especially the concept of performatives, is significant in understanding language in literature as action, with illocutionary force guiding interpretation beyond literal meaning (p. 113-115).
Pragmatics and Implicature in Literary Discourse
Grice’s concept of implicature and cooperative principles are applied to literary analysis, recognizing that readers infer meaning based on shared assumptions, which allows for layered interpretations in literary texts (p. 115-116).
Multiplicity of Discourses in Society
Herman concludes that literary language is one of many discourses in society. Rather than viewing literature as fundamentally separate, it should be considered within a continuum of diverse linguistic uses (p. 119).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

Term/Concept	Definition/Description	Explanation in the Text
Literariness	The quality or characteristics that define language as “literary,” typically including fictionality, aesthetic value, and deviation from ordinary language norms	Herman discusses how literariness has traditionally been used to differentiate literary from non-literary texts, with roots in Russian Formalism (p. 99-100).
Fictionality	The characteristic of language that makes it imaginary or fictional rather than referential to real-world events	Fictionality is often viewed as a defining trait of literary language, though Herman questions its necessity as a distinguishing factor (p. 100-101).
Foregrounding	A stylistic device that emphasizes certain elements of language to draw attention to the form itself, often through deviation from norms	Key to Formalist theory, foregrounding is seen as essential to poetic language, which foregrounds expression over pure communication (Mukarovsky, p. 101-102).
Poetic Function	Jakobson’s concept, where the focus of language is on the message itself rather than its referential meaning or communicative purpose	In Jakobson’s model, the poetic function emphasizes the self-referential aspect of language in literature, where the form is prioritized (Jakobson, p. 104).
Speech Act Theory	A theory that views language as performative, where utterances do more than convey information; they perform actions	Introduced by J.L. Austin and expanded by John Searle, Speech Act Theory is applied to literary discourse to analyze language as a form of action (p. 112-113).
Illocutionary Force	The intended function of an utterance within Speech Act Theory, such as a command, request, or assertion	Herman uses this concept to examine how literary language can perform different actions, beyond literal meaning (p. 113-114).
Implicature	The implied meanings derived from context, going beyond the literal meaning of words, often guided by conversational principles	Drawn from Grice’s principles, implicature explains how readers infer unstated meanings in literary texts (p. 115-116).
Defamiliarization	Making the familiar seem unfamiliar to enhance perception and provoke thought	Often achieved through foregrounding, defamiliarization is a technique in literature that disrupts automatic perception (related to Shklovsky’s ideas, p. 101).
Competence and Performance	Chomsky’s concepts: “competence” is the ideal speaker’s knowledge of language rules, while “performance” is the actual use of language in context	Herman highlights how these concepts influence the idea of literary language as separate from everyday use (p. 109-110).
Binary Opposition	A structuralist concept describing paired opposites, like literary/non-literary, which often reinforce hierarchical distinctions	Herman critiques the literary/non-literary binary, arguing for a spectrum of discourses rather than strict oppositions (p. 119).
Generative Grammar	A linguistic theory focused on rule-based sentence generation, often applied to explain deviations in poetic language	Early stylisticians used generative grammar to analyze “deviant” literary structures, though Herman questions its applicability (p. 105).
Cline of Literariness	A gradational view of literariness, positioning texts on a spectrum rather than categorizing them as strictly literary or non-literary	Proposed by Carter and Nash, this concept challenges the binary approach, suggesting a continuum of literariness based on semantic density (p. 120).
Pragmatics	The study of language in context, focusing on how meaning is constructed through interaction and social factors	Herman advocates using pragmatics in literary analysis to better understand language’s social functions within texts (p. 110-111).
Langue and Parole	Saussure’s distinction between “langue” (the abstract language system) and “parole” (individual speech acts or utterances)	Herman discusses the misuse of this concept in literary studies, noting the need to see literary language as part of the broader language system (p. 106-107).
Contextual Variation	Differences in language use across different contexts, reflecting social, functional, and institutional norms	Emphasizing variation, Herman argues that literary language should be seen in relation to other discourses, each with unique constraints and purposes (p. 109-110).
Display and Tellability	Acts governing literary discourse in Pratt’s framework, where texts aim to engage and present narratives worth sharing	Part of Pratt’s speech situation theory, these acts relate to the communicative purposes behind literary texts (Pratt, p. 117).

Contribution of “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman to Literary Theory/Theories

Theory/Framework	Contribution by Herman	Reference in the Text
Russian Formalism and Prague School	Critiques the binary approach to literariness as inherent in language, suggesting instead that all language can be literary if used appropriately. Emphasizes that literary language need not differ from ordinary language but is defined by context and usage.	Herman addresses Russian Formalist views, noting that “poetic language becomes the systematic violation of the norm” (p. 102).
Speech Act Theory	Applies J.L. Austin’s and John Searle’s concepts to literature, positing that literary language functions performatively, with speech acts serving literary purposes. This approach suggests that context determines whether language is considered literary.	“The illocutionary act has come to be regarded as the most crucial” for understanding literary language’s performative power (p. 113).
Jakobson’s Poetic Function	Explores Roman Jakobson’s idea that the poetic function is not exclusive to poetry. Argues against using Jakobson’s concept to strictly separate literary language, proposing that the poetic function exists across all linguistic domains.	Jakobson’s function of “focus on the message for its own sake” (p. 103) is used to examine language beyond poetry.
Structuralism and Generative Grammar	Criticizes the application of generative grammar to define a “literary grammar,” showing how this approach fails to encapsulate literary language’s variability and adaptability.	Herman points out the “inadequacy of formal modes of explanation in considerations of ‘poetic language'” (p. 106).
Pragmatics	Emphasizes the role of pragmatics in interpreting literariness, moving beyond syntax and phonology to include sociolinguistic and contextual elements, which she argues provide a fuller understanding of literary language.	“Language in use, till recently, has been regarded as the poor relation to language as system” (p. 110).
Grice’s Conversational Implicature	Applies Grice’s maxims to literary texts, demonstrating how implicature and inference play a role in reader interpretation. Suggests that literariness is not inherent but arises through shared interpretive frameworks.	Herman discusses the “co-operative principle” and how it governs meaning in literature just as it does in conversation (p. 115).
Foregrounding	Discusses how foregrounding, a concept from Russian Formalism, applies across discourses, not only in literature. This broadens the scope of literariness, suggesting that stylistic devices commonly seen as “literary” are simply modes of language usage.	“Foregrounding…is not confined to literary language alone” (p. 107), Herman argues, challenging Formalist exclusivity.
Cline of Literariness	Proposes a spectrum or “cline” of literariness, arguing against a binary division between literary and non-literary language. Suggests that literariness varies by “semantic density” across different discourses.	Herman and colleagues propose that “literariness” is seen as a multi-layered phenomenon rather than a strict category (p. 120).

Examples of Critiques Through “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

Literary Work	Example of Critique Using Herman’s Framework	Relevant Concept from Herman
“The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald	By analyzing the metaphor-rich language used to describe Gatsby’s parties and the “green light,” we can see how the language itself serves not merely to communicate events but to create a layered, symbolic experience for the reader. In Herman’s terms, the “foregrounding” of colors and symbols constructs an alternate reality, making it emblematic rather than literal.	Foregrounding: Herman argues that poetic language often highlights expressive elements over straightforward meaning.
“Beloved” by Toni Morrison	Morrison’s use of fragmented narrative and varied voices reflects a complex “speech act” that symbolizes the traumatic history of slavery. Herman’s ideas on speech acts help illuminate how Morrison’s text engages readers with implied meanings that rely on shared cultural memory rather than explicit statements, positioning the reader as an active participant in constructing the narrative’s meaning.	Speech Act Theory: Herman’s application of speech acts can illustrate how Morrison’s text performs cultural memory.
“Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett	In this play, Beckett uses repetition and nonsensical dialogue to challenge conventional language, engaging with Herman’s concept of language variation and challenging the norm. The deviation from standard language functions emphasizes existential ambiguity and represents language in its least communicative, most performative form, illustrating Herman’s view that literariness can lie in subversion.	Variation and Foregrounding: Beckett’s deviations serve to foreground language’s limits, reflecting Herman’s view on variance.
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen	Austen’s social critiques are embedded in the subtleties of polite conversation, a perfect example of Herman’s emphasis on pragmatics. Through conversational implicature, characters imply social status and personal judgments subtly. Elizabeth Bennet’s dialogues, rich with irony and indirect requests, are pragmatic strategies that mirror social interactions while also revealing layers of social commentary.	Pragmatics and Implicature: Herman’s insights on context-specific interpretation align with Austen’s social critique through language.

Criticism Against “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

Reliance on Structuralist Foundations
Herman’s work heavily references structuralist ideas, which some critics argue limits its adaptability to post-structuralist or contemporary perspectives. Her reliance on theories from the Russian Formalists and Prague School may be seen as restrictive, especially in light of more recent, fluid definitions of literariness.
Overemphasis on Linguistic Formalism
The focus on linguistic formalism, such as syntax, phonology, and structural patterns, may sideline other important aspects of literary study, such as emotional resonance, reader response, and cultural context. This approach risks viewing literature too mechanically, rather than as a living, evolving art form.
Neglect of Reader-Response Perspectives
While Herman acknowledges the importance of context and pragmatics, her framework lacks an in-depth engagement with reader-response theory, which emphasizes how individual readers’ interpretations and experiences shape meaning. This omission might be seen as a gap in a theory meant to understand “literariness.”

Challenges to the Universality of Pragmatic Analysis
Herman applies linguistic pragmatics broadly, yet some critics argue that this generalization does not adequately account for the distinctiveness of literature. Treating literary language as merely another form of “language in use” may dilute the unique ways literature engages with meaning, metaphor, and imagination.
Ambiguity in Defining ‘Literariness’
Although Herman critiques the binary distinction between literary and non-literary language, her own definitions of “literariness” remain somewhat ambiguous. Critics argue that the lack of a clear, actionable definition can make her framework difficult to apply consistently across different literary works.
Limited Engagement with Cultural and Ideological Contexts
Herman’s linguistic approach to literary analysis may overlook the influence of cultural and ideological factors that shape literature. By focusing predominantly on the language mechanics, she might neglect the sociopolitical, historical, or ethical dimensions that deeply influence literary texts and their interpretations.

Representative Quotations from “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman with Explanation

“Literariness as a defining property of the literary has been most fully investigated with relation to language” (Herman, 1983, p. 100).
- This sentence underscores how the concept of “literariness” is primarily explored through linguistic study, emphasizing its foundational role in defining literary language.
“Literary language is fictional, and therefore, non-referential, while non-fictional language, or ‘ordinary’ language, is defined by the property of reference” (Herman, 1983, p. 100).
- Herman distinguishes literary language as creating its own realm of meaning, contrasting with factual, referential language.
“The role of modern linguistics, first structural, then transformational, has had an uneasy history, either as basic to the definition of literary language…or of no value at all” (Herman, 1983, p. 101).
- This quote reflects the contentious relationship between linguistics and literary studies, particularly as scholars debate the relevance of structural and transformational linguistics.

“Foregrounding achieves maximum intensity to the extent of pushing communication into the background as the objective of expression” (Herman, 1983, p. 102).
- Here, Herman discusses “foregrounding” as a feature where language is highlighted for its aesthetic qualities, allowing expression itself to take precedence over straightforward communication.
“The set (Einstellung) towards the message as such, focus on the message for its own sake, is the POETIC function of language” (Jakobson, as cited in Herman, 1983, p. 103).
- Quoting Jakobson, Herman explains the poetic function of language as one that prioritizes the form and structure of the message, apart from its referential content.
“Language in literary use shares all the properties and processes of the medium in which it is constructed, initially” (Herman, 1983, p. 107).
- This statement reinforces Herman’s view that literary language does not exist in isolation from general language structures and norms; it emerges from these shared properties.

“The formalist program for a literary language was originally motivated by the desire to separate literary studies from its traditional orientations” (Herman, 1983, p. 105).
- Herman highlights the intention of formalism to establish a distinct study of literary language, distancing it from fields like psychology, biography, and history.
“The set of rules appropriate to a language…can also be presumed to have inventories of variable forms to correlate with appropriate functions in contexts of use” (Herman, 1983, p. 110).
- This reflects Herman’s recognition of language’s adaptability, where linguistic forms vary contextually to fulfill different communicative functions.
“Both defamiliarization and patterning could be restored to considerations of literary discourse, as the functional processes they are” (Herman, 1983, p. 120).
- Herman advocates for understanding literary devices such as defamiliarization and patterning as functional aspects of literary discourse, each serving specific communicative purposes.

“Patterning exists in many discourses…its literary use is one among many” (Herman, 1983, p. 119).
- Herman observes that while patterning is central to literary texts, it also appears in various discourses, functioning in diverse communicative ways.

“Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall: Summary And Critique

“Determining Literariness in Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall first appeared in 1988 in the journal Computers and the Humanities.

Introduction: “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

“Determining Literariness in Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall first appeared in 1988 in the journal Computers and the Humanities. Randall’s article delves into the notion of “literariness” in the emerging genre of interactive fiction, exploring whether this medium, primarily associated with computer-based text adventures, can achieve the hallmarks of literary value. Drawing on Russian Formalist Viktor Shklovskij’s concept of ostranenie, or “making strange,” Randall evaluates how interactive fiction both defamiliarizes familiar elements and familiarizes the strange. By examining works like Mindwheel, Brimstone, Breakers, A Mind Forever Voyaging, Portal, and Trinity, he argues that these interactive narratives display qualities traditionally associated with literary art. Randall sees these stories as expanding literary traditions through their fusion of reader interactivity with literary elements, creating new forms of narrative experience that engage readers on both a cognitive and participatory level. This work is significant for its early theoretical exploration of interactive fiction within the domain of literary theory, situating it as a medium that bridges storytelling and reader agency, and underscoring its potential to reshape our understanding of narrative structure and reader involvement in literature.

Summary of “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

Literariness in Interactive Fiction: A New Frontier

Exploring Literary Potential
Randall examines how interactive fiction, a genre largely known for text-based adventures on computers, is beginning to exhibit qualities that could be considered literary. This genre, once rooted in gaming and puzzle-solving, has evolved to include elements that encourage deeper literary engagement, marking a shift from mere gameplay to a form that seeks “literary stature” (Randall, p. 183).

Application of Russian Formalism
Central to Randall’s analysis is Viktor Shklovskij’s concept of ostranenie or “making strange.” Randall argues that interactive fiction can attain literariness by defamiliarizing the ordinary for readers and inviting them into new, immersive worlds where familiar language and experiences take on fresh meaning (p. 184). This focus on “making strange” aligns interactive fiction with Shklovskij’s view of literary art, which seeks to “render new that which has become familiar” (p. 185).

Characteristics of Literariness in Interactive Fiction

Text as a Participatory Medium
Unlike traditional novels, interactive fiction requires active reader involvement to progress the narrative, which aligns with Wolfgang Iser’s view that the aesthetic experience of literature involves reader participation (Randall, p. 185). By necessitating input, interactive fiction creates narrative “gaps” that readers must fill, enhancing its literariness through direct reader interaction (p. 190).

Combining Familiarity and Strangeness
Randall illustrates how interactive fiction merges familiarity and strangeness by immersing the reader in a world that is both recognizable and novel. For instance, Portal by Rob Swigart combines familiar narrative techniques with a mystery plot to investigate human disappearance, blending literary tradition with innovative storytelling (p. 189).

Canonization and Cultural Value

Interactive Fiction’s Place in the Literary Canon
Randall considers Terry Eagleton’s perspective on the literary canon as historically constructed and susceptible to evolution based on changing values (p. 186). He suggests that interactive fiction, as a genre, might join the “sub-canon” of science fiction and fantasy by upholding both the conventions of these genres and distinct literary qualities (p. 190). Randall interprets Shklovskij’s idea of the “canonization of the junior branch” to mean that new genres emerge in literature as they break through established literary constraints (p. 186).

Examples of Literary Interactivity

Analyzing Notable Works in Interactive Fiction
Randall highlights specific interactive works like A Mind Forever Voyaging by Steve Meretzky, which challenges players to make moral decisions without a scoring system, thereby prioritizing narrative depth over gameplay. Similarly, Mindwheel by Robert Pinsky and Brimstone by James Paul incorporate intertextual references and complex narratives that echo traditional literary themes (p. 188). These works are cited as leading examples of how interactive fiction can achieve a level of literary depth.
Merging Narrative Structure and Reader Agency
Randall argues that interactive fiction uniquely combines structured narrative with reader agency, a characteristic that challenges traditional notions of literariness. In these interactive stories, the reader’s ability to navigate and influence the narrative path mirrors the “metaphoric and metonymic” properties of poetic language, as described by Roman Jakobson (p. 187).

Interactive Fiction as a Distinct Genre

A Genre Defined by Reader Interaction
Randall asserts that interactive fiction should be viewed as a distinct genre due to its reliance on the reader’s direct involvement, setting it apart from traditional narrative forms. He notes that interactive fiction requires readers to perform physical actions, such as typing commands, which interrupts the continuity of the reading experience in a way that is unique to this genre (p. 189).

Concluding Remarks

Literariness as an Intersection of Strangeness and Familiarity
Ultimately, Randall concludes that interactive fiction attains literariness by blending the strange with the familiar, achieving a literary aesthetic that invites readers to both recognize and reimagine traditional narrative forms (p. 191). This genre’s reliance on both technological innovation and literary tradition positions it as a significant development in modern literature.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

Term/Concept	Description	Reference
Literariness	The quality that makes a text “literary”; according to Russian Formalists, it involves “making strange” or defamiliarizing familiar language and concepts.	Defined by Shklovskij and the Russian Formalists, pp. 183-184
Ostranenie	Russian term for “defamiliarization” or “making strange,” used to make readers see familiar things in a new way, thus enhancing literary value.	Shklovskij, p. 184
Canonization	The process of including certain works within the literary canon, a selection influenced by cultural and historical values.	Terry Eagleton and Shklovskij’s “canonization of the junior branch,” p. 186
Reader Interaction	The role of the reader’s active participation in progressing the narrative, a defining feature of interactive fiction that enhances its literary nature.	Wolfgang Iser’s theories on reader response, p. 185
Narrative Gaps	Intentional breaks in the narrative that readers fill through interpretation, a technique that engages readers deeply in the story.	Wolfgang Iser, p. 190
Poetic Function	Roman Jakobson’s idea that poetic language projects equivalence, emphasizing form over content; used to analyze interactivity in interactive fiction.	Roman Jakobson, p. 187
Synchronicity	The organization of events and elements occurring simultaneously; in interactive fiction, allows readers to explore non-linear narratives.	As seen in Mindwheel and other interactive works, p. 188
Intertextuality	References to other literary or cultural texts within a work, enriching the narrative by drawing on external literary traditions.	Present in works like Brimstone, p. 188
Metaphoric/Metonymic	Jakobson’s linguistic dimensions where the metaphoric is associative and synchronic, and the metonymic is combinative and diachronic; relevant in narrative layering.	Roman Jakobson’s language dimensions, p. 187
Structural Continuity	In traditional literature, the uninterrupted flow of a narrative; in interactive fiction, continuity is adapted through reader choice and narrative exploration.	Concept discussed by Randall, pp. 189-190
Moral Fiction	Literature that emphasizes ethical or moral questions, often aligning with artistic responsibility; seen as a trend in serious interactive fiction.	Sidney-Shelley-John Gardner school, p. 189

Contribution of “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Russian Formalism and Ostranenie

Contribution: Randall’s work extends the Russian Formalist concept of ostranenie (defamiliarization) to the realm of interactive fiction, arguing that the genre achieves literariness by “making strange” familiar elements. This recontextualizes interactive fiction as a genre that challenges the reader’s perception, not only of narrative but of language itself.

Theory Reference: Viktor Shklovskij’s ostranenie is central to this approach, as it defines literariness as the ability to renew or make strange the familiar (Randall, p. 184).
Textual Example: Randall observes that works like Mindwheel and Portal “defamiliarize” the act of storytelling itself, positioning the reader as an active participant in unfamiliar worlds, making the ordinary extraordinary through interaction (p. 189).

2. Reader-Response Theory

Contribution: The article applies Reader-Response Theory, specifically Wolfgang Iser’s ideas, to interactive fiction, framing the genre as one where the reader’s active role is paramount. Interactive fiction transforms the reader from a passive observer to a co-creator of meaning, aligning with Iser’s emphasis on reader interaction and the aesthetic response.
Theory Reference: Wolfgang Iser’s theory of “indeterminacy” and “narrative gaps” emphasizes how literature invites readers to fill interpretive gaps, enhancing the aesthetic experience (Randall, p. 185).
Textual Example: Randall notes that interactive fiction’s need for reader input to progress the narrative creates two types of gaps: the traditional interpretive gaps and direct narrative interruptions that demand active reader engagement, thus heightening the work’s literariness (p. 190).

3. Structuralist Theories of Language and Narrative

Contribution: Randall extends Roman Jakobson’s Structuralist concepts of language’s metaphoric and metonymic functions to the structure of interactive fiction, positioning it as a narrative system where synchronicity and non-linearity enable readers to move through stories in unconventional ways.
Theory Reference: Jakobson’s linguistic functions emphasize how poetic language differs from everyday speech by drawing attention to its form. In interactive fiction, this manifests through the “superimposition” of reader-driven plot choice and structured narrative (Randall, p. 187).

Textual Example: Randall points to Mindwheel as an example, where readers explore character minds in various orders, mixing synchronic (simultaneous) and diachronic (sequential) experiences, aligning with Jakobson’s principles (p. 188).

4. Theories of Canonization and Cultural Value

Contribution: Randall connects interactive fiction to Terry Eagleton’s theories on canon formation, suggesting that interactive fiction might one day gain literary recognition as a “junior branch” of the literary canon, much like science fiction and fantasy before it.

Theory Reference: Eagleton’s view that canonization is historically constructed and culturally specific supports Randall’s assertion that interactive fiction can redefine literary boundaries, given changing cultural attitudes (Randall, p. 186).
Textual Example: Randall argues that works like A Mind Forever Voyaging and Portal exemplify literary potential by addressing serious themes and complex storytelling, supporting their potential inclusion in a “sub-canon” of science fiction and fantasy (p. 190).

5. Moral Fiction and Ethical Responsibility in Literature

Contribution: By analyzing interactive fiction’s shift towards themes of moral and ethical responsibility, Randall situates the genre within the Sidney-Shelley-John Gardner school of moral fiction, where literature is not just an artistic endeavor but also a moral one. This is especially significant in interactive fiction, where readers’ choices often have ethical implications.
Theory Reference: The moral fiction framework emphasizes that literary art should bear an ethical responsibility, which Randall sees emerging in serious interactive works (p. 189).
Textual Example: Randall discusses A Mind Forever Voyaging, where players make decisions with potential social impact, thus reflecting an ethical stance within the narrative. This marks a shift away from earlier, less complex works focused primarily on gameplay (p. 188).

6. Postmodernism and Fragmentation

Contribution: Randall associates interactive fiction with Ihab Hassan’s postmodern “catena of features,” such as fragmentation and decanonization, observing how interactive fiction disrupts traditional literary expectations and introduces non-linear narrative structures.
Theory Reference: Ihab Hassan’s postmodern traits like “Indeterminacy” and “Fragmentation” resonate with interactive fiction’s non-linear, often disjointed storytelling that requires readers to piece together the narrative actively (Randall, p. 186).

Textual Example: Randall points out how Trinity by Brian Moriarty combines historical reference with imaginative re-creation, creating a fragmented experience that defies straightforward narrative progression, embodying Hassan’s postmodern traits (p. 188).

Examples of Critiques Through “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

Literary Work	Critique	Key Aspects Analyzed	Reference
Mindwheel (by Robert Pinsky)	Randall views Mindwheel as self-consciously literary, incorporating symbolic and mythological elements. He highlights the protagonist’s journey into four minds, embodying themes of rebirth and enlightenment.	Ostranenie, Synchronicity	p. 188
A Mind Forever Voyaging (by Steve Meretzky)	Critiqued as a complex narrative that transcends traditional gaming by eliminating a score system, A Mind Forever Voyaging focuses on moral exploration and social critique, elevating it to literary art.	Moral Fiction, Reader Interaction	p. 188
Brimstone (by James Paul)	Brimstone is praised for its rich intertextuality, referencing Dante’s Hell, Blake’s works, and Arthurian legends. Randall argues that these allusions contribute to its literariness and depth.	Intertextuality, Self-Referentiality	p. 188
Trinity (by Brian Moriarty)	Randall identifies Trinity as powerful for its integration of historical events with imaginative storytelling. The moral weight of the atomic bomb’s devastation imbues the narrative with ethical depth and reflection.	Moral Fiction, Historical Context	p. 188

Criticism Against “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall

Over-Reliance on Traditional Literary Theories
Randall applies established theories like Russian Formalism and Reader-Response Theory to interactive fiction, but critics may argue that these frameworks do not fully capture the uniqueness of interactive media, which operates differently from static texts.
Narrow Definition of Literariness
The article’s focus on ostranenie (defamiliarization) as a defining feature of literariness may be seen as limiting, as it excludes other literary qualities such as emotional depth, character development, or narrative cohesion, which are often valued in literary works.

Limited Scope of Interactive Works Analyzed
Randall’s analysis centers on a handful of specific interactive works (e.g., Mindwheel, Brimstone), leading to questions about whether his conclusions apply broadly across the genre, especially given the wide variety of styles and formats within interactive fiction.
Assumption of Canonization Potential
Randall suggests that interactive fiction could enter the literary canon, but critics may argue that his claims about canonization overlook how digital media and traditional literature are often evaluated by different standards and within distinct cultural contexts.
Minimal Engagement with Gameplay Mechanics
Randall’s analysis emphasizes literary aspects while downplaying how gameplay mechanics themselves influence the storytelling and literary potential of interactive fiction. This focus may overlook how the unique interactivity and structure of these games create meaning outside of literary tradition.

Underexplored Reader Agency in Complex Narratives
While Randall highlights reader interaction as enhancing literariness, he does not fully address how excessive player agency or fragmented narratives might detract from a coherent or traditionally “literary” experience, raising questions about narrative control in interactive fiction.

Representative Quotations from “Determining Literariness In Interactive Fiction” by Neil Randall with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literariness, as defined by Shklovskij and the Russian Formalists, is the quality of ‘making strange’ that which is linguistically familiar.”	Randall applies the concept of ostranenie, suggesting that interactive fiction achieves literariness by defamiliarizing familiar language and experiences, a cornerstone in evaluating interactive fiction as a serious literary form.
“Interactive fiction indisputably fulfills the requirement of participation… what needs to be determined, though, is whether or not the world presented is a ‘literary’ one.”	He questions whether interactive fiction, while engaging, also holds literary value, setting up the central inquiry of his article regarding interactive fiction’s status within literary theory.
“As interactive fiction grows more complex and more serious, its authors themselves have begun to ask that question [of literariness].”	This quotation points to the genre’s evolution from entertainment to a form aspiring to literary recognition, with creators consciously designing narratives that provoke thought and exploration.
“A reader familiar with interactive fiction will find strange… the need for reading the introductory chapters in the first place.”	Here, Randall examines how interactive fiction challenges conventional reading expectations by combining traditional storytelling with interactive, digital structures, enhancing the defamiliarization experience.
“Interactive fiction allows its own form of continuity… even if the plot is not.”	This statement emphasizes that interactive fiction offers a distinct narrative continuity, shaped by reader actions rather than linear story progression, which differs from traditional novels and plays a role in its literariness.
“If Shklovskij is correct in asserting that literary language hangs on the very notion of ostranenie, then… making strange a literary work is a literary act.”	Randall argues that ostranenie is foundational to all literature, positing that interactive fiction’s capacity to “make strange” can elevate it to the level of literary art.
“In interactive fiction, the reader is automatically aware of the gaps because until she fills them in, the text will not continue.”	This highlights the unique requirement of reader agency in interactive fiction, as narrative gaps invite readers to contribute directly to the unfolding of the story, thus deepening their engagement and making it more “literary.”
“For Jakobson, poetic language ‘projects the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination.'”	By invoking Jakobson’s concept of poetic language, Randall suggests that interactive fiction’s combination of reader choices and structured narrative mirrors poetic language, adding a literary dimension to the genre.
“Interactive fiction derives literariness from the combination of strangeness and familiarity.”	Randall argues that interactive fiction attains a unique form of literariness by juxtaposing familiar and strange elements, creating a new aesthetic experience that merges traditional storytelling with interactive immersion.
“The role of the reader here is not merely that of an interpreter but of a co-creator.”	This underscores a fundamental aspect of interactive fiction, where the reader actively shapes the narrative, reflecting theories of reader-response but with heightened agency that blurs the boundary between reader and creator.

“On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén: Summary and Critique

“On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén first appeared in 1994 in Comparative Literature Studies۔

Introduction: “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén

“On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén first appeared in 1994 in Comparative Literature Studies, published by Penn State University Press. In this article, Guillén examines the nuanced role of letter writing in bridging everyday communication with literary forms. He argues that the letter, while often not regarded as purely literary, holds the potential for what he terms “literariness”—a quality that emerges through the interplay of authenticity, style, and structure. By exploring historical practices and the evolution of letter writing from functional to poetic and even fictional, Guillén highlights how letters can embody a blend of factual narrative and imaginative expression. This fusion creates a unique space where personal voice and public dialogue intersect, reflecting both the individual and cultural ethos of their times. His insights contribute significantly to literary theory by challenging the boundaries between literary and non-literary genres, underscoring the letter as a site of creativity and intimacy that carries profound implications for understanding the development of narrative and epistolary fiction.

Summary of “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén

Conceptual Boundaries of Literariness and Letter Writing

Guillén explores how letters, while rooted in everyday communication, often exhibit qualities that border on literary art. He draws on historical examples to examine whether well-crafted letters could be seen as inherently “literary” (Guillén, p. 3).

Madame de Sévigné’s letters serve as an example, where her style-oriented approach emphasizes crafting an impression of truthfulness, blending stylistic elegance with authentic expression (Guillén, p. 1).

Literacy, Literariness, and Poeticity in Epistolary Writing

Guillén traces the evolution of epistolary genres, which he views as a continuum ranging from basic literacy to literariness and even poeticity. He discusses Garcia Berrio’s distinction between “literariness” as an intentional choice and “poeticity” as a symbolic value inherent to the writing process (Guillén, p. 2).

The ancient transition from oral to written communication represented a crucial shift that required adherence to societal conventions, reflecting both cultural values and personal expression (Nagy, p. 3).

The Role of Genre in Defining Literariness

Guillén underscores the importance of genre, noting that literary genres—like the familiar letter, verse epistle, and epistolary novel—evolve within historical contexts and shape their literariness. He argues that these forms adapt conventions to communicate deeply personal themes, such as love and friendship, as seen in Garcilaso de la Vega’s verse epistle to Boscán (Guillén, p. 14).

A genre-centered approach allows for appreciating the nuances of letters that navigate between personal sincerity and public literary value, evident in Cicero’s letters and their blend of personal philosophy with literary stylization (Guillén, p. 12).

Interplay of Fictionality and Epistolary Illusion

Guillén discusses the “fictional impulse” within letters, where even non-fictional writing can adopt literary techniques that imbue it with an aura of fictionality. This concept is demonstrated through Rousseau’s La Nouvelle Héloïse and Richardson’s Pamela, both of which use the letter format to craft immersive, narrative-driven experiences (Guillén, p. 19).

The Lettres Portugaises, often believed to be authentic, exemplifies the allure of epistolary fiction, where readers were captivated by the perceived sincerity of the letters, blurring the line between fiction and reality (Guillén, p. 20).

Historical Evolution and Literary Reflection in Letters

Guillén traces the role of letters from ancient Greek manuals to Renaissance works, noting how epistolary styles adapted to serve both practical and literary functions. Texts like Aretino’s letters broke with tradition by combining self-expression with structured spontaneity, influencing later European literary practices (Guillén, p. 16).

Petrarch’s collection of letters shows a conscious structuring that bridges everyday correspondence with the artistic aspirations of a unified narrative, reinforcing how letters evolved as vehicles of literary exploration (Guillén, p. 13).

Letters as Vehicles of Emotional and Social Commentary

Guillén emphasizes how letters express affection, friendship, and introspection. For instance, Donne’s letters to friends reflect an emotional and philosophical depth that positions the familiar letter as both a medium for intimate self-reflection and a piece of literary expression (Guillén, p. 22).

Guillén notes that Dr. Johnson’s view on letters illustrates the tension between expressing genuine emotion and crafting it for public reception, reflecting the delicate balance between private sentiment and literary flair in epistolary writing (Guillén, p. 5).

Conclusion: The Enduring Appeal of the Epistolary Form

Guillén concludes by highlighting the timelessness of letters as a literary form that lies “on the edge of literariness.” Even in their simplest forms, letters embody a blend of authenticity, style, and genre conventions that engage both personal and public audiences, making them a unique part of literary history (Guillén, p. 23).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén

Literary Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation in the Article
Literariness	The quality or characteristic of being literary or having literary value.	Guillén examines how letters, while rooted in practical communication, can exhibit elements of literary art, thus existing “on the edge of literariness” (Guillén, p. 3).
Epistolary Illusion	The concept that letters create an impression of authenticity and spontaneity, often blending fiction and reality.	Seen in works like Lettres Portugaises, where readers are led to believe in the sincerity of the letters, creating a blur between fiction and non-fiction (Guillén, p. 20).
Genre	A category of literary composition characterized by specific conventions and styles.	Guillén highlights the role of epistolary genres, including the familiar letter, verse epistle, and epistolary novel, which adapt conventions to suit emotional expression and communication (Guillén, p. 14).
Poeticity	The quality that brings out an imaginative, symbolic dimension in writing, going beyond literal meaning.	Based on Garcia Berrio’s concept, poeticity arises in letters when they express symbolic, often anthropological themes, making the writing resonate on multiple levels (Guillén, p. 2).
Fictionality	The constructed, imaginative aspect of a text that allows it to represent fictional events or realities.	Guillén notes how letters can contain a “fictional impulse,” where even personal correspondence may create fictionalized self-images and narratives (Guillén, p. 19).
Microlinguistic Analysis	A close examination of linguistic details, such as word choice and syntax, within a text.	Guillén discusses how such scrutiny may not always capture the full scope of meaning in letters, suggesting that genre and historical context also play crucial roles (Guillén, p. 3).
Formal Choices	Deliberate stylistic decisions made by the writer regarding structure, language, and genre conventions.	In letters, formal choices impact the tone and purpose; for instance, Petrarch’s structured collection of letters showcases how intentional organization enhances literariness (Guillén, p. 13).
Intersubjectivity	The shared understanding and connection between individuals, often emphasized in personal writing.	Guillén highlights that letters like those by Donne emphasize intersubjectivity, as the writer crafts a narrative for a specific recipient, fostering emotional and intellectual connection (Guillén, p. 22).
Brevitas	The quality of conciseness or brevity in writing.	A valued quality in epistolary writing, where writers often aim for clarity and brevity while conveying emotional depth, as in Ben Johnson’s verse epistles (Guillén, p. 11).
Self-Reflexivity	When a text reflects on its own creation, form, or status as a work of literature.	Seen in Donne’s letters, which not only convey friendship but also reflect on the nature of epistolary communication itself (Guillén, p. 9).
Monothematic Tradition	The focus on a single subject within a piece of writing, especially common in letters.	This tradition, emphasized by Aretino, allowed letters to explore a single theme deeply, creating an illusion of spontaneity despite meticulous planning (Guillén, p. 16).
Epistolary Form	The format and stylistic conventions of letter writing as a literary genre.	Guillén discusses the evolution of the epistolary form, which conveys intimacy and immediacy, even in structured, literary compositions like Richardson’s Pamela (Guillén, p. 19).
Conditional Literariness	The idea that some texts are considered literary based on their formal qualities and historical context.	Genette’s theory posits that works like historical texts or letters become literary not by nature but by readers’ appreciation of their style and form (Guillén, p. 18).
Sincerity in Expression	The appearance of genuine, heartfelt communication in writing, often sought in letters.	Guillén explains how letters, especially in familiar genres, prioritize an expression of true sentiment, creating an “illusion of truth” for readers, as with Marianne’s letters in Lettres Portugaises (Guillén, p. 1).
Rhetorical Style	The use of persuasive or decorative language to enhance the impact of writing.	Madame de Sévigné’s letters exemplify a rhetorical style that combines affectionate language with a crafted structure to engage her audience and convey credibility (Guillén, p. 1).
Theoretical Metalanguage	Language used to reflect on or critique the nature and function of a text itself.	Guillén notes how letters like those of Cicero incorporate theoretical musings on epistolary form and appropriateness, blending literary analysis with practical communication (Guillén, p. 10).
Illusion of Non-Fictionality	The perception that a fictional letter or novel is based in reality, often used to enhance authenticity.	In Lettres Portugaises, readers believed in the letters’ authenticity, a technique that later influenced epistolary novels, creating a blend of fictional narrative and realistic presentation (Guillén, p. 20).
Social Function of Letters	The role of letters in maintaining social norms and relationships, such as friendship and affection.	Guillén discusses how letters serve social functions, guided by norms of courteous expression, thus enabling the cultivation of interpersonal relationships, as seen in Petrarch’s collection (Guillén, p. 22).

Contribution of “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén to Literary Theory/Theories

Literary Theory	Contribution	References
Theory of Literariness	Guillén differentiates between literariness, poeticity, and literacy, establishing a continuum of communication that illustrates how letters can embody literary qualities while remaining functional forms of communication. He posits that literariness is a conscious choice by writers.	“The epistolary process of communication can be viewed as moving along a continuum that may reach or shift or combine three main levels or categories of achievement: literacy, literariness, and poeticity.” (p. 2)
Epistolary Theory	The article underscores the epistolary genre’s historical development, from ancient rhetorical training to modern expressions. Guillén discusses how letters have been influenced by literary conventions while maintaining their unique communicative purposes.	“A letter should be written rather more carefully than a dialogue. Dialogue imitates impromptu conversation, whereas a letter is a piece of writing and is sent someone as a kind of gift.” (p. 10)
Poetics of Communication	Guillén emphasizes the communicative aspect of letters, suggesting that their primary function is to convey personal sentiments and establish relationships. This highlights the social dynamics at play within the epistolary form and how letters serve as a medium for both personal and public expression.	“The principal message then is the act of communication itself or the will-to-communication.” (p. 9)
Genre Studies	The article positions letters within the context of literary genres, discussing how they interact with and are influenced by established forms like poetry and prose. Guillén argues for a nuanced understanding of genre that recognizes the blending of literary and non-literary aspects in letters.	“Literary genre has been the combat zone in illlo tempore, the locus of choice, tension, and encounter between the writer and the genres embodied in models.” (p. 12)
Rhetorical Theory	By analyzing the rhetorical strategies employed in letters, Guillén points out how authors like Cicero and Madame de Sévigné shaped their correspondence to reflect specific styles and audiences, illustrating the blend of formality and personal touch in epistolary writing.	“The beauty of a letter is in the expression of affection and courtesy.” (p. 10)
Narrative Theory	Guillén explores the fictional elements of letters, discussing how even non-fictional correspondence can possess narrative qualities. He highlights how letters can create self-constructed identities for the writers, merging fiction with reality and exploring the fluidity of self-representation.	“To compose a letter may lead the writer toward fiction before he even begins to approach literature.” (p. 5)
Self-Reflexivity in Writing	The article discusses how letters often reflect on their own status and function, leading to an awareness of their literary qualities. Guillén connects this reflexivity with the broader tradition of letters in literature, positioning it as a space for both personal and theoretical exploration.	“The more the letter writer enters the regions of literariness the more he frets and worries about what he is doing.” (p. 9)
Theoretical Metalanguage	Guillén engages with the concept of a theoretical metalanguage, emphasizing how authors reflect on their own writing processes and styles, thus creating a critical discourse around the act of letter writing itself.	“The rich tradition of the theory of the letter makes its appearance in all the epistolary genres since Greece and Rome.” (p. 9)

Examples of Critiques Through “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén

Literary Work	Critique Through Guillén’s Framework	Relevant Aspects from Guillén
Lettres Portugaises by Guilleragues	Guillén examines the illusion of nonfictionality in Lettres Portugaises, where the protagonist’s passionate letters create a fictionalized world while still appearing personal and authentic. The epistolary form enhances the emotional realism, bridging fiction and lived experience.	“The epistolary illusion of non-fictionality” allows for a unique narrative that appears to be genuine correspondence while subtly blurring fiction and reality. (p. 19)
La Nouvelle Héloïse by Jean-Jacques Rousseau	Guillén critiques how Rousseau’s epistolary novel embodies genre-specific literariness, using letters to convey inner emotional landscapes that reflect on societal ideals and personal conflicts. The novel illustrates Rousseau’s exploration of love and morality through letter-writing as a narrative device.	Guillén describes how the epistolary novel uniquely reflects both private sentiment and public moral debates, offering intimate yet socially reflective storytelling. (p. 18)
Pamela by Samuel Richardson	Pamela utilizes letters to give readers access to the protagonist’s private thoughts, embodying Guillén’s idea of the blurred line between fiction and reality. Richardson’s letters generate an authentic voice, inviting readers to experience the character’s personal growth as authentic communication.	Guillén discusses how letters can appear “natural and convincing” while creating fictional self-image and events within the daily reality. (p. 7)
Letters to Atticus by Cicero	Cicero’s letters are critiqued for their historical and rhetorical qualities; Guillén analyzes how these letters establish a complex dynamic between personal reflection and public discourse, showing how letters reveal private perspectives while engaging in broader philosophical debates.	Guillén emphasizes the duality of letters as both personal reflections and public statements, highlighting the genre’s complex balance of privacy and audience. (p. 10)

Criticism Against “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén

Overemphasis on Literariness and Formal Structure
Guillén’s focus on “literariness” and formal qualities may overlook the emotional and cultural functions of letter-writing, limiting the analysis to structural aspects rather than thematic depth or historical context.
Insufficient Attention to Non-Western Epistolary Traditions
The study largely centers on Western epistolary genres, neglecting the rich letter-writing traditions in other cultures, which might offer alternative perspectives on literariness and genre.
Assumption of a Clear Boundary Between Fiction and Nonfiction
Guillén suggests a “razor’s edge” between fact and fiction, but this binary may be overly simplistic, especially given the complex ways letters can blend personal truth and artistic expression.

Neglect of Reader-Response Dynamics
Guillén focuses on the writer’s intent and stylistic choices, but does not deeply explore how readers interpret and interact with letters, particularly in cases where letters are read as private communications or as public texts.
Limited Engagement with Contemporary Theoretical Perspectives
While Guillén references figures like Genette and Derrida, the piece might lack engagement with more contemporary theories of epistolary studies or digital media, which could offer fresh insights into literariness in letter writing.
Idealization of the Epistolary Genre’s Aesthetic Value
Guillén’s analysis sometimes assumes an inherent aesthetic or literary value in the epistolary form, potentially overlooking how some letters function primarily as pragmatic or utilitarian communications, rather than as literary expressions.

Lack of Interdisciplinary Approach
The study could benefit from an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates psychology, sociology, or anthropology to enrich understanding of the personal and relational dimensions of letters beyond their literary qualities.

Representative Quotations from “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters” by Claudio Guillén with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literariness is an option to which the writer and the reader may commit themselves from the beginning.“	Guillén highlights the concept of “literariness” as a conscious choice in the writing and reading of letters, underscoring that letters can be crafted with literary intention rather than serving as mere practical communication.
“A letter should be written rather more carefully than a dialogue.“	This quote points to the unique stylistic requirements of letter writing, suggesting that letters demand a deliberate tone and structure that goes beyond casual conversation, marking their distinct literary potential.
“The epistolary process of communication can be viewed as moving along a continuum…“	Guillén introduces the idea of letters existing on a continuum from mere literacy to high levels of literariness and poeticity, emphasizing the fluid, dynamic nature of letters within literary theory.
“The writing of letters as a practical task, unmindful of literature, immersed in daily life…“	Here, Guillén discusses how letter writing often operates outside literary intentions, embedded in everyday practices, but has the potential to cross into literariness through style, purpose, or emotional weight.
“There is hardly an act in our daily experience…as likely as the writing of a letter to propel us toward inventiveness and transformation of fact.“	Guillén suggests that letters naturally encourage imaginative and interpretative transformations, serving as a bridge between personal expression and fiction.
“This convergence of privacy and publicity is not an exclusive feature of literary letters.“	This quote reflects on the dual nature of letters as both personal, private acts and potential public documents, a trait that adds complexity to their literary analysis and understanding.
“The letter does not offer all-enveloping alternative environments as a narrative will…“	Guillén contrasts letters with narrative forms, suggesting that letters create fictional elements within everyday reality rather than crafting entirely fictional worlds, thus positioning them uniquely in literary theory.
“What pretends to be available for reading by that second person is actually reread…by another public at another point in historical time.“	This illustrates how letters, though written for a specific recipient, are often recontextualized by different readers, giving them layers of meaning that evolve with time and audience.
“There is a norm that we encounter in practically all writings in the itinerary of the theory of the letter: the need for brevitas.“	Guillén emphasizes “brevitas” (brevity) as a guiding principle in letter writing, suggesting that conciseness is often valued in letters and serves as an aesthetic element marking their literary quality.
“The literariness of the familiar letter, arising as it does from everyday non-literary writing, poses the most difficult problems.“	Guillén addresses the challenge of defining the literariness of personal letters, as they straddle the line between practical and aesthetic purposes, making them complex subjects for literary categorization.

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

“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.

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.