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. |
Suggested Readings: “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken
- Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness.” Poetics 25.6 (1998): 327-341.
- Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 10 Nov. 2024.
- Hartman, Geoffrey H. “On Traumatic Knowledge and Literary Studies.” New Literary History, vol. 26, no. 3, 1995, pp. 537–63. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057300. Accessed 10 Nov. 2024.
- Zamora, Margarita. “Historicity and Literariness: Problems in the Literary Criticism of Spanish American Colonial Texts.” MLN, vol. 102, no. 2, 1987, pp. 334–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2905693. Accessed 10 Nov. 2024.