“What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken

“What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall and Don Kuiken first appeared in the 1999 issue of Discourse Processes, published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, and later made available online by Routledge in November 2009. This foundational article challenges prevailing views in literary theory by arguing that literariness—qualities making a text distinctly “literary”—cannot simply be reduced to general discourse processing or postmodern interpretations that dissolve literary distinctiveness. Instead, Miall and Kuiken propose a three-part model of literary reading, which includes stylistic or narrative foregrounding, the defamiliarizing effect on readers, and a subsequent transformation of personal meanings. This framework underscores that literary texts elicit unique cognitive and affective responses, distinguishing them from non-literary texts. By emphasizing the psychological shifts prompted by literature, this model not only contributes to theoretical discussions of what makes a text “literary” but also asserts the transformative power of literature on readers’ perspectives. The work has significant implications in literary studies and empirical psychology, highlighting the intricate interactions between text and reader that shape literary experiences beyond conventional interpretative paradigms.

Summary of “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken

• Challenge to Conventional Literary Theory
  • The article questions traditional views, particularly those of postmodern theory and cognitive psychology, that do not recognize unique processes in literary reading. Miall and Kuiken argue that literature contains distinct features not found in other texts, countering perspectives that view all texts as processed similarly (Miall & Kuiken, 1999). They propose that “literariness” is rooted in unique responses provoked by reading literature, rather than being reducible to general discourse functions (Miall & Kuiken, 1999).
• Three Components of Literariness
  • Miall and Kuiken propose three critical components in literary reading: foregrounding of stylistic elements, defamiliarization in readers’ experience, and personal transformation in response to the text. Foregrounding involves stylistic and narrative elements that deviate from regular language use and capture attention. These features create a sense of “defamiliarization,” where familiar perceptions are altered, prompting readers to reflect and reshape their understanding. Finally, this process can lead to transformative personal insights (Miall & Kuiken, 1999).
• Empirical Basis for the Model
  • Through empirical studies, Miall and Kuiken demonstrate the effect of foregrounding on reading time and emotional response. For example, passages high in stylistic distinctiveness, such as metaphors and archaic language, are read more slowly and provoke stronger emotional responses, supporting the presence of literariness as a measurable phenomenon (Miall & Kuiken, 1994b).
• Foregrounding and Defamiliarization
  • The first component, foregrounding, involves linguistic and narrative structures that disrupt ordinary expectations, leading to defamiliarization, a state where conventional meanings are questioned. This effect allows literature to reveal new perspectives or feelings in readers. For instance, a metaphor or unique descriptive language can make readers re-evaluate ordinary scenes, fostering a deeper engagement with the text (Miall & Kuiken, 1999).
• Personal Transformation Through Literary Reading
  • The third component emphasizes how literary reading can lead to profound personal insights. As readers encounter and process defamiliarizing elements, they often experience a transformation in their worldview or emotions, distinguishing literary reading from other forms. This process of insight is influenced by individual psychological factors and is central to the experience of literariness (Miall & Kuiken, 1994a).
• Impact on Literary Theory and Critique
  • This model has implications for literary criticism by suggesting that readers’ personal and affective responses play a crucial role in understanding literature. The authors challenge views that see literary value as entirely subjective, instead showing that certain text features reliably provoke responses across different readers (Smith, 1988).
• Contrasts with Other Theories of Reading
  • The authors contrast their approach with cognitive and discourse processing theories, which typically overlook the unique cognitive and emotional engagement prompted by literature. They argue that literariness involves more than the construction of situation models, as typically studied in narrative comprehension, positing instead that literature evokes deeper psychological transformations (Zwaan, Magliano, & Graesser, 1995).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken

Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation in Context
Literariness	The quality or distinctive characteristic that makes a text literary.	Miall and Kuiken define literariness as a unique mode of reading characterized by foregrounding, defamiliarization, and transformation.
Foregrounding	Use of stylistic and narrative features that deviate from ordinary language or norms, drawing readers’ attention.	Foregrounding in literary texts includes distinctive metaphors, archaic words, and unusual syntax that make readers pause and reflect on meaning.
Defamiliarization	The effect of making familiar concepts appear strange or new, encouraging deeper reflection.	Readers encounter unexpected phrasing or imagery that disrupts habitual perceptions, creating a sense of newness and prompting reinterpretation.
Personal Transformation	The change in readers’ personal feelings, perspectives, or self-conceptions after engaging with a text.	Through engagement with literary features, readers may experience shifts in their worldview or understanding of themselves.
Situation Model	A mental representation of the events, characters, and setting in a narrative, typically used in discourse processing theory.	The authors contrast this with literary reading, arguing that situation models do not account for the unique interpretive transformations in literary texts.
Affective Response	Emotional reactions triggered by reading, often linked to specific text features like foregrounding.	Empirical studies cited by the authors show that affective responses, such as feeling “struck” by text, are core to the experience of literariness.
Interpretive Community	Concept by Stanley Fish referring to groups of readers who share norms for interpreting texts.	Miall and Kuiken address how interpretive communities influence readings but emphasize individual transformations in literary engagement.
Free Indirect Discourse	A narrative technique that allows readers to access a character’s internal thoughts and feelings without direct narration.	Free indirect discourse is cited as one of many devices that can enhance foregrounding, adding depth to readers’ emotional engagement.
Schema Refreshment	A reconfiguration or update of mental frameworks (schemas) as new information is processed, especially through literary defamiliarization.	The authors argue that literariness involves refreshing schemas by challenging preconceived ideas through stylistic disruptions.
Empirical Study of Literature	A research approach involving systematic observation and analysis of readers’ responses to literary texts.	Miall and Kuiken base their argument on empirical studies, measuring reader responses to literary elements such as foregrounding and defamiliarization.
Enactive Reading	A mode of reading where the reader actively “lives through” the experience of the characters or scenes in the text.	The concept describes how some readers experience the text viscerally, connecting personal memories or emotions to the narrative.
Psychobiological Inheritance	The natural, innate human capacity for emotion and self-perception that influences literary response.	The authors propose that literariness draws on basic human tendencies for emotional engagement and self-reflection.

Contribution of “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken to Literary Theory/Theories

• Challenging Cognitive Psychology’s Discourse Processing Theory
  • Miall and Kuiken argue that cognitive theories of discourse processing, which often subsume literary understanding into general reading processes, fail to account for the unique, affective responses characteristic of literary reading. By proposing that literary texts evoke distinct emotional and cognitive engagement, they challenge the “situation model” approach, which emphasizes cognitive coherence over emotional response (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 122).
• Expansion of Russian Formalism and Defamiliarization
  • Building on Russian Formalism, particularly Viktor Shklovsky’s concept of “defamiliarization,” Miall and Kuiken empirically validate the idea that literature disrupts ordinary perceptions and prompts readers to re-evaluate familiar ideas. Their research provides empirical evidence for defamiliarization as an essential element of literariness, showing how stylistic foregrounding unsettles readers’ conventional understanding (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 123).
• Foregrounding as a Unique Feature of Literariness in Stylistics
  • The authors build on stylistic theories, including those by Leech and Short, by defining foregrounding as a stylistic marker that provokes readers’ attention and enhances affective engagement. This contribution establishes foregrounding not just as a stylistic element but as a key feature that distinguishes literary texts from other forms (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 124).
• New Insights into Reader-Response Theory
  • Miall and Kuiken’s work extends reader-response theory by detailing how readers’ personal transformation through literature results from specific text features, such as foregrounding and defamiliarization. Unlike traditional reader-response approaches, which often emphasize subjective interpretation alone, they empirically investigate how text-induced psychological responses facilitate individual transformation (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 125).
• Redefining the Role of Feeling in Hermeneutics and Literary Understanding
  • By highlighting the role of affective response, Miall and Kuiken’s model emphasizes the interpretive importance of emotions in reading, diverging from hermeneutic theories that prioritize intellectual engagement. Their research suggests that feeling, as a vehicle for personal transformation, is crucial in reading, aligning literary interpretation with psychological insight (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 130).
• Critique of Postmodern Relativism in Literary Value
  • Miall and Kuiken critique postmodern theorists like Barbara Herrnstein Smith, who argue that literary value is culturally relative and imposed by social authorities. By providing evidence of consistent reader responses to foregrounding and defamiliarization across cultural contexts, they contend that literariness has inherent features that evoke universal patterns of response, thereby resisting purely relativistic views (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 126).
• Empirical Validation of the Aesthetic Experience in Literary Theory
  • This article offers an empirical framework for studying the aesthetics of reading, positing that literariness involves measurable changes in readers’ affective and cognitive states. The findings suggest that the aesthetic experience in reading is characterized by a distinctive mode of engagement, contributing to theories of literary aesthetics by providing a model grounded in empirical data (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 136).
• Advancing the Concept of Schema Refreshment in Cognitive Literary Studies
  • The authors introduce “schema refreshment,” a term for how defamiliarization in literature can update readers’ cognitive frameworks or schemas. This concept advances cognitive literary studies by illustrating how literary reading prompts an adaptive re-evaluation of conventional perceptions, driven by the distinct features of literariness (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 135).

Examples of Critiques Through “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken

Literary Work	Critique Through Miall & Kuiken’s Model	Explanation
Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Nightingale”	Foregrounding and Defamiliarization in Time Perception	The poem’s metaphorical language, such as “sunken day” and “no relique,” disrupts typical perceptions of time, creating a “nothing time” where ordinary concepts dissolve. Readers experience a heightened engagement as they search for meaning in the altered imagery, a key aspect of defamiliarization (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 123).
Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”	Foregrounded Themes of Guilt and Fate	Readers encounter stylistic and narrative foregrounding, such as the repeated references to “fiend” and the image of the Mariner haunted by guilt. This defamiliarization prompts readers to personally reflect on themes of fate and inevitability, transforming conventional notions of guilt and consequence into profound, personal insights (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 135).
Elizabeth Bowen’s “The Demon Lover”	Foregrounding and Temporal Disruption	Bowen’s use of stylistic foregrounding, such as repetitive sounds and metaphor in phrases like “stopped dead,” creates a sense of unease and suspension of time. This defamiliarization challenges readers’ standard temporal understanding, evoking fear and uncertainty—emotions that contribute to the story’s impact and exemplify Miall & Kuiken’s model (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 129).
Sean O’Faolain’s “The Trout”	Personal Transformation Through Enactive Reading	The narrative foregrounds sensory descriptions of the trout’s environment, prompting readers to live through the character Julia’s experience. Through defamiliarized imagery, readers engage in an enactive reading process, transforming their perspective on themes of life and freedom, illustrating Miall and Kuiken’s component of reader transformation (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 131).

Criticism Against “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken

• Overemphasis on Empirical Evidence
  • Critics may argue that Miall and Kuiken’s reliance on empirical studies to measure affective responses limits the scope of literary theory, reducing complex interpretive experiences to quantifiable data. This empirical focus may overlook the nuances and subjective nature of individual literary interpretations.
• Neglect of Cultural and Social Contexts
  • By emphasizing universal affective responses, Miall and Kuiken’s model may fail to account for how cultural, historical, and social contexts shape readers’ interpretations and emotional responses, which could challenge their claim of consistent patterns across readers.
• Incompatibility with Postmodern Theory
  • Postmodern critics could argue that Miall and Kuiken’s notion of inherent literariness contradicts theories that view literary value as culturally constructed and fluid. Their model implies an essential quality of literariness, which postmodernists like Barbara Herrnstein Smith would see as problematic.
• Simplification of Literary Aesthetics
  • The model’s focus on foregrounding, defamiliarization, and personal transformation may be seen as oversimplifying literary aesthetics, potentially ignoring other aspects of literary art, such as symbolic complexity, intertextuality, and irony, which also contribute to literariness.
• Limited Engagement with Reader Diversity
  • While Miall and Kuiken emphasize personal transformation, critics could contend that they inadequately address the diversity of readers’ backgrounds, interests, and reading purposes, which can result in different levels of engagement and interpretation beyond the proposed model.
• Potential Reduction of Literature to Psychological Processes
  • Some critics might argue that by focusing on affective and cognitive processes, Miall and Kuiken risk reducing literature to psychological phenomena, which may ignore the intrinsic aesthetic and artistic value of the text itself.

Representative Quotations from “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literariness is constituted when stylistic or narrative variations defamiliarize conventionally understood referents and prompt reinterpretive transformations of a conventional feeling or concept.” (p. 123)	This statement defines Miall and Kuiken’s concept of literariness, emphasizing how literature disrupts conventional ideas through stylistic features, leading to a rethinking of familiar concepts.
“Foregrounding occurs when linguistic elements or features deviate from the norms of everyday language.” (p. 124)	Here, the authors explain foregrounding, a central feature of literariness, where linguistic deviations attract attention and prompt deeper engagement with the text.
“Defamiliarization unsettles readers’ habitual perceptions, making the familiar seem strange and thought-provoking.” (p. 123)	Miall and Kuiken argue that defamiliarization in literature challenges readers’ usual perspectives, encouraging them to reconsider what they know or assume.
“The process of change initiated by literary texts is a distinctive form of psychological transformation.” (p. 125)	The authors propose that engaging with literature results in psychological transformation, a unique and defining feature of literariness.
“The experience of feeling ‘struck’ by a literary phrase or image indicates that foregrounding is at work.” (p. 127)	This quote highlights how readers’ emotional reactions, like feeling “struck,” are responses to foregrounded elements in the text, pointing to a key effect of literariness.
“Personal transformation occurs when readers reinterpret and modify conventional feelings or concepts.” (p. 130)	Miall and Kuiken describe how reading literature leads to personal transformation, where readers’ understanding and emotions shift as they engage with the text.
“Literary response…plays a critical role in alerting us to alternative perspectives on ourselves and our social and natural environments.” (p. 126)	The authors assert that literary reading enhances self-awareness and broadens perspectives on social and environmental contexts, demonstrating literature’s impact beyond individual experience.
“The model of literary reading we propose resists reduction to general discourse processing theories.” (p. 122)	Miall and Kuiken challenge general theories of discourse processing, arguing that literary reading involves unique processes that cannot be fully explained by standard cognitive models.
“Foregrounding may be evident within molar narrative structures, through devices that provide shifts in point of view.” (p. 124)	This statement extends foregrounding to narrative structures, showing how shifts in point of view and other narrative techniques also contribute to the experience of literariness.
“Empirical studies indicate that feeling is the primary vehicle for the search for meaning in response to literary texts.” (p. 134)	Miall and Kuiken emphasize the role of emotion in literary interpretation, arguing that feelings drive readers’ engagement with and understanding of the text, a foundation for their empirical approach to studying literariness.

Suggested Readings: “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken

1. Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “What is literariness? Three components of literary reading.” Discourse processes 28.2 (1999): 121-138.
2. 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 9 Nov. 2024.
3. Zamora, Margarita. “Historicity and Literariness: Problems in the Literary Criticism of Spanish American Colonial Texts.” MLN, vol. 102, no. 2, 1987, pp. 334–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2905693. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.
4. Ramchand, Kenneth. “West Indian Literary History: Literariness, Orality and Periodization.” Callaloo, no. 34, 1988, pp. 95–110. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2931112. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.

•