Lines on feeling: foregrounding,aesthetics and meaning

Abstract

Research in experimental aesthetics suggests a relation between complexity and novelty on the one hand and hedonic value on the other (Berlyne, 1980). Defining foregrounding as deviation from daily language, the concept seems closely associated with novelty, and therefore a relation may be expected between the degree of deviation and readers' aesthetic appreciation. Also, deviation is assumed to be the key to understanding style, and leads readers in their interpretation of a text. These hypotheses are confirmed by recent evidence (Miall and Kuiken, 1994; Hakemulder, 2004; Zyngier, van Peer and Hakemulder, in press). The present study aims to enhance control over potential factors, refining the assessment of readers' background variables, and excluding interference of text factors other than deviation. For this purpose six versions of one poetry line were written, with an ascending degree of foregrounding from the first to the sixth line. More than 300 participants were assigned randomly to a total of 13 groups. Some read one of the six lines of a poem. To other groups, adjacent lines were presented hierarchically or in a large difference in degree of foregrounding (four lines apart in the hierarchy). Participants evaluated the single line they had been assigned to, or compared their two lines on a number of items measuring aesthetic appreciation, evaluation of aesthetic structure, and perceived cognitive, emotive, social and attitudinal impact. In addition, they completed a questionnaire on reading habits. It was hypothesized that higher degrees of deviation would lead to higher scores on these measures. Part of the predictions was confirmed by the results.

Keywords

aesthetic appreciation deviation discourse analysis emotional impact of style empirical research evaluation interpretation novelty style stylistics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berlyne, D.E. (1980) `Psychological Aesthetics', in H. C. Triandis and W. Lonner (eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 323—61. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Carter, R. (1999) `Common Language: Corpus, Creativity and Cognition ', Language and Literature 8(3): 195—216.

Carter, R. (2004) Language and Creativity. London : Routledge.

Corbett, E.P.J. and Connors, R.J. (1999) Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dixon, P. , Bortolussi, M. , Twilley, L.C. and Leung, A. (1993) `Literary Processing and Interpretation: Towards Empirical Foundations', Poetics 22: 5—33.

Fialho, O. and Zyngier, S. (in preparation) `Revisiting Phonetic Iconicity', in S. Zyngier and A. Chesnokova (eds) REDES International Publication. Münster: LIT.

Fowler, R. (1980) Linguistic Criticism. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Hakemulder, J. (2004) `Foregrounding and its Effect on Readers' Perception ', Discourse Processes 38: 193—218.

Hoorn, J. (1997) `Electronical Evidence for the Anomaly Theory of Metaphor Processing: A Brief Introduction,' in S. Tötösy de Zepetnek and I. Sywensky (eds) The Systematic and Empirical Approach to Literature and Culture as Theory and Application, pp. 67—74. Edmonton: University of Alberta.

10.

Hoorn, J. (2001) `A Renaissance Perspective on the Empirical Study of Literature', in D. Schram and G. Steen (eds) The Psychology and Sociology of Literature, pp. 129—43. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

11.

Jakobson, R. (1960) `Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics', in T. A. Sebeok (ed.) Style and Language, pp. 350—77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

12.

Kuiken, D. , Miall, D.S. and Sikora, S. (2004) `Forms of Self-implication in Literary Reading ', Poetics Today 25(2): 171—203.

13.

Leech, G.N. (1970) `“This Bread I Break”: Language and Interpretation', in D. C. Freeman (ed.) Linguistics and Literary Style, pp. 119—28. New York: Holt, Rineheart and Winston.

14.

McIntyre, D. (2005) `Using Foregrounding Theory as a Teaching Methodology in a Stylistics Course', Style 37(1): 1—13.

15.

McQuarrie, E.F. (2005) `Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language', available online at: http://lsb.scu.edu/~emcquarrie/rhetjcr.htm (accessed 29 November 2005).

16.

Miall, D.S. (2001) `Sound of Contrast: An Empirical Approach to Phonetic Iconicity', Poetics 29: 55—70.

17.

Miall, D.S. and Kuiken, D. (1994) `Foregrounding, Defamiliarization, and Affect: Response to Literary Stories', Poetics 22: 389—407.

18.

Shklovsky, V. (1965[1917]) `Art as technique', in L. T. Lemon and M. J. Reis (eds and trans), Russian Formalist Criticism: Four essays, pp. 3—24. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

19.

Short, M.H. (1996) Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose . London: Longman.

20.

Van Peer, W. (1986) Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations of Foregrounding . London: Croom Helm.

21.

Van Peer, W., Zyngier, S. and Hakemulder, J. (in press) `Foregrounding: Past, Present, Future', in David Hoover (ed.) Prospect and Retrospect: Papers from the Poetics and Linguistics Association International Conference, New York 2004. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

22.

Wiseman, M. and W. van Peer (2002) `The Sound of Meaning. A Study in Phonetic Iconiticy ', in J. Zerkowitz and S. Csábi (eds) Textual Secrets, pp. 379—83. Budapest: Eötvos Lórand University Press.

23.

Wiseman, M. and van Peer, W. (2003) `Roman Jakobsons Konzept der Selbstreferenz aus der Perspektive der heutigen Kognitionswissenschaft' (Roman Jakobson's concept of self-reference from the perspective of present-day cognitive science), in H. Birus , S. Donat and B. Meyer-Sickendiek (eds) Roman Jakobsons Gedichtanalysen. Eine Herausforderung an die Philologien (Roman Jakobson's Analyses of Poetry: A Challenge to Philologies) , pp. 277—307. Munich: Wallstein Verlag.

24.

Zyngier, S. (1994) `At the Crossroads of Language and Literature: Literary Awareness, Stylistics, and the Acquisition of Literary Skills in an EFLit Context', unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK.

25.

Zyngier, S. , van Peer, W. and Hakmulder, J. (in press) `Complexity and Foregrounding: In the Eye of the Beholder ?' Poetics Today.