Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article offers a critical response to the proposal made by Jonathan Gottschall (2008), and discussed sympathetically in a review article for this journal (Francis 2010), for a more ‘scientific’ approach to the study of literature. A critical examination of evolutionary psychology, the particular scientific approach which underpins Gottschall’s own work on folk tales, is followed by a broader consideration of what ‘scientific’ might mean in relation to literature, asking how far it is either possible or desirable to apply the methods and evaluative metrics of science in other areas of scholarly endeavour. It is argued that there are good reasons for linguists and literary scholars to maintain the theoretical and methodological pluralism that has characterized their fields in the past

Keywords

cognitivism evolution evolutionary psychology gender literary studies scientific method social constructionism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barkow J , Cosmides L and Tooby J , eds (1992) The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baron-Cohen S. ( 2003) The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain. London: Allen Lane.

Bickerton D. ( 2006) Language-use, not language, is what develops in childhood and adolescence. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 29(3): 281.

Cameron D. (2010) Sex/gender, language and the new biologism. Applied Linguistics 31(2): 173-192.

Carroll J. ( 2007) Evolutionary approaches to literature and drama. In: Dunbar R and Barrett L (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology . Oxford: Oxford University Press , 637-648.

Dunbar R. ( 1996) Gossip, Grooming and the Evolution of Language. London: Faber & Faber.

Francis N. (2010) A modest proposal for a reorientation in literary studies. Language and Literature 19(3): 305-317.

Gottschall J. ( 2008) Literature, Science and the New Humanities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gottschall J. (2010) Evolutionary literary studies: A foreword to Norbert Francis’s review article ‘A modest proposal’, Language and Literature 19(3): 301-304.

10.

James D. and Drakich J. ( 1993) Understanding gender differences in amount of talk. In: Tannen D (ed.) Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press, 281-312.

11.

Joseph R. ( 2000) The evolution of sex differences in language, sexuality and visual-spatial skills. Archives of Sexual Behavior 29(1): 35-66.

12.

Kimura D. ( 1999) Sex and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

13.

Labov W. ( 1972) The logic of nonstandard English. In: Giglioli P P (ed.) Language and Social Context . Harmondsworth: Penguin, 179-215.

14.

Locke J. and Bogin B. ( 2006) Language and life-history: A new perspective on the evolution and development of human language. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 29(3): 259-280.

15.

Mehl M. R, Vazire S. , Ramírez-Esparza N. , Slatcher R.B. and Pennebaker J.W. ( 2007) Are women really more talkative than men? Science 317: 82.

16.

Miller G. ( 2000) The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature. New York: Doubleday .

17.

Pinker S. ( 2002) The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. London: Allen Lane.

Evolution,science and the study of literature: A critical response

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References