Cognitive Poetics

8. 1. Roots and Margins

8. 2. Beyond Reader Response Theory
8. 3. Stylistics and Rhetoric Revisited
8. 4. Cognitive ScienceMore or ess
8. !. "vervie#
1. 1. Roots and Margins
$% cognitive science has its roots in anthropology& philosophy& ne'roscience and ne'rology&
co(p'ter science and arti%icial intelligence& it has also gro#n to )e ('ch inde)ted to
psychology and ling'istics and also ('ch involved in literary st'dies& #ith stylistics&
prag(atics& se(antics and lang'age st'dies in general as %avorite %ields o% investigation.
Most o% the contri)'tions that have deter(ined the develop(ent o% s'ch a discipline co(e
%ro( (etaphor theory& stylistics& and narratology& and o#e very ('ch to s'ch (ore
speciali*ed investigations as i(age sche(as +a,o%% and -ohnson 1.8/& 1.80& 1../& 1..1&
1...& angac,er 1.80& 1../& 1..1& Shan, 1 2)elson 1.003 or )lending theory +4a'connier
1.8!& 4a'connier and T'rner 2//2& #ith their (ental space theory3& to dei5is& sche(a
poetics and %ra(es +Stoc,#ell 2//23& the %ig're6gro'nd distinction& prototypes +Rosch 1.88
and a,o%% 1.803 or to the description o% te5t #orlds +Pa'l 7erth 1...3.
This is& o% co'rse& ('ch (ore than #e can cover in this space& so o'r presentation
since the do(ain o% cognitive poetics is %ar %ro( )eing very #ell de%ined& and ('ch less
clearly circ'(scri)ed#e #ill con%ine o'rselves to introd'cing t#o positions +that
so(eti(es see( to )e in disagree(ent3Peter Stoc,#ell8s +#ho thin,s hi(sel% that
9cognitive poetics& the application o% cognitive science to ill'(inate the st'dy o% literary
reading& is (at'ring as a discipline&: 9Cognitive Poetics and iterary Theory&: #e) article3
and Re'ven Ts'r8s& #ith ;avid Miall and others in<)et#een.
8. 2. Beyond Reader Response Theory
The a)ove state(ent %ro( Stoc,#ell9to ill'(inate the st'dy o% literary reading:
already points o't that cognitive poetics is )asicallyand %or the ti(e )einga poetics o%
the reading processes and the #ay a'diences +4ish8s 9interpretive co(('nities:3 respond
to literary te5ts& so(ething that -a'ss& 4ish again& and $ser had e5plored in their reader
response investigations. Th's #e are still at the end o% the reception stage in the process o%
literary co(('nication& #ith creativity still in the )ac,gro'nd and at so(e distance too.
Re'ven Ts'r#ho (ay )e the %irst to have 'sed the concept o% 9cognitive poetics&: as
%ar )ac, as the nineteen<si5tiesad(its %ro( the very )eginning that the disciplines o%
literary criticis(& literary history& ling'istics and aesthetics are still very ('ch to )e ta,en
acco'nt o%= one o% the pro)le(s that #e #ill enco'nter again and again is #here #e dra#
the line )et#een cognitive poetics and interpretation& and Ts'r does not prove to )e o%
('ch help here> cognitive poetics& he anno'nces& 9atte(pts to %ind o't ho# poetic lang'age
and %or(& or the critic8s decisions& are constrained and shaped )y h'(an in%or(ation
processing&: or ho# one can acco'nt %or the relationship )et#een the str'ct're o% literary
te5ts and their perceived e%%ects. +#e) page3 ?is )oo, To#ard a Theory o% Cognitive
Poetics +1..23 atte(pts& as a (atter o% %act& to ill'(inate the aspects o% poetic str'ct're on
a #ide variety o% strata and %ro( ('ltiple angles> the so'nd strat'( o% poetry& the 'nits<o%<
(eaning strat'(& and the #orld strat'(& #ith literary theory& once again& period style&
stylistic typology& archetypal patterns& genre& etc. in the )ac,gro'nd. arge sections are
devoted to poetry and altered states o% conscio'sness and to another ne# concept& that o%
the i(plied critic +side )y side #ith the older i(plied a'thor and i(plied reader3 and his
(ental dictionary.
"ne o% Ts'r8s (ain ass'(ptions is ne'ropsychological in nat're and origin> lang'age is
a predo(inantly se@'ential activity& o% a logical character& and as s'ch is ,no#n to )e
associated #ith the le%t he(isphere o% the )rain= on the other hand& the e(otional processes
that poetry is s'pposed to and does stir are rep'tedly placed in the right he(isphere. Th's
the @'estion isand he proposes several case st'diesho# e(otional @'alities can )e
conveyed )y poetry= so& the e%%ects o% poetry once again& and the Ao) o% the cognitive
poetician is to relate these e%%ect to partic'lar %eat'res and reg'larities that occ'r in the
literary te5ts. 2nd so the interest %alls on the cognitive correlates o% poetic processes #hich
incl'de the nor(al cognitive processes +that #ere 9initially:di%%ic'lt concept here
evolved in poetry %or non<aesthetic p'rposes& )'t rather historical& c'lt'ral& ethical& etc.3& a
(odi%ication o% these processes )y %eelings and e(otions aro'sed d'ring reading +or
creatingBpoetry as 9e(otion recollected in tran@'ility:3& and their reorgani*ation
according to ne# principles. $% one pays care%'l attention& the point here is still dependent
on the interpreta)ility o% poetic lang'age& #ith a partic'lar e(phasis 'pon the di%%'se
nat're o% e(otions and the %act that they are associated #ith so(e deviation %ro( the
nor(al energy level and Ts'r co(es )ac, again and again to the idea that a (aAor
ass'(ption o% cognitive poetics is that poetry e5ploits %or aesthetic p'rposes cognitive
processes that #ere evolved %or non<aesthetic p'rposes. This pro)a)ly has to do #ith the
representative nat're o% initial %or(s o% poetry and literat're in general& or si(ply #ith
i(itation.
Ce5t he ta,es into acco'nt the process o% categori*ation& #hich (ay )e rapid and
delayed& depending on ho# the ver)al la)els 'nderload or overload the ite(s in one8s
cognitive syste(= delayed categori*ation (ay involve a period o% 'npleasant 'ncertainty
a)o't #hat is going on in a speci%ic passage o% a poe(& #hile rapid categori*ation (ay
involve a loss o% i(portant in%or(ation. This #ay& di%%erent categori*ation strategies (ay
generate& at )oth ends& di%%erent categori*ation strategies. These t#o types o%
categori*ation are related to the #ay poetic (etaphors are 'nderstood& to the i(plied
critic8s decision style and the a)ove<(entioned altered states o% conscio'sness. "n the other
hand& readers and critics (ay di%%er %ro( one another in their tolerance o% delayed
categori*ation& o% vario's types o% (etaphors or vario's aesthetic categories +li,e the
grotes@'e& %or instance3.
The (ain di%%erence #e see here is )et#een the sta)le& #ell<organi*ed categories +in
e5pository or scienti%ic disco'rse3 that convey straight%or#ard loads o% in%or(ation on
one8s cognitive syste(& #itho't any sensory +or very little3& e(otional in%or(ation= and
poetic categori*ation +(ostly delayed& )'t also so(eti(es rapid3that allo#s an overload o%
sensory in%or(ation #hich res'lts +in the reader3 in altered states o% conscio'sness
+generated& (ost li,ely& )y si(ilar ones in the a'thor3. Ts'r is highly @'ota)le here #hen
he notes that this is
9an ele(ent o% s'spension o% )o'ndaries )et#een sel% and not<sel%& o% i((ersion in a
thing<%ree and gestalt<%ree @'ality. 2ltered states o% conscio'sness are states in #hich one is
e5posed %or e5tended periods o% ti(e to pre<categorial& or lo#<categori*ed in%or(ation o%
varying sorts. These #o'ld incl'de a #ide range o% states in #hich the actively organi*ing
(ind is not in %'ll control& ranging %ro( hypnagogic states +#hen one is hal%<a#a,e& hal%<
asleep3& thro'gh hypnotic state& to varieties o% religio's e5perience& (ost nota)ly (ystic
and ecstatic e5periences. $n the creative process& (o(ents o% Dinspiration8 or o% Dinsight8
too (ay involve s'ch altered states o% conscio'sness& tho'gh less readily recogni*ed as s'ch.
9 92spects o% Cognitive Poetics&: p.113
The hypnagogic state& or the hypnotic& or the other types o% non<rational +9the (ind is
not in %'ll control:3 states (ay re%er pri(arily to those o% the a'thor #hile creating& tho'gh
they (ight very #ell characteri*e so(e (o(ents o% reading& so that #hat the e%%ort here
see(s to )e is that o% disting'ishing )et#een intention +9the intentional %allacy:3 and
conscio'sness> nonconcept'al e5periences can )e conveyedone #ay or another)y the
'se o% lang'age& #hich +)ac, at the )eginning o% this section3 is concept'al in nat're.
E'oting psychologist Ro)ert "renstein& Ts'r re<e(phasi*es that logical and rational
conscio'sness is related to the le%t he(isphere o% the )rain& #hile (editative conscio'sness
is related to the right he(isphere= the in%or(ation is processed se@'entially in the le%t
he(isphere +o% the lang'age3 and it co(es o't as co(pact and logical& #hile the right
he(isphere processes in%or(ation si('ltaneo'sly and its o'tp't is e5perienced as di%%'se&
integrating inp't %ro( (any senses +orientationi.e. dei5is in literat're<<& e(otions& (ystic
e5periences3. 2nd th's #hat #e have in poetry is the 9trans%er o% a signi%icant part o%
lang'age processing %ro( the le%t to the right he(isphere& th's rendering the related
precepts (ore di%%'se&: +p.123
7hat cognitive poetics in this vie# see(s to )e doing is #hat +cognitive3 criticis( has
)een doing %or the past 2!// years& i.e. atte(pt to %ind a )etter& clearer& (ore satis%actory
#ay o% saying or pointing o't or s'ggesting #hat poetry has al#ays said or co(('nicated=
and Re'ven Ts'r (anages to )e 'na()ig'o's& as& o)vio'sly& an a()ig'ity +o% criticis(3 on
top o% another a()ig'ity +that o% poetry3 can only res'lt in (ore a()ig'ity& so the possi)le
cognitive stance gets to )e even (ore distanced %ro( the @'ality o% (eaning a poe(
contains>
9$ clai( that the right he(isphere8s o'tp't is Dine%%a)le8 not )eca'se no se(antic
%eat'res are involved& )'t )eca'se those %eat'res are di%%'se and si('ltaneo's. $t is not the
in%or(ation that is not 'nparaphrasa)le& )'t its integration and di%%'seness. ;i%%'seness
and integration are not se(antic in%or(ation added& )'t the str'ct're o% in%or(ation as it
appears in conscio'sness. 7hereas se(antic in%or(ation can )e paraphrased& the
i(pression that arises %ro( its str'ct're can only )e descri)ed.: +p.133
There%ore& paraphrase and description& #hich& together& (ay easily )e called
interpretation= all in all& #hat Ts'r see(s to )e investigating in the ,ind o% lang'age
+gra((atical str'ct'res& elliptic sentences& dei5isthe generation o% a coherent scene or
D#orld8and orientation& prosodic str'ct'res& point o% vie# and ironyF3 'sed in poetry to
prod'ce certain e%%ects and #hat other devices are 'sed +%ig'rative lang'age in general and
(etaphor in partic'lar& distance& sel% and ego& perception o% space an ti(eF3 to add 'p
these e%%ects to an overall one= as #e can see& there still are (any gaps to )e %illed and (any
@'estions to )e as,ed.
8. 3. Stylistics and Rhetoric Revisited
Peter Stoc,#ell8s 9Cognitive Poetics and iterary Theory: arg'es that 9cognitive poetics is
)est seen as the latest develop(ent in the progressive evol'tion o% stylistics&: #hile 9the
endpoint o% the process represents the ret'rn o% rhetoric to the centre o% literary
scholarship:+p.13. So o'r concepts are cognitive poetics& literary theory& literary
scholarship& stylistics and rhetoric& #ith cognitive poetics providing a descriptive acco'nt o%
9ho# readers constr'ct propositional content %ro( literary reading=: and th's& once again&
reception theory and reader response. i,e ts'r& #ho( he o%ten @'otes& Stoc,#ell adds
aesthetic analysis and e(otional involve(ent& pl's capt'ring 9the interaction o%
(eaning%'lness and %elt e5perience in literary reading.: +p.13
$n stylistics itsel%& the general trend see(s to have )een a#ay %ro( %or(alis( +eo
Spit*er& Rene 7elle, and 2'stin 7arren& Stephen Gll(an& later eech& Short& and
7iddo#son in Britain3 to#ards a (ore conte5t'ali*ed stylistics& and th's 9reconnecting
(ore %'lly #ith the older and longstanding rhetorical tradition=: +p.23 other develop(ents
have )een in te5t ling'istics and prag(atics& disco'rse analysis and socioling'istics&
co(p'tational and corp's ling'istics= to all these& cognitive poetics also adds a
psychological and socioc'lt'ral di(ension. The pict're is al(ost co(plete #ith rene#ed
interest in concept'al (etaphor& %ig're and gro'nd& sche(a< and #orld<theories>
9Concept'al (etaphor theory s'ggested ne# #ays o% e5a(ining creative lang'age in
poetry and #ays o% 'nderstanding e5tended (etaphors and the(atics in longer %iction. The
#or, on %ig're and gro'nd had o)vio's i(plications %or 'nderstanding literary
%oregro'nding& signi%icance& deviance and val'e. Sche(a theory and vario's theories o%
#orld<)'ilding o%%ered #ays on #hich %ictional #orlds and per%or(ed poetic personas
co'ld )e )etter 'nderstood. Sche(a theory& possi)le #orlds theory and te5t #orld theory
all s'ggested vario's #ays to e5plain the %act that interpretive co(('nities co'ld share
ro'ghly consens'al readings at the sa(e ti(e as individ'al readers co'ld hold varying
interpretations.:+p33
;ra#ing as it does on cognitive science& cognitive poetics relies on the sa(e principles as
its so'rce discipline> the concept that (eaning is e()odied +(ind and )ody are
contin'o's3= the notion that categori*ation +see Ts'r )e%ore3 is a %eat're o% prototype
e%%ects& #hile categories are provisional= %inally& the idea that lang'age and its
(ani%estations in reading and interpretation is a nat'ral and 'niversal trait in h'(ans.
Peter Stoc,#ell8s o#n Cognitive Poetics +2//23 descri)es %irst the (icrological di(ensions
o% cognitive poetics +%ig're and gro'nd& prototypes& dei5is& cognitive gra((ar3 and then
the (acrological di(ensions +sche(a poetics& possi)le #orlds& (ental spaces& (etaphor
and para)le& te5t #orld theory and (odels o% glo)al co(prehension= all o% these are 'sed to
e5plore s'ch iss'es as literariness +#ith %e#er and %e#er adepts lately3& de%a(iliari*ation&
interte5t'ality& deviance& canoni*ation& characteri*ation& perspective& %ictionality and so on
and so on.
Ts'r8s pro)le( contin'es to attract attention& na(ely that lesser advances have )een
recorded in acco'nting %or aesthetic e%%ects& side )y side #ith the role o% %eelings& and
e(otions& #hile the (ain %oc's re(ained on (atters o% (eaning%'lness= te5t #orld theory
+Stoc,#ell& 7erth and Havins3 see(s to )e a sol'tion here& in that it e5plores the #ays in
#hich a certain #ord or 'niverse is enriched and e5perienced e(otionally in the process o%
reading>
9My point here is that #orld<)ased (odels go )eyond a si(ple propositional acco'nt
and start to dra# in considerations o% %elt e5perience& e(pathy& identi%ication& at(osphere&
and i(pact. These are all di(ensions that are a cr'cial part o% the literary reading
e5perience& )'t they have not really )een syste(atically addressed 'ntil recent and
%orthco(ing cognitive poetic #or,.:+Stoc,#ell& p.I3
Cot accidentally& so(e %r'it%'l #or, has recently )een done here in the analysis o%
dra(a> the co(ple5ities o% the disco'rse #orld o% the theatre& a'dience& stage and actors
and the interaction o% these ele(ents #ith co'nterparts in the constr'cted te5t #orlds
generated in the co'rse o% a dra(atic per%or(ance +;an Mc$ntyre& J. ahey& T.
Cr'ic,shan,F3 This (ay )e e5plained )y the %act that dra(atic te5ts (ay )e pointing to a
contin'ity )et#een literary and non<literary settings o% lang'age 'se& so that a ne#
principle o% cognitive poetics e(erges> there is no s'ch thing as an e5cl'sive literary
lang'age& i.e. there is no s'ch thing as literariness= )oth everyday and nat'ral lang'age
have a pro(inent creative di(ension& so that no clear disA'nction is accepted )et#een
poetic and Dnon<poetic8 lang'age= and th's a certain principle in certain types o% stylistics
ends here. "ne a'thor +;ere, 2ttridge& 2//23 s'ggests the 'se o% sing'larity as the sense a
reader gets that the literary e5perience is not @'ite li,e anything else= it is not a %eat're& )'t
an event that ta,es place in reception.
i,e Ts'r again& Stoc,#ell see(s to )e interested in the application o% cognitive
%ra(e#or,s in the 'nderstanding o% literary e%%ects and& i(plicitly& o% aesthetic val'e. ?is
distinction is )et#een pro%essional readers and 'npro%essional ones& or readers #ho read
%or reading8s sa,e& not %or so(e 'lterior p'rpose> iterary st'dy in 'niversities )ears little
rese()lance to the sorts o% things non<pro%essional readers +i.e. the h'ge (aAority o%
readers66#e o'rselves have started @'estioning the e5istence o% this Dh'ge (aAority83 do in
literary reading.:+p.1/3 7hat he has in (ind is s'ch %eat'res that are )arely disc'ssed in
'niversity lect'res and se(inars> at(osphere& tone& identi%ication& e5cite(ent& involve(ent&
resistance& disg'stF& i.e. the (otivating %actors %or literary reading. Readerly involve(ent&
the sense o% trans%or(ation and sel%<i(plication received @'ite a lot o% attention in recent
years +Richard Herrig& ;. S. Miall& ;. K'i,enF3
Stoc,#ell8s %inal @'estion is also hesitant> 9$% cognitive poetics can acco'nt %or any
reading& then to #hat e5tent is it a theory at allB: 7ell& reco'rse to prototype again& since
cognitive analyses can identi%y prototypical readings prod'ced either )y individ'als or )y
co(('nities= so(e readings (ay )e #idely shared and conventional others are
idiosyncratic and eccentric& i.e. they diverge %ro( the nor(& in #hich case #e co'ld spea,
o% a stylistics o% reading or reader response. Cothing see(s to )e very ne# here& #hence the
'ns'rprising concl'sion>
92 theory o% literary reading +cognitive poetics3 is (erely a speci%ic part o% a general
theory o% lang'age& and this general theory is gro'nded in e(pirical evidence. This is not to
say that cognitive poetics in itsel% is a scienti%ic theory in a straight%or#ard sense& )'t it
does assert that there is a scienti%ic )asis %or the tools #hich cognitive poetics provides %or
e5plorations in literary reading.: +p.113
Re'ven Ts'r shares in Stoc,#ell8s s,epticis(& )'t he ta,es one step %'rther and denies
Stoc,#ell8s contri)'tion itsel%& especially in #hat regards the latter8s #or, in deictic
categories= #hat Stoc,#ell see(s to )e doing is classi%y& la)el and ill'strate these
categories& #hen the tas, o% cognitive poetics is to shi%t attention %ro( la)eling and
classi%ying the( to acco'nting %or their e%%ect= in other #ords& Stoc,#ell is too ('ch
preocc'pied #ith (eaning +in a disc'ssion o% Shelley8s 9"*y(andias:3 and too little #ith
%eeling= according to Ts'r& in Stoc,#ell6s practice 9cognitive analysisF so(eti(es consists
in rechristening #ell<#orn ter(inology into ne#& Dcognitive8 ter(s.: 2nd (ore>
9Jverything that is lang'age or literat're goes thro'gh the cognitive syste( o% a'thors&
readers& and critics. ?o#ever& a disc'ssion )eco(es cognitive not #hen it resorts to a
certain ter(inology& )'t #hen certain pro)le(s are addressed #hich cannot )e properly
handled #itho't appealing to so(e cognitive process or (echanis(.: +Ts'r a)ove& p.183
8. 4. Cognitive ScienceMore or ess
$% interpretation is the ai( o% reading& in%erencing is central to the process o% reading& so
;avid S. Miall +very o%ten #ith ;on K'i,en3 dedicates ('ch o% his #or, to in%erencing.
Since all #riters can (ean (ore that they say& in%erencing is highly i(portant in disco'rse
processing& and he @'otes 2rth'r C. Hraesser& a psychologist #ho& in several articles&
considers the categories o% ,no#ledge<)ased in%erences that (ap onto the representation o%
the narrative& %or instance& in #or,ing (e(ory> re%erential +li,e the anaphoric 9he&: 9she&:
:it:3 role assign(ent %or each ver)al category +ti(e& space& o)Aect& agent& patientF3& ca'sal
relationships +lin,ing one proposition to #hat #ent on )e%ore3& character (otivation&
the(e& characters8 e(otion& conse@'ence& a'thor intent& reader e(otionF
S'ch a theory o% in%erence is not only 'sa)le in disco'rse processing& )'t also $ n a
n'()er o% other poetic do(ains li,e 'nderstanding the (inds o% characters or in
(etaphoric (appings +a,o%% and -ohnson3& in dei5is theory +,eeping trac, o% space and
ti(e& the characters8 perspectives and relationships a(ong the(3& the role o% ti(e itsel% in
narrative +not only story ti(e and disco'rse ti(e& )'t also the ti(e o% the reader& the ti(e
o% the narrator& the ti(e o% the plot& the ti(e o% actions at disco'rse level& the ti(e o% events
at story level& the ti(e o% characters& pl's variation in ti(e o% the narrative disco'rse&
incl'ding the #ell<,no#n scene6s'((ary distinction3& %oregro'nding and de%a(iliari*ing&
character 'nderstanding +spaces in #hich they are e()edded& relative position and
i(portance in the story& literary characters as (ental (odels& psychological traits& their
ai(s and e(otions& etc.3F The pro)le( o% in%erencing in this a'thor8s vie# see(s to )e
typical o% the %ield o% cognitive poetics as a #hole.
Lery ('ch li,e Ts'r& Miall avoids e(phasis on interpretation& and points o't the role o%
%eeling in literary response& tho'gh& he thin,s& this re(ains a largely 'ncharted area. 4or
cognitive poetics& the @'estion is not 97hat is this poe(6dra(a6novel sayingB:& #hich #ill
res'lt in ('ltiple interpretations& )'t rather 9#hat #ere yo'r %eelings and e(otions #hile
reading itB:= %eeling sit'ates readers in relation to co(ple5 (odes o% e5perience& (e(ory&
and social 'nderstanding& A'st as literat're in general can change readers8 (odes o% %eeling
an (odi%y the(& side )y side #ith the reader8s sel%<concept. Conse@'ently +and again3&
e(pirical research on reading ('st )e seen as the centre o% cognitive poetics.
Miall and K'i,en propose that %eelings d'ring literary reading )e characteri*ed at %o'r
levels> s'spense and a('se(ent as reactions to an already interpreted narrative= %eelings
that derive %ro( perceived a%%inity #ith an a'thor& narrator& or narrative %ig're +9$ li,e
;ostoyevs,i& or $ li,e ?a(let& and that8s itF:3= %eelings o% appreciation& #hich are& in %act&
aesthetic reactions= and the %o'rth level& the (ost co(ple5 one& #hich involves the
(odi%ying po#er o% %eelings +see a)ove3 that appear to )e triggered )y the narrative and
%or(al co(ponents o% literary te5ts +phonetic iconicity a(ong the(& i.e. the so'nd patterns
o% the te5t& especially in poetry or poetic prose3. So& d'ring reading& these %eelings interact&
so(eti(es in the %or( o% (etaphors o% personal identi%ication& to (odi%y the reader and his
sel%<'nderstanding. There are& o% co'rse& typologies o% %eeling responses& )'t the (ain point
is that o% 'nderstanding the role or roles that %eeling per%or(s d'ring reading.
S'((ing 'p their vie# on the contri)'tions o% %eeling to literary reading& Miall and
K'i,en +92 4eeling %or 4ictionF&: 2//13 re<e(phasi*e these %o'r do(ains>
9+13 eval'ative %eelings to#ard the te5t as a #hole& s'ch as the overall enAoy(ent&
pleas're& or satis%action o% reading a short story= +23narrative %eelings to#ard speci%ic
aspects o% the %ictional event se@'ence& s'ch as e(pathy #ith a character or resonance #ith
the (ood o% a setting= +33 aesthetic %eelings in response to the %or(al +generic& narrative& or
stylistic3 co(ponents o% a te5t& s'ch as )eing str'c, )y an apt (etaphor= and +43 sel%<
(odi%ying %eelings that restr'ct're the reader8s 'nderstanding o% the te5t'al narrative and&
si('ltaneo'sly& the reader8s sense o% sel%. 7hile there is no sharp de(arcation )et#een
these %o'r do(ains in readers8 e5periencea given (o(ent (ay contain ele(ents o% (ore
that one %eeling process#e propose that each %eeling do(ain depends 'pon
characteristically di%%erent str'ct'res and processes.: +p.33
They ne5t investigate so(e properties o% (odi%ying %eelings& the generative po#er o%
%eelings& and the catharctic relationship& all o% these on the )asis o% e(pirical evidence %ro(
one o% t#o stories. 2 special section is dedicated to anticipation and %eeling& on the pre(ise
that the pre%rontal corte5 is responsi)le %or anticipation +see the n'(ero's st'dies in the
past decades on )eginnings3> other responses are li,ely to )e (ediated )y the right
he(isphere +see a)ove3& s'ch as prosodic aspects o% %oregro'nding& %ig'rative lang'age&
and narrative str'ct're.
7e (ay end 'p o'r not very convincing to'r a(ong representatives o% cognitive poetics
)y )rie%ly re%erring to Ray(ond 7. Hi))s:s The Poetics o% Mind +1..43 #hose (ain
ass'(ption +very ('ch li,e that o% Mar, T'rner a)o't narrative3 is that everyday
lang'age is #idely and ineradica)ly (etaphoric= so& not only is there nothing li,e
literariness +or (etaphoricity& %or that (atter3& )'t #e 'nderstand a)sol'tely all ling'istic
constr'ctions in ter(s o% #hat (ight )e called& rather technically& %ig'ral proAections o%
i(age sche(as. Jveryday (ind& contin'es Hi))s& is %'nda(entally shaped )y vario's
poetic and %ig'rative processes #hich& incidentally& develop very early in children +a special
chapter on 9The Poetic Minds o% Children:3. 2s a res'lt&
9Cognitive science cannot approach ade@'ate e5planations o% h'(an (ind and
)ehavior 'ntil it co(es to ter(s #ith the %'nda(ental poetic character o% everyday
tho'ght.:+p.4!43
4ig'rative i(agination is a part o% h'(an cognitive processes in general& so cognitive
poetics is al(ost e@'ivalent to cognitive science& so(ething that is (eant to (a,e it either
si(pler& or in%initely (ore di%%ic'lt to characteri*e.
8. !. "vervie#
The (ain %oc's o% cognitive poeticsin order to A'sti%y its cognitive di(ensionis on ho#
readers process the lang'age o% te5t& so that psychology +processing3& ling'istics +lang'age3&
and te5t interpretation are very ('ch part o% its investigative p'rposes. 7e have seen& in
(ore that a co'ple o% instances& that #hat it does (ore than other approaches to literat're
is to e5plore the e(otional aspects o% in%or(ation processing in reading.
2 s'((ing 'p o% the principles 'nderlying cognitive poetics is di%%ic'lt at this point&
since there see(s to have )een no syste(atic approach to all the ele(ents o% poetics +a'thor
and i(plied a'thor& reader and i(plied reader& the graphitic& se(antic& syntactic& and
%ig'rative levels& narrator and narrate& point o% vie#& perspective and %oc's& characters&
sit'ations and events& sy()olis(& allegory and para)leF3 in order to see ho# each o% the(
is part o% a cognitive proAect. 2 list can ho#ever )e proposed& and it contains the oldest
principle o% the e()odied (ind +Mar, -ohnson8s The Body in the Mind& Larela&
Tho(pson and Rosch8s The J()odied Mind& Heorge a,o%%& J. S#eetser& etc.3= %or( and
iconicity +(ainly in poetry3= the cognitive conscio'sness +concept'ali*ation& int'ition&
%eeling& and e(otion3= (etaphorical tho'ght= creativity +creating e(ergent str'ct'res )y
the process called )lending4a'connier and T'rner& The 7ay 7e Thin,3= distri)'ted
cognition= the role o% a'diences +interpretive co(('nities3F
;R2H"S 2L2;2CJ$ <COGNITIVE SCIENCE AND THE HUMANITIES& Jd.
MGniversitas NN$:& $aOi& 2/1/