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.

Since the 1950s, pedagogical stylistics has been intrinsically linked with the teaching of written texts (and especially literary texts) to speakers of English as a second language. This is despite the fact that for decades many teachers have also structured their lessons in L1 classrooms to focus upon the linguistic features of literary texts as a means of enhancing their students’ understanding of literature and language. Recognizing that instructors in both L1 and L2 settings were often employing related pedagogical techniques without realizing that their colleagues in the other context were facing similar challenges, the PEDSIG group of the Poetics and Linguistics Association (PALA) has sought to add a theoretical dimension to research undertaken into practice in the stylistics classroom. Its goals, then, were: to establish a working definition of pedagogical stylistics; to identify the theoretical and pedagogical underpinnings of the discipline shared by L1 and L2 practitioners; to point if possible towards any emerging consensus on good practice. The group determined that the principal aim of stylistics in the classroom is to make students aware of language use within chosen texts, and that what characterizes pedagogical stylistics is classroom activities that are interactive between the text and the (student) reader. Preliminary findings, from a pilot study involving a poem by Langston Hughes, suggest that the process of improving students’ linguistic sensibilities must include greater emphasis upon the text as action: i.e. upon the mental processing which is such a proactive part of reading and interpretation; and how all of these elements – pragmatic and cognitive as well as linguistic – function within quite specific social and cultural contexts.

No abstract

In light of the hard times in which literary education has been finding itself, this paper evaluates the merits of two instructional interventions. It describes an experiment which contrasts interpretive and experiential approaches to reading carried out with 17 Comparative Literature Canadian university students. Two different sets of pre-reading and reading instructions were prepared. The group working under the control condition followed a set of 'interpretive instructions' while the one working under the experimental condition followed 'experiential instructions'. Participants in both conditions completed four measures: three questionnaires and a response essay. Videorecording of small group discussions also occurred. Intervention effects were evaluated statistically. No differences were found in any of the measurements except for story-driven reading, in which the control group scored higher than the experimental one. This means that participants preferred to focus on the plot or story-line and showed interest for action and compelling conclusions. The video recording, however, indicated higher voluntary participation in the experimental condition. As regards class assessment, the results were rather contradictory and unexpected, leading to the conclusion that interpretation and experiencing may not present us with an either-or situation but may most productively be regarded as complementary. Ultimately, this study advances the debate on the need to examine instructional interventions in literature classes empirically.Corresponding author: ofialho@ualberta.ca 236

Based on the premise that stylisticians who are involved with teaching should be aware of the pedagogical orientation and reading paradigms which inform their practice, this article questions whether critical pedagogy can dialogue with stylistics as an approach to working with literary texts in the classroom. The theoretical claims are illustrated with examples from two Literary Awareness workshops in an EFL situation. The argument leads to the conclusion that irrespective of the political orientation and a rather romantic view of education, some of the ideas proposed by critical pedagogy can still contribute to the area of pedagogical stylistics in the years to come. The article concludes with a recommendation for more empirical research in the area.