Empirical research into the processing of free indirect discourse and the imperative of ecological validity

Abstract

This paper uses two principal examples to argue that experimentalist research paradigms in empirical literary research can be suggestive but that results are not easily extrapolatable to actual real world literary reading events, particularly where, as with free indirect discourse (fid), the phenomenon to be investigated is demonstrably complex, multifaceted and highly contingent. More broadly, the paper raises the issue of whether in fact most literary reading is not typically as complicated as fid, in which case complementary or alternative research approaches may be needed. I close by advocating more nuanced qualitative or ethnographic approaches which respect the complexity of the phenomena under investigation to achieve better understanding, even at the possible expense of seductively neat graphs, tables and statistics. As van Peer suggests in my opening epigraph, empirical research at its best can be highly suggestive. My argument is simply that we need always to remember that what we think of as empirical research should not be limited to experimentalist paradigms. The empirical literary research community will be able to say more useful things about fid and the wider complexities of literary reading by complementing more experimentalist work with more contextually sensitive investigations, to the mutual benefit of both.

Reader response research in stylistics

“…Researchers in the empirical study of literature tend to limit their definition of empirical research to 'assertions that can be independently controlled through experiential tests' (Hakemulder and van Peer, 2015: 192), whilst researchers in the naturalistic study of reading are fundamentally opposed to the laboratory-based nature of such research (Swann and Allington, 2009: 248-49). We agree with Hall (2008) in asserting that both experimental and naturalistic approaches should be regarded as 'empirical', because both methodological orientations seek to evidence their claims about reader responses using data. Indeed, we go further to suggest that stylistics is the only discipline that can embrace both naturalistic and experimental methods and theories of readers and reading.…”

Discursive Reception Studies – A Path toward Knowledge about Fiction in Everyday Life

“…It would be interesting to record the conversations that occur among the bookcases in libraries or among the bookshelves at a bookstore. Heather Bailey and Jeffrey M. Zacks (2011, 72) argue for the use of longer, naturalistic narratives, instead of short, laboratory-contrived »textoids« and they point out that: »If you want to understand how people really read then, at some point, you have to study how people really read.« In line with Geoff Hall (2008) and Gerald C. Cupchik (2011), I would like to further suggest not only researching naturalistic texts but also naturalistic reading situations (Eriksson Barajas 2007). Future studies of other child and adult everyday practices around fiction are welcome.…”

Talk About Books : A Study of Reading Groups

“…Swann and Allington define the experimental approach to literary reading as that which 'seeks to isolate specific types of interpretation, or interpretational activity' according to the 'pre-specified' interests of the researcher (2009: 248). Like Hall (2008), they argue that this high level of control in 'experimental' studies leads to 'rather artificial reading behaviour being investigated ' (2009: 248). In contrast to experimental methods, Swann and Allington (2009) advocate a naturalistic approach to reading practices that is informed by ethnographic techniques.…”

“…These studies are mostly well-designed and make a contribution to our understanding of a particular type of reading, but there are questions regarding the 'ecological validity' of this empirical, experimental research, with this approach criticised for existing in a 'frustratingly parallel universe', failing to inform scholars on the 'phenomenon it purports to tell the researcher and the readers of that research about' (Hall 2008: 31). The quasi-laboratory methods adopted in much of this research serves to decontextualise the reading process, often failing to replicate sufficiently the ways in which literary texts are naturally read (Hall, 2008), and Allington and Swann (2009) further suggest that experimental approaches to reading mainly assess the subjects' ability to perform appropriately in the particular test rather than showing us how 'reading "normally" proceeds 2009: 224). Instead, these critics advocate that research in reading should use more ethnographic methods, and in recent years the naturalistic study of reading field (NSR) has developed as an alternative approach.…”