Foregrounding and Its Effect on Readers' Perception

Hakemulder, Jèmeljan

doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3802_3

Cited by 143 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The two terms are not wholly synonymous, but our empirical operationalization of literariness ensures that only those literary passages that capture attention are included in the measure, whereas passages that might be considered literary exactly because they do not draw attention to themselves (i.e., they are backgrounded) are not included, since they are by definition unlikely to be noticed by our participants. In line with the idea that secondary processing leads to better appreciation of the qualities of literary texts (e.g., [12]), the instructions should lead to an adequate measure of the intersubjective perception of literariness. This pretest resulted in a literariness-score between 0 and 16 for every word in each of the three stories: a score of 0 if none of the participants had underlined it and a score of 16 if every participant had underlined it.…”

Section: Pretestmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual Differences in Sensitivity to Style During Literary Reading: Insights from Eye-Tracking

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Style is an important aspect of literature, and stylistic deviations are sometimes labeled foregrounded, since their manner of expression deviates from the stylistic default. Russian Formalists have claimed that foregrounding increases processing demands and therefore causes slower reading -an effect called retardation. We tested this claim experimentally by having participants read short literary stories while measuring their eye movements. Our results confirm that readers indeed read slower and make more regressions towards foregrounded passages as compared to passages that are not foregrounded. A closer look, however, reveals significant individual differences in sensitivity to foregrounding. Some readers in fact do not slow down at all when reading foregrounded passages. The slowing down effect for literariness was related to a slowing down effect for high perplexity (unexpected) words: those readers who slowed down more during literary passages also slowed down more during high perplexity words, even though no correlation between literariness and perplexity existed in the stories. We conclude that individual differences play a major role in processing of literary texts and argue for accounts of literary reading that focus on the interplay between reader and text.

show abstract

Section: Pretestmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Empirical research has shown that foregrounding generally influences aesthetic appreciation (e.g., [12]), as well as reading times. But the effect of foregrounding has been shown to be subject to individual differences as well.…”

Section: Original Research Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences in Sensitivity to Style During Literary Reading: Insights from Eye-Tracking

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hunt/Vipond 1985;Van Peer 1986a), which at least suggests the possibility of providing opportunity (time) and cause (affect) for reflection. Readers also seem to aesthetically appreciate foregrounding (e. g., Hakemulder 2004), although the moderating influence of reading experience has to be further explored (see Hakemulder/Van Peer in press, for mixed results). The defamiliarization model as represented in Figure 3 focuses on the proposed effects of literariness on reflection.…”

Section: Defamiliarizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Literature on Empathy and Self-Reflection: A Theoretical-Empirical Framework

Koopman¹,

Hakemulder²

2015

Journal of Literary Theory

158

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various scholars have made claims about literature's potential to evoke empathy and self-reflection, which would eventually lead to more pro-social behavior. But is it indeed the case that a seemingly idle pass-time activity like literary reading can do all that? And if so, how can we explain such an influence? Would the effects be particular to unique literary text qualities or to other aspects that literary texts share with other genres (e. g., narrativity)? Empirical research is necessary to answer these questions. This article presents an overview of empirical studies investigating the relationship between reading and empathy, and reading and selfreflection. We reveal those questions in the research that are not addressed as of yet, and synthesize the available approaches to literary effects. Based on theory as well as empirical work, a multi-factor model of literary reading is constructed.With regard to reading and empathy, the metaphor of the moral laboratory (cf. Hakemulder 2000) comes close to a concise summary of the research and theory. Being absorbed in a narrative can stimulate empathic imagination. Readers go along with the author/narrator in a (fictional) thought-experiment, imagining how it would be to be in the shoes of a particular character, with certain motives, under certain circumstances, meeting with certain events. That would explain why narrativity can result in a broadening of readers' consciousness, in particular so that it encompasses fellow human beings. Fictionality might stimulate readers to consider the narrative they read as a thought experiment, creating distance between them and the events, allowing them to experiment more freely with taking the position of a character different from themselves, also in moral respects. Literary features, like gaps and ambiguous characterization, may stimulate readers to make more mental inferences, thus training their theory of mind. However, apart from literature possibly being able to train basic cognitive ability, we have little indication for the importance of literary imagination over narrative or fictional imagination.Regarding self-reflection, while there is no convincing evidence that literary texts are generally more thought-provoking than non-literary texts (either narrative

show abstract

“…The strategy of defamiliarization is further strengthened by the explicit foregrounding (Hakemulder 2004) of the demon's perspective from the very first verses of the central narrative. even before the story unfolds, the audience is presented with a character who is made 'other' by category but is familiar to the 'self ' in behaviour, motive, and situation.…”

Section: Narrative Empathy-the Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revenge, Hatred, Love, and Regret

Brussel

2017

ROSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the character of the demon found in the Sanskrit Bhadrakālīmāhātmya. This regional Purāṇic text, pertaining to the narrative tradition of the Dārikavadham from Kerala, adopts a specific stance with regard to its main antagonist, the asura king Dārika. While the Bhadrakālīmāhātmya eagerly engages with various Mahāpurāṇas such as the Liṅga and the Mārkaṇḍeya, the demon that it depicts contrasts with the rather rigid image set out by his counterparts in those texts. Instead, the demon's character is carefully drawn and led through an array of emotional states in a way that tempts the audience to empathize. In this article, I explore this strategic empathy. Perusing the narratives of the Bhadrakālīmāhātmya, I identify passages that are activated by strategies of affect and show how they construct the character of the demon. In the second part of the article, I attempt to unravel the motives for this alternative view of the demon, relying on frameworks stemming from contemporary studies of narrative empathy and classical Indian theories of aesthetics.

show abstract

Foregrounding and Its Effect on Readers' Perception

Cited by 143 publications

References 21 publications

Individual Differences in Sensitivity to Style During Literary Reading: Insights from Eye-Tracking

Individual Differences in Sensitivity to Style During Literary Reading: Insights from Eye-Tracking

Effects of Literature on Empathy and Self-Reflection: A Theoretical-Empirical Framework

Revenge, Hatred, Love, and Regret

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About