Cognitive Poetics

COGNITIVE POETICS

A pioneering text in its first edition, this revised publication of Cognitive Poetics offers a rigorous and principled approach to literary reading and analysis. The second edition of this seminal text features:

• updated theory, frameworks, and examples throughout, including new expla- nations of literary meaning, the power of reading, literary force, and emotion; • extended examples of literary texts from Old English to contemporary literature, covering genres including religious, realist, romantic, science fictional, and surrealist texts, and encompassing poetry, prose, and drama; • new chapters on the mind-modelling of character, the building of text-worlds, the feeling of immersion and ambience, and the resonant power of emotion in literature; • fully updated and accessible accounts of Cognitive Grammar, deictic shifts, prototypicality, conceptual framing, and metaphor in literary reading.

Encouraging the reader to adopt a fresh approach to understanding literature and literary analyses, each chapter introduces a different framework within cognitive poetics and relates it to a literary text. Accessibly written and reader-focused, the book invites further explorations either individually or within a classroom setting. This thoroughly revised edition of Cognitive Poetics includes an expanded further reading section and updated explorations and discussion points, making it essential reading for students on literary theory and stylistics courses, as well as a fundamental tool for those studying critical theory, linguistics, and literary studies.

Peter Stockwell is Professor of Literary Linguistics at the University of Nottingham, UK.

Cognitive Poetics

An Introduction

Second Edition

Peter Stockwell Second edition published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Peter Stockwell The right of Peter Stockwell to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by Routledge 2002 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Stockwell, Peter, author. Title: Cognitive poetics : a new introduction / Peter Stockwell. Description: Second edition. | London ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019037626 | ISBN 9781138781368 (hardback) | ISBN 9781138781382 (paperback) | ISBN 9780367854546 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Cognitive grammar. | Poetics. Classification: LCC P165 .S74 2020 | DDC 808.1–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019037626

ISBN: 978-1-138-78136-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-78138-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-85454-6 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear In memory of Eileen and Mervyn Stockwell

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ix

1 Introduction: body, mind, and literature 1

2 Prototypicality and contexts 15

3 Figures and ground 32

4 Deixis and projection 49

5 Texture and resonance 70

6 Cognitive Grammar 86

7 Schemas and frames 102

8 Conceptual metaphor 119

9 Blending and compression 138

10 Text-worlds 155

11 Mind-modelling 176

12 Immersion and ambience 194 viii Contents

13 Directions and connections 211

14 Key readings 223

References 225 Index 240 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This is a new introduction, but cognitive poetics can no longer be said to be new. When the first edition of this book was being written, around the turn of the millennium, the area was still in the process of being defined, and its edges delineated. That book played its part not only in mapping the landscape but in suggesting how far to the horizons the field could stretch. This new edition appears at a point at which a cognitive poetic turn of mind has already made itself felt across a range of approaches in literary studies, and arts and humanities more generally. Back in the beginning, it was all Peter Verdonk’s idea. Many years ago, at a restaurant in a Hungarian forest, he suggested with his usual quiet, wise smile that I should write a textbook on cognitive approaches to literature. The conception of the book has changed quite a bit since then, and the discipline itself has acquired a name and a firmer set of borders, but the shape of this book and its mere existence owe a great deal to the inspiration and influence he has exerted over all that time. Over the course of three decades, I have had conversations with many brilliant people whose ideas have shaped my thinking, though they are probably not aware of it. I am especially grateful to Michael Burke, Amy Cook, Peter Crisp, Szilvia Csabi, Jonathan Culpeper, Barbara Dancygier, Catherine Emmott, Monika Flud- ernik, Charles Forceville, Donald Freeman, Margaret Freeman, Richard Gerrig, Ray Gibbs, Keith Green, Chris Hart, David Herman, Laura Hidalgo Downing, Patrick Colm Hogan, Lesley Jeffries, Dan McIntyre, Nigel McLoughlin, David Miall, Rocio Montoro, Alan Palmer, Merja Polvinen, Alan Richardson, Brian Richardson, Elena Semino, Mick Short, Paul Simpson, Gerard Steen, Eve Sweet- ser, Michael Toolan, Reuven Tsur, Mark Turner, Willie van Peer, Katie Wales, Martin Wynne, Lisa Zunshine, and Sonia Zyngier; and I would also like to acknow- ledge with fond memory conversations with colleagues who have passed away: Ron Carter, Bill Nash, Mary Ellen Ryder, and Paul Werth. x Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Louisa Semlyen for her support and foresight in commissioning the book originally; thanks too to Nadia Seemungal Owen at Routledge for patience and constant reminders to get on with this new edition: the longer it took, the more the field changed, and the longer it took. I am fortunate in the generosity of my colleagues and friends. Through the international Poetics and Linguistics Association (PALA), I have benefited from many and late discussions with the best minds and their most precise criticism. The Cognitive Poetics Research Group, loosely arranged between Nottingham and Sheffield, has been an invaluable source of ideas and proof of thinking. Thanks to Alice Bell, Joe Bray, Sam Browse, Richard Finn, Alison Gibbons, Sarah Jackson, Isabelle van der Bom, Sara Whiteley, and of course to Joanna Gavins. The academic community at Nottingham University has been a rich source of ideas and inspiration. The philosophy here of language study in a radical, engaged, and humane context makes it one of the most fruitful and exciting places to work and think. In particular, I have learnt more than they would realise from my colleagues, from my own doctoral researchers, and the students who took my cognitive poetics course, out of which I wrote this book. Thanks to my literary linguistic buddies Jess Norledge and Violeta Sotirova, and to former researchers in cognitive poetics and close colleagues who have gone on to even greater things: Marcello Giovanelli, Christiana Gregoriou, Alice Haines, Craig Hamilton, Chloe Harrison, Kim Kreischer, Ernestine Lahey, Andrea Macrae, Michaela Mahlberg, Jess Mason, Louise Nuttall, Eirini Panagiotidou, David Peplow, Lizzie Stewart-Shaw, and Wenjuan Yuan. Thanks to Marianne Fish for assistance with indexing. Every one of these people have been co-authors, and all books are second-hand books, in this sense. Not all of them agree with my ideas or the way I have shaped the book, of course, but as Don Freeman once said to me, the only real criticism comes from your friends. I have incorporated many changes as a result of this friendly fire, though of course I am responsible for all my schematic readings of their ideas. Finally, I am grateful to the following for permission to reproduce copyright material: the estate of Ted Hughes, and Faber and Faber publishers, for ‘Hill-stone was content’, and Bill Nash for ‘Vakum clenere’ and ‘Milkmen everywhere’. 1 INTRODUCTION Body, mind, and literature

Reading literature Cognitive poetics is all about reading literature. That sentence looks simple to the point of seeming trivial. It could even be seen simply as a close repetition, since here cognition is to do with the mental processes involved in reading, and poetics concerns the craft of literature. But in fact such a plain statement is really where we need to start. In order to understand exactly what this book is about, we will first need to be clear about what we mean by ‘reading’ and what we mean by ‘literature’. The answers to these questions will take us to the heart of the most important issues facing us as individual, conscious, emotional, intelligent, critical people, sharing with each other a facility for language and perception. In the course of exploring these ideas, we will not be satisfied with asking important and difficult questions; we will also try to provide either answers or at least directions towards solutions. What happens when you read a literary text? The answer to this depends on why the question is being asked. Physically, you are holding a book or are in front of a screen and your eyes are focusing, moving, flicking back and forth, and you might be smiling, or pressing your lips together, or beginning to cry. Neurologi- cally, you are converting visual stimuli into parsed sentences, neurons are firing, mental work is being activated as different parts of the brain connect up your memories of words and concepts, anticipating and processing the meanings and feelings associated with them. Culturally and socially, you are accessing the thoughts of someone who is probably distant from you usually in space and often in time, engaging with a period of their thinking and adjusting your own sense of its significance as you imagine other people like you reading the same text. Aesthetically, you might be immersing yourself in an experience to the point that the mundane world around you has dissolved into non-awareness, and the fictional world in 2 Introduction focus surrounds you vividly and intensely. A casual observer looking at you reading will, in all likelihood, see nothing at all: a motionless person looking at a book, inattentive to your surroundings, apparently doing nothing. All of the sensory, neurological, aesthetic, social, and cultural connections are permutating invisibly, inside your body and mind. We do all this whenever we read, whether the object being read is literary or some other form of writing. Although a literary work is an artifice, reading literature is a natural process, a natural object of exploration. As explorers, how can we talk about these intertwined, invisible, subconscious, rich, and complex natural phenomena? It comes down to a plain and incontrovertible truth: literature is made of language, so the best way of understanding it is to draw on our current best understanding of language and mind. In our era, that means cognitive linguistics. By language, I mean the entire involving experience of a social individual inter- acting with texts and utterances. Language is neither simply what is on the page nor what is buried in some imagined deep and unprovable structure inside your mind. Language is what happens when you encounter linguistic strings, including your process of engaging with them, deriving meaning and feeling, attaching or detach- ing yourself from your idea of the cultural origins of the object in front of you, its significance and its effect on you over time – altogether that is what language is. It is real: it is not an abstraction. It is experiential; it is not restricted to syntax or formal patterns. There is no difference between text and context because context and situation and experience are integral parts of what language is. By literature, I mean not the literary text on the page, but the notion of the literary work as engaged by a reader. Literature literally does not exist until it is read. So literature is not an object in isolation but is an object that necessarily involves an activating consciousness. Literature is not separate from other forms of language. It is special only because we regard it as such culturally, not because of any formal property that it has. The cognitive and perceptual and aesthetic and experiential values that we derive from literature are based on exactly the same capacities we have in relation to the language system and our lives as a whole. Literary works might do interesting and compelling things with those capacities, but just as there is no ‘language module’ in the brain, so there is no essential component of literariness that is peculiar and unique to the literary domain. This means that if we can understand language in general, we can start to account properly for specifically literary reading. In order to consider what happens in literary reading, we need both a literary text and a process of reading, which of course requires a reader. Here is part of a literary text:

We that had loved him so, followed him, honoured him, Lived in his mild and magnificent eye, Learned his great language, caught his clear accents, Made him our pattern to live and to die! Introduction 3

Since you have just read these four lines, we also have a reading, which is what is in your mind right now. Our first option is just to leave what you think of this passage in your mind without any further discussion. In truth, this is what mainly happens when the vast majority of people read the vast majority of literary texts: they read them for themselves, and are happy not to discuss them, nor work out the craft in their construction, nor intellectualise them, nor fit their understanding into a theoretical framework out loud for other people to read or hear. This is ‘reading’ as it happens most of the time, ‘reading’ as an object in the world. This is reading as an entirely natural and primary phenomenon. We are all readers like this. But this book is about reading literature. We can read literature any time we want to, but when we want to think about what we are doing when we read, when we want to reflect on it and understand it, then we are not simply reading – we are engaged in a science of reading. We are being critical, reflective, analytical, engaging in a type of science. The object of investigation of this science is not the artifice of the literary text alone, nor the reader alone, but the more natural interanimating process of reading when one is engaged with the other. This is a different thing altogether from the simple and primary activity of reading. Literary texts are artefacts, but ‘readings’ are natural objects. In scientific terms, readings are the data through which we can generalise patterns and principles across readers and texts. However, understanding what we do when we engage in reading literature need not be an abstract or highly and purely theoretical exercise. Though a clear and precise understanding is the aim of any scientific exploration, the means of discovery involves considering a great deal of messy and perhaps contradictory data. For us, that means that we need to attend to the detail and quality of many different readings. Particular readings are important for us; they are not simply the means to an abstract end. Indeed, it is in the detail of readings that all the interest and fascination lies. So what did you make of those four lines of literature above? What are they about? What do they mean? What do they do for you? How do you hear them? What do you understand by them? Of course, these questions are all aspects of the same question, asked from slightly different perspectives. Perhaps you have read the lines before, and are wondering why they have been reproduced here? You might know the author, or the source, or the historical background. You might recognise the lines as being in a particular form that you can give a name to, or you might be able to describe the pattern in the sounds of the lines when read aloud, using a technical term that you know. All of these questions are traditionally to do with context, and this is a crucial notion for cognitive poetics. The questions above in the context of this book are different from what they would mean if I were to ask you while we were sitting together on a bench in a park, or standing as tourists in front of them written on a gravestone somewhere, or even if we were in a university or college seminar. In the last case, we would both understand that some of the questions and their answers would be appropriate in the situation, and some would not. For example, if you were to tell me that the lines sounded to you like a eulogy for a dead hero, that 4 Introduction would be something I would probably develop in a seminar discussion. If you told me, honestly, that the lines reminded you of a much-loved family cat that had recently died, both you and I and probably the rest of the people in the seminar would regard that as irrelevant and a bit eccentric. But why in fact should that be the case? After all, the four lines might mean exactly that to you, and you could certainly make a case for that reading based on the textual evidence given here. Why are some responses appropriate and acceptable, and others are regarded as personal and therefore irrelevant in a seminar context? Why does it seem so easy for me to equate personal responses with institutional irrelevance here? What you do with the lines depends very much on the situation in which you find yourself with the text. There is nothing universal or unchanging about the meaning of these lines: indeed, there are as many meanings as there are different settings for different readings. But the status that is attached to each reading also depends on context and the assumptions that underlie the question being asked. It is usual when discussing literature within an institutional setting to apply assumptions that belong to the discipline of literary study. One of these assumptions is that idiosyncratic and personal meanings are not worth discussing with anyone else. However, at your cat’s shoebox funeral in your garden, you might feel it appropriate to read these lines at a small ceremony attended by your like-minded friends and family. These institutional decisions of appropriateness and status apply within all the different branches of literary studies. For example, if we take a view of literary reading in which history is foremost, then I could assert that your opinion that the lines are a eulogy for a dead hero is simply wrong. In the historical moment of the poem’s construction, the lines belong to a poem called ‘The Lost Leader’, written by Robert Browning in 1845, about William Wordsworth’s shift with age from revolutionary radical to arch-conservative. Though the poem draws on elegy and eulogy, Wordsworth is still alive at the time of writing to be accused of betrayal by Browning:

Just for a handful of silver he left us, Just for a riband to stick in his coat.

And Wordsworth’s change of heart means that there will be

Never glad confident morning again!

In this approach from literary history, readings are acceptable or not, depending on their conformity to these accepted historical points. A reading that claimed the poem was about Milton, or Coleridge, would simply be wrong. It would be as wrong as claiming that the poem was about a deceased cat, or about Napoleon, or about a modern politician. Alternatively, the poem, and these lines in particular, can be used within a purely textual approach as an example of a particular pattern in metrics. The lines create a Introduction 5 dactylic tetrameter (four repetitions of one accented and two unaccented syllables) in the first line – go back and read it out loud to hear this. Then the subsequent lines introduce minor irregularities to disrupt the pattern: omitting the last two unaccented syllables at the end of lines two and four in order to place heavy emphasis on ‘eye’ and ‘die’; or twice omitting one of the unaccented syllables in the third line to create a heavy pause in the middle of the line. The emphases of the word- meaning can be created and confirmed by these metrical patterns, and illustrate the expert craftsmanship in the poem. The textual and historical approaches can even be brought together, if you recognise that hexameter (called ‘Alexandrine’) was a prominent pattern in heroic classical verse such as the Iliad, the Odyssey and the Aeneid. Then you might read Browning’s disruptions of the dactyl and reduction of the repetitions from six to four in the line as offering a debasement of the heroic that parallels the fall of Wordsworth as a hero-figure. This makes the metrical composition a matter of iconic meaning. What about a personal and idiosyncratic reading? I must admit that I only learnt about the historical construction of the poem several years after I first read it. My first contact was when I heard these lines quoted several decades ago, out of context, in a political analysis programme on the BBC after the 1992 British election. At that time, the Labour Party had been widely expected to win, rejuvenated and modernised by its then leader, Neil Kinnock, after three election defeats. They lost, and Kinnock immediately resigned. The lines from ‘The Lost Leader’, quoted in a new context, took on a different and poignant meaning for a Labour supporter like me. In this selective reading, Kinnock was the lost leader not, like Wordsworth, due to choosing betrayal, but because of electoral misfortune. ‘Never glad confident morning again’ was to apply to the next five years of right-wing government. From this angle, the poem had been redeployed and used as a historical echo for a modern politician. That line in particular has had a strong political resonance and re-use. It was quoted in the Profumo debate in the British Parliament in 1963 to refer to the downfall of the prime minister, Harold Macmillan. It was quoted to describe the disillusionment of some with the young UK prime minister Tony Blair after 2005. It was quoted to capture the change of fortunes of the financial system after the credit crash of 2008. From a historical perspective, one that privileges the original context of produc- tion, these readings of the lines are misquotations, a selective use that is just plain wrong. However, it is one of the many uses to which this poem must have been put over the years. It seems to me that it is important to reconnect the different readings of literary texts between the academic and the everyday, and to recognise that readings have status not objectively but relative to their circumstances. When I ask what the poem means, I am really asking what the poem does, which is another way of asking what it is being used for. Meaning, then, is what literature does. Meaning is usage and effect. The key to understanding issues of literary value, status, and meaning lies in being able to have a clear view of text and context, circumstances and uses, knowledge, beliefs, and emotions – the entire situation of a literary encounter. It is not 6 Introduction simply a matter of its authorial provenance and historical setting; this is the narrow sliver of context that much current literary scholarship has carved out to trap itself in. Cognitive poetics offers us a means of accounting for a contextual situation and setting that includes but is not restricted to the historical. It has a linguistic dimension which means we can engage in detailed and precise textual analysis of style and literary craft. It offers a means of describing and delineating different types of knowledge, belief, and feeling in a systematic way, and a model of how to connect these matters of circumstance and use to the language of the literature. In short, cognitive poetics takes context seriously. Furthermore, it has a broad view of context that encompasses both social and personal circumstances.

Founding principles of cognitive poetics The foundations of cognitive poetics obviously lie most directly in cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology, together forming a large part of the field of cognitive science. The basic insight behind these disciplines is in realising that forms of expression and forms of conscious perception are bound, more closely than was previously realised, in our biological circumstances. Most simply, we think in the forms that we do and we say things in the ways that we do because we are all roughly human-sized containers of air and liquid with our main receptors at the top of our bodies. We get warm when we get angry; we feel alert standing up and relaxed lying down; we understand simple physical cause and effect in terms of objects and motion in our physical world. From these basic conditions of being human, we have a mental capacity for extending such concepts into more abstract domains. So, for example, being ‘furious’ or ‘blowing your top’ are non-literal extensions of heating up with anger; in general in many expressions, good is up and bad is down; we pick up, grasp, turn over, and look at an idea even though we know that an idea is not really an actual material object. There are many more aspects of language and thought that are dependent on such projections, as we will see throughout this book. Our minds are embodied in this way, not just figuratively but also literally, finally clearing away the mind-body distinction of much philosophy, most famously expressed by René Descartes. The notion of embodiment affects every part of language. It means that all of our experiences, knowledge, beliefs, and wishes are involved in and expressible only through patterns of language that have their roots in our material existence. The fact that we share most of the factors of existence (requiring food, having a heat-regulation system, seeing in the visible spectrum, experiencing gravity, living in three dimensions under a sun that transits in a day, and so on) accounts for many of the similarities in language across humanity. The fact that some communities have different factors of existence (such as men’s and women’s different reproductive functions, for example, or different levels of tech- nology, environment, or lifestyle around the world) can also account for habitual differences in expression. Cognitive poetics offers a unified explanation of both individual interpretations as well as interpretations that are shared by a group, Introduction 7

community or culture. Embodiment in language can be understood not simply in our own individual form but in terms of an extended embodied cognition, in which the human conditions of other people near me or held in my mind are also part of my conscious experience and articulation. Embodied cognition is a radical way of thinking about contexts, and about the edges of what counts as my own mind. Whether through oral or documentary ‘literature’, most cultures hold verbal expression as a high status form of art. The relevance of patterns emerging from cognitive psychology and especially cognitive linguistics is obvious for the field of literary study. Cognitive poetics, then, is clearly related also to the field of literary criticism. Within that discipline, the focus of attention has shifted around the triangle of ‘author-text-reader’, with different traditions placing more or less emphasis on each of these three nodes at different moments in history. Cognitive poetics can be overlaid onto this scheme, in the sense that it is not restricted to one or other of the points. Concerned with literary reading, and with both a psychological and a linguistic dimension, cognitive poetics offers a means of discussing interpretation whether it is an authorly version of the world or a readerly account, and how those interpretations are made manifest in textuality. In this sense, cognitive poetics is not simply a shift around in emphasis to foreground either textuality or authorial creativity or readerly effect but is a radical re-evaluation of the whole process of literary activity. A trivial way of doing cognitive poetics would be simply to take some of the insights from cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics, and treat literature as just another piece of data. In effect, we would then set aside impressionistic reading and imprecise intuition and conduct a precise and systematic analysis of what happens when a reader reads a literary text. Given this methodological perspective, we would probably be mainly interested in the continuities and connections between literary readings and readings of non-literary encounters. We would not really have much to say about literary value or status, other than to note that it exists. We would regard the main concerns of literary criticism, for example, as mainly irrelevant to our concerns, as part of a different set of disciplines that just happened to be focusing on the same area of interest, but were at best unimportant to us and at worst an irritating and wrong-headed opposition. In our different disciplinary boxes, it would be as if we were surfers, fishermen, wind-turbine build- ers, and watercolour artists all looking at the same bit of beach. In my view, treating literature only as another piece of data would not be cognitive poetics at all. This is simply cognitive linguistics, and experimental results derived in this way would have little to say about the literary experience as literature. Insights from that discipline might be very useful for cognitive poetics, but for us the literary experience must be primary. That means we have to know about critical theory and literary philosophy as well as the science of cognition. It means we have to start by aiming to answer the big questions and issues that have concerned literary study for generations. I think that cognitive poetics offers us a means of doing exactly that. This entire book will try to answer the question of what cognitive poetics is by showing you examples of it. 8 Introduction

As I said, taking what has been called ‘the cognitive turn’ seriously means more than simply being interested in the psychology of reading. It means a thorough re- evaluation of all of the categories with which we understand literary reading and analysis. In doing this, however, we do not have to throw away all of the insights from literary criticism and linguistic analysis that have been drawn out in the past. Many of those patterns of understanding form very useful starting points for cognitive poetic investigation. Some of them require only a little reorientation to offer a new way of looking at literary reading. Occasionally, this might seem to be no more than recasting old ideas with new labels, though I would argue (along cognitive linguistic lines) that new labels force us to conceptualise things differently. The first edition of this book was written around the turn of the millennium, and published in 2002. Usually, when writing a textbook to a field or discipline, there are cues from all the existing textbooks that need to be included. This was not possible with Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction, because there had been no other introductory book to this nascent field. I was in the unusual position of having to decide what to include and what to leave out. This was difficult because some topics were only just emerging; others were in the process of being developed. In some areas, I had to take a best guess as to which topics would become important or not. Sometimes I got it right; other times I probably over-estimated or under- estimated how things would develop. Of course, as the first textbook, I was also unwittingly responsible for some of that later development itself, by making it canonical within what became a widely used and influential book. The term ‘cognitive poetics’, however, had been around for some years as various researchers around the world were realising that the revolutions in cognitive science were to have a profound influence on how we thought about literary reading and scholarship. The phrase was coined by Reuven Tsur and disseminated in his book Toward a Theory of Cognitive Poetics, originally published in 1992, though Tsur had been doing what was later recognisably cognitive poetics for two decades up to that point. Tsur’s work was established in advance of many of the insights that were to arise from cognitive science – in particular, in cognitive linguistics – and so his particular approach to poetry and perception is both familiar and divergent from the sorts of things that researchers have been doing under the umbrella of the term ‘cognitive poetics’ ever since. It is important to note that the emergence of cognitive poetics in the 1990s coincided with the emergence of the internet as a scholarly tool. I remember the excitement at being able to search the catalogue of a university library on the other side of the Atlantic, though retrieving the book or article was still a matter of having it photocopied and sent physically through the post. What this also meant, though, was that all of us working very broadly along the same lines where cognitive science intersected with literary scholarship were not as instantly aware of what we were all doing as seems common to us nowadays. The use of several alternate terms for the general field – cognitive rhetoric, cognitive stylistics, cognition and literature, cognitive literary studies – can partly be attributed to the fact that many people were working in different countries with only a partial and time-lagged view of what was Introduction 9 going on elsewhere in the world. In North America, Tsur’s work was influential, also alongside Ellen Spolsky’s ground-breaking Gaps in Nature: Literary Interpretation and the Modular Mind, from 1993. Elżbieta Tabakowska’s Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics of Translation, also in 1993, proved influential in Europe. Mark Turner’s Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science, from 1991, was read on both sides of the Atlantic, but again its influence rippled out across the world over several years. All of these proved highly influential both as a polemic for and a demonstration of the insights and rich responses that could be derived by considering literary interpretation as cognitive work. However, their strongest influence was not felt until several years after their dates of publication, as scholarly awareness gradually filtered and slowly diffused across the globe. Much of it took its cue from Lakoff and Johnson’s original 1980 work of cognitive linguistics, Meta- phors We Live By, which inspired a great deal of exploration of cognition and literature by, among many others, Catherine Emmott, Donald Freeman, Margaret Freeman, David Herman, Alan Richardson, Elena Semino, Yeshayahu Shen, Gerard Steen, and Lisa Zunshine. Often, new studies in cognitive science also fea- tured examples from literary works, as in books by Gilles Fauconnier, Richard Gerrig, Ray Gibbs, George Lakoff, and Paul Werth, throughout the decade up to the turn of the millennium. The unevenness of diffusion has resulted in a broad field with different emphases, though the ease of internet access to scholarly research has meant that this variation has less now to do with geographical location. At the most inclusive and comprehensive level, we can talk of a broad cognitive literary studies. At the end of this spectrum most associated with current literary criticism, work has been pro- duced that is loosely concerned with language and mind, or which takes certain key principles of cognitive science and neurology as tropes for philosophical exploration. At the other, empirical end of the spectrum, key effects of reading literary works have been investigated with psycholinguistic, neurological, and social scientific methods. To a greater or lesser degree, though, a cognitive approach to literature involves a rigorous and professional engagement with the science of texts and usage, and that means that the field is more concerned with linguistics than most other approaches to literary study – where linguistics here is used in the broad sense above to include pragmatics, interpretation, and sociocultural variation, for example. For this reason, cognitive poetics has perhaps most enthusiastically been taken up by those of us working in literary linguistics (also called stylistics in the European tradition, where its centre of gravity remains with the literary text). Stylistics itself has been on a developmental journey from being relatively formalist and text- constrained, through a broadening of work into pragmatics and sociolinguistics, and then encompassing psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and cognitive linguistics. In North America, linguists reacting against the paradigms of theoretical linguistics began to embrace cognitive linguistics, and some researchers recognised the value of applying their insights to literary works in the form of a cognitive rhetoric, with studies of conceptual metaphor across literary texts being particularly fruitful. 10 Introduction

Others, mainly working within departments of English literature, realised that the field of narrative studies could also be revivified by evolving a cognitive narratology, based on how the mind monitors episodes, characters, and events. In this book, I have tried to represent what I see as the central characteristic of cognitive poetics, which always involves a consideration of language. The chapters across the first half of the book draw mainly on elements from cognitive linguistics, those across the second half perhaps more from cognitive psychology, though, in fact, one of the effects of the ‘cognitive turn’ in these disciplines has been to blur the line between the two. I myself come from a literary linguistics tradition, so no doubt you will see that influence throughout my perception of cognitive poetics. One of the key influences is in the theoretical rationale for cognitive poetic analysis as a critical discipline: what is the validity of a cognitive poetic account? I think that a discipline that draws on patterns established previously in general usage of language (that is, not specifically literary settings) has a prior validity as a descriptive framework for literary analysis. This is because it has been demonstrated many times that there is nothing inherently different in the form of literary language. More debatable is the status of the findings of cognitive poetic and stylistic exploration. On the one hand, you could argue that readers reach a primary interpretation before any analytical sense is made apparent. The purpose of a cognitive poetic analysis would then be to rationalise and explain how that reader reached that understanding on that occasion. In this perspective, cognitive poetics has no predictive power, and cannot in itself produce interpretations. The advantage of this view is that the readings themselves, if held honestly, can only be argued against by reference to the common currency of the cognitive poetic framework and its terminology: it means the discussion can continue systematically on the basis of a common language. An alternative view would suggest that the process of engaging in cognitive poetic analysis offers a raised awareness of certain patterns that might have been subconscious or not even noticed at all. Cognitive poetics in this view has a pro- ductive power in at least suggesting a new interpretation. This perspective is more attractively radical but its challenge is that it seems to suggest that some interpretations are only available to analysts who have a knowledge of cognitive poetics. This has the unfortunate consequence of implying that prior interpretations were faulty, and only cognitively aware analyses are valid. These two positions leave cognitive poetics either as a highly limiting and deter- ministic approach which closes off many interpretations as being invalid, or as an infinitely open and non-predictive framework which, in allowing any interpretation at all, ends up being a model of nothing very substantial. One way of resolving this problem is to notice a distinction between the terms ‘reading’ and ‘interpretation’. Interpretation is what readers do as soon as (perhaps even partly before) they begin to follow through a text. Their general sense of the impact of the experience could range over many different impressions and senses, some of which are refined or rejected. It is this later, more analytical process that produces a reading. Some interpretations (especially those rejected early) can be simply wrong: mistakes, Introduction 11 errors, miscues that are demonstrably not supported by any textual evidence at all. Readings, however, are the process of arriving at a sense and feeling of the text that is personally acceptable. These are likely to combine individual factors as well as features that are common to the reader’s interpretative community. Cognitive poetics – in having the power to combine both the individual and communal effects of language and experience – offers a means of squaring this circle. Cognitive poetics models the process by which intuitive interpretations are formed into expressible meanings and feelings, and it presents the same framework as a means of describing and accounting for those readings. Unlike literary criticism, cognitive poetics does not have to focus exclusively on minute differences between readings. Most readers, even from vaguely similar interpretative communities, tend to agree on readings of literature far more than they disagree. Literary criticism has focused on the minutiae of disagreement because deviance is more interesting, but an unfortunate consequence of this is that literary criticism has emphasised difference, ambiguity, ambivalence, and irresolu- tion to a disproportionate extent. Cognitive poetics can encompass matters of readerly difference, but these are set in a general context of the cultural, experiential, and textual constraints around real readers reading literature in the real world. In my view, and the view of several people working in cognitive poetics, the institution of literary criticism has moved further and further away from anything that would be recognisable to most readers of literature. In placing a descriptive account of natural readings at the heart of exploration, we hope at least to try to reconnect critical practice with everyday reading. It might seem odd to claim that cognitive poetics offers such a reconnection between scholarly critics and ‘civilian’ readers. After all, the glossarial index at the end of this book contains enough disciplinary jargon for anyone’s taste, and the study of cognitive poetics requires learning, knowledge, practice, and some work. However, much of the actual practice in the field starts from a desire to account as rigorously as possible for effects and features that are fundamental to civilian readers. How does this make me feel? How do I know things about this character? Why is this text pacey or atmospheric? Why am I feeling uncomfortable, or amused, or engaged, or immersed, or alienated? Why do I think the writing here is so amazing, clever, rich, or complex? How am I being manipulated, or my ideas reinforced, challenged, twisted, echoed back to me? The business of cognitive poetics is not to tell readers how to read; cognitive poetics is still literary criticism – it is about reading rather than being reading itself. But it aims to describe rather than canonise, explain, and elucidate rather than mystify and obscure, and it is based on current, rather than outdated, states of scientific knowledge. Cognitive poetics is still a relatively young discipline, though it makes clear reconnections back to much older forms of analysis, such as classical rhetoric. Indeed, the discipline combines the classical scholarly trivium of rhetoric, grammar, and logic. Again I must emphasise, however, that the major consequence of taking ‘the cognitive turn’ seriously involves a radical re-evaluation of all of these terms. Choice of words, forms of textual structures, and patterns of reasoning are all three 12 Introduction intimately inter-related to each other when viewed through a science of cognition. Poetics in modern literary theory has come to mean a ‘theory’ or ‘system’, but I also like the associations with the related word ‘poetry’ that the term suggests, implying the practical creativity inherent in the thinking in this area. In any case, this is a textbook, and such schematising is essential in order to present complex ideas in a way that is accessible and usable. In undertaking this operationalising of terms, I have tried to simplify the presentation without simplify- ing the concepts, though, of course, it is a delicate balancing act. To help you with new terms, there is a glossarial index at the back of the book that directs you to the definition where it is used in context. I thought this was more useful than a decon- textualised set of definitions. It is important, though, to recognise that descriptive terminology is a starting point for your thinking and a way of arranging your thoughts systematically, rather than simply being a set of labels. Throughout this book, I encourage you to move the terms around, redefine them, argue with them, and handle them until they are comfortable. Though there are many different frameworks from cognitive science, cognitive poetics is essentially a way of thinking about literature rather than a framework in itself. To summarise, then, the fundamental principles of cognitive poetics are:

• There is a continuity of language. Literary language is not in itself special or unique, though it is used in particular ways. The science of language must have common frameworks for all instances of language use. • There is a continuity of mind. There is no special module in the brain for doing language, and no special module for literature. Understanding how we cognise our entire experience is the same understanding that allows us to account for literary reading. • The mind is embodied. There is an integral relationship between sense and sen- sation, and our cognitive faculties arise from our physical condition. This is the basis for abstract thought and engaging in fictional or displaced worlds. • The embodied mind is extended. The edges of embodied cognition often encompass other people’s bodies, thinking, and experience. So the cognitive poetic study of literature is both psychological and social. • Cognitive poetics is a descriptive discipline. The primary objective is to describe actual usage in the wild, when people read literature. • Cognition includes feeling and experience as well as the interpretation of meaning and significance. • Subliminal effects are describable. Most effects of creativity or reading are uncon- scious at first, but are nevertheless real, and can be brought to recognition by a clear and precise cognitive poetic analysis. • Texts and readings are inseparable. The object of study of cognitive poetics is not textuality (that is for linguistics) nor interpretative readings (that is critical opinion), but texture: the experience of reading a text. • Cognitive poetics is a method rather than a critical theory. Introduction 13

A new introduction Since the first edition of this book, the field of cognitive poetics has become widely established. There have been hundreds of research papers, scholarly books, and guides, and cognitive poetic research has become mainstream at many academic conferences. In different parts of the world, cognitive poetic practices are being used in school classrooms, and even in everyday journalistic discourse about literature. This new introduction thus required more than a simple update. Some areas have been deleted or combined with others, and there are several new chapters where the discipline has moved on significantly. The communicative approach to the book remains the same, however. I have tried to represent the field as broadly conceived as possible. Each chapter takes a major theoretical feature from cognitive linguistics as its focus, and I first set out the key ideas and terms in outline. These cognitive linguistic concepts are related to the literary context in order to produce a cognitive poetic emphasis, and to develop a clear sense of how the particular area of cognitive poetics can address major literary issues. I attempt throughout to blend key issues of literary reading (such as tone, literariness, character, narrative, metaphor, plot, and so on) with the cognitive framework that best encompasses the feature. It should be noted throughout the book that I have presented each area within cognitive poetics as a clear and definite framework. Sometimes, this is reasonable where the approach coincides with the work of a single author or a set of colleagues working closely together. At times, however, I have had to decide how best and most accessibly to present an approach where there is disagreement or contention involved, or where there have been major changes over time. Rather than confuse you by simultaneously introducing a concept and also calling it into question, I have outlined the ideas in as plain a way as possible. Where there are alternative views, I have tried to draw these out under application to literature. This method, in any case, seems to me to capture the practical nature and value of cognitive poetics as an essentially applied form of exploration. A choice I made for the first edition and have maintained here is to keep the formal citations of research work to an absolute minimum. At the end of each chapter you will find a list of these sources and further reading. The advantage of this style of writing is that the text is kept clear, uncluttered, and direct; the disadvantage is that the casual reader might think that every idea presented in this book is my own! Please follow up the source material. Read more by these authors. If you are a student writing an essay in cognitive poetics, this introductory textbook should probably not even appear in your bibliography – use it merely as a guide and go to the source material. The structure of each chapter is similar. First, there is a descriptive outline of one or two cognitive poetic frameworks. This is presented with a few examples to illustrate the key terms and ideas, and it is linked with the main literary concerns. Key words are emboldened and included in a glossarial index at the end of the book. Some questions for consideration and points for discussion follow this section. I have made these questions deliberately difficult or open-ended in order to generate 14 Introduction as wide a discussion as possible. Then, in each chapter, I have written a short cognitive poetic analysis of a literary text to exemplify the discussion. These analyses are primarily for illustration and so cannot be as detailed as they might be, given a lot more space. Finally, each of my chapters ends with suggestions for further study or advice on following your own exploration. Further reading and the source material in the specific area of the chapter are also included to enable you to develop your knowledge of cognitive poetics. I have tried to cover as wide a range of literary genres and historical periods as possible in the analyses. This seemed important to me if the textbook was to be usable across a range of literature. I also think that cognitive poetics is only worth anything if it is able to be addressed not just to those literary texts that seem amen- able to it. The analyses presented in this book are exemplary, but we should also be tackling more difficult and challenging texts, the ones which do not fit easily into cognitive poetic theory. Those are the situations in which we will be forced to develop new frameworks for cognitive poetics, and it is these sorts of analysis that you will find in the original companion book,Cognitive Poetics in Practice (edited by Joanna Gavins and Gerard Steen), as well as in numerous articles in scholarly jour- nals that have been published ever since. The last chapter of this book collects more recent trends in the field, and specu- lates on the future directions of cognitive poetics. The glossarial index that follows will allow you to check quickly on key terms, and find cross-references and definitions in their context. My aim throughout is to encourage you to ask questions, engage with the ideas, and rediscover in your own thinking the excitement of con- necting scientific principles with a love of literature. My initial motivation to write a textbook on cognitive poetics has not dimin- ished. Partly this arose out of my dissatisfaction with literary studies as it had then become, partly it arose out of a curiosity to see what other explorers could discover if I provided at least an initial sketched-out map. My delight at the transformative work that has been achieved over the last two decades comes out of a sense that indeed cognitive poetics offers a lifeline to everyone working in literary studies, and has the potential to make the discipline and the institution of literature more accessible and more connected with the world outside university and college life. It is all about reading literature, and it represents nothing less than the democratisation of literary study, and a new science of literature and reading. Cognitive poetics is maturing as a discipline, but at the moment it is still possible to reach the edge of research very quickly in your study: everything is still provisional, new, and exciting, filled more with potential than masses of study as yet. It is with even more conviction that this book steps still into that glad confident morning. REFERENCES

Abelson, R. (1987) ‘Artificial Intelligence and literary appreciation: how big is the gap?’ in L. Hálàsz (ed.) Literary Discourse: Aspects of Cognitive and Social Psychological Approaches. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1–37. Abrams, M.H. (1953) The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aldiss, B. (1987) Cracken at Critical. London: Kerosina Books. Aldiss, B. (1973) Frankenstein Unbound. London: Jonathan Cape. Allan, K. (2008) Metaphor and Metonymy: A Diachronic Approach. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Allen, S. (ed.) (1989) Possible Worlds in Humanities, Arts and Sciences. Berlin: de Gruyter. Apperly, I.A. (2011) Mindreaders: The Cognitive Basis of ‘Theory of Mind’. New York: Psych- ology Press. Apperly, I.A. (2012) ‘What is “theory of mind”? Concepts, cognitive processes and individual differences’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 65: 825–39. Baddeley, A.D. and Weiskrantz, L. (eds) (1993) Attention: Awareness, Selection, and Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bakhtin, M. (1968) Rabelais and His World (trans. H. Iswolsky). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bakhtin, M. (1984) Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (ed. and trans. C. Emerson, Problemy Tvorchestva Dostoyevskogo, 1929). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bal, M. (1985) Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Balibar, E. and Macherey, P. (1978) ‘On literature as an ideological form’, Oxford Literary Review 3: 4–12. Ballard, J.G. (1970) The Atrocity Exhibition. London: Jonathan Cape. Barsalou, L. (1982) ‘Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts’, Memory and Cognition 10: 82–93. Barsalou, L. (1983) ‘Ad hoc categories’, Memory and Cognition 11: 211–27. Barsalou, L. (2008) ‘Grounded cognition’, Annual Review of Psychology 59: 617–65. Barsalou, L. (2009) ‘Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 364: 1281–9. 226 References

Bartlett, F.C. (1932) Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (reprinted 1995). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1982) ‘Functionalist approaches to grammar’, in L. Gleit- man and E. Wanner (eds) Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, pp. 173–218. Beardslee, D.C. and Wertheimer, M. (eds) (1958) Readings in Perception. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Bell, A. (2010) The Possible Worlds of Hypertext Fiction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bell, A. and Ryan, M.-L. (2019) Possible Worlds Theory and Contemporary Narratology. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Berry, M. (1977) Introduction to Systemic Linguistics (2 vols). London: Batsford. Bex, T. (1996) Variety in Written English. London: Routledge. Black, M. (1962) Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Black, M. (1990) Perplexities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Booth, W.C. (1961) A Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Boring, E. (1950) A History of Experimental Psychology (2nd edn). New York: Appleton Century Crofts. Borkent, M., Dancygier, B., and Hinnell, J. (eds) (2014) Language and the Creative Mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Boruah, B.H. (1988) Fiction and Emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bradley, R. and Swartz, N. (1979) Possible Worlds: An Introduction to Logic and its Philosophy. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co. Brandt, P.A. (2004) Spaces, Domains, and Meaning: Essays in Cognitive Semiotics. Bern: Peter Lang. Brisard, F. (2002) Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brooke-Rose, C. (1958) A Grammar of Metaphor. London: Mercury Books. Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Browse, S. (2018) Cognitive Rhetoric: The Cognitive Poetics of Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bruder, G.A. and Wiebe, J.M. (1995) ‘Recognizing subjectivity and identifying subjective characters in third-person fictional narrative’, in J.F. Duchan, G.A. Bruder, and L.E. Hewitt (eds) Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 341–56. Bühler, K. (1982) ‘The deictic field of language and deictic worlds’, in R.J. Jarvella and W. Klain (eds) Speech, Place and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics (translated from Sprachtheorie, 1934). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 9–30. Burke, M. (2011) Literary Reading, Cognition and Emotion: An Exploration of the Oceanic Mind. London: Routledge. Caldas-Coulthard, C.-R. and Coulthard, M. (eds) (1996) Texts and Practices: Readings in Crit- ical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. Cameron, L. (2003) Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum. Cameron, L. and Low, G. (eds) (1999) Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Carter, R. (1985) ‘ “Why have I started to talk to you like this?”: Narrative voices, discourse pragmatics and textual openings’, in J. Renkema and W. van Peer (eds) Pragmatik und Stylistik. Berlin: Acco, pp. 128–51. Charteris-Black, J. (2004) Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Pal- grave Macmillan. References 227

Charteris-Black, J. (2005) Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basing- stoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Charteris-Black, J. (2017) Fire Metaphors: Discourses of Awe and Authority. London: Bloomsbury. Chatman, S. (1978) Story and Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Chatman, S. (1990) Coming to Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Chiang, T. (2002) Stories of Your Life and Others. New York: Tor. Chilton, P. (ed.) (1985) Language and the Nuclear Arms Debate. London: Pinter. Chilton, P. (1986) ‘Metaphor, euphemism, and the militarization of language’, paper presented at the Biannual Meeting of the International Peace Research Association, Sussex. Chilton, P. (1988) Orwellian Language and the Media. London: Pluto Press. Chilton, P. (2004) Analysing Political Discourse. London: Routledge. Chilton, P. (2014) Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ciccoricco, D. (2015) Refiguring Minds in Narrative Media. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Cienki, A. and Muller, C. (eds) (2008) Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cockcroft, R. (2002) Renaissance Rhetoric: Reconsidered Passion – The Interpretation of Affect in Early Modern Writing. London: Palgrave. Coles, R. (1989) The Call of Stories. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Cook, G. (1989) Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cook, G. (1992) The Discourse of Advertising. London: Routledge. Cook, G. (1994) Discourse and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coulson, S. (2001) Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construc- tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, W. (2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Croft, W. and Cruse, D. (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruickshank, T. and Lahey, E. (2010) ‘Building the stages of drama: towards a Text World Theory account of dramatic play texts’, Journal of Literary Semantics 39(1): 67–92. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper and Row. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996) Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014) The Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, vol. 2: Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology. Dordrecht: Springer. Culler, J. (1975) Structuralist Poetics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Culpeper, J. (2001) Language and Characterisation. London: Longman. Currie, G. (1990) The Nature of Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Currie, G. (2004) Arts and Minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cushing, I. (2018) ‘ “Suddenly I am part of the poem”: texts as worlds, reader-response and grammar in teaching poetry’, English in Education 52(1): 7–19. Dancygier, B. (ed.) (2006) Special Issue on blending, Language and Literature 15(1). Dancygier, B. (2012) The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dancygier, B. and Sweetser, E. (2014) Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. de Beaugrande, R. (1980) Text, Discourse and Process: Toward an Interdisciplinary Science of Texts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 228 References de Beaugrande, R. (1987) ‘Schemas for literary communication’, in L. Hálàsz (ed.) Literary Discourse: Aspects of Cognitive and Social Psychological Approaches. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 49–99. de Beaugrande, R. (1997) New Foundations for a Science of Text and Discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Deignan, A. (2005) Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dolezel, L. (1976) ‘Narrative modalities’, Journal of Literary Semantics, 5(1): 5–14. Dolezel, L. (1988) ‘Mimesis and possible worlds’, Poetics Today, 9(3): 475–97. Dolezel, L. (1989) ‘Possible worlds and literary fictions’, in S. Allen, (ed.)Possible Worlds in Humanities, Arts and Sciences. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 223–42. Duchan, J.F., Bruder, G.A., and Hewitt, L.E. (eds) (1995) Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dyson, F. (2009) Sounding New Media: Immersion and Embodiment in the Arts and Culture. Ewing, CA: University of California Press. Eckardt, R. (2014) The Semantics of Free Indirect Discourse: How Texts Allow Us to Mind-Read and Eavesdrop. Leiden: Brill. Eco, U. (1976) A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Eco, U. (1981) The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. London: Hutchinson. Edwards, D. (1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage. Egan, G. (1996) Axiomatic. London: Millennium. Egan, G. (1998) Diaspora. London: Millennium. Emmott, C. (1992) ‘Splitting the referent: an introduction to narrative enactors’, in M. Davies and L.J. Ravelli (eds) Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice. London: Pinter, pp. 221–8. Emmott, C. (1994) ‘Frames of reference: contextual monitoring and narrative discourse’, in R.M. Coulthard (ed.) Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 157–66. Emmott, C. (1995) ‘Consciousness and context-building: narrative inferences and anaphoric theory’, in K. Green (ed.) New Essays in Deixis. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 81–97. Emmott, C. (1996) ‘Real grammar in fictional contexts’,Glasgow Review 4: 9–23. Emmott, C. (1997) Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Erlich, V. (1965) Russian Formalism: History, Doctrine. Berlin: Mouton. Evans, V. and Chilton, P. (2010) Language, Cognition, and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions. London: Equinox. Evans, V. and Green, M.C. (2006) Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edin- burgh University Press. Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman. Fairhurst, G. and Sarr, R. (1996) The Art of Framing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Farrell, J. (2017) The Varieties of Authorial Intention. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Fauconnier, G. (1994) Mental Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [original in French, Espaces Mentaux, 1984, Paris: Editions de Minuit]. Fauconnier, G. (1997) Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fauconnier, G. (1998) ‘Conceptual integration networks’, Cognitive Science 22(2): 133–87. Fauconnier, G. and Sweetser, E. (eds) (1996) Spaces, Worlds and Grammar. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press. Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (1996) ‘Blending as a central process of grammar’, in A. Goldberg (ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. References 229

Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books. Fillmore, C. (1975) ‘An alternative to checklist theories of meaning’, in C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood, and K. Whistler (eds) Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 123–31. Fillmore, C. (1976) ‘The need for a frame semantics within linguistics’, Statistical Methods in Linguistics 14: 5–29. Fillmore, C. (1977) ‘The case for case reopened’, in P. Cole and J.M. Sadock (eds) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–81. Fillmore, C. (1982) ‘Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis’, in R.J. Jarvella and W. Klein (eds) Speech, Place, and Action. London: John Wiley, pp. 31–59. Fillmore, C. (1985) ‘Frames and the semantics of understanding’, Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222–54. Fish, S. (1970) ‘Literature in the reader: affective stylistics’, New Literary History 2: 123–62. Fish, S. (1973) ‘What is stylistics and why are they saying such terrible things about it?’ in S. Chatman (ed.) Approaches to Poetics. New York: Columbia University Press. Fish, S. (1980) Is There a Text in this Class? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Fleischman, S. (1982) The Future in Thought and Language: Diachronic Evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleischman, S. (1990) Tense and Narrativity: From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction. London: Routledge. Forceville, C. (1995a) ‘(A)symmetry in metaphor: the importance of extended context’, Poetics Today 16(4): 679–708. Forceville, C. (1995b) ‘IBM is a tuning fork: degrees of freedom in the interpretation of pictorial metaphors’, Poetics 23: 189–218. Forceville, C. (1996) Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge. Forceville, C. and Urios-Aparisi, E. (eds) (2009) Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fowler, R. (1977) Linguistics and the Novel. London: Methuen. Fowler, R. (1996) Linguistic Criticism (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frank, R., Dirven, R., Ziemke, T., and Bernárdez, E. (eds) (2008) Body, Language, and Mind: Sociocultural Situatedness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Freeman, D (1996) ‘According to my bond: King Lear and re-cognition’, in J.J. Weber (ed.) The Stylistics Reader. London: Arnold, pp. 280–97. Freundlieb, D. (1982) ‘Understanding Poe’s tales: a schema-theoretic view’, Poetics 11: 25–44. Fried, M. and Östman, J.-O. (eds) (2005) Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Per- spective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Friedenberg, J. (2013) Visual Attention and Consciousness. New York: Psychology Press. Frow, J. (2006) Genre. London: Routledge. Gadamer, H.-G. (1989) Truth and Method (trans. J. Weinsheimer and D.G. Marshall, 2nd edn, from Wahrheit und Methode, 1960). New York: Crossroad Press. Galbraith, M. (1995) ‘Deictic shift theory and the poetics of involvement in narrative’, in J.F. Duchan, G.A. Bruder, and L.E. Hewitt (eds) Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Per- spective, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 19–59. Garvin, P.L. (ed.) (1964) A Prague School Reader on Aesthetics, Literary Structure and Style. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Gavins, J. (2000) ‘Absurd tricks with bicycle frames in the text world of The Third Policeman’, Nottingham Linguistic Circular 15: 17–34. Gavins, J. (2005a) ‘(Re)thinking modality: a text-world perspective’, Journal of Literary Semantics, 34(2): 79–93. 230 References

Gavins, J. (2005b) ‘Text World Theory in literary practice’, in B. Petterson, M. Polvinen, and H. Veivo (eds) Cognition in Literary Interpretation and Practice. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, pp. 89–104. Gavins, J. (2007) Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Gavins, J. (2013) Reading the Absurd. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Gavins, J. and Lahey, E. (eds) (2016) World Building: Discourse in the Mind. London: Bloomsbury. Gavins, J. and Simpson, P. (2015) ‘Regina v John Terry: the discursive construction of an alleged racist event’, Discourse and Society 27(1): 712–32. Gavins, J. and Steen, G. (eds) (2002) Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge. Gavins, J. and Whiteley, S. (2019) ‘Creativity and cognition in the discourse of National Trust holiday cottage guestbooks’, in C. Hart (ed.) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Text and Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Geerarts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (eds) (2007) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Genette, G. (1980) Narrative Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Genette, G. (1995) Mimologics (trans. T. Morgan). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Genette, G. (1997a) Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree (trans. C. Newman and C. Doubinsky). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Genette, G. (1997b) Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation (trans. J. Lewin)., Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Gentner, D. (1982) ‘Are scientific analogies metaphors?’ in D.S. Miall (ed.)Metaphor: Prob- lems and Perspectives. Brighton: Harvester, pp. 106–32. Gerrig, R.J. (1993) Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Gerrig, R.J. and Egidi, G. (2010) ‘The Bushwhacked Piano and the bushwhacked reader: The willing construction of disbelief ’, Style 44(1 and 2): 189–206. Gerrig, R.J. and Rapp, D. (2004) ‘Psychological processes underlying literary impact’, Poetics Today 25(2): 265–81. Gibbons, A. (2012) Multimodality, Cognition and Experimental Literature. London: Routledge. Gibbons, A. and Whiteley, S. (2018) Contemporary Stylistics: Language, Cognition, Interpreta- tion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Gibbs, R.W. (1994) The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gibbs, R.W. (2005) Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gibbs, R.W. (2017) Metaphor Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Gibbs, R.W. (ed.) (2016) Mixing Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gibbs, R.W. and Colston, H. (1995) ‘The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations’, Cognitive Linguistics 6: 347–78. Gibson, W. and Sterling, B. (1990) The Difference Engine. London: Victor Gollancz. Giovanelli, M. (2013) Text World Theory and Keats’ Poetry: The Cognitive Poetics of Desire, Dreams and Nightmares. London: Bloomsbury. Giovanelli, M. and Harrison, C. (2018) Cognitive Grammar in Stylistics: A Practical Guide. London: Bloomsbury. Gladsky, R.K. (1992) ‘Schema theory and literary texts: Anthony Burgess’s Nadsat’, Lan- guage Quarterly 30(1–2): 39–46. References 231

Goatly, A. (1997) The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge. Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goldberg, A. (ed.) (1996) Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Goldberg, A. (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goldman, A. (2006) Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology and Neuroscience of Mindread- ing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gonzálvez-García, F. and Butler, C.S. (2006) ‘Mapping functional-cognitive space’, Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 4: 39–96. Gopnik, M. (1989) ‘The development of text competence’, in M-E Conte, J.S. Petofi and E. Sözer (eds) Text and Discourse Connectedness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 225–44. Grau, O. (2003) Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Green, K. (1992) ‘Deixis and the poetic persona’, Language and Literature 1(2): 121–34. Green, K. (ed.) (1995) New Essays in Deixis: Discourse, Narrative, Literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Gries, S. and Stefanowitsch, A. (eds) (2006) Corpus Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Haber, R. and Hershenson, M. (1980) The Psychology of Visual Perception (2nd edn). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Hakemulder, F. and Kuijpers, M. (eds) (2017) Narrative Absorption. Amsterdam: John Ben- jamins. Halliday, M.A.K. (2013) Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th edn, revised by C.M. Matthiessen). London: Routledge. Hampe, B. and Grady, J. (eds) (2005) From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Harbus, A. (2002) The Life of the Mind in Old English Poetry. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Harbus, A. (2012) Cognitive Approaches to Old English Poetry. Woodbridge: D.S. Brewer. Harrison, C. (2017) Cognitive Grammar in Contemporary Fiction. London: Bloomsbury. Harrison, C., Nuttall, L., Stockwell, P. and Yuan, W. (eds) (2014) Cognitive Grammar in Literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hart, C. (2014) Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury. Hart, C. (ed.) (2019) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Text and Discourse: From Poetics to Pol- itics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hayes, S.C., Barnes-Holmes, D. and Roche, B. (2001) Relational Frame Theory: A Post- Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers. Heinlein, R. (1959a) The Menace from Earth. New York: Signet. Heinlein, R. (1959b) 6 × H. New York: Pyramid Books. Herman, D. (1994) ‘Textual “you” and double deixis in Edna O’Brien’s A Pagan Place’, Style 28(3): 378–411. Herman, D. (2002) Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Herman, D. (2003) Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications. Herman, D. (2013) Storytelling and the Sciences of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hidalgo Downing, L. (2000a) Negation, Text Worlds, and Discourse: The Pragmatics of Fiction. Stamford, NJ: Ablex. 232 References

Hidalgo Downing, L. (2000b) ‘Negation in discourse: a Text World approach to Joseph Heller’s Catch-22’, Language and Literature 9(3): 215–39. Hidalgo Downing, L. (2002) ‘Creating things that are not: the role of negation in the poetry of Wisława Szymborska’, Journal of Literary Semantics 31(2): 113–32. Hoban, R.L (1982) Riddley Walker. London: Picador. Hogan, P.C. (2003) The Mind and Its Stories: Narrative Universals and Human Emotion. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Hook, G. (1983) ‘The nuclearization of language’, Journal of Peace Research 21(3): 259–75. Hoy, D.C. (1997) ‘Post-Cartesian interpretation: Hans-Georg Gadamer and Donald David- son’, in L.E. Hahn (ed.) The Philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer. Chicago: Open Court, pp. 111–28. Hughes, T. (1994) Elmet (with photographs by F. Godwin, revised from Remains of Elmet, 1979). London: Faber and Faber. Hutcheon, L. (1985) A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art Forms. New York: Methuen. Ingarden, R. (1973a) The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation on the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic, and Theory of Literature (trans. G. Grabowics, from the 3rd edn of Das literarische Kunstwerk, 1965; after a Polish revised translation, 1960; from the original German, 1931). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Ingarden, R. (1973b) The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art (trans. R.A. Crowley and K. Olson, from the German Vom Erkennen des literarischen Kunstwerks, 1968; original Polish O poznawaniu dziela literackiego, 1937). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Iser, W. (1974) The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Iser, W. (1978) The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Iser, W. (2000) The Range of Interpretation. New York: Columbia University Press. Jarvella, R.J. and Klein, W. (eds) (1982) Speech, Place and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics. Chichester: John Wiley. Johnson, M. (1987) The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. King, D.B. and Wertheimer, M. (2005) Max Wertheimer and Gestalt Psychology. New York: Transaction. Kittay, E. (1987) Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Korkut, N. (2009) Kinds of Parody from the Medieval to the Postmodern. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Kövecses, Z. (1986) Metaphors of Anger, Pride and Love. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kövecses, Z. (1988) The Language of Love. Lewisburg: Associated University Press. Kövecses, Z. (1990) Emotion Concepts. New York: Springer. Kövecses, Z. (2010) Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kuester, M. (1992) Framing Truths: Parodic Structures in Contemporary English-Canadian Histor- ical Novels. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (1990) ‘The invariance hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas?’ Cognitive Linguistics 1(1): 39–74. Lakoff, G. (1992) ‘Metaphors and war: the metaphor system used to justify the Gulf War’, in M. Pütz (ed.) Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution: Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lakoff, G. (2002) Moral Politics (2nd edn). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. References 233

Lakoff, G. (2006) Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Press. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press [2nd edn, 2003]. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. (1989) More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R.W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R.W. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R.W. (2002) Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar (2nd edn). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R.W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press. Langacker, R.W. (2009) Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R.W. (2013) Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leech, G. (1981) Semantics (2nd edn). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Leech, G. and Short, M. (2007) Style in Fiction (2nd edn). London: Longman. Lehnert, W.G. and Vine, E.W. (1987) ‘The role of affect in narrative structure’, Cognition and Emotion 1(3): 299–322. Lemon, L. and Reis, M.J. (eds) (1965) Russian Formalist Criticism. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Leverage, P., Mancing, H., Schweickert, R., and William, J.M. (eds) (2011) Theory of Mind and Literature. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, D. (1973) Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, D. (1986) On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell. Littlemore, J. (2015) Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liptay, F. and Dogramaci, B. (eds) (2015) Immersion in the Visual Arts and Media. Leiden: Brill. Logan, G.D. (1995) ‘Linguistic and conceptual control of visual spatial attention’, Cognitive Psychology 28: 103–74. Logan, G.D. (1996) ‘The CODE theory of visual attention: an integration of space-based and object-based attention’, Psychological Review 103: 603–49. Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics, vols I and II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macherey, P. (1985) The Object of Literature (trans. D. Macey, from A quoi pense la littérature? 1990). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maclean, M. (1988) Narrative as Performance. London: Routledge. Macrae, A. (2019) Discourse Deixis in Metafiction. London: Routledge. Maitre, D. (1983) Literature and Possible Worlds. London: Middlesex University Press. Mandler, J.M. (1984) Scripts, Stories and Scenes: Aspects of a Schema Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Martindale, C. (ed.) (1988) Psychological Approaches to the Study of Literary Narratives. Hamburg: Buske. Mason, J. (2019) Intertextuality in Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matejka, L. and Pomorska, K. (eds) (1971) Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structural- ist Views. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 234 References

McCarthy, M. and Carter, R. (1994) Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. London: Longman. McIntyre, D. (2006) Point of View in Plays. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Mervis, C. and Rosch, E. (1981) ‘Categorization of natural objects’, Annual Review of Psych- ology 32: 89–115. Meutsch, D. and Viehoff, R. (1989) Comprehension of Literary Discourse. Berlin: de Gruyter. Miall, D.S. (1988) ‘Affect and narrative: a model of response to stories’, Poetics 17: 259–72. Miall, D.S. (1989) ‘Beyond the schema given: affective comprehension of literary narratives’, Cognition and Emotion 3(1): 55–78. Minsky, M. (1975) ‘A framework for representing knowledge’, in P.E. Winston (ed.) The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 221–77. Minsky, M. (1986) The Society of Mind. London: Heinemann. More, (St) Thomas (1910) Utopia. London: Dent [1516, in Latin, trans. R. Robinson, 1561]. Müller, B. (ed.) (1997) Parody: Dimensions and Perspectives. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Müske, E. (1990) ‘Frame and literary discourse’, Poetics 19: 433–61. Nahajec, L. (2009) ‘Negation and the creation of implicit meaning in poetry’, Language and Literature 18(2): 109–27. Nash, W. (1985) The Language of Humour. London: Longman. Nash, W. (1992) An Uncommon Tongue: The Uses and Resources of English. London: Routledge. Neurohr, B. and Stewart-Shaw, E. (eds) (2019) Experiencing Fictional Worlds: Where Does a Text Take a Reader? Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nikolajeva, M. (2014) Reading for Learning: Cognitive Approaches to Children’s Literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Norgaard, N. (2007) ‘Disordered collarettes and uncovered tables: negative polarity as a stylistic device in Joyce’s “Two Gallants” ’, Journal of Literary Semantics 36(1): 35–52. Novitz, D. (1987) Knowledge, Fiction and Imagination. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Nuttall, L. (2018) Mind-Style and Cognitive Grammar. London: Bloomsbury. Nuyts, J. (2001) Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nuyts, J. (2005) ‘Brothers in arms? On the relations between cognitive and functional linguistics’, in F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza and S. Peña (eds) Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69–100. Olson, G. (ed.) (2011) Current Trends in Narratology. Berlin: de Gruyter. Ortony, A. (ed.) (1993) Metaphor and Thought (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, A. (2004) Fictional Minds. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Panther, K-U., Thornburg, L., and Barcelona, A. (eds) (2009) Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Paprotte, W. and Dirven, R. (eds) (1985) The Ubiquity of Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Ben- jamins. Peplow, D., Swann, J., Trimarco, P. and Whiteley, S. (2016) The Discourse of Reading Groups: Integrating Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives. London: Routledge. Phelan, J. (2005) Living to Tell About It: A Rhetoric and Ethics of Character Narration. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Phelan, J. (2007) Experiencing Fiction: Judgments, Progressions, and the Rhetorical Theory of Nar- rative. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Pihlaja, S. (ed.). (2017) Special Issue: Metaphor in Religion and Spirituality, Metaphor and the Social World 7(1). References 235

Pihlaja, S. (2018) Religious Talk Online: Muslim, Christian, and Atheist Discourse on Social Media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Posner, M.I. (ed.) (1989) Foundations of Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Premack, D. and Woodruff, G. (1978) ‘Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1(4): 515–26. Prince, G. (1982) Narratology: The Form and Function of Narrative. Amsterdam: Mouton. Putnam, H. (1990) Realism with a Human Face. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Radden, G. and Dirven, R. (2007) Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Ben- jamins. Rauh, G. (ed.) (1983) Essays on Deixis. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Reichl, S. (2009) Cognitive Principles, Critical Practice: Reading Literature at University. Vienna: Vienna University Press. Rescher, N. (1975) A Theory of Possibility. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press. Richards, I.A. (1924) Principles of Literary Criticism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Ricoeur, P. (1977) The Rule of Metaphor: Multidisciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language (trans. R. Czerny). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Riffaterre, M. (1959) ‘Criteria for style analysis’, Word 15: 154–74. Riffaterre, M. (1966) ‘Describing poetic structures: two approaches to Baudelaire’s “Les Chats” ’, Yale French Studies 36/7: 200–42. Ronen, R. (1994) Possible Worlds in Literary Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rorty, R. (1982) Consequences of Pragmatism (Essays 1972–1980). Minneapolis, MN: Univer- sity of Minnesota Press. Rosch, E. (1975) ‘Cognitive representations of semantic categories’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104: 193–233. Rosch, E. (1977) ‘Human categorization’, in N. Warren (ed.) Studies in Cross-Cultural Psych- ology, vol. I. London: Academic Press, pp. 1–49. Rosch, E. (1978) ‘Principles of categorization’, in E. Rosch and B. Lloyd (eds) Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 27–48. Rosch, E. (1988) ‘Coherence and categorization: a historical view’, in F.S. Kessel (ed.) The Development of Language and Language Researchers: Essays in Honour of Roger Brown. Hills- dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 373–92. Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. (eds) (1978) Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rosch, E. and Mervis, C. (1975) ‘Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories’, Cognitive Psychology 7: 573–605. Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D., and Boyes-Braem, P. (1976) ‘Basic objects in natural categories’, Cognitive Psychology 8: 382–439. Rose, M. (1993) Parody: Ancient, Modern and Post-Modern . Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Rumelhart, D.E. (1975) ‘Notes on a schema for stories’, in D.G. Bobrow and A. Collins (eds) Representation and Understanding. New York: Academic Press, pp. 211–36. Rumelhart, D.E. (1980) ‘Schemata: the building blocks of cognition’, in R.J. Spiro, B. Bruce and W. Brewer (eds) Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence and Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 33–58. Rumelhart, D.E. (1984) ‘Schemata and the cognitive system’, in R.S Wyer and T.K. Srull (eds) Handbook of Social Cognition, vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 161–88. 236 References

Rumelhart, D.E. and Norman, D.A. (1978) ‘Accretion, tuning and restructuring: three modes of learning’, in J.W. Cotton and R.L. Klatzky (eds) Semantic Factors in Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 37–53. Ryan, M.-L. (1991a) Possible Worlds: Artificial Intelligence and Narrative Theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Ryan, M.-L. (1991b) ‘Possible worlds and accessibility relations: a semantics typology of fiction’,Poetics Today, 12(3): 553–76. Ryan, M.-L. (2001) Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Music. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ryan, M.-L. and Thon, J.-N. (eds) (2014) Storyworlds Across Media: Toward a Media-Conscious Narratology. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Sanford, A.J. and Emmott, C. (2012) Mind, Brain and Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sanford, A.J. and Garrod, S.C. (1981) Understanding Written Language. New York: Wiley. Schank, R.C. (1982a) Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schank, R.C. (1982b) Reading and Understanding: Teaching from the Perspective of Artificial Intel- ligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schank, R.C. (1984) The Cognitive Computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schank, R.C. (1986) Explanation Patterns. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schank, R.C. and Abelson, R. (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Searle, J. (1975) ‘The logical status of fictional discourse’,New Literary History 6(2): 319–32. Segal, E.M. (1995a) ‘Narrative comprehension and the role of deictic shift theory’, in J.F. Duchan, G.A. Bruder, and L.E. Hewitt (eds) Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Per- spective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3–17. Segal, E.M. (1995b) ‘A cognitive-phenomenological theory of fictional narrative’, in J.F. Duchan, G.A. Bruder, and L.E. Hewitt (eds) Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Per- spective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 61–78. Semino, E. (1995) ‘Schema theory and the analysis of text worlds in poetry’, Language and Literature 4(2): 79–108. Semino, E. (1997) Language and World Creation in Poems and Other Texts. London: Longman. Semino, E. and Demjén, Z. (eds) (2017) The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. London: Routledge. Semino, E. (2008) Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shapiro, L. (2011) Embodied Cognition. London: Routledge. Shaw, B. (1967) Night Walk. New York: Banner. Short, M. (1996) Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. London: Longman. Simpson, P. (1993) Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge. Simpson, P. (2002) Satire. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Smyth, M.M., Collins, A.F., Morris, P.E., and Levy, P. (1994) Cognition in Action (2nd edn). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum. Spiro, R.J. (1980) ‘Prior knowledge and story processing: integration, selection and variation’, Poetics 9: 313–27. Spiro, R.J. (1982) ‘Long-term comprehension: schema-based versus experiential and evalu- ative understanding’, Poetics 11: 77–86. Spiro, R.J., Bruce, B., and Brewer, W. (eds) (1980) Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehen- sion: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence and Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. References 237

Stapledon, O. (1937) Star Maker. London: Methuen. Steen, G.J. (2013) ‘Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition’, Journal of Cognitive Semiotics 5(1–2): 179–97. Steen, G.J. (2017) ‘Deliberate Metaphor Theory: basic assumptions, core tenets, remaining issues’, Intercultural Communication 14(1): 1–24. Steen, G.J. (ed.) (2018) Visual Metaphor: Structure and Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Steen, G.J., Dorst, A.G., Herrmann, J.B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., and Pasma, T. (2010) A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stockwell, P. (1990) ‘Scripts, frames and nuclear discourse in the Washington superpower summit, December 1987’, Liverpool Papers in Language and Discourse 2: 18–39. Stockwell, P. (1992) ‘The metaphorics of literary reading’, Liverpool Papers in Language and Discourse 4: 52–80. Stockwell, P. (1994) ‘To be or not to be a phagocyte: procedures of reading metaphors’, in R. Sell and P. Verdonk (eds) Literature and the New Interdisciplinarity: Poetics, Linguistics, History. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 65–78. Stockwell, P. (1999) ‘The inflexibility of invariance’,Language and Literature 8(2): 125–42. Stockwell, P. (2000a) The Poetics of Science Fiction. London: Longman. Stockwell, P. (2000b) ‘(Su)real stylistics: from text to contextualizing’, in T. Bex, M. Burke, and P. Stockwell (eds) Contextualized Stylistics: In Honour of Peter Verdonk. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 15–38. Stockwell, P. (2001) ‘Toward a critical cognitive linguistics?’ in A. Combrink and I. Bier- mann (eds) Poetics, Linguistics and History: Discourses of War and Conflict. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University Press, pp. 510–28. Stockwell, P. (2002) ‘Miltonic texture and the feeling of reading’, in J. Culpeper and E. Semino (eds) Cognitive Stylistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73–94. Stockwell P (2003a) ‘Schema poetics and speculative cosmology.’ Language and Literature 12(3): 252–71. Stockwell, P. (2003b) ‘Surreal figures’, in J. Gavins and G. Steen (eds) Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 13–25. Stockwell, P. (2009a) Texture: A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Stockwell, P. (2009b) ‘The cognitive poetics of literary resonance’, Language and Cognition 1(1): 25–44. Stockwell, P. (2011) ‘Authenticity and creativity in reading lamentation’, in J. Swann, R. Pope, and R. Carter (eds) Creativity in Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Stockwell, P. (2015) ‘The texture of authorial intention’, in J. Gavins and E. Lahey (eds) World Building: Discourse in the Mind. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 147–63. Stockwell, P. (2017) The Language of Surrealism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Stockwell, P. (2020) ‘Re-cognising free indirect discourse’, in M. Giovanelli, C. Harrison, and L. Nuttall (eds) New Directions in Cognitive Grammar and Style. London: Bloomsbury. Stockwell, P. and Mahlberg, M. (2015) ‘Mind-modelling with corpus stylistics in David Cop- perfield’, Language and Literature 24: 129–47. Stroop, J.R. (1935) ‘Studies of interference in serial-verbal reaction’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 18: 643–62. Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G.J. (eds) (2016) Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Styles, E. (2006) The Psychology of Attention (2nd edn). Hove: Psychology Press. Swales, J. (1988) ‘Discourse communities, genres and English as an international language’, World Englishes 7(2): 211–20. 238 References

Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sweetser, E. (1990) From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, L. (1978) ‘Figure and ground in complex sentences’, in J. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Human Language, vol. 4. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 627–49. Talmy, L. (1988) ‘Force dynamics in language and cognition’, Cognitive Science 12: 49–100. Talmy, L. (1995) ‘Narrative structure in a cognitive framework’, in J.F. Duchan, G.A. Bruder, and L.E. Hewitt (eds) Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 421–60. Talmy, L. (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Talmy, L. (2007) ‘Attention phenomena’, in D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 264–93. Tannen, D. (1984) ‘What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations’, in R.O. Freedle (ed.) New Directions in Discourse Processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 137–81. Taylor, J. (2003) Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory (3rd edn). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Thorndyke, P.W. (1977) ‘Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse’, Cognitive Psychology 9: 77–110. Thorndyke, P.W. and Yekovich, F.R. (1980) ‘A critique of schema-based theories of human story memory’, Poetics 9: 23–49. Toolan, M. (2001) Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Tsur, R. (1992) Toward a Theory of Cognitive Poetics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Tsur, R. (2017) Poetic Conventions as Cognitive Fossils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Turner, M. (1987) Death Is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press. Turner, M. (1990) ‘Aspects of the invariance hypothesis’, Cognitive Linguistics 1(2): 247–55. Turner, M. (1991) Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Turner, M. (1996) The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Turner, M. (2001) Cognitive Dimensions of Social Science: The Way We Think About Politics, Economics, Law, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press. Turner, M. (ed.) (2006) The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity. New York: Oxford University Press Turner, M. (2014) The Origin of Ideas: Blending, Creativity, and the Human Spark. New York: Oxford University Press. Turner, M. and Fauconnier, G. (1995) ‘Conceptual integration and formal expression’, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10(3): 183–203. Turner, M. and Fauconnier, G. (1999) ‘A mechanism of creativity’, Poetics Today 20(3): 397–418. Ungerer, F. and Schmid, H.-J. (2013) An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (2nd edn). London: Longman. van Dijk, T.A. (1977) Text and Context. London: Longman. van Dijk, T.A. (1980) Macrostructures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. van Dijk, T.A. (2009) ‘Critical discourse studies: a socio-cognitive approach’. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 62–85. van Dijk, T.A. and Kintsch, W. (1983) Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Aca- demic Press. References 239 van Oosten, J. (1984) ‘Subject, topic, agent, and passive’, PhD thesis. University of Cali- fornia, San Diego. van Peer, W. (1986) Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations of Foregrounding. New York: Croom Helm. Verhagen, A. (2005) Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vermeule, B. (2010) Why Do We Care about Literary Characters? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Walton, K.L. (1978) ‘How remote are fictional worlds from the real world?’ Journal of Aes- thetics and Art Criticism 37: 11–23. Warnke, G. (1987) Gadamer: Hermeneutics, Tradition and Reason. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Weiss, G. and Wodak, R. (2003) Critical Discourse Analysis; Theory and Interdisciplinarity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Werth, P. (1987) ‘Understanding’, Journal of Literary Semantics 16: 129–53. Werth, P. (1994) ‘Extended metaphor: a text world account’, Language and Literature 3(2): 79–103. Werth, P. (1995a) ‘How to build a world (in a lot less than six days, and using only what’s in your head)’, in K. Green (ed.) New Essays in Deixis. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 49–80. Werth, P. (1995b) ‘ “World enough and time”: deictic space and the interpretation of prose’, in P. Verdonk and J.-J. Weber (eds) Twentieth Century Fiction: From Text to Context. London: Routledge, pp. 181–205. Werth, P. (1999) Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman. Whiteley, S. (2016) ‘Building resonant worlds: experiencing the text-worlds of The Uncon- soled’, in J. Gavins and E. Lahey (eds) World Building: Discourse in the Mind. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 165–82. Wiebe, J.M. (1995) ‘References in narrative text’, in J.F. Duchan, G.A. Bruder, and L.E. Hewitt (eds) Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 263–86. Wilson, J. (1990) Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Wimsatt, W.K. and Beardsley, M.C. (1954) The Verbal Icon. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1958) Philosophical Investigations (2nd edn, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe). Oxford: Blackwell. Wolf, W. (1998) ‘Aesthetic illusion in lyric poetry?’ Poetica 30: 251–89. Wolf, W. (2004) ‘Aesthetic illusion as an effect of fiction’, Style 38:, 325–51. Wolf, W., Bernhart, W., and Mahler, A. (eds) (2013) Immersion and Distance. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Womack, J. (2000) Going Going Gone. London: HarperCollins. Ziemke, T., Zlatev, J., and Frank, R. (eds) (2007) Embodiment. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Zubin, D.A. and Hewitt, L.E. (1995) ‘The deictic center: a theory of deixis in narrative’, in J.F. Duchan, G.A. Bruder, and L.E. Hewitt (eds) Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 129–55. Zunshine, L. (2006) Why We Read Fiction: Theory of Mind and the Novel. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Zyngier, S., Bortolussi, M., Chesnokova, A., and Auracher, J. (eds) (2008) Directions in Empirical Literary Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.