Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2018
Edited by Bert Le Bruyn and Janine Berns
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 35] 2018
► pp. 125–138

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

Empathy for the inanimate

 | Radboud University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 3 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00009.tro
Abstract
Narrative fiction may invite us to share the perspective of characters which are very much unlike ourselves. Inanimate objects featuring as protagonists or narrators are an extreme example of this. The way readers experience these characters was examined by means of a narrative immersion study. Participants (N = 200) judged narratives containing animate or inanimate characters in predominantly Agent or Experiencer roles. Narratives with inanimate characters were judged to be less emotionally engaging. This effect was influenced by the dominant thematic role associated with the character: inanimate Agents led to more defamiliarization compared to their animate counterparts than inanimate Experiencers. I argue for an integrated account of thematic roles and animacy in literary experience and linguistics in general.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Animacy and empathy
    • 2.1Linguistic reflections of narrative empathy
  • 3.The inanimate character: A narrative immersion study
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Stories
    • 3.3Questionnaires
    • 3.4Design & procedure
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Comprehension questions
    • 4.2ART & literary experience
    • 4.3Emotional engagement
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (29)
References
Acheson, Daniel. J., Justine B. Wells & Maryellen C. MacDonald. 2008. “New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students.” Behavior Research Methods 40(1): 278–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. “Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernaerts, Lars, Marco Caracciolo, Luc Herman & Bart Vervaeck. 2014. “The storied lives of non-human narrators.” Narrative 221: 68–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruner, Jerome. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2008. “Animacy and egophoricity: Grammar, ontology and phylogeny.” Lingua 1181: 141–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Graaf, Anneke, Hans Hoeken, José Sanders & Johannes W. J. Beentjes. 2012. “Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion.” Communication Research 391: 802–823. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter & Helen de Hoop. 2018. “Shifting Animacy.” Theoretical Linguistics 44(1/2). 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. “Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.” Language 671: 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fagel, Suzanne, Ninne Stukker & Loes van Andel. 2012. Hoe telbaar is stijl? – Een kwantitatieve analyse van observatie en participatie in de stijl van Arnon Grunberg. Nederlandse letterkunde 17(3): 178–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger. 1977. Linguistics and the novel. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott M. 2005. “The Lattice of Case and Agentivity.” Master’s thesis, Amsterdam University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartung, Franziska, Michael Burke, Peter Hagoort & Roel M. Willems. 2016. “Taking perspective: Personal pronouns affect experiential aspects of literary reading.” PLoS One 11(5): e0154732. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keen, Suzanne. 2007. Empathy and the Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidd, David C., & Emanuele Castano. 2013. “Reading literary fiction improves Theory of Mind.” Science 3421: 377–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koopman, Emy. 2015. “Empathic reactions after reading: The role of genre, personal factors and affective responses.” Poetics 501: 62–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuijpers, Moniek, Frank Hakemulder, Ed Tan, & Miruna Doicaru. 2014. “Exploring absorbing reading experiences – developing and validating a self-report scale to measure story world absorption.” Scientific Study of Literature 4(1): 89–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu & Etsuko Kaburaki. 1977. “Empathy and Syntax.” Linguistic Inquiry 8(4): 627–672.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol II, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nijhof, Annabel D. & Roel M. Willems. 2015. “Simulating Fiction: Individual Differences in Literature Comprehension Revealed with fMRI.” PLoS One 10(2): e0116492. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2012. “Animacy, generalized semantic roles, and differential object marking.” Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension ed. by M. J. A. Lamers & P. de Swart, 65–90. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radanović, Jelena, Chris Westbury & Petar Milin. 2016. “Quantifying Semantic Animacy: How much are words alive?” Applied Psycholinguistics 371: 1477–1499. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2008. “Animacy and grammatical variation – Findings from the English genitive variation.” Lingua 1181: 151–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneider, Ralf. 2001. “Toward a Cognitive Theory of Literary Character: The Dynamics of Mental-Model Construction.” Style 351: 607–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stanovich, Keith E. & Richard F. West. 1989. “Exposure to print and orthographic processing.” Reading Research Quarterly 241: 402–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szewczyk, Jakub M. & Herbert Schriefers. 2011. “Is animacy special? ERP correlates of semantic violations and animacy violations in sentence processing.” Brain research 13681: 208–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trompenaars, Thijs, Lotte Hogeweg, Wessel Stoop & Helen de Hoop. To appear. “The language of an inanimate narrator.” Open Linguistics.
Vogels, Jorrig, Emiel Krahmer & Alfons Maes. 2013. “When a stone tries to climb up a slope: The interplay between lexical and perceptual animacy in referential choices.” Frontiers in Psychology 41: 154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Saptiadi , Nur Alifia Putri , Mia Fitria Agustina & Ririn Kurnia Trisnawati
2023. Making Meaning of Inanimate Objects as Characters in The Blue Umbrella (2013) . MOZAIK HUMANIORA 23:1 ► pp. 140 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue