In:Scientific Approaches to Literature in Learning Environments
Edited by Michael Burke, Olivia Fialho and Sonia Zyngier
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 24] 2016
► pp. 1–16
Chapter 1. Empirical approaches to the study of literature in learning environments
An overview
Published online: 22 July 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.24.01fia
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.24.01fia
Due to the variety of areas involved in the scientific study of literature in learning environments, this chapter provides an overview in six parts. Part 1 focuses on students’ perceptions of literature, how readers construct literary interpretation in the classroom, the growth of literary expertise in literary response, and instructional factors in literary interpretation. Part 2 looks at studies on creative writing in pedagogical settings. Part 3 discusses recent studies on pedagogical stylistics. Part 4 aims at research on online environments while Part 5 centers on book clubs and reading groups. In Part 6, the synopses of the contributions to the volume signal the advances this book brings to the area.
Keywords: empirical, learning, literary reading, scientific study of literature
References (95)
Adolphs, S., & Carter, R. (2002). Point of view and semantic prosodies in Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse
. Poetica, 58, 7–20.
Andringa, E. (1996). Effects of ‘narrative distance’ on readers’ emotional involvement and response. Poetics, 23(6), 431-452.
Archer, D. (2007). Computer-assisted literary stylistics: The state of the field. In M. Lambrou & P. Stockwell (Eds.), Contemporary stylistics (pp. 244–256). London: Continuum.
Archer, D., Culpeper, J., & Rayson, P. (2009). Love—“a familiar or a devil”? An exploration of key domains in Shakespeare's comedies and tragedies. In D. Archer (Ed.), What's in a Word-list? Investigating word frequency and keyword extraction (pp. 137–157). Farnham: Ashgate.
Bal, P.M., Butterman, O.S., & Bakker, A.B. (2011). The influence of fictional narrative experience on work outcomes: A conceptual analysis and research model. Review of General Psychology, 15, 361–370.
Bortolussi, M., & Dixon, P. (1996). The effects of formal training on literary reception. Poetics, 23, 471-487.
Burke, M. (2010b). Rhetorical pedagogy: Teaching students how to write a stylistics paper. Language and Literature, 19(1), 77-92.
Burke, M., Csábi, S., Week, L, & Zerkowitz J. (Eds.) (2012). Pedagogical stylistics: Current trends in language, literature and ELT. London: Continuum.
Clark, U., & Zyngier, S. (2003). Towards a pedagogical stylistics. Language and Literature, 12, 339 - 351.
Culpeper, J. (2009). Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet
. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(1), 29–59.
Davidson, C.N., & Goldberg, D.T. (2009). The future of learning institution in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Disney, D. (Ed.) (2014). Exploring second language creative writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Earthman, E. (1992). Creating the virtual work: Readers’ processes in understanding literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(4), 351-384.
Eva-Wood, A.L. (2004). Thinking and feeling poetry: Exploring meanings aloud. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 182–191.
Fialho, O. (2006). Assessing literary education: An empirical investigation of students’ conceptualizations of Literature in a Canadian setting. Paper presented at IGEL 2006: International Congress. International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature. Chiemsee, Munich, August 5-9, 2006.
. (2012). Empirical stylistics in the literature classroom: Looking ahead. Workshop organized at Poetics and Linguistics Association: PALA, Special Interest Group – Pedagogical Stylistics: Heidelberg, July 15-16, 2012.
Fialho, O., Moffat, C., & Miall, D.S. (2010). An empirical study of students' concepts of literary education. Paper presented at IGEL Conference (International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature and Media), Utrecht, 7-11 July, 2010.
Fialho, O., Miall, D.S., & Zyngier, S. (2012). Experiencing or interpreting literature: Wording instructions. In M. Burke, S. Csábi, L. Week & J. Zerkowitz (Eds.), Pedagogical stylistics: Current trends in language, literature and ELT. London: Continuum.
Fialho, O., Zyngier, S., & Miall, D.S. (2011). Interpretation and experience: Two pedagogical interventions observed. English in Education, 45(3), 236-253.
Giovanelli, M. (2010). Pedagogical stylistics: A text world theory approach to the teaching of poetry. English in Education, 44(3), 214-231.
. (2013). Cognitive linguistics in the English classroom: New possibilities for thinking about teaching grammar. Teaching English, 3, 61-65.
Giovanelli, M., & Clayton, D. (eds.) (in press). Knowing about Language: Linguistics and the Secondary English Classroom. London: Routledge.
Giovanelli, M., & Mason, J. (2015). 'Well I don't feel that’: Schemas, worlds and authentic reading in the classroom. English in Education, 49(1), 41-55.
Graves, B. & Frederiksen, C. (1991). Literary expertise in the description of a fictional narrative. Poetics, 20, 1-26.
Groenendijk, T., Janssen, T.M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). How do secondary school students write poetry? How creative writing processes relate to final products. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 8(3), 57-80.
Hall, R.M. (2003). The ‘Oprahfication’ of literacy: Reading ‘Oprah’s Book Club’. College English, 65(6), 646-667.
Hanauer, D. (1995). The effects of educational background on literary and poetic text categorization judgements. In G. Rusch (Ed.), Empirical approaches to literature: Proceedings of the Fourth Biannual Conference of the International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature, Budapest, August 1994 (pp. 338-347). Siegen: Lumis.
. (1999). Attention and literary education: A model of literary knowledge development. Language Awareness, 8, 15-29.
. (2010). Poetry as research: Exploring second language poetry writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2014). Appreciating the beauty of second language poetry writing. In D. Disney (ed.), Exploring second language Creative Writing: Beyond Babel (pp. 11-22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Heller, W. (2010). Teaching Shakespeare in the elementary school through dramatic activity, play production, and technology: A case study. In W. van Peer, S. Zyngier, & V.P. Viana, Literary education and digital learning: Methods and technologies for humanities studies (pp. 57-186). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference (IGI Global).
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace. A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at Work. Harlow: Pearson.
Hoover, D., Culpeper, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2014). Digital literary studies: Corpus approaches to poetry, prose, and drama. London: Routledge.
Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, M., & van den Bergh, H. (2012). Flexibility in reading literature. Differences between good and poor adolescent readers. Scientific Study of Literature, 2(1), 83-107.
Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Couzijn, M. (2009). Self-questioning in the literature classroom: Effects on students’ interpretation and appreciation of short stories. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 9(1), 91-116.
Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2006). Literary reading activities of good and weak students: A think aloud study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(1), 35-53.
Janssen, T., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). Students as self-assessors: Learning experiences of literature teaching in secondary schools. In Ed Marum (Ed.), Children and books in the modern world: Contemporary perspectives on literacy (pp. 98-114). London: Routledge.
. (1995). Approaches to the teaching of literature: A national survey of literary education in Dutch secondary schools. In R.J. Kreuz & M.S. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 513-536). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Jones, K., McLean, M., Amigoni, D., & Kinsman, M. (2005). Investigating the production of university English in mass higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 4(3), 247-264.
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18, 379-390.
Knights, B. (2010). The implied aesthetic of English teaching. Wordplay 3. Accessed 20 October 2014. Available at: <[URL]>
Lee, C. (2011). Education and the study of literature. Scientific Study of Literature, 11(1), 49-58.
Leech G., & Short, M. ([1981]2007). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. Harlow: Pearson.
Long, E. (2003). Book clubs: Women and the uses of reading in everyday life. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Louw, W.E. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 157–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mahlberg, M. (2012). Corpus analysis of literary texts. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Mahlberg, M., & Smith, C. (2010). Corpus approaches to prose fiction: Civility and body language in Pride and prejudice
. In D. McIntyre & B. Busse (Eds.), Language and style (pp. 449–67). Houndmills: Palgrave.
Mar, R.A., Oatley, K., Hirsch, J., dela Paz, J., & Peterson, J.B. (2006). Bookworms versus nerds: Exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 694-712.
McIntryre, D. (2011). The place of stylistics in the English curriculum. In L. Jeffries & D. McIntyre (Eds.), Teaching stylistics (pp. 9-29). Houndmills: Palgrave.
McIntyre, D. (2012). Corpus stylistics in the classroom. In M. Burke, S. Csábi, L. Week, & J. Zerkowitz (Eds.), Pedagogical stylistics: Current trends in language, literature and ELT (pp. 113-125). London: Continuum.
McIntyre, D., & Walker, B. (2010). How can corpora be used to explore the language of poetry and drama? In A. O'Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 516–530). Abingdon: Routledge.
Miall, D. (1996). Empowering the reader: Literary response and classroom learning. In R.J. Kreuz & S.M. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 463-478). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Miall, D.S., Kuiken, D., & Gifford, J. (2002). Reasons for reading and studying literature. Paper presented at IGEL 2002: International Congress. International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature. University of Pécs, Hungary. August 21-24, 2002.
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peplow, D. (2011). “Oh, I’ve know a lot of Irish people”: Reading groups and the negotiation of literary interpretation. Language and Literature, 20(4), 295-315.
Peskin, J. (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An Expert-Novice study. Cognition and Instruction, 16(3), 235-263.
. (2007). The genre of poetry: Secondary school students’ conventional expectations and interpretive operations. English in Education, 41(3), 20-36.
. (2010). The development of poetic literacy through the school years. Discourse Processes, 47, 77-103.
. (2011). The social and educational benefits of the scientific study of literature: From picture books to poetry. In F. Hakemulder (Ed.), De stralende lezer: Wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar de invloed van het lezen (pp. 25-5). Delft: Eburon.
Peskin, J., Allen, G., & Wells-Jopling, R. (2010). The “Educated Imagination”: Applying instructional research to the teaching of symbolic interpretation of poetry. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(6), 498-507.
Peskin, J., & Wells-Jopling, R. (2012). Fostering symbolic interpretation during adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 13-23.
. (1997). A feeling for books: The book-of-the-month club, literary taste, and middle-class desire. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Ravassat, M., & Culpeper, J. (2011). Stylistics and Shakespeare’s language: Transdisciplinary approaches. London: Continuum.
Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519–549.
Ross, C.S. (1999). Finding without seeking: The information encounter in the context of reading for pleasure. Information Processing Management, 35, 783–799.
Semino, E., & Short, M. (2004). Corpus stylistics: Speech, writing and thought presentation in a corpus of English writing. London: Routledge.
Short, M.,Busse, B., & Plummer, P . (2006). The web-based language and style course, e-learning and stylistics. Language and Literature, 15(3), 219-233.
Saklofske, J. (2010). Plays well with others: The value of developing multiplayer digital gamespaces for literary education. In W. van Peer, S. Zyngier, & V.P. Viana (Eds.), Literary education and digital learning: Methods and technologies for Humanities studies (pp. 130-156). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference (IGI Global).
Spiro, J. (2014). Learner and writer voices: Learners as writers and the search for authorial voice. In D. Disney (ed.), Exploring second language creative writing: Beyond Babel (pp. 23-40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stubbs, M. (2005). Conrad in the computer: Examples of quantitative stylistic methods. Language and Literature, 14(1), 5-24.
Tabata, T. (2002). Investigating stylistic variation in Dickens through correspondence analysis of word-class distribution. In T. Saito, J. Nakamura, & S. Yamazaki (Eds.), English corpus linguistics in Japan (pp. 165–182). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Toolan, M. (2009). Narrative progression in the short story: A corpus stylistic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Peer, W., Zyngier, S., & Viana, V.P. (2010). Literary education and digital learning: Methods and technologies for humanities studies. Hershey PA: Information Science Reference (IGI Global).
van Schooten, E., & de Glopper, K. (2003). The development of literary response in secondary education. Poetics, 31, 155-187.
van Schooten, E., de Glopper, K., & Stoel, R.D. (2004). Development of attitude toward reading adolescent literature and literary reading behavior. Poetics, 32, 343-386.
Watson, G., & Zyngier, S. (2006). Literature and stylistics for language learners: Theory and practice. Houndmills: Palgrave.
Weick, K.E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652.
Whiteley, S. (2011a). Text World Theory, real readers and emotional responses to The remains of the day
. Language and Literature, 20(1), 23-42.
. (2011b). Talking about ‘An accomodation’: The implications of discussion group data for community engagement and pedagogy. Language and Literature 20(3), 236-256.
Zyngier, S. (2006). Stylistics: Pedagogical applications. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.; pp. 226-232). Oxford: Elsevier.
Zyngier, S., Barsch, A., & Miall, D.S. (2002). What is literature, really? Motivations to study. Literature and reading across different cultures. Igel Newsletter, 1(1), 6-13. Available at: <[URL]>
Zyngier, S. (2008). Macbeth through the computer: Literary evaluation and pedagogical implications. In W. van Peer (Ed.), The quality of literature: Linguistic studies in literary evaluation (pp. 169-190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zyngier, S. et al. (Orgs.). 2001. Conhecimento e imaginação: Coletânea dos trabalhos do I ECEL – Encontro de ciência empírica da literatura. Rio de Janeiro: Serviço de Publicações da Faculdade de Letras da UFRJ.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 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.
