Cover not available

In:Style and Reader Response: Minds, media, methods
Edited by Alice Bell, Sam Browse, Alison Gibbons and David Peplow
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 36] 2021
► pp. 1–20

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

Chapter 1
Responding to style

 | Sheffield Hallam University
 | Sheffield Hallam University
 | Sheffield Hallam University
 | Sheffield Hallam University
Published online: 8 February 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.36.01bel
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Stylistics and the reader
  • 3.Minds
  • 4.Media
  • 5.Methods
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (148)
References
Alderson, J. C. & Short, M. 1989. Reading literature. In Reading, Analysing and Teaching Literature, M. Short (ed.), 72–119. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allington, D. 2012. Private experience, textual analysis, and institutional authority: The discursive practice of critical interpretation and its enactment in literary training. Language and Literature 21(2): 211–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allington, D. & Benwell, B. 2012. Reading the reading experience: an ethnomethodological approach to ‘booktalk’. In From Codex to Hypertext: Reading at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century, A. Lang (ed.), 217–233. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allington, D. & Pihlaja, S. 2016. Reading in the age of the internet. Special Issue of Language and Literature on ‘Reading in the Digital Age’ 25(3): 201–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baldry, A. & Thibault, P. 2006. Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis: A Multimedia Toolkit and Coursebook. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 1991. Deriving categories to achieve goals. In The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 27), G. Bower (ed.), 1–64. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes 18: 513–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering: An Experimental and Social Study. Cambridge: Cambride University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2018. Language and Television Series: A Linguistic Approach to TV Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bell, A. 2010. The Possible Worlds of Hypertext Fiction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. Schema theory, hypertext fiction and links. Style 48(2):140–161.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bell, A., Ensslin, A., van der Bom, I. & Smith, J. 2019. A reader response method not just for “you”. Language and Literature 28(3): 241–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. Immersion in digital fiction. International Journal of Literary Linguistics 7(1): 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benwell, B. 2012. Common-sense anti-racism in book group talk: the role of reported speech. Discourse & Society 23(4): 356–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Black, Elizabeth. 1993. Metaphor, simile and cognition in Golding’s The Inheritors . Language & Literature 2(1): 37–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1984 [1933]. Language. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bray, J. 2007. The “dual voice” of free indirect discourse: a reading experiment. Language and Literature 16(1): 37–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brône, G. & Vandaele, J. (eds). 2009. Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, A. S. & Novak, J. L. 2007. Assessing the Intrinsic Impacts of a Live Performance. WolfBrown. <[URL]> (23 January 2020).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Browse, S. 2016a. Revisiting Text World Theory and extended metaphor: Embedding and foregrounding metaphor in the text-worlds of the 2008 financial crash. Language and Literature 25(1): 18–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016b. ‘This is not the end of the world’: Situating metaphor in the text-worlds of the 2008 British Financial Crisis. In World Building: Discourse in the Mind, J. Gavins & E. Lahey (eds), 183–203. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018b. From Functional to Cognitive Grammar in Stylistic Analysis of Golding’s The Inheritors . Journal of Literary Semantics 47 (2): 121–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2020. Straight talking honest politics: rhetorical style and ethos in the mediated politics of metamodernity. In Contemporary Media Stylistics, H. Ringrow & S. Pihlaja (eds), 241–265. London: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burke, N. 2011. Literary Reading, Cognition and Emotion: An Exploration of the Oceanic Mind. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caracciolo, M., Ionescu, A. & Fransoo, R. 2019. Metaphorical patterns in Anthropocene fiction. Language and Literature 28(3): 221–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cockcroft, R. 2002. Rhetorical Affect in Early Modern Writing: Renaissance Passions Reconsidered. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collinson, I. 2009. Everyday Readers: Reading and Popular Culture. London: Equinox. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, G. 1994. Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crisp, P. 2001. Allegory: conceptual metaphor in history. Language and Literature 10(1): 5–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Allegory and symbol – a fundamental opposition? Language and Literature 14(4): 323–338. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. The Pilgrim’s Progress: Allegory or novel? Language and Literature 21(4): 328–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crisp, P., Heywood, J. & Steen, G. 2002. Metaphor identification and analysis, classification and quantification. Language and Literature 11(1): 55–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruikshank, T. 2014. Performance. In The Cambridge Handbook of Stylistics, P. Stockwell & S. Whiteley (eds), 456–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culler, J. 1975. Structural Poetics. London: Routledge & Kenan Paul. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2001. Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and Other Texts. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, P. & Bortolussi, M. 2008. Textual and extra-textual manipulations in the empirical study of literary response. In Directions in Empirical Literary Studies, S. Zyngier, M. Bortolussi, A. Chesnokova, & J. Auracher (eds), 75–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowrick, C., Billington, J., Robinson, J., Hamer, A. & Williams, C. 2012. Get into reading as an intervention for common mental health problems: Exploring catalysts for change. Medical Humanities 38: 15–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ensslin, A., Bell, A., van der Bom, I., Smith, J. & Skains, L. 2018. Immersion, digital fiction, and the switchboard metaphor. Participations 16(1): 320–342. <[URL]> (23 January 2020).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, V. & Green M. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fialho, O. 2007. Foregrounding and familiarization: understanding readers’ response to literary texts. Language and Literature 16(2): 105–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1982. Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society of Korea (eds), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fish, S. 1980 [1973]. What is stylistics and why are they saying such terrible things about it? In Is There A Text in this Class?, S. Fish (ed.), 68–96. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fowler, R. 1971. The Languages of Literature: Some Linguistic Contributions to Criticism. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1977. Linguistics and the Novel. London: Methuen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freshwater, H. 2009. Theatre & Audience. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gavins J. 2005. (Re)thinking modality: A Text World Theory perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics 34(2): 79–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gavins J. & Lahey, E. (eds). 2016. World Building: Discourse in the Mind. London; New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gavins. J. & Steen, G. (eds). 2003. Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London; New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbons, A. 2012. Multimodality, Cognition, and Experimental Literature. London; New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016a. ‘Multimodality, Cognitive Poetics, and Genre: Reading Grady Hendrix’s novel Horrorstör’, Multimodal Communication 5(1): 15–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016b. Building Hollywood in Paddington: Text World Theory, immersive theatre, and Punchdrunk’s The Drowned Man . In World Building: Discourse in the Mind, J. Gavins & E. Lahey (eds), 71–89. London; New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Identifying and appreciating poetic metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics 31: 101–112.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Prototypes in dynamic meaning construal. In Cognitive Poetics in Practice, J. Gavins & G. Steen (eds), 27–40. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giovanelli, M. & Harrison, C. 2018. Cognitive grammar in stylistics : A practical guide. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giovanelli, M., Harrison, C. & Nuttall, L. Forthcoming. New Directions in Cognitive Grammar and Style. London: Bloomsbury.
Graesser, A., Kassler, M. A., Kreuz, R. J. & McLain-Allen, B. 1998. Verification of statements about story worlds that deviate from normal conceptions of time: what is true about Einstein’s Dreams? Cognitive Psychology 35: 246–301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, G. 2008. Empirical research into the processing of free indirect discourse and the imperative of ecological validity. In Directions in Empirical Literary Studies, S. Zyngier, M. Bortolussi, A. Chesnokova & J. Auracher (eds), 21–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Linguistic function and literary style: An enquiry into the language of William Golding’s “The Inheritors”. In Explorations in the Functions of Language, M. A. K. Halliday (ed.), 103–44. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2014. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed. London: Arnold. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harrison, C. 2017. Cognitive Grammar in Contemporary Fiction. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harrison, C., Nuttall, L., Stockwell, P. & Yuan, W. (eds). 2014. Cognitive Grammar in Literature. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heywood, J., Semino, E. & Short, M. 2002. Linguistic metaphor identification in two extracts from novels. Language and Literature 11(1): 35–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hidalgo-Downing, L. 2000. Negation, Text Worlds, and Discourse: The Pragmatics of Fiction. Stamford: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Creating things that are not: the role of negation in the poetry of Wislawa Szymborska. Journal of Literary Semantics. 30(2): 113–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodge, S., Robinson, J. & Davis, P. 2007. Reading between the lines: the experiences of taking part in a community reading project. Medical Humanities 33: 100–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, C. & Kirner-Ludwig, M. (eds). 2020. Telecinematic Stylistics. London: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iser, W. 1978. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore, MA: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jeffries, L. 2001. Schema Affirmation and White Asparagus: Cultural multilingualism among readers of texts. Language and Literature 10(4): 325–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Meaning negotiated: an investigation into reader and author meaning. In Textual Secrets: The Message of the Medium, S. Csabi & J. Zerkowitz (eds), 241–261. Budapest: Eotvos-Lorand University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. 1996. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, A. Ortony (ed.), 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. 2: Descriptive Applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, E. 2003. Book Clubs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McAlister, S. 2006. The explosive devices of memory’: Trauma and the construction of identity in narrative. Language and Literature 15(1): 91–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Integrating multimodal analysis and the stylistics of drama: A socio-pragmatic analysis of Dennis Potter’s Brimstone and Treacle . Language and Literature 13(2): 139–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miall, D. S. & Kuiken, D. 2002. A feeling for fiction: becoming what we behold. Poetics 30: 221–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Minsky, M. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In The Psychology of Computer Vision, P. Winston (ed.), 211–77. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morini, M. 2013. Towards a Musical Stylistics: Movement in Kate Bush’s “Running Up That Hill”. Language and Literature 22(4): 283–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nahajec, L. 2009. Negation and the Creation of Implicit Meaning in Poetry. Language and Literature 18(2): 109–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Napoli, P. M. 2011. Audience Evolution: New Technologies and the Transformation of Media Audiences. New York; Chichester: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nørgaard, N. 2019. Multimodal Stylistics of the Novel: More than Words. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norledge, J. 2016. Reading the Dystopian Short Story . Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield.
Oatley, K. 2003. Writingandreading: the future of cognitive poetics. In Cognitive Poetics in Practice, J. Gavins & G. Steen (eds), 161–173. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Toole, M. 1994. The Language of Displayed Art. London: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Participations. 2017. About Participations: History and founding principles. Participations Journal of Audience and Reception Studies. Online: <[URL]> (23 January 2020)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peplow, D. 2016. Talk About Books: A Study of Reading Groups. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peplow, D. & Carter, R. 2014. Stylistics and real readers. In The Routledge Handbook of Stylistics, M. Burke (ed.), 440–454. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peplow, D., Swann, J., Trimarco, P. & Whiteley, S. 2016. The Discourse of Reading Groups: Integrating Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piazza, R., Bednarek, M. & Rossi, D. (eds). 2011. Telecinematic Discourse: Approaches to the Language of Films and Television. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pihlaja, S. 2018. Religious Talk Online: Muslim, Christian, and Atheist Discourse on Social Media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. Antagonism on YouTube. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popova, Y. B. 2003. ‘The fool sees with his nose’: Metaphoric mappings in the sense of smell in Patrick Süskind’s Perfume . Language and Literature 12(2): 135–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radbourne, J., Glow, H. & Johanson, K. 2013. ‘Knowing and measuring the audience experience. In The Audience Experience: A Critical Analysis of Audience in the Performing Arts, J. Radbourne, H. Glow & K. Johanson (eds), 3–13. Bristol; Chicago, IL: Intellect.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ringrow, H. 2020 “Beautiful masterpieces”: Metaphors of the female body in modest fashion blogs. In Contemporary Media Stylistics, H. Ringrow & S. Pihlaja (eds), 15–34. London: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ringrow, H. & Pihlaja, S. (eds). 2020. Contemporary Media Stylistics. London: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. 1981. Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology 32: 89–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiappa, E. & Wessels, E. 2007. Listening to audiences: A brief rationale and history of audience research in popular media studies. International Journal of Listening 21(1): 14–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, E. 1995. Schema theory and the analysis of text worlds in poetry. Language and Literature 4(2): 79–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1997. Language and World Creation in Poems and Other Texts. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. A cognitive stylistics approach to mind style in narrative fiction. In Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis, E. Semino & J. Culpeper (eds), 95–122. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Blending and characters’ mental functioning in Virginia Woolf’s ‘Lappin and Lapinova’. Language and Literature 15(1): 55–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Mind Style 25 Years On. Style 41(2): 153–73.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, E. & Culpeper, J. (eds). 2002. Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, E. & Swindlehurst, K. 1996. Metaphor and Mind Style in Ken Kesey’s One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest . Style 30(1): 143–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Senkbeil, K. & Hoppe, N. 2016. ‘The sickness stands at your shoulder …’: Embodiment and cognitive metaphor in Hornbacher’s Wasted: A Memoir of Anorexia and Bulimia . Language and Literature 25(1): 3–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Short, M. 1981. Discourse analysis and the analysis of drama. Applied Linguistics 2(2): 180–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1998. From dramatic text to dramatic performance. In Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context, J. Culpeper, P. Verdonk & M. Short (eds), 6–18. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Short, M. & van Peer, W. 1989. Accident! Stylisticians evaluate: aims and methods of stylistic analysis. In Reading, Analysing and Teaching Literature, M. Short (ed.), 22–71. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, P. 2014. Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. 2nd Edition. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorline, S. 2016. Language and Manipulation in House of Cards: A Pragma-Stylistic Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sotirova, V. 2006. Readers’ responses to narrative point of view. Poetics 34(2): 108–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. 2003. ‘Love Stories’: Cognitive Scenarios in Love Poetry. In Cognitive Poetics in Practice, J. Gavins & G. Steen (eds), 67–82. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. 1999. The inflexibility of invariance. Language and Literature 8(2): 125–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. The Poetics of Science Fiction. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Texture: A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading : A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. Atmosphere and Tone. In The Cambridge Handbook of Stylistics, P. Stockwell & S. Whiteley (eds), 360–374. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction, 2nd ed. London; New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. & Whiteley, S. 2014. The Cambridge Handbook of Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. 2013. One metaphor to rule them all? ‘Objects’ as tests of character in The Lord of the Rings . Language and Literature 22(1): 77–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. Visibility and economy as dimensions of metaphoric language. Language and Literature, 23(4): 347–368. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swann, J. & Allington, D. 2009. Reading groups and the language of literary texts: a case study in social reading. Language and Literature 18(3): 247–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 2006. Whose Rhyme is Whose Reason? Language and Literature 15(1): 29–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tobin, V. 2006. Ways of reading Sherlock Holmes: the entrenchment of discourse blends. Language and Literature 15(1): 73–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tompkins, J. P. (ed.). 1980. Reader Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism. Baltimore, MA; London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer F. & Schmidt, H.-J. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Peer, W. 1986. Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations of Foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Werth, P. 1999. Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
West. D. 2019. Introduction: The challenges of the song lyric. Language and Literature 28(1): 3–6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whiteley, S. 2011. Text World Theory, real readers and emotional responses to The Remains of the Day . Language and Literature 20(1): 23–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Building resonant worlds: Experiencing the text-worlds of The Unconsoled . In World Building: Discourse in the Mind, J. Gavins & E. Lahey (eds), 165–182. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whiteley, S. & Canning, P. 2017. Reader Response Research in Stylistics. Language and Literature 26(2): 71–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. 2004. The immersed experiencer: toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 44, 35–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue