Article published In: Scientific Study of Literature
Vol. 10:2 (2020) ► pp.193–213
How professional readers process unnatural narrators
An empirical perspective
Published online: 19 March 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.19005.alb
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.19005.alb
Abstract
In an experiment, the authors tried to find out how professional readers deal with unnatural narrators (such as a
narrating parrot and a speaking coin). The hypotheses and research questions were mostly derived from Jan Alber’s proposed reading
strategies and operationalized to be measured with the help of a close-ended questionnaire. Thirty-two students of English from
RWTH Aachen University took part in the study and were presented with four text passages that featured two natural and two
unnatural first-person narrators. These excerpts represented a gliding scale of defamiliarization or estrangement in the sense of
Shklovsky that ranges from (1) a realist backpacking tourist in India to (2) a narrator who suffers from hallucinations (both
natural), and from there to (3) a narrating parrot and, finally, (4) a speaking coin (both unnatural).
The results indicate that the participants perceived the narratives that featured unnatural narrators as being
more estranging than the ones that contained natural narrators, and that unnaturalness was regarded as an indicator of
fictionality. Furthermore, it was easier for the participants to emotionally engage with the natural (compared to the unnatural)
narrators. The study also shows that blending was used as a strategy to make sense of the unnatural narrators, and that the
participants thought that fictional worlds were relevant for their own world experiences – regardless of whether the narrators
were unnatural or not. Furthermore, most of the participants were reminded of familiar genres (fantasy stories or fairy tales)
when they dealt with the unnatural narrators.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Theoretical background and state of knowledge
- Hypotheses and research questions
- Methods and procedure
- Results
- Discussion
- Conclusions and problems
- Notes
References
References (23)
Alber, J. (2014). Postmodernist Impossibilities, the Creation of New Cognitive Frames, and Attempts at Interpretation. In J. Alber & P. K. Hansen (Eds.). Beyond Classical Narration: Transmedial and Unnatural Challenges. (pp. 261–80). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
(2016). Unnatural Narrative: Impossible Worlds in Fiction and Drama. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
(2018). Logical Contradictions, Possible Worlds Theory, and the Embodied Mind. In A. Bell & M.-L. Ryan (Eds.) Possible Worlds Theory and Contemporary Narratology. (pp. 157–176). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Alber, J., Caracciolo, M., Iversen, S., Kukkonen, K. & Nielsen, H. S. (2018). Introduction: Unnatural and Cognitive Perspectives on Narrative (A Theory Crossover). Poetics Today, 39 (3), 429–445.
Alber, J., & Richardson, B. (2020). Afterword. In J. Alber & B. Richardson (Eds.) Unnatural Narratology: Extensions, Revisions, and Challenges. (pp. 209–19). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
Bortolussi, M., & Dixon, P. (2003). Psychonarratology: Foundations for the Empirical Study of Literary Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, R. O. (1996). Jealous Husband Returns in Form of Parrot. In Tabloid Dreams. (pp. 71–81). New York: Henry Holt & Co.
Culler, J. (1975). Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Herman, D. (2011). Introduction. In D. Herman (Ed.) The Emergence of Mind. (pp. 1–40). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Kuijpers, Moniek, et al. (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.
Nielsen, H. S. (2013). Naturalizing and Unnaturalizing Reading Strategies: Focalization Revisited. In J. Alber, H. S. Nielsen & B. Richardson (Eds.) A Poetics of Unnatural Narrative. (pp. 67–93). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
(2014). The Unnatural in E. A. Poe’s ‘The Oval Portrait.’ In J. Alber & P. K. Hansen (Eds.). Beyond Classical Narration: Transmedial and Unnatural Challenges. (pp. 239–260). Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
Nieuwland, M. S., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). When Peanuts Fall in Love: N400 Evidence for the Power of Discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18 (7), 1098–1111.
Palmer, Alan. (2005). Realist Novel. In D. Herman, M. Jahn, & M.-L. Ryan (Eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. (pp. 491–92). London: Routledge.
Richardson, B. (2011). What Is Unnatural Narrative Theory? In J. Alber & R. Heinze (Eds.) Unnatural Narratives, Unnatural Narratology. (pp. 23–40). Berlin: De Gruyter.
(2015). Unnatural Narrative: Theory, History, and Practice. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
Ryan, M.-L. (2014). Possible Worlds. In P. Hühn, J. Pier, W. Schmid & J. Schönert (Eds.). The Handbook of Narratology. Vol. II. (pp. 726–42). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Shklovsky, V. (1921 [1965]). Art as Technique. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds.). Russian Formalist Criticism. (pp. 3–24). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
(2003). Double-Scope Stories. In D. Herman (Ed.). Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. (pp. 117–142). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F. & Zyngier, S. (2012). Scientific Methods for the Humanities. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.