Cover not available

Article published In: Scientific Study of Literature
Vol. 5:1 (2015) ► pp.99–128

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

Reading beyond the lines

A critical review of cognitive approaches to literary interpretation and comprehension

 | University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of Psychology
Published online: 19 November 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.5.1.05mcc
Reading literature requires not only understanding the literal meaning of the text, but also constructing a nonliteral interpretation of the text’s deeper meaning yet little is known about the psychological processes involved when interpretations are constructed. The current paper presents a review of the extant work from literary theory, empirical studies of literature, and research from more general cognitive text comprehension to explore the conditions under which literary interpretations are made and what this discipline-specific reading behavior can tell us about more general text comprehension.
References (80)
Abrahamsen, E.P., & Sprouse, P.T. (1995). Fable comprehension by children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 281, 302–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, R.C., & Pichert, J.W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 171, 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bortolussi, M., & Dixon, P. (1996). The effects of formal literary training on literary reception. Poetics, 231, 471–487. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2013). Minding the text: Memory for literary narrative. In L. Bernaerts, L. Herman, B. Vervaeck, & D. de Geest (Eds.), Stories and minds: Cognitive approaches to literary narrative (pp. 23–37). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chase, W.G., & Simon, H.A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 55–81.
Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 51, 121–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Claassen, E. (2012). Author representation in literary reading. Utrecht, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comer Kidd, D., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 3421, 377–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culler, J. (1994). Structuralism in literature. In D. Keesey (Ed.), Contexts for criticism (pp. 280–289). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, P., & Bortolussi, M. (2011). The scientific study of literature: What can, has, and should be done. Scientific Study of Literature, 11, 59–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, P., Bortolussi, M., Twilley, L.C., & Leung, A. (1993). Literary processing and interpretation: Towards empirical foundations. Poetics, 221, 5–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. London, United Kingdom: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Djikic, M., Oatley, K., & Moldoveanu, M.C. (2013). Opening the closed mind: The effect of exposure to literature on the need for closure. Creativity Research Journal, 251, 149–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dorfman, M.H., & Brewer, W.F. (1994). Understanding the points of fables. Discourse Processes, 171, 105–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elfenbein, A. (2006). Cognitive science and the history of reading. PMLA, 1211, 484–502. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (2001). Authorial intentions in text understanding. Discourse Processes, 321, 73–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldman, S.R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 317–351). Greenwich, CN: Information Age.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2012). Adolescent literacy: Learning and understanding content. The Future of Children, 221, 89–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldman, S.R., & Bisanz, G. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J.A. Leon, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldman, S.R., McCarthy, K.S., & Burkett, C. (2015). Interpretive inferences in literature. In E. O’Brien, A. Cook, & R. Lorch (Eds.), Inferences during reading. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A.C., & McNamara, D.S. (2011). Computational analyses of discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 31, 371–398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A.C., Millis, K.K., & Zwaan, R.A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. In J.T. Spence, J.M. Darley, & D.J. Foss (Eds.), Annual review of psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A.C., Lu, S., Olde, B., Cooper-Pye, E., & Whitten, S.N. (2005). Question asking and eye tracking during cognitive disequilibrium: Comprehending illustrated texts when the devices breakdown. Memory and Cognition, 331, 1235–1247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A.C., Pomeroy, V.J., & Craig, S.D. (2002). Psychological and computational research on theme comprehension. In M. Louwerse & W. Van Peer (Eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 19–34). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A.C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 1011, 371–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graves, B., & Frederiksen, C.H. (1991). Literary expertise in the description of fictional narrative. Poetics, 201, 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanauer, D. (1998). The genre-specific hypothesis of reading: Reading poetry and encyclopedic items. Poetics, 261, 63–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harker, W.J. (1996). Toward a defensible psychology of literary interpretation. In R.J. Kreuz & S.M. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 645–658). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hillocks, G., & Ludlow, L.H. (1984). A taxonomy of skills in reading and interpreting fiction. American Educational Research Journal, 211, 7–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffstaedter, P. (1987). Poetic text processing and its empirical investigation. Poetics, 161, 75–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, D.F., & Goldman, S.R. (1987). Children’s recognition and use of rules of moral conduct in stories. The American Journal of Psychology, 1001, 205–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C.M., & Fulton, S. (2011). What we have been missing: The role of goals in reading comprehension. In M.T. McCrudden, J.P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kinstch, W., Welsch, D., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 291, 133–159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J.R., & Simon, H.A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 171, 248–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, R.J., & Roberts, R.M. (1993). The empirical study of figurative language in literature. Poetics, 221, 151–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurtz, V., & Schober, M.F. (2001). Readers’ varying interpretations of theme in short fiction. Poetics, 291, 139–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langer, J.A. (2010). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction, (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, C.D. (2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2011). Education and the study of literature. Scientific Study of Literature, 11, 49–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levine, S., & Horton, W.S. (2013). Using affective appraisal to help readers construct literary interpretations. Scientific Study of Literature, 31, 105–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Louwerse, M.M., Benesh, N., & Zhang, B. (2008). Computationally discriminating literary from non-literary texts. In S. Zyngier, M. Bortolussi, A. Chesnokova, & J. Auracher (Eds.), Directions in empirical literary studies (pp. 175–192). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magliano, J.P., Baggett, W.B., & Graesser, A.C. (1996). A taxonomy of inference categories that may be generated during the comprehension of literary texts. In R.J. Kreuz & S.M. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 201–220). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magliano, J.P., & Graesser, A.C. (1991). A three-pronged method for studying inference generation in literary text. Poetics, 201, 193–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, L., Scirica, F., & Salvi, L. (2006). Effects of beliefs about meaning construction and task instructions on interpretation of narrative texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 311, 411–437. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, K.S., & Goldman, S.R. (2015). Comprehension of short stories: Effects of task instructions on literary interpretation. Discourse Processes, 521, 585–608. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, P.M., Myers, J.C., Briner, S.W., Graesser, A.C., & McNamara, D.S. (2009). A psychological and computational study of sub-sentential genre recognition. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics, 241, 23–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCrudden, M.T., Magliano, J.P., & Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 351, 229–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCrudden, M.T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 191, 113–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, D.S., & Magliano, J.P. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 511, 297–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Means, M.L., & Voss, J.F. (1985). Star Wars: A developmental study of expert and novice knowledge structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 241, 746–757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miall, D.S., & Kuiken, D. (1994a). Beyond text theory: Understanding literary response. Discourse Processes, 171, 337–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1994b). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect response to literary stories. Poetics, 221, 389–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1998). The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness. Poetics, 251, 327–341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Narvaez, D., Bentley, J., Gleason, T., & Samuels, J. (1998). Moral theme comprehension in third graders, fifth graders, and college students. Reading Psychology, 191, 217–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peskin, J. (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study. Cognition and Instruction, 161, 135–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2007). The genre of poetry: Secondary school students’ conventional expectations and interpretative operations. English in Education, 411, 20–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfaff, K.L., & Gibbs, R.W. (1997). Authorial intentions in understanding satirical texts. Poetics, 251, 45–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, P. (1987). Before reading: Narrative conventions and the politics of interpretation. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rapp, D.N., Komeda, H., & Hinze, S.R. (2011). Vivifications of literary investigation. Scientific Study of Literature, 11, 123–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 821, 498–504. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schraw, G. (1997). Situational interest in literary text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 221, 436–456. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2000). Reader beliefs and meaning construction in narrative text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 921, 96–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schraw, G., & Bruning, R. (1996). Readers’ implicit models of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 311, 290–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snow, C., & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap: What do we know and where do we go from here? New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stathopoulou, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between physics-related epistemological beliefs and physics understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 321, 255–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 641, 37–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van den Broek, P., Lorch, R.F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory and Cognition, 291, 1081–1087. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the on-line construction of a memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S.R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vipond, D., & Hunt, R.A. (1984). Point-driven understanding: Pragmatic and cognitive dimensions of literary reading. Poetics, 131, 261–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warren, J.E. (2011). “Generic” and “specific” expertise in English: An expert/novice study in poetry interpretation and academic argument. Cognition and Instruction, 291, 349–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiley, J., & Voss, J.F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 911, 301–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeitz, C.M. (1994). Expert-novice differences in memory, abstraction, and reasoning in the domain of literature. Cognition and Instruction, 41, 277–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, H., & Hoosain, R. (2005). Activation of themes during narrative reading. Discourse Processes, 401, 57–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1994). Effect of genre expectation on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 201, 920–933. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R.A., & Radvansky, G.A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 1231, 162–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (18)

Cited by 18 other publications

Heidari, Kamal
2025. Gifted and non-gifted students’ differences on textually explicit, textually implicit, and script-based L2 reading items. Gifted and Talented International ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
List, Alexandra & Honcui Du
2024. Attendance to notable terms promotes narrative frame analysis when students read multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology 79 ► pp. 102302 ff. DOI logo
Fabregat-Barrios, Santiago, Xavier Fontich & Carmen González-González-de-Mesa
2023. The eclectic landscape: examining Spanish secondary school teachers’ beliefs on literary education. Frontiers in Education 8 DOI logo
Gracia Gaspar, María Luz
2023.  El giro cognitivo en los estudios literarios y artísticos. Escritura e Imagen 19 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Gauche, Gilberto & Eileen Pfeiffer Flores
2022. The role of inferences in reading comprehension: A critical analysis. Theory & Psychology 32:2 ► pp. 326 ff. DOI logo
List, Alexandra, Hongcui Du & Bailing Lyu
2022. Examining undergraduates’ text-based evidence identification, evaluation, and use. Reading and Writing 35:5 ► pp. 1059 ff. DOI logo
Nishihara, Takayuki
2022. EFL learners’ reading traits for lexically easy short poetry. Cogent Education 9:1 DOI logo
Gambino, Renata & Grazia Pulvirenti
2021. Reading »Against the Grain«: For a Neurohermeneutics of Suspicion. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 51:4 ► pp. 665 ff. DOI logo
Werner, Christiana & Jana Lüdtke
2021. Empathy’s Role in Different Levels of Understanding Literature: Empirical and Philosophical Perspectives. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 79:2 ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
Zheng, Yi
2021. Hermeneutics, Practical Wisdom, and Cognitive Poetics. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 51:4 ► pp. 833 ff. DOI logo
Flores, Eileen Pfeiffer, Bianca da Nóbrega Rogoski & Anny Caroline Gomes Nolasco
2020. Comprensión Narrativa: Análisis del Concepto y una Propuesta Metodológica. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa 36 DOI logo
McCarthy, Kathryn S. & Susan R. Goldman
2019. Constructing interpretive inferences about literary text: The role of domain-specific knowledge. Learning and Instruction 60 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
McIlroy, Tara
2019. EFL Learners Reading and Discussing Poems in English. In Literature, Spoken Language and Speaking Skills in Second Language Learning, ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Parente, Fabio, Kathy Conklin, Josephine Guy, Gareth Carrol & Rebekah Scott
2019. Reader expertise and the literary significance of small-scale textual features in prose fiction. Scientific Study of Literature 9:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Bruhn, Mark J.
2018. Citation analysis. Scientific Study of Literature 8:1 ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Guy, Josephine M, Kathy Conklin & Jennifer Sanchez-Davies
2018. Literary stylistics, authorial intention and the scientific study of literature: A critical overview. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 27:3 ► pp. 196 ff. DOI logo
Koek, Martijn, Tanja Janssen, Frank Hakemulder & Gert Rijlaarsdam
2016. Literary reading and critical thinking. Scientific Study of Literature 6:2 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Montoro, Rocío
2016. The year’s work in stylistics 2015. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 25:4 ► pp. 376 ff. DOI logo

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.

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