Abstract
The present article addresses the question whether the wide and disparate field of Cognitive Literary Studies (CLS) has met the goal set by its representatives: to provide more authentic, intelligible and meaningful work than the traditional literary scholarship against which it positions itself. When »cognition« entered literary studies in around the 1990s, this was seen to announce the dawning of a new era, characterised by a rejuvenation of the field with the aid of interdisciplinary input, which simultaneously promised a return to its fundamental interest in literary texts. These objectives were accompanied by a growing disaffection with dominant theoretical paradigms (e.g. post-structuralism) and a forthright commitment to bridging the Cartesian dualism purportedly dominating the humanities. From the outset, however, CLS was greeted with criticism both regarding the reliability of its methodological basis and the usefulness of its results. These weaknesses have on the whole not been remedied and their continuing presence is highlighted by the field’s location at the margins of literary scholarship a quarter of a century after the »cognitive turn«. My taking up the longstanding debate surrounding CLS and returning to issues that may appear dated to some is not only indicated per se, but especially with view to its projected revitalisation of the fields on which it has had a bearing, which – all ambitious self-promotion by representatives of CLS notwithstanding – has not taken place.
I begin by considering the methodological flaws that critics of CLS identified already at its inception, focusing on the one hand on the unsubstantiated foundations of its claims and on the other on its resistance to providing a precise definition of its key concept »embodiment«. As many other critics have already pointed out, the field’s most problematic assertion is that the products of the human mind, be they mental schemata or figurative language (especially metaphors), are indicative of how human cognition works generally. While this naturalisation of literary form as the structuring principle of human cognition may entail a reassuring revaluation of literary scholarship, it is based on rather simplistic and often unsupported assumptions about the nature of cognitive processes. At the same time, this conflation of literary language and cognitive structure has prevented scholars from asking questions of genuinely literary import. Instead, CLS tends to take literature as a repository of natural language to be scanned for evidence of whatever cognitive phenomena are at stake.
Furthermore, CLS’s attention to the text is also indicative of insufficient attention within the field to all that literature does not say in so many words and, by implication, of a general indifference to readers’ cognitive and affective contribution to the construction of textual meaning – something of a paradox given that reader reception and emotion are avowed areas of interest of the field. This manifests itself not least in the unswerving hermeneutic impulse that underpins much cognitive literary scholarship, suggesting that many of its representatives may be less committed to understanding the cognitive abilities of readers in general, than to pursuing their own expert interpretations. Ultimately, the focus on the text in CLS, and the concomitant avoidance of the reader are coupled with the insufficiently substantiated claim that persists throughout CLS that cognition is »bound« to the body and our biological realities. This argument is made to distinguish the field both from traditional literary scholarship and (increasingly) earlier forms of cognitive science; in practice, however, the biological underpinnings of cognition are rarely specified and defined, in fact they seem to be taken for granted.
The unease surrounding biological matters in CLS persists in recent reconceptualisations of its premises developed with the aim of responding to these criticisms, to which I then turn. Rather than resolving its questionable claims, CLS has branched out into ever new areas, for instance by contextualising cognitive processes, investigating larger, more complex textual phenomena (blends) and studying social or extended cognition rather than individual minds. These reconceptualisations, productive though they may have been within the field of CLS, have merely replicated its fundamental problems and are thus subject to the same charges as earlier forms of cognitive literary scholarship.
In conclusion, I argue that to comprehend the embodied responses that CLS currently mainly assumes as givens these would have to be identified and pried apart from the multifarious manifestations by which literary art appeals to the human mind. For that, however, scholars would have to accept the existence of a certain cognitive »norm«, i.e. a »human nature«, without which the most radical theory of embodiment leads to the very impressionism against which CLS initially positioned itself. This would require, above all, that cognitive literary scholars establish clarity about their key term »embodiment« and, in order to do so, embrace research from disciplines they typically eschew: notably the »hard« neurosciences and psychology (both cognitive and evolutionary); furthermore, it would require them to limit their expectations about the explanatory scope of CLS and its innovative force within traditional scholarship.
References
Adler, Hans/Sabine Gross, Adjusting the Frame. Comments on Cognitivism and Literature, Poetics Today 23:2 (2002), 195–220.10.1215/03335372-23-2-195Search in Google Scholar
Alders, Maximilian, Introduction. Social Minds in Factual and Fictional Narration, in: M.A./Eva von Contzen (eds.), Social Minds in Factual and Fictional Narration, Columbus, OH 2015, 113–122 (Narrative 23:2).10.1353/nar.2015.0009Search in Google Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de/Benjamin N. Colby, Narrative Models of Action and Interaction, Cognitive Science 3:1 (1979), 43–66.10.1207/s15516709cog0301_3Search in Google Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de/Wolfgang Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics, London 1981.Search in Google Scholar
Bortolussi, Marisa, Response to Alan Palmer’s »Social Minds«, Style 44:2 (2011), 283–287.Search in Google Scholar
Brouwer, Elsbeth C., Attitude, Style and Context. Matching Cognitive and Aesthetic Accounts of Poetic Interpretation, in: Graham Low/Zazie Todd/Alice Deignan/Lynne Cameron (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA 2010, 245–264.10.1075/hcp.26.14broSearch in Google Scholar
Cook, Amy, Shakespearean Neuroplay. Reinvigorating the Study of Dramatic Texts and Performance Through Cognitive Science, London 2010.10.1057/9780230113053Search in Google Scholar
Crane, Mary Thomas, Shakespeare’s Brain. Reading With Cognitive Theory, Princeton, NJ 2000.10.1515/9781400824007Search in Google Scholar
Cserép, Attila, Conceptual Metaphor Theory. In Defence or on the Fence?, Argumentum 10 (2014), 261–288.Search in Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, The Language of Stories. A Cognitive Approach, Cambridge 2012.10.1017/CBO9780511794414Search in Google Scholar
Eibl, Karl, Universalien der Literatur? Das Beispiel der Metapher, in: Endre Hárs/Marta Horváth/Ersébet Szabó (eds.), Universalien? Über die Natur der Literatur, Trier 2014, 7–27.Search in Google Scholar
Emmott, Catherine, Narrative Comprehension. A Discourse Perspective, Oxford 1997.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles/Mark Turner, The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities, New York 2003.Search in Google Scholar
Fernyhough, Charles, Even ›Intermental‹ Minds are Social, Style 45:2 (2011), 272–275.Search in Google Scholar
Gavins, Joanna/Gerard Steen (eds.), Cognitive Poetics in Practice, London/New York 2003.10.4324/9780203417737Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., The Poetics of Mind. Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding, Cambridge 1994.Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., Making Good Psychology Out of Blending Theory, Cognitive Linguistics 11:3/4 (2000), 347–358.10.1515/cogl.2001.020Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., The Psychological Status of Image Schemas, in: Beate Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, Berlin 2005, 113–135.10.1515/9783110197532.2.113Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Discourse Processes 48:8 (2011), 529–562.10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103Search in Google Scholar
Glebkin, Vladimir, Is Conceptual Blending the Key to the Mystery of Human Evolution and Cognition?, Cognitive Linguistics 26:1 (2015), 95 –111.10.1515/cog-2014-0067Search in Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph, THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS Revisited, Cognitive Linguistics 8:4 (1997), 267–290.10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267Search in Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph, Primary Metaphors as Inputs to Conceptual Integration, Journal of Pragmatics 37:10 (2005), 1595–1614.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012Search in Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph/Todd Oakley/Seana Coulson, Blending and Metaphor, in: Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam 1999, 101–124.10.1075/cilt.175.07graSearch in Google Scholar
Herman, David, Stories as a Tool for Thinking, in: D.H. (ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences, Stanford, CA 2003, 163–192.Search in Google Scholar
Herman, David, Cognition, Emotion, and Consciousness, in: D.H. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, Cambridge 2007, 245–259.10.1017/CCOL0521856965.017Search in Google Scholar
Herman, David, Basic Elements of Narrative, Malden, MA/Oxford 2009 (Herman 2009a).10.1002/9781444305920Search in Google Scholar
Herman, David, Cognitive Approaches to Narrative Analysis in: Geert Brône/Jeroen Vandaele (eds.), Cognitive Poetics. Goals, Gains and Gaps, Berlin/New York 2009, 79–118 (Herman 2009b).Search in Google Scholar
Hobgood, Allison P., Passionate Playgoing in Early Modern England, Cambridge 2014.10.1017/CBO9781139649483Search in Google Scholar
Hoover, David L., Metaphors We May Not Live By, International Journal of Literary Linguistics 5:1 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.15462/ijll.v5i1 (27.06.2017).10.15462/ijll.v5i1Search in Google Scholar
Huber, Martin/Simone Winko, Literatur und Kognition. Perspektiven eines Arbeitsfeldes, in: M.H./S.W. (eds.), Literatur und Kognition. Bestandsaufnahmen und Perspektiven eines Arbeitsfeldes, Paderborn 2009, 7–26.Search in Google Scholar
Hutto, Daniel D./Erik Myin, Radicalizing Enactivism. Basic Minds Without Content, Cambridge, MA 2012.10.7551/mitpress/9780262018548.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ran/David Aaron, Review of More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, by George Lakoff/Mark Turner (1989), Language 67:2 (1991), 320–338.10.1353/lan.1991.0079Search in Google Scholar
Jackson, Tony E., Issues and Problems in the Blending of Cognitive Science, Evolutionary Psychology, and Literary Study, Poetics Today 23:1 (2002), 161–179.10.1215/03335372-23-1-161Search in Google Scholar
Kafalenos, Emma, The Epistemology of Fiction. Knowing vs. ›Knowing‹, Style 45:2 (2011), 254–258.Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán, Metaphor. A Practical Introduction, Oxford 2002.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George/Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago 1980.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W., Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Stanford, CA 1987.Search in Google Scholar
Markman, Arthur B./C. Miguel Brendl, Constraining Theories of Embodied Cognition, Psychological Science 16:1 (2005), 6–10.10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00772.xSearch in Google Scholar
Matthen, Mohan, Debunking Enactivism. A Critical Notice of Hutto and Myin’s Radicalizing Enactivism, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44:1 (2014), 118–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2014.905251 (27.06.2017).10.1080/00455091.2014.905251Search in Google Scholar
McGlone, Matthew S., What Is the Explanatory Value of a Conceptual Metaphor?, Language & Communication 27:2 (2007), 109–126.10.1016/j.langcom.2006.02.016Search in Google Scholar
Mellmann, Katja, On the Emergence of Aesthetic Illusion. An Evolutionary Perspective, in: Werner Wolf/Walter Bernhart/Andreas Mahler (eds.), Aesthetic Illusion in Literature and Other Media, Amsterdam/New York 2013, 67–88.Search in Google Scholar
Miall, David S., Cognitive Poetics. From Interpreting to Experiencing What Is Literary, in: Klaus Stierstorfer (ed.), Anglistentag 2007 Münster. Proceedings, Trier 2007, 188–207.Search in Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L., On Metaphor Representation, Cognition 60:2 (1996), 173–204.10.1016/0010-0277(96)00711-1Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, Alan, Fictional Minds, Columbus, NE 2004.Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, Alan, Social Minds in the Novel, Columbus, NE 2010.Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, Alan, Social Minds in Fiction and Criticism, Style 45:2 (2011), 196–240.Search in Google Scholar
Pandit, Lalita/Patrick Colm Hogan, Introduction. Morsels and Modules. On Embodying Cognition in Shakespeare’s Plays, College Literature 33:1 (2006), 1–13.10.1353/lit.2006.0004Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, The Stuff of Thought. Language as a Window into Human Nature, London 2008.Search in Google Scholar
Ryan, Marie-Laure, Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative Theory, Bloomington, IN 1991.Search in Google Scholar
Schneider, Ralf, Grundriß zur kognitiven Theorie der Figurenrezeption am Beispiel des viktorianischen Romans, Tübingen 2000.Search in Google Scholar
Spolsky, Ellen, Darwin and Derrida. Cognitive Literary Theory as a Species of Post-Structuralism, in: Lisa Zunshine (ed.), Introduction to Cognitive Cultural Studies, Baltimore, MD 2010, 292–310.Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard J., Issues in Collecting Converging Evidence. Is Metaphor Always a Matter of Thought?, in: Doris Schönefeld (ed.), Converging Evidence. Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA 2011, 33–53.10.1075/hcp.33.04steSearch in Google Scholar
Steggle, Matthew, Laughing and Weeping in Early Modern Theatres, Aldershot 2007.Search in Google Scholar
Sternberg, Meir, Universals of Narrative and their Cognitivist Fortunes I, Poetics Today 24:2 (2003), 297–395.10.1215/03335372-24-2-297Search in Google Scholar
Sternberg, Meir, Epilogue. How (Not) to Advance Toward the Narrative Mind, in: Geert Brône/Jeroen Vandaele (eds.), Cognitive Poetics. Goals, Gains and Gaps, Berlin/New York 2009, 455–532.Search in Google Scholar
Stockwell, Peter, Cognitive Poetics. An Introduction, London/New York 2002.Search in Google Scholar
Stockwell, Peter, Cartographies of Cognitive Poetics, Pragmatics & Cognition 16:3 (2008), 587–598.10.1075/pc.16.3.09stoSearch in Google Scholar
Thelen, Esther/Gregor Schöner/Christian Scheier/Linda B. Smith, The Dynamics of Embodiment. A Field Theory of Infant Perseverative Reaching, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24:1 (2001), 1–86.10.1017/S0140525X01003910Search in Google Scholar
Tooby, John/Leda Cosmides, The Past Explains the Present. Emotional Adaptations and the Structure of Ancestral Environments, Ethology and Sociobiology 11:4 (1990), 375–424.10.1016/0162-3095(90)90017-ZSearch in Google Scholar
Tsur, Reuven, Deixis in Literature. What isn’t Cognitive Poetics?, Pragmatics & Cognition 16:1 (2008), 119–150.10.1075/p&c.16.1.08tsuSearch in Google Scholar
Turner, Mark, Reading Minds. The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science, Princeton, NJ 1991.10.1515/9780691227788Search in Google Scholar
Turner, Mark, The Literary Mind. The Origins of Thought and Language, Oxford 1996.Search in Google Scholar
Turner, Mark, The Embodied Mind and the Origins of Human Culture, in: Ana Margarida Abrantes/Peter Hanenberg (eds.), Cognition and Culture. An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, Frankfurt a.M. et al. 2011, 13–27.Search in Google Scholar
Van Oort, Richard, Stories, Jokes, Desire, and Interdiction, Fictions 11 (2012), 91–113.Search in Google Scholar
Van Peer, Willie/Frank Hakemulder/Sonja Zyngier, Scientific Methods for the Humanities, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA 2012.10.1075/lal.13Search in Google Scholar
Wege, Sophia, Die Kognitive Literaturwissenschaft lässt sich blenden. Anmerkungen zum Emergenz-Begriff der Blending-Theorie, in: Roman Mikuláš/S.W. (eds.), Schlüsselkonzepte und Anwendungen der Kognitiven Literaturwissenschaft, Münster 2016, 243–260.10.30965/9783897854628_014Search in Google Scholar
Werth, Paul, Text Worlds. Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse, London 1999.Search in Google Scholar
Winkieman, Piotr et al., Embodiment of Cognition and Emotion, in: Mario Mikulincer/Phillip R. Shaver (eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Washington, DC 2014, 151–175.10.1037/14341-004Search in Google Scholar
Zunshine, Lisa, Introduction. What is Cognitive Cultural Studies?, in: L.Z. (ed.), Introduction to Cognitive Cultural Studies, Baltimore, MD 2010, 1–33.10.1353/book.500Search in Google Scholar
Zymner, Rüdiger, Körper, Geist und Literatur, in: Martin Huber/Simone Winko (eds.), Literatur und Kognition. Bestandsaufnahmen und Perspektiven eines Arbeitsfeldes, Paderborn 2009, 135–154.Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston
