What is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 15, 175 - 192, 01.09.2014

Çev. Murat Lüleci

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

Edebîlik ve Edebî Metinlerde Okuma Sürecinin Üç Bileşeni

Öz

1 Samuel Taylor Coleridge. 1772-1834 yılları arasında yaşamış İngiliz şair ve yazarı. (ÇN). * Yabancılaştırma (defamiliarization) kavramı, post modern edebiyat kuramındaki yabancılaşma (alienation) kavramı ile karıştırılmamalıdır. Post modern edebiyat kuramında yabancılaşma kavramı, bireyin, özellikle toplumsal değerlerden uzaklaşmasını ifade eden bir olgudur. Bu çalışmada kullanılan yabancılaştırma kav- ramı ise, edebî metinlerin anlamlandırılması sürecinde ortaya çıkan ve edebî metinlerin dilsel ve anlatısal özelliklerinden kaynaklanan alışkanlıkların kırılmasını yansıtan bir olgudur. (ÇN)

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

Kaynakça

• BARTLETT, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• BOWEN, E. (1981). The demon lover. In C. Brown (Ed.), The collected stories of Elizabeth Bowen (pp. 661-666). New York: Knopf.
• COLERIDGE, S. T. (1924). The poems of Samuel Taylor Coleridge (E. H. Coleridge, Ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1817).
• COOK, G. (1994). Discourse and literature: The interplay of from and mind. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
• EAGLETON, T. (1983). Literary theory: An introduction. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
• ERLICH, V. (1981). Russian formalism: History-Doctrine (3rd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• FISH, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• FISH, S. (1989). Doing what comes naturally: Change, rhetoric, and the practice of theory in literary And legal studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• GRAESSER, A. C., MİLLİS, K. K., & ZWAAN, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, s. 163-189.
• HOBBS, J. R. (1990). Literature and cognition. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
• HUNT, R. A., & VİPOND, D. (1986). “Evaluations in literary reading.” Text, 6, s. 53-71.
• KINTSCH, W. (1988). “The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction- integration Model”. Psychological Review, 95, s. 163-182.
• KUIKEN, D., & MİALL, D. S. (1995). Procedures in think aloud studies: Contributions to the phe- nomenology of literary response. In G. Rusch (Ed.), Empirical approaches to literature: Procee- dings of the Fourth Biannual Conference of the International Society for the Empirical Study of Lite- rature, IGEL (pp. 50-60). Siegen, Germany: LUMIS-Publications.
• KUIKEN, D., MİALL, D. S., BUSİNK. R., & CEY, R. (1996, August). Aesthetic attitude and insight- oriented reading: The realization of personal meanings in literary texts. Paper presented at the conference of the International Association for Empirical Aesthetics, Prague, The Czech Re- public.
• KUIKEN, D., MİALL D. S., & MEUNİER, R. (1996, August). Loss, depression, and feeling realization during reading. Paper presented at the conference of the International Society for the Empi- rical Study of Literature, IGEL, Banff, Canada.
• KUIKEN, D., SCHOPFLOCKER, D., & WİLD, T. C. (1989). “Numerically aided phenomenology: A demonstration”. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 10, s. 373-392.
• MIALL, D. S. (1989). “Beyond the schema given: Affective comprehension of literary narratives.” Cognition and Emotion, 3, s. 55-78.
• MIALL, D. S. (1995). “Anticipation and feeling in literary response: A neuropsychological pers- pective”. Poetics, 23, s. 275-298.
• MIALL, D. S., & KUİKEN, D. (1994a). “Beyond text theory: Understanding literary response”. Discourse Processes, 17, s. 337-352.
• MIALL, D. S., & KUİKEN, D. (1994b). “Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Res- ponse to literary stories”. Poetics, 22, s. 389-407.
• MIALL, D. S., & KUİKEN, D. (1995). “Aspects of literary response: A new questionnaire”. Research in the teaching of English, 29, s. 37-58.
• MIALL, D. S., & KUİKEN, D. (1998). “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness”. Poetics, 25, s. 327-341.
• MIALL, D. S., & KUİKEN, D. (in press). Shifting perspectives: Readers’ feelings and literary res- ponse. In W. Van Peer & S. Chatman (Eds.), New perspectives on narrative perspective. Albany: State University of New york Press.
• MUKATOVSKY, J. (1964). Standard language and poetic language. In P. L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp. 17-30). Washington, DC: Geor- getown University Press. (Original work published 1932)
• O’FAOLAIN, S. (1980). “The trout”. In The collected stories of Sean O’Faolain (pp. 383-386). London: Constable.
• SMITH, B. H. (1988). Contingencies of value: Alternative perspectives for critical theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• STEEN, G. (1994). Understanding metaphor in literature. London: Longman.
• TRABASSO, T., & Magliano, J. P. (1996). Conscious understanding during comprehension. Disco- urse Processes, 21, s. 255-287.
• VAN DIJK, T. (1979). “Advice on theoretical poetics”. Poetics, 8, 569-608.
• VAN PEER, W. (1986). Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.
• ZHOLKOVSKY, A. (1984). Themes and texts: Toward a poetics of expressiveness. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• ZWAAN, R. A. (1993). Aspects of literary comprehension. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• ZWAAN, R. A. (1996). Toward a model of literary comprehension. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Gras- ser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 241-255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates, Inc.
• ZWAAN, R. A., LANGSTON, M. C., & GRAESSER, A. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6, s. 292-297.
• ZWAAN, R. A., MAGLİANO, J. P., & GRAESSER, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model const- ruction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, s. 386-397.
• ZWAAN, R.. A., & RADANSKY, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, s. 162-185.