{"title":"文学经验多样性的体现:对沃尔夫冈·图伯特的回复(2021)","authors":"R. Gibbs, Carina Rasse","doi":"10.1515/jls-2022-2050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article offers our reply to Wolfgang Teubert. 2021. Embodiment is not the answer to meaning: A discussion of the theory underlying the article by Carina Rasse and Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. in JLS 50(1). Journey of Literary Semantics 50. 89–106. Teurbert’s article examined discussion of our earlier publication in this journal on metaphorical thinking in people’s literary experiences of J.D. Salinger’s novel “The Catcher in the Rye.” Teubert makes several points about our advocacy of an embodied perspective on literary meaning and interpretation. He argues that literary experience is best characterized in terms of people’s verbalized, reflective statements about the meanings of literary texts. Data from cognitive linguistic analyses and behavioral experiments are less compelling, in his view, because these studies examine embodied metaphors from a discourse-external perspective and mostly focus on people’s fast, mostly unconscious processing of verbal metaphors. Our reply highlights the importance of studying linguistic understanding, and literary experience, along varying time-dimensions, the fact that many linguistic and behavioral studies examine embodied metaphorical thinking in more reflective, social circumstances, exactly as Teubert recommends. Finally, we suggest that looking at literary experience from an embodied perspective is tightly associated with a discourse-analytic point of view. Scholars can never dismiss the reality of embodiment in literary experience because it provides a critical, but not exclusive, constraint on how we express ourselves and enable others to create specific patterns of meaning in the words they read.","PeriodicalId":42874,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF LITERARY SEMANTICS","volume":"51 1","pages":"55 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Embodiment in the diversity of literary experience: a reply to Wolfgang Teubert (2021)\",\"authors\":\"R. Gibbs, Carina Rasse\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jls-2022-2050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article offers our reply to Wolfgang Teubert. 2021. Embodiment is not the answer to meaning: A discussion of the theory underlying the article by Carina Rasse and Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. in JLS 50(1). Journey of Literary Semantics 50. 89–106. Teurbert’s article examined discussion of our earlier publication in this journal on metaphorical thinking in people’s literary experiences of J.D. Salinger’s novel “The Catcher in the Rye.” Teubert makes several points about our advocacy of an embodied perspective on literary meaning and interpretation. He argues that literary experience is best characterized in terms of people’s verbalized, reflective statements about the meanings of literary texts. Data from cognitive linguistic analyses and behavioral experiments are less compelling, in his view, because these studies examine embodied metaphors from a discourse-external perspective and mostly focus on people’s fast, mostly unconscious processing of verbal metaphors. Our reply highlights the importance of studying linguistic understanding, and literary experience, along varying time-dimensions, the fact that many linguistic and behavioral studies examine embodied metaphorical thinking in more reflective, social circumstances, exactly as Teubert recommends. Finally, we suggest that looking at literary experience from an embodied perspective is tightly associated with a discourse-analytic point of view. Scholars can never dismiss the reality of embodiment in literary experience because it provides a critical, but not exclusive, constraint on how we express ourselves and enable others to create specific patterns of meaning in the words they read.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF LITERARY SEMANTICS\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"55 - 66\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF LITERARY SEMANTICS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2022-2050\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF LITERARY SEMANTICS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2022-2050","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文是对Wolfgang Teubert的回复。具体化不是意义的答案:对Carina Rasse和Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.在JLS 50(1)中文章的理论基础的讨论。文学语义学之旅89 - 106。图尔伯特的文章考察了我们之前在本刊上发表的关于J.D.塞林格小说《麦田里的守望者》中人们文学体验中的隐喻思维的讨论。对于我们倡导的文学意义和阐释的具身视角,图伯特提出了几点看法。他认为,文学体验的最佳特征是人们对文学文本意义的语言化、反思性陈述。在他看来,来自认知语言学分析和行为实验的数据不那么引人注目,因为这些研究从话语外部的角度考察了体现隐喻,并且主要关注人们对言语隐喻的快速、无意识的处理。我们的回答强调了沿着不同的时间维度研究语言理解和文学经验的重要性,事实上,许多语言和行为研究在更具反思性的社会环境中检验体现的隐喻思维,正如图伯特所建议的那样。最后,我们认为从具身的角度看待文学经验与话语分析的观点密切相关。学者们永远不能忽视文学经验中体现的现实,因为它为我们如何表达自己提供了一个关键的,但不是排他性的约束,并使其他人能够在他们所读的文字中创造出特定的意义模式。
Embodiment in the diversity of literary experience: a reply to Wolfgang Teubert (2021)
Abstract This article offers our reply to Wolfgang Teubert. 2021. Embodiment is not the answer to meaning: A discussion of the theory underlying the article by Carina Rasse and Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. in JLS 50(1). Journey of Literary Semantics 50. 89–106. Teurbert’s article examined discussion of our earlier publication in this journal on metaphorical thinking in people’s literary experiences of J.D. Salinger’s novel “The Catcher in the Rye.” Teubert makes several points about our advocacy of an embodied perspective on literary meaning and interpretation. He argues that literary experience is best characterized in terms of people’s verbalized, reflective statements about the meanings of literary texts. Data from cognitive linguistic analyses and behavioral experiments are less compelling, in his view, because these studies examine embodied metaphors from a discourse-external perspective and mostly focus on people’s fast, mostly unconscious processing of verbal metaphors. Our reply highlights the importance of studying linguistic understanding, and literary experience, along varying time-dimensions, the fact that many linguistic and behavioral studies examine embodied metaphorical thinking in more reflective, social circumstances, exactly as Teubert recommends. Finally, we suggest that looking at literary experience from an embodied perspective is tightly associated with a discourse-analytic point of view. Scholars can never dismiss the reality of embodiment in literary experience because it provides a critical, but not exclusive, constraint on how we express ourselves and enable others to create specific patterns of meaning in the words they read.
期刊介绍:
The aim of the Journal of Literary Semantics is to concentrate the endeavours of theoretical linguistics upon those texts traditionally classed as ‘literary’, in the belief that such texts are a central, not a peripheral, concern of linguistics. This journal, founded by Trevor Eaton in 1972 and edited by him for thirty years, has pioneered and encouraged research into the relations between linguistics and literature. It is widely read by theoretical and applied linguists, narratologists, poeticians, philosophers and psycholinguists. JLS publishes articles on all aspects of literary semantics. The ambit is inclusive rather than doctrinaire.