Research in experimental aesthetics suggests a relation between complexity and novelty on the one hand and hedonic value on the other (Berlyne, 1980). Defining foregrounding as deviation from daily language, the concept seems closely associated with novelty, and therefore a relation may be expected between the degree of deviation and readers' aesthetic appreciation. Also, deviation is assumed to be the key to understanding style, and leads readers in their interpretation of a text. These hypotheses are confirmed by recent evidence (Miall and Kuiken, 1994; Hakemulder, 2004; Zyngier, van Peer and Hakemulder, in press). The present study aims to enhance control over potential factors, refining the assessment of readers' background variables, and excluding interference of text factors other than deviation. For this purpose six versions of one poetry line were written, with an ascending degree of foregrounding from the first to the sixth line. More than 300 participants were assigned randomly to a total of 13 groups. Some read one of the six lines of a poem. To other groups, adjacent lines were presented hierarchically or in a large difference in degree of foregrounding (four lines apart in the hierarchy). Participants evaluated the single line they had been assigned to, or compared their two lines on a number of items measuring aesthetic appreciation, evaluation of aesthetic structure, and perceived cognitive, emotive, social and attitudinal impact. In addition, they completed a questionnaire on reading habits. It was hypothesized that higher degrees of deviation would lead to higher scores on these measures. Part of the predictions was confirmed by the results.

No abstract

This article approaches from an empirical perspective the interrelation between foregrounding and complexity in the evaluation of literary texts. For this purpose, a reading experiment is reported. Participants from three cultures (Brazil, Egypt, and the Netherlands) read three texts of different degrees of complexity and evaluated them on a number of variables. Subsequently, they re-read and evaluated the texts once more. The hypothesis was that complex texts would be rated higher on a second than on a first reading; the opposite was predicted for the text with the lowest complexity. Results confirmed this hypothesis for only one group of participants, which raises questions about the nature of a “reading culture.”

No abstract

No abstract