Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Difficulty in Poetry pp 65–94Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

New Coordinates of Difficulty: An Interdisciplinary Framework

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 326 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter opens with a new definition of difficulty in poetry, which is both a synthesis of earlier attempts and the guiding principle for choosing the frameworks underpinning the model. In general, an empirical and scientific method is advocated. As difficulty is a function of a poem’s textuality, stylistics is the discipline better suited to investigate it. Within or around stylistics, foregrounding theory filters out salient features, while systemic-functional linguistics provides the descriptive apparatus. The cognitive impact on readers is postulated through models of language processing and by appealing to psycholinguistic findings. These models are implemented with an interpretive level (significance) borrowed from structuralist scholars and deemed central to poetry reading. In short, the chapter details new conceptual coordinates for the study of poetic difficulty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  • Austin, T. R. (1994). Poetic Voices. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baicchi, A. (2012). On Acting and Thinking: Studies Bridging Between Speech Acts and Cognition. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biber, D., Finegan, E., Johansson, S., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke-Rose, C. (1976). A Structural Analysis of Pound’s “Usura Canto”. Jakobson’s Method Extended and Applied to Free Verse. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castiglione, D. (2017). Difficult Poetry Processing: Reading Times and the Narrativity Hypothesis. Language and Literature, 26(2), 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, S., & Clark, B. (Eds.). (2014). Pragmatic Literary Stylistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Culler, J. (2002 [1975]). Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1992). Acts of Literature (D. Attridge, Ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diepeveen, L. (2003). The Difficulties of Modernism. New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, G. L. (1978). Language Processing and the Reading of Literature. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Mehodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douthwaite, J. (2000). Towards a Linguistic Theory of Foregrounding. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eco, U. (1979). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmott, C. (1997). Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmott, C. (2002). Responding to Style: Cohesion, Foregrounding and Thematic Interpretation. In M. Louwerse & W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary Studies (pp. 97–117). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabb, N. (2002). Language and Literary Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fabb, N., & Durant, A. (1987). Introduction: The Linguistics of Writing: Retrospect and Prospect After Twenty-Five Years. In D. Attridge, N. Fabb, A. Durant, & C. McCabe (Eds.), The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments Between Language and Literature (pp. 1–14). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. (2005). Poetry as Power: The Dynamics of Cognitive Poetics as a Scientific and Literary Paradigm. In H. Veivo, B. Petterson, & M. Polvinen (Eds.), Cognition and Literary Interpretation in Practice (pp. 31–57). Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furlong, A. (1995). Relevance Theory and Literary Interpretation (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goatly, A. (1997). The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goatly, A. (2008). Explorations in Stylistics. Oakville, CT: Equinox Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1971). Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Inquiry into William Golding’s The Inheritors. In S. Chatman (Ed.), Literary Style: A Symposium (pp. 362–400). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanauer, D. (1997). Poetic Text Processing. Journal of Literary Semantics, 26(3), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanauer, D. (1998). The Effects of Three Literary Educational Methods on the Development of Genre Knowledge. Journal of Literary Semantics, 27, 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harley, T. A. (2008). The Psychology of Language (3rd ed.). London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, C., Nuttall, L., Stockwell, P., & Yuan, W. (Eds.). (2014). Cognitive Grammar in Literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasan, R. (1985). Linguistics, Language, and Verbal Art. Melbourne, VIC: Deakin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, A. (2014). Towards a Neurocognitive Poetics Model of Literary Reading. In R. Willems (Ed.), Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use (pp. 135–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries, L. (2000). Don’t Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater: In Defence of Theoretical Eclecticism in Stylistics. In Conference Proceedings of the Poetics and Linguistics Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries, L. (2010). The Unprofessional: Syntactic Iconicity and Reader Interpretation in Contemporary Poems. In D. McIntyre & B. Busse (Eds.), Language and Style (pp. 95–113). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.bookdepository.com/Language-Style-Beatrix-Busse/9780230231573.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries, L. (2014). Interpretation. In P. Stockwell & S. Whiteley (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Stylistics (pp. 469–486). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, J. (2004). Poetry as Right-Hemispheric Language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(5–6), 21–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & Mangalath, P. (2011). The Construction of Meaning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 346–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G. (1969). A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G. (2008). Language in Literature. Style and Foregrounding. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G., & Short, M. (2007 [1981]). Style in Fiction. London and New York: Longman.

    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 & M. S. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical Approaches to Literature and Aesthetics (pp. 201–220). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miall, D. S. (2006). Literary Reading: Empirical and Theoretical Studies. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukařovský, J. (2001 [1932]). Standard Language and Poetic Language. In L. Burke, T. Crowley, & A. Girvin (Eds.), The Routledge Language and Cultural Theory Reader (pp. 225–230). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perloff, M. (1991). Radical Artifice: Writing Poetry in the Age of Media. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilkington, A. (2000). Poetic Effects. A Relevance Theory Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1994 [1979]). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prynne, J. H. (2010). Difficulties in the Translation of “Difficult” Poems. Cambridge Literary Review, 1(3), 151–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, I. A. (1929). Practical Criticism. London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Trubner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riffaterre, M. (1973). Interpretation and Descriptive Poetry: A Reading of Wordsworth’s “Yew-Trees”. New Literary History, 4(2), 229–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riffaterre, M. (1984 [1978]). Semiotics of Poetry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, A. J., & Emmott, C. (2012). Mind, Brain and Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, R. D. (1993). The Difficult Style of “The Waste Land”: A Literary-Pragmatic Perspective on Modernist Poetry. In P. Verdonk (Ed.), Stylistic Criticism of Twentieth-Century Poetry: From Text to Context (pp. 135–158). Florence: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, P. (2014 [1993]). Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D., & Wilson, D. (1995 [1986]). Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, G. (1978). On Difficulty. In G. Steiner (Ed.), On Difficulty and Other Essays (pp. 18–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockwell, P. (2009). Texture—A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockwell, P. (2014). War, War and Cognitive Grammar. In C. Harrison, L. Nuttall, P. Stockwell, & W. Yuan (Eds.), Cognitive Grammar in Literature (pp. 17–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Toolan, M. (2014). The Theory and Philosophy of Stylistics. In P. Stockwell & S. Whiteley (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Stylistics (pp. 13–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsur, R. (2008). Towards a Theory of Cognitive Poetics. Brighton and Portland: Sussex Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsur, R. (2010). Poetic Conventions as Cognitive Fossils. Style, 44(4), 496–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuma, K. (1998). Fishing by Obstinate Isles: Modern and Postmodern British Poetry and American Readers. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. (1985). Semantic Discourse Analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis (vol. 2, pp. 103–136). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York and London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Peer, W. (1986). Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations of Foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Peer, W. (2002). Where do Literary Themes Come From? In M. Louwerse & W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics. Interdisciplinary Studies (pp. 253–263). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F., & Zyngier, S. (2012). Scientific Methods for the Humanities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yaron, I. (2002). Processing of Obscure Poetic Texts: Mechanisms of Selection. Journal of Literary Semantics, 31(2), 133–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaron, I. (2003). Mechanisms of Combination in the Processing of Obscure Poems. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32(2), 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaron, I. (2008). What Is a “Difficult” Poem? Towards a Definition. Journal of Literary Semantics, 37(2), 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. (1993). Aspects of Literary Comprehension. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. (2004). The Immersed Experiencer: Toward an Embodied Theory of Language Comprehension. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English Philology, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Davide Castiglione

Authors
  1. Davide Castiglione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Castiglione, D. (2019). New Coordinates of Difficulty: An Interdisciplinary Framework. In: Difficulty in Poetry. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97001-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97001-1_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97000-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97001-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation