The effects of formal training on literary reception

Poetics

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 471-487

  Bortolussi, Marisa ^a   Dixon, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23844460602     PISSN: 0304422X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0304-422X(95)00014-B     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Andringa, Als, 1991. Talking about literature in an institutional context: An empirical approach. Poetics 20, 157-172.
2. Balakian, Anna, 1993. Canon harassment. Canadian Review of Comparative Literature, March/June, 201-207.
3. Chanady, Amaryll, 1985. Magic realism and the fantastic: Resolved versus unresolved antinomy. New York: Garland Press.
4. Dixon, Peter, Marisa Bortolussi, Leslie Twilley and Alice Leung, 1993. Literary processing and interpretation: Towards empirical foundations. Poetics 22, 5-33.
5. Dorfman, Marcy H., 1995. Evaluating the interpretive community. In: Gebhard Rusch (ed.), Empirical approaches to literature: Proceedings of the Fourth Biannual conference of the International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature. Siegen: LUMIS Publications.
6. Fish, Stanley, 1980. Is there a text in this class? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Fletcher, C.R., in press. Cognitive processes in story understanding. Canadian Journal of Psychology.
8. Flower, L. and J. Hayes, 1980. The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication 31, 21-31.
9. Graesser, Arthur C., Murray Singer and Tom Trabasso, 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101, 371-395.
10. Graves, Barbara and Carl H. Frederiksen, 1991. Literary expertise in the description of a fictional narrative. Poetics 20, 1-26.
11. Just, Marcel Adam and Patricia A. Carpenter, 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 99, 122-149.
12. Loftus, G.R. and M.E.J. Masson, 1994. Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1, 476-490.
13. McCormick, Kathleen, 1987. Task representation in writing about literature. Poetics 16, 131-154.
14. Nardocchio, Elaine, 1989. The critic as expert. Semiotica 73(3/4), 295-302.
15. Nardocchio, Elaine, 1992. Reader response to literature. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
16. Otter, A.G. den, 1991. Literary criticism as receptive data rather than interpretive truth: A case study of Christabel criticism. Poetics 20, 363-390.
17. Rumelhart, D.E., 1979. Some problems with the notion of literal meanings. In: A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and thought, 78-90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Stanovich, K.E. and A.E. Cunningham, 1992. Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory and Cognition 20, 51-68.
19. Thury, Eva M. and Alexander Friedlander, 1995. The impact of expertise: The role of experience in reading literary texts. In: Gebhard Rusch (ed.), Empirical approaches to literature: Proceedings of the Fourth Biannual Conference of the International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature. Siegen: LUMIS Publications, 22.
20. Voss, J.F., G.T. Vesonder and G.J. Spilich, 1980. Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19, 651-667.