Emotion, Memory, Meaning, Directions: A Response to Kirsten Marie Hartvigsen and Thomas J. Kraus
This response article reviews the contributions of Kirsten Marie Hartvigsen and Thomas Kraus to this special issue, and uses them as the basis for a discussion of some theoretical and methodological issues relevant to cognitive narratology and cognitive literary studies more broadly. Without offerin...
| Subtitles: | Special Issue: Cognitive Linguistics and New Testament Narrative: Investigating Methodology through Characterization, by Jan Rüggemeier and Elizabeth E. Shively |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Brill
2021
|
| In: |
Biblical interpretation
Year: 2021, Volume: 29, Issue: 4/5, Pages: 616-630 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Acts of Peter
/ Cognitive linguistics
/ Narrative theory
/ Emotion
/ Memory
|
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament KAB Church history 30-500; early Christianity |
| Further subjects: | B
affective literary response
B cognitive narratology B Memory B cognitive literary studies B 4ea cognition B character ontology |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | This response article reviews the contributions of Kirsten Marie Hartvigsen and Thomas Kraus to this special issue, and uses them as the basis for a discussion of some theoretical and methodological issues relevant to cognitive narratology and cognitive literary studies more broadly. Without offering substantial answers itself, the response poses questions concerning (i) the compatibility of different scientific frameworks used in cognitive models of characterization, particularly in the light of currently dominant ‘4ea’ models of cognition (there is a particular focus on the relationship between affective and (other) cognitive aspects of reader response, and on the role of memory); and (ii) the adaptability of cognitive models to dealing with “synthetic” and “thematic” (as opposed to “mimetic”) aspects of literary character. A brief conclusion argues for two-way traffic between the cognitive sciences and literary criticism. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1568-5152 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Biblical interpretation
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15685152-29040009 |