The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Thinking with Literature: Towards a Cognitive Criticism
Abstract
Abstract This book argues that, as literature is among the most powerful and flexible instruments of human thought, it invites a cognitive mode of criticism, one which asserts the priority of individual literary works as unique products of human cognition. The introductory chapter presents some key themes (kinesis, mind-reading, communication, the recognition of life) without technical elaboration. Chapter 2 provides a more systematic account of these themes and their interdisciplinary context, sketching arguments from cognitive psychology, philosophy, linguistics, neuroscience, and evolutionary studies; it discusses the relations between literary and scientific method, the notion of cognition as essentially embodied, and the choice of relevance theory as a viable linguistic model for literary analysis. Chapter 3 returns to the fine grain of literature itself with two close readings. Subsequent chapters provide a detailed account of the notion of 'affordances' and its pertinence to literary study, and an extended reflection on the imagination as a mode of cognition. This opens up two further lines of enquiry: Chapter 6 explores a cognitive approach to literary 'images'; Chapter 7 focuses on cognitive mimesis in a scene from King Lear and an episode from Mme de Lafayette's Princesse de Clèves. A detailed cognitive analysis of Conrad's Lord Jim in Chapter 8 brings together themes of immersion, kinesis, mind-reading, and cognitive dissonance. The final chapter discusses the question of literary values within the cognitive perspective. A 'virtual manifesto for a cognitive approach to literary studies' is offered in lieu of an epilogue.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Literature, it has often been suggested, combines sensorimotor effects with intellectual patterns in a way that secures cognitive engagement that is greater than would result from either factor alone [105, 113–115].”
From Five studies evaluating the impact on mental health and mood of recalling, reading, and discussing fiction (2022) · cites this paper as [105]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Carney, J., & Robertson, C. (2022) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266323 · Cited by 25
Gendron, M., Mesquita, B., & Barrett, L. F. (2020) · Culture, Mind, and Brain · doi:10.1017/9781108695374.010 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Cave, T.
- Corresponding author
- Cave, Terence
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2016-03-01
- OpenAlex
- W4242590917
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 57.78
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Literary Analysis
- Keywords
- cognitive literary studies, embodiment, relevance theory, kinesis, theory of mind, communication, affordances, imagination, literary imagery, mimesis, immersion, cognitive dissonance, literary value, King Lear, Lord Jim, Joseph Conrad
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review