Embodiment in the diversity of literary experience: a reply to Wolfgang Teubert (2021)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article offers our reply to Wolfgang Teubert. 2021. Embodiment is not the answer to meaning: A discussion of the theory underlying the article by Carina Rasse and Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. in JLS 50(1). Journey of Literary Semantics 50. 89–106. Teurbert’s article examined discussion of our earlier publication in this journal on metaphorical thinking in people’s literary experiences of J.D. Salinger’s novel “The Catcher in the Rye.” Teubert makes several points about our advocacy of an embodied perspective on literary meaning and interpretation. He argues that literary experience is best characterized in terms of people’s verbalized, reflective statements about the meanings of literary texts. Data from cognitive linguistic analyses and behavioral experiments are less compelling, in his view, because these studies examine embodied metaphors from a discourse-external perspective and mostly focus on people’s fast, mostly unconscious processing of verbal metaphors. Our reply highlights the importance of studying linguistic understanding, and literary experience, along varying time-dimensions, the fact that many linguistic and behavioral studies examine embodied metaphorical thinking in more reflective, social circumstances, exactly as Teubert recommends. Finally, we suggest that looking at literary experience from an embodied perspective is tightly associated with a discourse-analytic point of view. Scholars can never dismiss the reality of embodiment in literary experience because it provides a critical, but not exclusive, constraint on how we express ourselves and enable others to create specific patterns of meaning in the words they read.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".