n this paper, we present a project that aims at testing, questioning, and eventually reshaping the most recent models of reading experience . After a brief survey of the theoretical debate, that shows the ne cessity of updating Eco’s proposal in light of the latest developments in neuroscience and cognitive studies, we describe an experiment carried out with the LIWC software on a corpus of Italian book reviews. The analysis was focused on the possible contras t/coherence of the cognitive, emotional, and physical aspects of reading experience. We divided the corpus into three subsets: reviews published in a social network ( aNobii ), in a paper magazine ( Il Sole 24 Ore ), and in two literary journals ( Osservatorio Critico della germanistica and Between ). This subdivision brought into consideration two main research questions: (1) how the medium shapes the descriptions of reading experiences and (2) if the detachment brought about by the paradigm of “critical distanc e” is still apt to fully grasp the phenomenon of literary reading. Results suggest a negative answer to the second question, evidencing a consistency in the increase of cognitive endeavors and emotional/physical aspects of language. However, a fine -grained analysis of the vocabulary referable to cognitive processes shows a significant difference in the three subsets: the dominant approach is more related to experiences of the self in the social network, to communicative needs in the magazine, and to analyti cal processes in the two literary journals. Possible developments of the project are discussed, both in terms of research methods and corpus composition, with the aim of expanding its scope to a more overarching theorization of reading experience and criti cal interpretation.

Measuring the “Critical Distance”. A Corpus-Based Analysis of Italian Book Reviews

Salgaro M.
;
Rebora Simone
2018

Abstract

n this paper, we present a project that aims at testing, questioning, and eventually reshaping the most recent models of reading experience . After a brief survey of the theoretical debate, that shows the ne cessity of updating Eco’s proposal in light of the latest developments in neuroscience and cognitive studies, we describe an experiment carried out with the LIWC software on a corpus of Italian book reviews. The analysis was focused on the possible contras t/coherence of the cognitive, emotional, and physical aspects of reading experience. We divided the corpus into three subsets: reviews published in a social network ( aNobii ), in a paper magazine ( Il Sole 24 Ore ), and in two literary journals ( Osservatorio Critico della germanistica and Between ). This subdivision brought into consideration two main research questions: (1) how the medium shapes the descriptions of reading experiences and (2) if the detachment brought about by the paradigm of “critical distanc e” is still apt to fully grasp the phenomenon of literary reading. Results suggest a negative answer to the second question, evidencing a consistency in the increase of cognitive endeavors and emotional/physical aspects of language. However, a fine -grained analysis of the vocabulary referable to cognitive processes shows a significant difference in the three subsets: the dominant approach is more related to experiences of the self in the social network, to communicative needs in the magazine, and to analyti cal processes in the two literary journals. Possible developments of the project are discussed, both in terms of research methods and corpus composition, with the aim of expanding its scope to a more overarching theorization of reading experience and criti cal interpretation.
9788894253528
reviews, reader response, sentiment analysis
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
AIUCD-2018_ReboraSalgaro.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 566.03 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
566.03 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/985220
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact