Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Stockwell, Peter; Mahlberg, Michaela (2015)
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Journal: Language and Literature (Harlow, England)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: corpus stylistics, Character, cognitive poetics, David Copperfield, Mr. Dick, Theory of Mind, mind-modelling, suspensions, Dickens, Articles, CLiC
We suggest an innovative approach to literary discourse by using corpus linguistic methods to address research questions from cognitive poetics. In this article, we focus on the way that readers engage in mind-modelling in the process of characterisation. The article sets out our cognitive poetic model of characterisation that emphasises the continuity between literary characterisation and real-life human relationships. The model also aims to deal with the modelling of the author’s mind in line with the modelling of the minds of fictional characters. Crucially, our approach to mind-modelling is text-driven. Therefore we are able to employ corpus linguistic techniques systematically to identify textual patterns that function as cues triggering character information. In this article, we explore our understanding of mind-modelling through the characterisation of Mr. Dick from David Copperfield by Charles Dickens. Using the CLiC tool (Corpus Linguistics in Cheshire) developed for the exploration of 19th-century fiction, we investigate the textual traces in non-quotations around this character, in order to draw out the techniques of characterisation other than speech presentation. We show that Mr. Dick is a thematically and authorially significant character in the novel, and we move towards a rigorous account of the reader’s modelling of authorial intention.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Apperly I (2011) Mindreaders: The Cognitive Basis of 'Theory of Mind'. New York: Psychology Press.
    • Belmonte MK (2008) Does the experimental scientist have a 'Theory of Mind'? Review of General Psychology 12(2): 192-204.
    • Biber D (2011) Corpus linguistics and the scientific study of literature: Back to the future? Scientific Study of Literature 1(1): 15-23.
    • Carpendale JIM and Lewis C (2006) How Children Develop Social Understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.
    • Carter R (2004) Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London: Routledge.
    • Cheshire 3 (n.d.) Available at: http://cheshire3.org (accessed 3 March 2015).
    • CLiC (n.d.) Available at: http://clic.nottingham.ac.uk (accessed 3 March 2015).
    • Crittenden C (1982) Fictional characters and logical completeness. Poetics 11(4-6): 331-344.
    • Culpeper J (2001) Language and Characterisation. London: Longman.
    • Currie G (2010) Narratives and Narrators. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Dancygier B (2012) The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Dowty D (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 574-619.
    • Farmer JS (1891) Slang and Its Analogues Past and Present. London: Harrison and Sons.
    • Fauconnier G (1985) Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Fillmore CJ (1982) Frame semantics. In: Linguistic Society of Korea (eds) Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 111-137.
    • Fischer-Starcke B (2010) Corpus Linguistics in Literary Analysis: Jane Austen and her Contemporaries. London: Continuum.
    • Forster EM (1927) Aspects of the Novel. New York: Harcourt.
    • Frow J (2014) Character and Person. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Gibbs RW (2006) Embodiment and Cognitive Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Goldie P (2012) The Mess Inside: Narrative, Emotion, and the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Hogan PC (2011) Affective Narratology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
    • Holmes MS (2004) Fictions of Affliction: Physical Disability in Victorian Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    • Irvin S (2006) Authors, intentions and literary meaning. Philosophy Compass 1/2: 114-128.
    • John J (2001) Dickens's Villains. Melodrama, Character, Popular Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Keyte JM and Robinson ML (1980) Mr. Dick the schizophrenic. The Dickensian 76: 37-39.
    • Lakoff G (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    • Lambert M (1981) Dickens and the Suspended Quotation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    • Leech GN and Short MH (2007) Style in Fiction (2nd edn). London: Pearson.
    • Leverage P, Mancing H, et al. (eds) (2011) Theory of Mind and Literature. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
    • McDonagh P (2001) Diminished men and dangerous women: Representations of gender and learning disability in early- and mid-nineteenth-century Britain. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 28(2): 49-53.
    • McIntyre D (2010) Dialogue and characterization in Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs: a corpus stylistic analysis. In: McIntyre D and Busse B (eds) Language and Style. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 162-182.
    • McIntyre D (2012) Corpora and literature. In: Chapelle CA (ed.) Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
    • McIntyre D and Walker B (2010) How can corpora be used to explore language of poetry and drama? In: O'Keeffe A and McCarthy M (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge, 516-530.
    • Mahlberg M (2005) English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    • Mahlberg M (2012) The corpus stylistic analysis of fiction - or the fiction of corpus stylistics? In: Mukherjee J and Huber M (eds) Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English: Theory and Description. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 77-95.
    • Mahlberg M (2013) Corpus Stylistics and Dickens's Fiction. London: Routledge.
    • Mahlberg M (2014) Corpus stylistics. In: Burke M (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Stylistics. London: Routledge, 378-392.
    • Mahlberg M, Smith C and Preston S (2013) Phrases in literary contexts: Patterns and distributions of suspensions in Dickens's novels. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1): 35-56.
    • Marchbanks P (2006) From caricature to character: The intellectually disabled in Dickens's novels (Part 3). Dickens Quarterly 23(3): 169-180.
    • Margolin U (1983) Characterisation in narrative: Some theoretical prolegomena. Neophilologus 67(1): 1-14.
    • Margolin U (1990) Individuals in narrative worlds: An ontological perspective. Poetics Today 11(4): 843-871.
    • Margolin U (1995) Characters in literary narrative: Representation and signification. Semiotica 106(3-4): 373-392.
    • Minsky M (1975) A framework for representing knowledge. In: Winston PH (ed.) The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 211-277.
    • Palmer A (2002) The construction of fictional minds. Narrative 10(1): 28-46.
    • Palmer A (2004) Fictional Minds. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
    • Poulet G (1969) Phenomenology of reading. New Literary History 1(1): 53-68.
    • Premack DG and Woodruff G (1978) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1(4): 515-526.
    • Rimmon-Kenan S (2001) Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Routledge.
    • Rosch E and Lloyd BB (1978) Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
    • Rumelhart DE (1980) Schemata: The building blocks of knowledge. In: Spiro R, Bruce B and Bewer W (eds) Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 35-58.
    • Ryan M-L (1992) Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    • Sanford AJ and Garrod SC (1981) Understanding Written Language: Explorations of Comprehension Beyond the Sentence. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
    • Sartre J-P (1936) La transcendance de l'ego: esquisse d'une description phénomenologique. Recherches Philosophiques 6: 8-123 (trans. Brown A (2004) The Transcendence of the Ego: A Sketch for a Phenomenological Description. London: Routledge).
    • Schank RC and Abelson RP (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    • Searle JR (1975) The logical status of fictional discourse. New Literary History 6(2): 319-332.
    • Sehrawat A (2013) Autobiographical elements in Charles Dickens' David Copperfield. The Criterion 4(5): 1-4. Available at: http://www.the-criterion.com/V4/n5/Anil.pdf (accessed 3 March 2015).
    • Semino E and Short M (2004) Corpus Stylistics: Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing. London: Routledge.
    • Simpson P (2014) Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students (2nd edn). London: Routledge.
    • Sinclair J (2003) Reading Concordances. An Introduction. London: Pearson/Longman.
    • Sinclair J (2004) Trust the Text. Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.
    • Sotirova V (2014) Production and intentionality. In: Stockwell P and Whiteley S (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 132-148.
    • Sternberg M (2009) Epilogue. How (not) to advance toward the narrative mind. In: Brône G and Vandaele J (eds) Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains, and Gaps. Berlin: de Gruyter, 455-532.
    • Stockwell P (2009) Texture: A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    • Stockwell P (2013) The positioned reader. Language and Literature 22(3): 263-277.
    • Stockwell P (2015) The texture of authorial intention. In: Gavins J and Lahey E (eds) World Building: Discourse in the Mind. London: Bloomsbury.
    • Storey G (1991) David Copperfield - Interweaving Truth and Fiction. Boston, MA: Twayne.
    • Talmy L (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Tambling J (2002) 'Why should I call you mad?' Dickens and the literature of madness. Cahiers Victoriens et Edouardiens 56: 59-79.
    • Tick S (1969) The memorialising of Mr. Dick. Nineteenth Century Fiction 24(2): 142-153.
    • Turner M (1992) Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    • Vermeule B (2010) Why Do We Care About Literary Characters? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    • Wade S (2012) Dickens, John Clare and Mr Dick: The possibilities of a celebrated literary 'Madman' in Dickens's creation. Contemporary Review 294 (1705): 229.
    • Wimsatt WK (1976) Genesis: A fallacy revisited. In: Newton-de Molina D (ed.) On Literary Intention. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 116-138. (Originally in Demetz P, Greene T and Nelson L (eds) (1968) The Disciplines of Criticism: Essays in Literary Theory, Interpretation and History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 193-225.)
    • Wimsatt WK and Beardsley MC (1954a) The intentional fallacy. In: Wimsatt WK (in collaboration with Beardsley MC) The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, pp. 3-18. (Originally in Sewanee Review 54 (1946): 468-488).
    • Wimsatt WK and Beardsley MC (1954b) The affective fallacy. In: Wimsatt WK (in collaboration with Beardsley MC) The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, pp. 21-39. (Originally in Sewanee Review 57(1) (1949): 31-55.)
    • Zunshine L (2006) Why We Read Fiction: Theory of Mind and the Novel. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

  • RCUK | CLiC Dickens - characteris...

Cite this article