Content uploaded by Ahmed Aljarelah
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ahmed Aljarelah on Jun 24, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
35
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
PUBLISHED DATE: - 21-06-2024
DOI: - https://doi.org/10.37547/tajiir/Volume06Issue06-09
PAGE NO.: - 35-50
A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF LITERARY
CRITICISM A STUDY OF HOW LANGUAGE
INFLUENCES THE EVALUATION OF
LITERARY WORKS
Ahmed Kareem Aljarelah
University of Kerbala, College of Education for Humanities, Department of English Language,
Iraq
INTRODUCTION
The good news is that there is currently an
abundance of ideas regarding assessing literature.
Some of the most popular ideas today hold that the
text itself is most important, regardless of who
wrote it or who read it, whether we're talking
about entire societies or just people or where we
are in the literary history timeline. Some might
want to assess it similarly to how they would, for
instance, a cell phone or flora and wildlife.
Accordingly, it may be politely evaluated and
contrasted with other natural, potential, or ideal
examples of its category in each case. In most cases,
the standards used to make such assessments are
the ones that the people in charge have already
approved. Assuming satisfaction with the outcome
(or outcomes) is the deciding factor, one tends to
maintain that viewpoint. People who adhere to the
standards of "sthitisnehak" may believe that texts
are meaningless if the boundaries of critical
discourse are constantly being policed. New rules
or standards are established to be broken by
deviant texts. Translation & Literary Studies and
Abdulaziz Alghanem (2020) describe them as
"organized sound" fragments or sprays just as
captivating.
Some linguists have taken an interest in the
language of literary criticism, specifically looking
for ways to decipher different forms of literary
RESEAR CH AR TIC LE Open Access
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
36
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
criticism so they can better understand the impact
of this critical language on literary work
evaluations. Using specific corpora of literary
criticism, the reported study manipulates and
applies sophisticated linguistic methods to extract
metrics of critical language used in evaluating
various literary works. The work's foundational
assumption is that modern literary criticism uses a
more diverse vocabulary in both positive and
negative evaluation forms. This vocabulary
richness is revealed when the right tools extract its
characteristic metrics (Bizzoni et al., 2024).
The standard operating procedure in literary
criticism is the examination of literary works,
which is always facilitated by the use of language.
Literary criticism aims to analyze and assess works
of literature by pointing out their merits and
shortcomings and describing them in a way that
readers can understand and agree with. (Aldosari
and the World English Journal, 2022) So, the
construction of assessment and literary criticism
language is foundational to evaluating, comparing,
and articulating the value of individual literary
works..
THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE IN LITERARY
CRITICISM
The duality of narratives involving language and
literary critique is a key concept in our
understanding of literature. As kies pointed out,
literary criticism requires interpretations before it
can approach literature. The arts, primarily
concerned with the linguistic expression of
creative work, are the foundation of interpretation.
The essence of artistic interpretation lies in seeing,
inferring, and exploring the narrative of language.
Aesthetic standards represented in linguistic story
are the subject of literary criticism, which involves
re-combing and refining the meaning of language.
This process directs the ways in which critical
assessments and admiration of literature are
articulated. In literary criticism, various creative
standards are used to assess texts, which might be
defined, rethought, or applied in new ways. This
dynamic interaction between language and literary
critique, or the 'narratives involving language and
literary critique ', is the core of our understanding
of literature.
Reading literature effectively requires analysis and
interpretation. By making assumptions based on
what he reads, a reader builds a story out of the
narrative's fragments, learning about the
characters, their relationships, their motivations,
their desires, and the strategies they employ to
achieve them (Holur et al., 2021). Storytelling clues,
whether explicit (such as naming a character as the
"villain" of the story) or implicit (such as describing
a character as "scheming" or revealing that they
acted deceitfully), frequently serve to direct this
interpretation process (Jacobsen & Beudt, 2017).
Even when a piece of literature can no longer
provide clues, as in the case of reader comments
left after a novel has ended, readers still make
assumptions and try to deduce the whims of the
fictional world (Naimul Hoque et al., 2023).
2.1. Language as a Tool for Evaluation
Short tales, novellas, and novels that take a
facilitative rather than doxological approach, as
well as those that provide readers with assistance
and critically show how a work's literary triage is
done, are the typical replies to this subject that this
study starts with. This treatment is based on the
latter and is enriched by ideas from other areas,
such as cognitive semantics, pragmatics, and
linguistic (im-)politeness. These are fundamentally
linguistic because they use language to assess
human experiences, including literary artifacts.
Section Seven: Language III. Based on this
inclination, the current study aims to conduct a
linguistic analysis of a random sample of articles
that reflect criticism of selected literary works in an
indigenous, high-quality literary journal. The
presumed goal is to inform readers about the
salient aspects and features of these critical targets
inventively. Linguists today would do well to
broaden their focus beyond the grammar,
phonology, and vocabulary that Kachru (1986)
envisioned as crucial for reaching out to people in
distant Asian subcontinents, commonwealths, and
archipelagos who were formerly British colonial
subjects. With expert knowledge of "the six trillion
stories and cultures that Perec 1003 originally
proposed data collection for," these academics
would actively participate in experiencing
language in a linked multi-sphere environment.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
37
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
One common way literature—or any creative
form—is characterized is by its perceived quality
(Bizzoni et al., 2024). Both economics and
philosophy share the tendency to seek to put a
numerical value on right and wrong (Jacobsen &
Beudt, 2017). Words like "literature," "value,"
"quality," and "excellence" are tossed around
casually in the literary world, just like any other
field. Fabbri and Henrique Garcia (2017) highlight
the inherent contradiction of literary texts as the
dominant issue in literary criticism that deals with
literary value. When literary texts are engaged,
they demand that such engagements lead to an
evaluation of the work in question. In order to
analyze literary works and respond appropriately,
literary critics draw on a variety of theories.
However, it is fair to wonder if and to what degree
critics' suspicious language impacts their
consideration of the theories and their lack of care
for this inevitable dance.
2.2. Language as a Reflection of Literary Value
In premodern acts, literature reflects social views,
emphasizing literary critics who are socially
traditional linguists and elites who engage in
literary construction. Regardless, one unforeseen
effect was incorporating foreign literature into
national concepts through national theater
organizations, which validated historical languages
and included cultural modulations.
Regardless of the possibility of viewing criticism as
a direct causality between language devices leading
to an evaluation, it pertains to whether or not
critics employed specific tactics to defend a work's
worth by highlighting its linguistic similarities and
differences. Concerns about the possible
association of literary prestige with linguistic
formulations and their value also emerge. Literary
worth is associated with linguistic variety, which is
distinct from grammatical usage in literary texts
and concerns the use of language itself. It has been
debated and corrected multiple times that literary
worth is attributable to the prestige language of a
given social moment, even though literary values
reflect other literatures and languages. Eventually,
lower-class literature will exploit linguistic
diversity as more prestigious literature does, and
they will do so until they reach conventional usage
even though prestige literary language is not as
effective as it initially seems.
A working knowledge of linguistic analysis and its
applications and an understanding of the potential
relationships between literary criticism's
constructs and stylistic features are prerequisites
to comprehending the relationship between
language and literary value (Jacobsen & Beudt,
2017). Stylistics is a well-established branch of
literary criticism that follows a focus on language
(for Translation & Literary Studies & Jabraddar
Mahil Abd Allah, 2019). In order to comprehend the
value-conveying effects of stylistic
implementations, it can examine a wide variety of
linguistic devices. Linguists such as Leech and
Short define stylistic analysis as studying literary
texts for their style using specific methods and
tools for linguistic interpretation. However,
literary evaluations may be driven by subjective
and idiosyncratic objectives as they examine
several aspects that establish the worth of literary
works, namely their intrinsic literary value (Li,
2022).
LINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO LITERARY
CRITICISM
Subclausal, clausal, and superclausal coherence
were the foci of second language studies of
scientific prose speech heads. Literary critics and
researchers can benefit from a linguistic approach
to organization and coherence, which elevates
discussion and closer textual analysis above
subjective opinions. Another interesting linguistic
perspective on literary works is speech act theory.
In addition to adding to applied linguistics, this
study explores several ways linguistic descriptions
might shed light on literary works. Text linguistics,
new criticism, and empirical schools of literary
criticism can all benefit substantially from corpora
to conduct more precise analyses in these areas. As
helpful as MNIS is for text analysis, it is as
applicable to literary research. The paper presents
linguistic analyses that are based on Hallidayan
SFL. These analyses center on lexicogrammatical
aspects and processes within and between clauses
(Bizzoni et al., 2024).
This study follows in the footsteps of systemic
functional linguistics, developed by Halliday and
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
38
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
Hasan. This approach uses a social semiotic stance
to distinguish between three related aspects of
language: lexicogrammar, discourse semantics,
and lexicology. SFL defines these three aspects,
how they relate to one another, and the social
impact they have. Linguists seek to comprehend
language's interaction with and reflection of more
extensive social processes—rather than its direct
determination—by investigating patterns and
choices across these three domains. Additionally,
this work applies CLA to formulaic language in
literature, namely language used for evaluating and
grading (Gai & Wang, 2022).
Critical linguistic analysis is one method that uses
language to examine and critique literature.
Following in the footsteps of Norman Fairclough's
critical discourse analysis (CDA), CLA does not
directly investigate the texts' social and political
relevance and influence, nor does it presume a
direct relationship between the meaning of specific
texts, their morphosyntactic or semantic aspects
(i.e., microstructure) and related social and
political issues (i.e., macrostructure). According to
Yazdannik et al. (2017), the publications in
discourse analysis can be roughly categorized
along a line that goes from studies that focus solely
on the microstructure to studies that focus purely
on the macrostructure.
3.1. Structuralist Analysis of Language in
Literature
There is a language uniqueness, as literature's
essential linguistic extension has shown through
its usage in linguistic configurations within the
language order and in conveying information. Since
this system is far more heavily reformed than these
others due to the writers' effects, it stands out as a
"brand-new structure" in all living languages'
symbols and other word combinations (Fabbri &
Henrique Garcia, 2017). The word message is
altered by such structures, which are related to all
grammatical systems and bring additional images,
art, and meanings to the ICT part.
According to structuralists, language is not a
product of free will and awareness, but rather, it is
shaped by human psychology and social
interaction. We all adhere to certain syntactic
knowledge and linguistic discourse when we
speak. Structuralists argue that this adherence is
the underlying cause of linguistic variations or
constant transformations that are implemented in
a series of decisions (Furnes & Dysvik, 2011). The
rules of the mixing of materials, their mutual
effects, and transformation overtones ultimately
govern the communication protocol. In literature,
these transformative overtones have the same
effect, altering the grammatical structures that
would occur in real speech. These ornamental
word constructs, adapted from the original
versions, have become part of common usage. This
suggests that literary language is not independent
of its societal and individual value judgments, as
these components are both structured and
perceived as such in literary language.
Language, like literature, is a human creation that
serves as a conduit for ideas, emotions,
worldviews, intentions, and other forms of
information transmission (van Cranenburgh &
Bod, 2017). When expressed verbally in literature,
information has unique requirements, such as
adhering to a specific proportion from the system
of derivatives and systematics, redundant, and
stable. Just as morphologically specific words
validate grammatical rules, syntactic structures
use grammar as one of several strategies to
generate sentences, which stabilize literary
creation and expose topics. The grammar of a
language is relevant to literature because literature
is an active component of that language. Some
linguists and critics firmly assert language and
literature's cultural, social, and stylistic aspects.
3.2. Semiotic Analysis of Language in Literature
Li (2022) posits a fascinating perspective,
suggesting that linguistic events in literary texts
are not confined to simple, interpersonal meanings.
Instead, they are a rich tapestry of combinations,
discoursal tactics, and a myriad of variations, which
significantly broadens the scope of language in
general communication. This intricate web of
logico-semantic linkages is formed when different
clauses in an SFL text functionally automize with
one another. The choice of language, with its
stylistic and ideational meanings, often
overshadows this mechanism, yet it holds
profound significance within poetic discourse,
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
39
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
particularly at a fundamental level. Poetry, in
contrast to most accounts of SFL speech, appears to
balance sentence creation and the combinatorial
densities of attitudes, rather than a continuous
blending of logico-semantic linkages and
composition. These nuanced indicators point to
alternative conceptual frameworks, one that
prioritizes evaluation meanings over interpersonal
ones and representations and metafunctions over
content and structure, inviting a deeper intellectual
engagement.
The book's third chapter focuses on the semiotic
analysis of literary language. Focusing on the
interpersonal meanings conveyed through
classical Chinese literature's fictitious language, it
finds and analyzes several connected linguistic
phenomena, thinking about how they affect the
overall meaning-making and how readers
understand the texts. Consequently, it reveals
distinctive features of literary discourse in China.
The idea of "meaning" is central to semiotic
processes; in SFL, this is seen as a social output. A
more abstract, ideational part "simply serves the
exchange of information," while the more concrete,
interpersonal part "negotiates social relations" and
determines particular assessments of those
relations. Tenor connections are conveyed through
language in "power, solidarity, contact," while
attitude, mood, and modality are revealed through
language in the forms of "official, personal,
intimate, and subjective-imaginary" addresses. In
what follows, the author delves into the
interpersonal meanings conveyed through tales,
character addresses, dialogue excerpts, and the
flow of poetry. Thus, in cases involving
interpersonal meanings, the most common
structures are verbs, phrase patterns, and clause
forms, with a few less common semantic methods
thrown in for good measure.
Chapter 3 delves deeper into the examination of
appraisal and interpersonal meanings in literary
texts, expanding on the linguistic analysis of
selected critical works. This exploration reveals the
intriguing possibility for scholars to enhance their
understanding and engagement through training,
as there is a wide variety in the choice of appraisal
resources and valuation. The evidentiality of an
appraisal uncovers the underlying reasons,
providing a deeper understanding of its foundation
(Xu & Liang, 2023). The foundations of
interpretation, a subject of public discussion and
individual evaluation, are of paramount
importance in critical interpretation. The chapter's
conclusion highlights the diverse evaluation and
evidential options in interpretation notes, which
not only offer different ways of expressing critical
meanings but also the potential for the
recontextualization or confirmation of critical
assertions by the evidence of other voices (van
Cranenburgh & Bod, 2017), sparking a sense of
intrigue and curiosity in the reader.
3.3. Pragmatic Analysis of Language in
Literature
There is still debate over the relevance of style and
tone to expressiveness, personality, and social
traits. Aspects of the rhetorical, phonological,
syntactic, or lexical arrangement can reveal
stances, ridings, personalities, genres, or anything
else depending on the speaker, addressee, and
environment. The effectiveness of lexical
concealment and the challenge of gender
identification in forensic linguistics are attributed
to this bastion of congruence. According to
Abdulaziz Alghanem and Translation & Literary
Studies (2020), scholars have argued that, beyond
this premise, the proper way to identify the aspects
of variance linked to temperateness, tentativeness,
or performativeness needs to be clarified. It has
been shown that pragmatic characteristics within a
specific idiolect tend to correlate and co-occur with
one other, generating diverse constellations that
may represent a unique personality trait or
viewpoint. Some people believe that particular
indexes are good identifiers of performativity,
although this is only sometimes the case. The
speaker's attitude toward the stated event, its
relation to the extra-linguistic or linguistic
background, and the desired effect on the
addressee determine the observable regulation
choice among alternative forms in an environment
that continues beyond the instant of utterance.
The study and appreciation of literature have been
significantly shaped by linguistic research,
particularly in the area of pragmatics. Pragmatics,
as defined by Gatt and Krahmer (2017), is "the
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
40
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
selection of linguistic or discoursal features
appropriate to the modulation of relevance with a
reader." This concept is crucial in understanding
how authors use language to shape the tone of their
written discourse. They do this by incorporating
various ways of expressing attitudes. Stylistic
features that convey attitude, such as connotative
vocabulary, a wide array of syntactic and prosodic
variables, a diverse range of rhetorical figures,
global discourse principles, and logical operator
use, all contribute to establishing a perspective,
voice, attitude, or stance. These factors can be
modeled according to a particular value of some
social variable held by an agent. However,
intentional changes in pragmatic aspects can pose
intriguing challenges, such as the identification of
writers in literary forensics or the attribution of
attitudes to fictional characters.
Language and Literary Interpretation
In addition, a literary work's meaning is said to
exist "conveyed, as a wordless or unwritten text,
through particular signs of sounds or marks which
together form a structure separable from external
references or expressibility or which are neither
exhaustively determined by senses nor governed
by historically embodied norms; it itself gives
orders or interprets." The numerous goals of the
field represent the idea of language as a critical
medium for the transmission of meaning in works:
to provide units with varying levels of organization,
to plot various models, and to comprehend broad
patterns (for Translation, Literary Studies, Bouali,
2020). Regarding the internalized component of
the objects of criticism (the interpretative traits of
the critic) and the matter of critiquing them, the
article primarily analyzes the relationship between
language and literary interpretation within the
realm of literary criticism.
An overabundance of comparison structures,
personal pronouns, and negative words and
phrases characterizes a weak assessment. In
contrast, a robust evaluation characterizes an
abundance of superlatives, negations, deletions,
additions, and modal verbs. Sormunen et al. (2010)
are concerned with the methodological features of
literary theory, and Teraava (2007) uses this
approach to investigate the evaluative elements of
narrative actors. Because "how a story is seen is
always dependent on how it is told" (Rimmon,
2002), the evaluation of literature is intrinsically
linked to literary interpretations (Bizzoni et al.,
2024).
In 1925, Ibáñez-Molina examined how language
impacts the assessment of literary works, marking
a significant milestone in the field. He cataloged the
many tools used by literary critics to assess the
merit of a piece of literature. The two primary
categories of duties that a text could have,
according to critics, are lexical and stylistic. Using a
huge dataset consisting of book reviews, Johansen
(2008) developed a model to evaluate the critical
aspects of literary criticism. Holur et al. (2021)
builds on the work of Hoeken et al. (2002), who
postulated that linguistic hints and evaluative
content are likely to go hand in hand, and
demonstrates that negative and positive
contributions differ on several linguistic-structural
traits. This rich historical context underscores the
ongoing evolution of our understanding of
language and literary interpretation.
4.1. The Influence of Language on Reader
Response
Conversely, the reader's reaction is contingent
upon the writer's dialogical text's construction and
the reader's personal experiences, as stated by
Louise M. Rosenblatt. Both the "esthatic" text,
which is geocentric, and the "aesthetic" text, which
is reader-oriented or "efferent," are considered the
two extremes of text, as stated in Ebru Çelik
Çakmak's presentation of Louise M. Rosenblatt's
theory (2011, pp. 2-3). The text undergoes a
metamorphosis into the third text while being read
or composed. The third text shows that the
meaning is connected to the ongoing interaction
between the reader and the verbal sublime by
combining the writer's text with the reader's
experience. This theory's proponent claims that
"...the meaning is always beyond the text and is
determined by time, constantly changing states,
and takes different shapes in different reading"
(Furnes & Dysvik, 2011). Therefore, it is clear that
various readers will get different meanings from
the same book based on their universe of
relationships and responses. Reading aloud
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
41
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
profoundly affects readers' evaluations because it
allows them to internalize the text and draw on
their own experiences, cultural knowledge, and
memories of past generations and communities.
Louise M. Rosenblatt lends credence to the notion
that audience reaction evolves and develops with
time.
Amardeep Sinh Jhala is correct in saying that
language choices and expressions significantly
affect reader reaction and literary appraisal. When
a writer wants to get their point across, their
language is a significant factor in how the reader
will react. According to proponents of the reader-
response paradigm, reader agency in meaning
construction has always been central. To rephrase,
the reader's method of text formation is distinct
from the writer's since the reader derives meaning
from the words used to make the text. According to
Abdulaziz Alghanem (2020) and Translation &
Literary Studies, several ideas and concepts have
been connected to reader-response theory to
emphasize the reader's participation. "The act of
reading involves the reader's ability to bridge the
gap between textual logicality and reader's world"
(1978, p. 78), says Wolfgang Iser.
4.2. The Impact of Language on Authorial
Intent
Worthiness Studies[citation] and Reception
Studies, two significant literary movements that
have emerged in recent years, are direct responses
to the author-centric approach. These movements
underscore the evolving nature of literary works,
which, with the aid of readers and expert critics,
accrue value and significance over time, often
diverging from the author's original intentions.
Rereading a work of literature can reshape its
meaning, offering a new perspective that may differ
from the author's initial vision. The field of
reception studies delves into how the reading
context influences the interpretation of literature
(van Cranenburgh & Bod, 2017).
In this essay, I aim to argue that critical
examination of literary language is essential. At
first glance, words having agency or purpose may
appear strange. The creator must have the true
intention behind the work; the language only
conveys it. Consequently, this is mostly accurate.
Its greatest assets are the versatility and openness
to multiple interpretations that language possesses
as a medium.
On the other hand, language is more than simply a
vehicle for transmitting authorial intent. Meaning
and messages are not the only things it conveys.
The power of language to regress is such that it can
fool even the most accomplished authors. "The
world is what it is; men who are nothing, who allow
themselves to become nothing, have no place in it,"
wrote VS Naipaul, who may have put it up best.
They are utterly insignificant in this world. A
language can gain independence through simple
changes like capitalization, the placement of
commas, or the turn of a phrase. Language is both a
medium and a transforming force. It changes to fit
its purposes, alters reality to meet its demands, and
then asks others to make sense of it and reach a
verdict. It can both unveil and conceal the truth.
Several readings are possible, and it defies stability
[citation].
Consideration of authorial intent vs. lack thereof is
a long-standing debate in literary studies.
Reference: Bizzoni et al., 2024. Although the
precise beginning of the issue is unclear, many
point to the 1946 essay "The Intentional Fallacy" by
W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley as its starting
point. This essay argues that readers'
understandings of texts are valid regardless of the
author's intentions. Since then, there has been a
proliferation of conflicting theoretical perspectives
on this subject. Therefore, anyone seeking a clear
answer must sort through many contradictory
sources. There is, nevertheless, an immediate need
to strive for a synthesis between authorial aim and
reader interpretation. According to Conrad Jackson
and colleagues (2021) one way to accomplish this
is to examine the works closely, paying close
attention to the language employed. After all,
language influences the author's intentions and
how the audience receives a work.
LANGUAGE AND EVALUATIVE CRITERIA IN
LITERARY CRITICISM
Critiquing one's own and other people's writings
does not rely on language for merely utilitarian
purposes. The results of this study show that the
recipient's assessment of the satisfying can be
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
42
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
significantly impacted by language. This study
contributes to the literature on literary evaluation
by outlining the characteristics crucial for the
encoder and the multiply-communicative speakers
and how it might be operationalized
communicatively (C. Bohrn et al., 2012). Debiasing
aggressiveness in humanencodification is one
practical application of the present paper. It will
also be useful for judges, teacher trainers, and
anyone who deals with language-based protocols
and believes that naturally occurring criticism does
not need the graciousness, enforceability, and
legitimacy that communication-maximizing
criticism theory brings.
Based on previous research on assessment and
Habermas's theory of communicative action, a
three-stage model is the most effective way to
express literary evaluation. This model integrates
the concepts above with the present writer's (two
editors') appraisal-based framework. This study
takes the paradigm further by developing and
expanding upon it. This study examined a sample
corpus of Dutch literary criticism across time to see
whether the evaluation above processes are
present (Mohseni et al., 2022). The study's author
uncovered a literary shift among 19th-century
critics, who began by
1. downplaying complaints as an evaluation
tool,
2. shifting to evaluation strategies focused on
appreciation and
3. expressing more admiration for the work of
others.
The importance of studying language usage in
literature evaluation has been underscored by
recent studies (van Cranenburgh & Bod, 2017).
This current work, situated at the intersection of
corpus-linguistics and appraisal-based research,
makes a significant contribution to the ongoing
discussion. A common gap in literature research on
evaluation is the lack of an integrative study of both
actors, often focusing solely on the encodee's or
interpreter's features. This study, however, bridges
this gap by explaining evaluation, both within and
beyond the realm of literary criticism, through the
integration of linguistic analysis with preexisting
findings from literary studies.
5.1. The Role of Language in Determining
Aesthetic Value
But that conceptual blending of the arts with the
history, culture, and language in which they
insinuate themselves can and has taken many
forms. But in the arts and in literature, generally,
the most self-conscious cases of this blending are
the critical languages that habitually crop up as
foils and enhancements of the works so judged.
These languages form a record of general aesthetic-
historical knowledge and a record of general
historical-cultural developments. But, in doing so,
they evince an inextrication of the critical from the
work of art, painting the latter as variously
representing or evading the cultural-linguistic
modulations set out by the former. It is clear,
however, that the discursive knowledge employed
to encode the judgments of the most expert critical
languages of literature—friend and enemy to their
correlative works of literature and vice-versa—is
not just linguistic. The linguistics of literature is not
exactly any less limited, a priori, by single-voice
aesthetic or interpretative cultural suppositions
than are the aesthetic formalisms peculiar to
single-genre or single-national-language parts of
literary study.
There are many reasons to believe that the
language employed for judgment in literary critical
contexts is a particularly interesting and valuable
linguistic phenomenon to study. This is true, most
generally, just because creative verbal expression
is a primary vehicle for the expression of judgment
on many artistic matters. The most obvious
example of this is this type of discourse which
overtly avails itself of the personal linguistic
appropriation of others’ creative linguistic
expressions—criticism. Thus, it is apparent that
one’s knowledge of literature and the other arts is
not confined only to aesthetic perception and
sensory experience. It infused into the language
used for judgment of literary or artistic works.
Cultural elements, character.
Although the term linguistic analysis sounds as if it
deals largely with matters of language, it has its
applications in various other fields such as law,
computer sciences and literature (Mohseni et al.,
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
43
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
2020). One such interesting field of study in
application of linguistics is in how language is
employed by critics to evaluate the literary works.
The goal of this study is to find out how the
language we use influences the evaluation of
literary works and to bring to light many of the
implicit assumptions that go into our literary
assessments focusing on the issue of the “language
of criticism,” especially as it may be said to be
functioning to facilitate creative evaluation (C.
Bohrn et al., 2012). This study, in keeping with the
notion that, as George Lakoff suggests, “the analysis
of language must be part of the larger analysis of
our common conceptual system” (157), concerns
itself with the critical language which, taken
collectively, contributes to an assessment of what
creativity and originality in art may be said to
amount to (for Translation & Literary Studies &
Hussein Rdhaiwi Al-Marsumi, 2017).
5.2. The Use of Language to Assess Literary
Merit
Art and creative commutation, particularly sound
exacerbation, balance, and rhyme, are highly
regarded, according to linguistic-syntactic studies.
Also covered were theme concepts, irony, satire,
and adult metaphors and similes used with care.
Additionally, characteristics peculiar to a language
are examined in adequate evaluation settings.
Criteria for literary works differ among cultures,
centuries, and types of literature. This variation in
encoding linguistic schemes or thematic systems in
evaluating literary worth is significant for one
literary model or literary four. Since literature
constitutes the majority of language production, it
is crucial to investigate it through linguistic and
stylistic studies to identify the distinctive features
of Turkish literary criticism. Process approaches
are the main subject of three literary processing
studies that compare and contrast Turkish and
comparable languages. This also needs an inquiry
into the genre's potential merging by linguistic
theories.
Literary works have been compared in order to
identify whether text is more effective according to
established standards (Gatt & Krahmer, 2017). In
literary practices, the idea of 'literary merit' is
prevalent. Rhetoric, introductions, and reviews
written by members of the literary community
accompany works of literature that rely on logical
evaluation reasoning (Alessandri et al., 2022). The
growth and literary quality of language are
hindered by writing that mostly focuses on
critiquing feminism and fails to identify and
categorize the language used to evaluate literature
(Chiu et al., 2020). The literature is missing a
comprehensive analysis of the role of language in
literary criticism evaluation and its impact on work
value. This gap in our understanding highlights the
need for further research in this area. How can we
identify the qualitative representations that have
literary merit in a certain genre? When reading
literary fiction or poetry, what grammatical and
syntactic features are most valued?
LANGUAGE AND GENRE IN LITERARY
CRITICISM
There is a parallel literature on the linguistic
analysis of literary works, but the nature and role
of language in the evaluation of literary works are
relatively under-elaborated (Carter, 2012; Labov,
1972a, 1978, 2001; Nikolic, 2010; Steen, 2011a,
2014, 2018; Tsur, 1992; Widdowson, 2013)
compared to its role in the construction of literary
worlds, mimesis, and the intertextual conversation
between one work and the others (Barthes, 1970;
Burke, 1941, 1945; Eco, 1979; Fish, 1980; Holquist,
1981; Iser, 1978, 1974; Kristeva, 1969; Lubbock,
1921 [1987]; Ricoeur, 1981; Short, 1981; Todorov,
1965) or the study of narrative structure and plot
(Bal, 1985; Cohn, 2014; Fludernik, 1997, 2002;
Genette, 1980; Mandler, 1984; Orr, 2003; Ryan,
2013, 2014; Sternberg, 1985; Tamm, 2015;
Tatarkiewicz, 1970)
There has been much research in genre analysis in
linguistics (Martin, 1985; Bhatia, 1993). Genre
analysis is a way to study discourse in specific
social and topical contexts. However, as
Haberland(2017) and Hyland(2000) point out,
genre research is methodologically driven by
Corpus Linguistics; Davidse and Morin (2018) have
argued that this needs to be revised for the field.
New models that attempt to explain patterns of
language behavior in response to the
circumstances people address have been
developed and tested due to the explosion of
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
44
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
available corpus data and advancements in
analyzing and modeling the structure of language.
Finally, genre analysis has become fixated on
idealized patterns of language usage rather than its
original ethnomethodological focus on users'
ordinary language use.
6.1. Language Conventions in Different Literary
Genres
The impacts of the mediation of the related EAP
teaching materials, such as presentations and
various technical exercises, are suggested by some
formative researchers who subtly integrate the
study of these linguistic conventions into
instruction. This research adds to the whole study
by using the bottom-up empirical corpus proof to
reflect on the nature of these linguistic standards
under varied genres.
Language standards vary among genres for various
reasons, including the speakers' native languages
and the cultural significance of specific words and
phrases. In light of these distinctions, the article
delves into ways to sidestep the convention in
various text types and languages and how these
factors influence the anticipated meaning
construction underlying the selections.
Furthermore, it has consequences for second
language (L2) education and acquiring the
knowledge necessary to write formally, using ever-
evolving conventions and a growing body of
specialized vocabulary (Carney et al., 2014).
Because teachers often lack knowledge about how
the author's intended communicative purposes in
different genres impact language conventions,
students may feel frustrated when they receive
vague instructions on what is "acceptable" or
"appropriate" without any supporting explanation
(Burk, 2016).
Language conventions vary throughout literary
genres according to the author's goals for
conveying meaning (Pu et al., 2022). We used
literary works, speeches, ads, official documents,
and academic articles as examples of various
genres' linguistic conventions to demonstrate our
points. According to the research, literary works'
linguistic patterns differ by genre, with indexical
meanings like abstract references standing out as
defining characteristics of literature.
6.2. The Influence of Language on Genre
Classification
Artifacts from legal codes, etymological research,
and philosophical history demonstrate that the
idea that language is the most important aspect in
determining genre definitions has been widely held
throughout human history. People have managed
to secure language's distinctive quality not just in
genre, which is the exclusive province of aesthetics,
but also in intuitions of basic social orders, such as
health, reason, and education. The inherent
linkability of language is shaped by the physical,
biological, cognitive, and social dynamics that
reside inside it.
If we think of genres as genera, the works that
make them up are the species that share the
genus's textual traits. When deciding how to
classify literature works, whether poetry, prose, or
science fiction, an equator—language—is an
essential tool. Argumentation, cognitive structure,
and prosody are all aspects of language that should
be considered alongside phonology, syntax, and a
system of lexical representations. Language may
not be the only defining factor in the genre, but it
remains a common denominator. It is hardly
surprising that some writers adhere to this
principle further; after all, equators are
providential (the maneuvering that England
discussed earlier).
Literary theorists' approaches have long
predominated in literary criticism's canon,
according to which a piece of literature is best
understood about the genre to which it belongs
(Analytics et al., 2018). However, genre research
has been under-emphasized regarding literary
criticism's actual application, which needs to be
more emphasized (Blohm et al., 2017). A social
group's commonly accepted mode of example-
based communication is called a genre. Analytical
and historical considerations are necessary for
understanding the human agency that gives rise to
genres and their conventions (Analytics & Wilkens,
2018).
LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL CONTEXT IN
LITERARY CRITICISM
Subordinate languages and literature written in
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
45
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
them must adapt to the linguistic standard of
"Prime Language" in order to rein in the affiliation,
identification, and authenticity of the elements at
stake since the critic's power is proportional to his
or her intellect and, by extension, language
command (Frank Chin). The dominant languages
spoken in the Southern Hemisphere are heavily
influenced by the ideals propagated by classical
Indian and Chinese literatures as well as those of
European thinkers like Emerson (American
Scholar), Arnold (Oriental Renaissance), Goethe
(West-Oestlicher Diwan), and Rabindranath
Tagore.
Literary criticism is not just a battleground for
ideologies but also a platform for cultural and
linguistic value judgments since the theory and
practice of criticism are not region-specific but
heavily impacted by the critic's social, cultural,
linguistic, and ideological milieu. As a result of their
differing social, cultural, and linguistic positions,
Western and non-Western critics engage in
ideological conflict over the vast body of English-
language world literature. The literary norms and
governing bodies of prestigious languages define
the linguistic struggle. Language is a tool to control
and limit the influence of other languages and
literature to maintain this dominant lineage. This
thread also shows up when marginalized voices
attempt to retaliate by adapting and translating
Western canons into their languages to claim them
as their cultural heritage. Non-Western critics have
had a chance to challenge the linguistic colonial
legacy of their country's literature, the
canonization of European canons, practices,
methodologies, theories, and critical terminology
since the emergence of postcolonial theories. Non-
Western critical approaches have incorporated
translation, cultural studies, comparative
literature, and postcolonial theories into their
work (Fang, 2022).
According to Abdulaziz Alghanem and Translation
& Literary Studies (2020), language is the most
important aspect of literary criticism since it allows
critics to evaluate works and, in turn, facilitates
their interpretation. The critic establishes
educational taste or a set of beliefs and attitudes
about creative expression, worth, and assessment,
and language functions as a battlefield for
ideological supremacy in this regard. It is hard to
separate criticism from the language that generates
it since it is a matter of language; the critic is an
integral part of criticism. Literary criticism as a
whole and the assumptions and arguments that
inform it evolve across time and throughout
cultures. According to the World English Journal et
al. (2019), literary criticism has evolved in tandem
with its intended use, target demographic, societal
standards, and institutional context.
7.1. Language as a Reflection of Cultural Values
Across the two sociocultural configurations and the
two time periods, the study found that the concept
of "values" evolved in its meaning. The prevalent
interpretation of "cultural values" in the reviewed
Italian articles suggests that, according to Talcott
Parsons, the founder of the sociology of values, this
could be characterized as a conservative-
conformist or traditional stage. During this stage,
societies rely on sacred, omnipotent values for
guidance, meaning, command, and protection. In
the face of a dramatic shift in emphasis and the
introduction of competing, more robust value
systems, Italian communities are becoming
increasingly disenfranchised and disoriented. As a
result, members of these communities are
practicing for what is ostensibly a postmodern
stage—one in which the dominant value systems
are crumbling—a crushing, devastating, and
terrifying period in which societies descend into
abstract relativism, mass standardization, and
anomy—as described by contemporary cultural
sociologists and literary anthropologists (Wang &
Zhang, 2022).
One way to study literary texts—particularly
literary reviews—is to analyze the language
resources used to express opinions. This allows us
to understand how writers portray 'values' in their
works. Examining how often certain elements
appear in texts can reveal whether they are
significant linguistic features of a community's
literary system and, by extension, how often they
appear in the writings themselves. Searching for
and comparing the use of such traits in English and
Italian is one of the aims of this research. Sociology
of literature, cultural sociology, and literary
anthropology all cover methods for studying how
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
46
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
texts portray values. According to scholars in these
areas, students' reactions to and evaluations of
literary works can tell a lot about a professor's
character, upbringing, and social, logical, and moral
principles (Shiryaeva et al., 2019).
Language is one of the most potent ways a culture's
values, beliefs, and traditions are communicated.
Thus, linguists find it intriguing (Bucholtz & Hall,
2016, p. 19; Duranti, 2009, p. 12). Languages and
cultures inevitably "borrow" stuff from one
another due to colonization and globalization,
bringing new linguistic features and critiquing old
ones (Silverstein, 2016, p. 181; Blommaert, 2017, p.
139). So, a language's cultural connotations and
vocabulary can reveal its evolution and the people
who speak it (Enfield & Kockelman, 2017, p. 25).
Furthermore, cultural identity and values will
likely impact how individuals assess and critique
literary works in substance, storyline, and the
language employed to create the work (Aijmer,
2017, p. 13). After that, linguists can study literary
reviews as a type of journalism review and learn
more about the language systems that make them
up (Poncini, 2018, p. 39; see also Translation &
Literary Studies and Abdulaziz Alghanem, 2020).
7.2. The Impact of Language on Cross-Cultural
Interpretation
Typically, a process of domestication is employed
to translate disparate linguistic settings. To
domesticate a text in translation is to change it to
fit the audience's habits, expectations, language
preferences, and cultural norms by removing or
downplaying cultural or linguistic aspects. When
one text incorporates aspects of another culture
into another, this process is called foreignization
(for Translation & Literary Studies & Almutairi,
2024). Bilal makes the valid point that when there
is a gulf between the cultures of the source and
target texts, foreign cultural characteristics
become more apparent in the translation. Its
strength lies in conveying the alienation felt by the
reader of the Source Text into the Target Text. In
addition, Bilal argues that the difficulty of
foreignization stems from the fact that it aims to
make readers in the target culture feel odd.
According to him, this helps perpetuate the cultural
tension associated with being foreign when people
recount stories (van Cranenburgh & Bod, 2017).
The goal of domestication is to bring Target Texts
closer to the cultural experiences of the intended
readers by bringing the people, settings, and events
depicted in the texts closer to how the readers see
them. So, domestications use dis-juxtaposition to
make the retelling's subtleties sound more natural.
According to the World English Journal et al.
(2019), translating literature begins with selecting
an appropriate language. Because no two
languages are identical and no two people's
upbringings are identical, it is common practice to
abandon the idea of a "translation equivalent"—a
term or phrase in the target language that is an
exact match for its source language counterpart—
when translating. Instead, the translator is faced
with the choice of highlighting formal equivalences,
which refer to aspects of the text like rhythm,
picture, or sound, or functional equivalences,
which are aspects of the text that serve comparable
functions about reader interpretation as the
original text. For readers of translated Young Adult
Science Fiction and World Literature, Brisset
(2013, pp. 211-212) posits that these strategies are
analogous to the actions of the neurotransmitters
serotonin and dopamine, which, in the brain,
mediate fast interactions that cause instant
reactions and, on the other hand, promote slower
interactions that might perpetuate patterns over
time.
LANGUAGE AND INTERTEXTUALITY IN
LITERARY CRITICISM
For example, Al-Qatanani proposed in his 2011
paper that linguistic formalism, by following the
textual relations that influence them, may produce
a novel intertextual analysis. In addition, Al-
Qatanani thinks that linguistic formalism—
comparable to linguistics and other text-to-text
analyses—is a valuable instrument for literary
critical analysis because it establishes connections
and interconnections between various texts. In this
study, we aimed to concentrate on this particular
issue. We were not interested in delving into the
work itself but rather literary criticism and its
language patterns. We sought to comprehend how
the works critiqued, along with the critic's op-eds,
articles, and literary magazines, shape the critic's
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
47
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
voice and arguments (Ellegaard & D Pedersen,
2012).
Due to the highly dialogic character of works in
literary criticism and theory, intercriticality is an
essential component of literary criticism.
Specifically, there is a web of dialogically
intertextual linkages between the articles,
comments, and following publications that
critique, speculate, and reanalyze the articles that
came before them. As a result, according to
Translation & Literary Studies and Abdulaziz
Alghanem (2020), only some critical articles or the
literary works they draw on can be considered
perfect texts accessible from the impact of
intratextual influences on their content. This is
because, for example, the influence parameters
continue to shape an article's critique of a
particular piece of literature. To that aim, language
and discourse patterns both inside and between
texts significantly impact literary criticism.
Literary criticism literature is rich with citations of
foundational theories, methodologies, and works.
Literary criticism exemplifies the principles of
textual interaction and connection commonly seen
in literature. It is, therefore, a topic rich with
intertextuality (for Translation & Literary Studies
et al., 2019). A defining characteristic of literary
criticism is the breadth of its focus, which includes
both the works of literature and critical evaluations
of those works. This creates a network of literature
reviews. Literary works such as novels, plays, and
poetry are not evaluated independently. Instead,
different critical perspectives and reactions to it
are widely recognized among readers and experts
in the field of literature, and they substantially
impact how the original work is viewed in the
future.
8.1. Language References and Allusions in
Literary Works
Twelve references are categorized as alcoholic in
deBoer Books (2020). Classical allusions and
fragments are found in the British National Corpus.
Among the pieces, the names of three well-known
ancient poets—Virgil, Homer, and Horace—are the
most common. Up to 164 instances of language
were discovered! The Wordsworth Dictionary of
Obsolete and Provincial English, which relies
primarily on extracts from the British National
Corpus and other inaccessible open general
corpora, now includes line references for poetry
and paragraph/section references for prose
(Translation & Literary Studies et al., 2019).
Classical allusions are references to the ancient
world and its languages that have always played an
essential role in British writing. They pique the
curiosity of lexicographers in particular. This study
assesses the presence, usage, and presentation of
eleven articles on partial and complete versions of
the selected alcoholic classical allusions from a
large corpus of deBoer Books in four dictionaries
for English language learners (2020). Their
inclusion in the updated 2018 Oxford English
Dictionary is likewise assessed in this research
(Fabbri & Henrique Garcia, 2017). Additionally, it
provides graphic pronunciation alternatives for
several of these articles and provisionally selects
English iron pronunciations. Classical references
have played a significant role in British culture and
English literature, at least since Shakespeare's time
and possibly far earlier (for Translation & Literary
Studies & Abdulaziz Alghanem, 2020).
8.2. The Use of Language to Establish Literary
Connections
Literary allusions also display many signs that call
for an analytical reaction. Moreover, the critic's use
of language to transform the text and put criticism
on the side of evidence and logic rather than a
subjective and fallible construction causes many
literary connections and critical responses through
the semantic sections of the veiled signified.
Textual features also help in identifying the critical
construction: linguistic clusters show specific
connections between the literature and criticism in
different ways, like when the critic mentions the
author's biography and uses linguistic signals to do
so or when the critic uses historical "weave
information" outside of literature to contextualize,
both of which are understood by the audience of
the criticism supplements. Literary allusion, the
writer's critical self, and other forms of writerly
presence can all be shaped by the reader's
perception of this connection to their criticism's
"poetics present" or otherwise.
As mentioned earlier, literary criticism is still
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
48
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
relevant today because it is essential for readers to
discuss and debate different theories and
perspectives on interpreting literary works. This
discussion is facilitated by language, and the texts
themselves are art, texts, and connected forms of
meaning. Literary tropes, cultural and social
moments portrayed in texts, and texts' historical
and contextual significance can all be discussed
through language. The idea that literary criticism
serves as a cultural intermediary hinges on the
premise that communities generally use the same
strategies that critics use to analyze and make
sense of aesthetic communication. We must
inquire: what exactly does a critic do if not decipher
the symbolic, cryptic, polysemous, or metaphorical
meanings bestowed upon works of art in order to
make them available to the public for debate?
Language is the bedrock of our ability to make
sense of the world and share our experiences'
complexities with others. Therefore, it should be no
surprise that language is suitable for assessing and
analyzing literature's distinctive epistemic features
(van Cranenburgh & Bod, 2017). A continuing
dialog about culture, society, and individual
identity cannot be sustained without critical
criticism, especially literary speech (Knöchelmann,
2024). Both the individual reader's process of
meaning-making and the institutional
opportunities and limitations on linguistic
negotiation of literary meaning are shown by this
response. This is why it is crucial to examine how
the critic and the literature it is critiquing may
benefit from linguistic linkages that highlight the
need for more study and enrich the critique and
literature in question (World et al. et al., 2019).
CONCLUSION
Several arguments could be advanced to justify
critics' temptation to use cliches or imprecise
terminology. The pressure of looming due dates is
one possible cause. The reviews included in this
analysis were often produced under intense time
constraints for prominent newspapers or
magazines. Critical requirements can be lowered
due to time pressure. "In deadline conditions
you've got three days to do a hundred thousand
words," Peter Kay said in an interview with poet
Anthony Wilson, adding that newspaper articles
must be written at a specific rate (Kikkenborg Berg
et al., 2013). I should mention that I went through
the same thing when I reviewed books for New
Statesman & Society, or Socialist Future, the
country's first effort at a broad-left weekly—a sort
of hard sanitarium—and wrote about it frequently.
That is where I honed my lightning-fast speed and
successfully published the work of one of the most
prominent writers every week.
According to Yazdannik et al. (2017), this study
aims to show how literary criticism may be
assessed using language analysis. In the end, the
study found both good and bad things about
literary critics' methods to back up their opinions.
Therefore, the conclusion could be viewed as
ambivalent. The fact that literary critics provide
honest, fair, and evidence-based evaluations of
literature is a strength (Alessandri et al., 2022).
However, critics' use of nebulous language, clichés,
and meaningless adjectives undermines the
credibility of their assessments.
REFERENCES
1. for Translation & Literary Studies, A. W. E. J. &
Abdulaziz Alghanem, A. (2020). A Critical
Controversy: Reader-Response Theoreticians
Opposing New Critics. osf.io
2. Bizzoni, Y., Feldkamp, P., Marie Lassen, I.,
Jacobsen, M., Rosendahl Thomsen, M., & Nielbo,
K. (2024). Good Books are Complex Matters:
Gauging Complexity Profiles Across Diverse
Categories of Perceived Literary Quality. [PDF]
3. World English Journal, A. & Nasser Aldosari, B.
(2022). Investigating the Legal Discourse of Bill
Clinton’s Impeachment Trial. osf.io
4. Holur, P., Shahsavari, S., Ebrahimzadeh, E., R.
Tangherlini, T., & Roychowdhury, V. (2021).
Modelling social readers: novel tools for
addressing reception from online book
reviews. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
5. Jacobsen, T. & Beudt, S. (2017). Stability and
Variability in Aesthetic Experience: A Review.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
6. Naimul Hoque, M., Ghai, B., Kraus, K., &
Elmqvist, N. (2023). Portrayal: Leveraging NLP
and Visualization for Analyzing Fictional
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
49
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
Characters. [PDF]
7. Fabbri, R. & Henrique Garcia, L. (2017). A
Simple Text Analytics Model To Assist Literary
Criticism: comparative approach and example
on James Joyce against Shakespeare and the
Bible. [PDF]
8. for Translation & Literary Studies, A. W. E. J. &
Jabraddar Mahil Abd Allah, M. (2019).
Investigating Cohesive Devices in Wordsworth
Poetry. osf.io
9. Li, J. (2022). Emotion Expression in Modern
Literary Appreciation: An Emotion-Based
Analysis. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
10. Gai, F. H. & Wang, Y. (2022). Correlated
metadiscourse and metacognition in writing
research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-
cultural study. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
11. Yazdannik, A., Yousefy, A., & Mohammadi, S.
(2017). Discourse analysis: A useful
methodology for health-care system
researches. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
12. Furnes, B. & Dysvik, E. (2011). Results from a
systematic writing program in grief process:
part 2. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
13. van Cranenburgh, A. & Bod, R. (2017). A Data-
Oriented Model of Literary Language. [PDF]
14. Xu, J. & Liang, Y. (2023). Negotiating
intersubjectivity by interpersonal and
appraisal shifts in Chinese-English government
press conference interpreting. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
15. Gatt, A. & Krahmer, E. (2017). Survey of the
State of the Art in Natural Language
Generation: Core tasks, applications and
evaluation. [PDF]
16. for Translation & Literary Studies, A. W. E. J. &
Bouali, A. (2020). Resurrecting ‘Metaphor’
inside the EFL Poetry Classroom: a Nudge
towards an Integrated-Model. osf.io
17. Conrad Jackson, J., Watts, J., List, J. M., Puryear,
C., Drabble, R., & A. Lindquist, K. (2021). From
Text to Thought: How Analyzing Language Can
Advance Psychological Science.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
18. C. Bohrn, I., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O.,
Menninghaus, W., & M. Jacobs, A. (2012). Old
Proverbs in New Skins – An fMRI Study on
Defamiliarization. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
19. Mohseni, M., Redies, C., & Gast, V. (2022).
Approximate Entropy in Canonical and Non-
Canonical Fiction. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
20. Mohseni, M., Gast, V., & Redies, C. (2020).
Comparative Computational Analysis of Global
Structure in Canonical, Non-Canonical and
Non-Literary Texts. [PDF]
21. for Translation & Literary Studies, A. W. E. J. &
Hussein Rdhaiwi Al-Marsumi, N. (2017). The
Use of Tautology in “The Thorn” by William
Wordsworth: A Stylistic Study. osf.io
22. Alessandri, E., Baldassarre, A., & Jane
Williamson, V. (2022). The critic’s voice: On the
role and function of criticism of classical music
recordings. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
23. Chiu, M. C., Feng, T., Ren, X., & Narayanan, S.
(2020). Screenplay Quality Assessment: Can
We Predict Who Gets Nominated?. [PDF]
24. Carney, J., Wlodarski, R., & Dunbar, R. (2014).
Inference or Enaction? The Impact of Genre on
the Narrative Processing of Other Minds.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
25. Burk, D. (2016). Patents as Genre: A
Prospectus. osf.io
26. Pu, L., Heng, R., & Cao, C. (2022). The effects of
genre on the syntactic complexity of
argumentative and expository writing by
Chinese EFL learners. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
27. Analytics, C., E Underwood, W., & Research
Group, N. T. M. (2018). Genre Theory and
Historicism. osf.io
28. Blohm, S., Menninghaus, W., & Schlesewsky, M.
(2017). Sentence-Level Effects of Literary
Genre: Behavioral and Electrophysiological
Evidence. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
29. Analytics, C. & Wilkens, M. (2018). Genre,
Computation, and the Varieties of Twentieth-
Century U.S. Fiction. osf.io
30. Fang, Q. (2022). Research on Sino Japanese
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
50
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir
Comparative Literature from the Perspective of
Sustainable Ecological Environment.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
31. World English Journal, A., Yaseen Mustafa, S., &
Hadi Khalil, H. (2019). Order and Chaos in
Young Adult Science Fiction: A Critical Stylistic
Analysis. osf.io
32. Wang, W. & Zhang, X. (2022). A cross-cultural
analysis on the Interpersonal meaning of
attitude resources in Chinese and English
online consumer reviews. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
33. Shiryaeva, T., Arakelova, A., Golubovskaya, E., &
Mekeko, N. (2019). Shaping values with
YouTube freedoms: linguistic representation
and axiological charge of the popular science
IT-discourse. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
34. for Translation & Literary Studies, A. W. E. J. &
Almutairi, S. (2024). The Controversy of
Teaching World Literature and the Importance
of Translation in The Field of English Studies.
osf.io
35. Ellegaard, H. & D Pedersen, B. (2012). Stress is
dominant in patients with depression and
chronic low back pain. A qualitative study of
psychotherapeutic interventions for patients
with non-specific low back pain of 3–12
months’ duration. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
36. for Translation & Literary Studies, A. W. E. J.,
Amine Belaid, M., & Hamza Reguig-Mouro, W.
(2019). The Ghost of Windrush Past:
Intertextuality in Sam Selvon’s The Lonely
Londoners (1956). osf.io
37. Knöchelmann, M. (2024). Cultural
Intermediation and Civil Society: Towards a
Hermeneutically Strong Conception. osf.io
38. Kikkenborg Berg, S., Zwisler, A. D., D Pedersen,
B., Haase, K., & Lærum Sibilitz, K. (2013).
Patient experiences of recovery after heart
valve replacement: suffering weakness,
struggling to resume normality.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
