2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Lampas
  4. Volume 58, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 58, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0165-8204
  • E-ISSN: 2667-1573

Abstract

Abstract

In recent decades insights from the cognitive sciences, especially the cognitive-psychological study of theory of mind/mindreading, have increasingly been brought to bear on the study of literary character portrayal, including in . This article argues that the scope of cognitive approaches to characterization should be extended beyond mindreading alone to include insights from psycholinguistics (on discourse processing) and social psychology (on attribution). Combining all these approaches, the paper analyses the characterization of Antigone and Kreon in . It is argued that Antigone’s mind is portrayed as difficult to read on account of the extreme nature of her intentions and beliefs, and that Kreon is portrayed as an overzealous and overconfident mindreader. The two characters are also different in how they connect short-term mind states (intentions, beliefs) to long-term character traits: Antigone tends to explain her own behaviour in terms of short-term reasons, while Kreon regularly infers long-term dispositions and traits from other people’s actions. The conclusion briefly discusses the question whether it is ‘legitimate’ to ponder the beliefs, desires, and character traits hidden behind the masks of Greek tragic characters.

© Evert van Emde Boas
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/LAM2025.1.004.EMDE
2025-02-01
2025-04-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adema, S.2023. ‘Hoe herkennen we de emoties van Ovidius’ Aglauros, Pyramus en anderen?’, Lampas56.1, 30-54.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Apperly, I.2011. Mindreaders. The cognitive basis of theory of mind, Hove.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Budelmann, F. en P.E.Easterling. 2010. ‘Reading minds in Greek tragedy’, Greece & Rome57.2, 289-303.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Budelmann, F. en I.Sluiter (eds). 2023. Minds on stage. Greek tragedy and cognition, Oxford.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Cairns, D.2016. Sophocles.Antigone, Londen.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chesters, T.2014. ‘Social cognition. A literary perspective’, Paragraph37.1, 62-78.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Culpeper, J.2001. Language and characterisation. People in plays and other texts, Harlow.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Culpeper, J.2002. ‘A cognitive stylistic approach to characterisation’, in E.Semino en J.Culpeper (eds), Cognitive stylistics. Language and cognition in text analysis, Amsterdam, 251-278.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Culpeper, J.2009. ‘Reflections on a cognitive stylistic approach to characterisation’, in J.Vandaele en G.Brône (eds), Cognitive poetics. Goals, gains, and gaps, Berlijn, 125-159.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. De Temmerman, K. en E.van Emde Boas. 2018a. ‘Character and characterization in Ancient Greek literature. An introduction’, in K.De Temmerman en E.van Emde Boas (eds), Characterization in Ancient Greek literature, Leiden, 1-23.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. De Temmerman, K. en E.van Emde Boas (eds). 2018b. Characterization in Ancient Greek literature, Leiden.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dickey, E.2007. Ancient Greek scholarship. A guide to finding, reading, and understanding scholia, commentaries, lexica, and grammatical treatises. From their beginnings to the Byzantine period, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dijk, T.A. van en W.Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension, Londen.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Easterling, P.E.1990. ‘Constructing character in Greek tragedy’, in C.B.R.Pelling (ed.), Characterization and individuality in Greek literature, Oxford, 83-99.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Eder, J., F.Jannidis en R.Schneider. 2010. ‘Characters in fictional worlds. An introduction’, in J.Eder, F.Jannidis en R.Schneider (eds), Characters in fictional worlds. Understanding imaginary beings in literature, film, and other media, Berlijn, 3-65.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Emde Boas, E. van. 2023. ‘Mindreading, character, and realism. The case of Medea’, in F.Budelmann en I.Sluiter (eds), Minds on stage. Greek tragedy and cognition, Oxford, 25-42.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Emde Boas, E. van. Te verschijnen. ‘Individuals or types? Ancient criticism and modern psychology on characterization in Greek tragedy’, in L.Huitink, V.Glăveanu en I.Sluiter (eds), Social psychology and the ancient world. Methods and applications, Leiden.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gallagher, S.2020. Action and interaction, Oxford.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gallagher, S. en D.D.Hutto. 2008. ‘Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice’, in J.Zlatev, T.Racine, C.Sinha en E.Itkonen (eds), The shared mind. Perspectives on intersubjectivity, Amsterdam, 17-38.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Grethlein, J.2015. ‘Is narrative “the description of fictional mental functioning”? Heliodorus against Palmer, Zunshine & co’, Style49.3, 257-284.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Grethlein, J.2023. Ancient Greek texts and modern narrative theory. Towards a critical dialogue, Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Griffith, M. (ed.). 1999. Sophocles.Antigone, Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Heider, F.1958. The psychology of interpersonal relations, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Herman, D.2011. ‘Introduction’, in D.Herman (ed.), The emergence of mind. Representations of consciousness in narrative discourse in English, Lincoln, 1-40.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hutto, D.D.2008. Folk psychological narratives. The sociocultural basis of understanding reasons, Cambridge, MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hutto, D.D.2011. ‘Understanding fictional minds without theory of mind!’, Style45.2, 276-282, 415.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Jannidis, F.2004. Figur und Person. Beitrag zu einer historischen Narratologie, Berlijn.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jannidis, F.2013. ‘Character’, in H.Peter, J.Pier, W.Schmid en J.Schönert (eds), The living handbook of narratology, Hamburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kelley, H.H.1967. ‘Attribution theory in social psychology’, in D.Levine (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Lincoln, 192-238.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Koolschijn, G.2010 [2008]. Sofokles.Oidipous, Antigone, Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kroon, C.2024. ‘Hoge pieken, diepe dalen. Verteltechniek in Livius’ Hannibalboeken’, Lampas57.1, 96-120.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lavelle, J.S.2022. Mindreading and social cognition, Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Lloyd, M.A.2018. ‘Sophocles’, in K.De Temmerman en E.van Emde Boas (eds), Characterization in Ancient Greek literature, Leiden, 337-354.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Lloyd-Jones, H. en N.G.Wilson. 1990. Sophoclis fabulae, Oxford.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Malle, B.F.2004. How the mind explains behavior. Folk explanations, meaning, and social interaction, Cambridge, MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Malle, B.F.2022. ‘Attribution theories. How people make sense of behavior’, in D.Chadee (ed.), Theories in social psychology, Oxford, 72-95.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Malle, B.F., J.M.Knobe en S.E.Nelson. 2007. ‘Actor-observer asymmetries in explanations of behavior. New answers to an old question’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology93.4, 491.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Nijk, A.2018. ‘Iconiciteit als taalkundig anker’, Lampas51.4, 312-325.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Nünlist, R.2009. The ancient critic at work. Terms and concepts of literary criticism in Greek scholia, Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Pelling, C.B.R. (ed.). 1990a. Characterization and individuality in Greek literature, Oxford.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Pelling, C.B.R.1990b. ‘Conclusion’, in C.B.R.Pelling (ed.), Characterization and individuality in Greek literature, Oxford, 245-262.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Schneider, R.2001. ‘Toward a cognitive theory of literary character. The dynamics of mental-model construction’, Style25.6, 607-640.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Sluiter, I., L.van Beek, T.Kessels en A.Rijksbaron (eds). 2024. Woordenboek Grieks/ Nederlands, Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Sluiter, I., B.Corthals, M.van Duijn en M.Verheij. 2013. ‘In het hoofd van Medea. Gedachtenlezen bij een moordende moeder’, Lampas46.1, 3-20.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Sourvinou-Inwood, C.1989. ‘Assumptions and the creation of meaning. Reading Sophocles’ Antigone’, Journal of Hellenic Studies109, 134-148.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Steinmann, H.1907. De artis poeticae veteris parte quae est περὶ ἠθῶν, Göttingen.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Trendelenburg, A.1867. Grammaticorum Graecorum de arte tragica iudiciorum reliquiae, Bonn.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Westra, E.2022. ‘Social cognition and theory of mind’, in B. D.Young en C. D.Jennings (eds), Mind, cognition, and neuroscience, Londen, 447-461.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Xenis, G.A. (ed.). 2021. Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Antigonam, Berlijn.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Zunshine, L.2006. Why we read fiction. Theory of mind and the novel, Columbus.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Zwaan, R.A.1996. ‘Toward a model of literary comprehension’, in B.K.Britton en A.C.Graesser (eds), Models of understanding text, Mahwah, NJ, 241-255.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Zwaan, R.A.2024. ‘Comprehension. From clause to conspiracy narrative’, Discourse Processes61.4-5, 166-179.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/LAM2025.1.004.EMDE
Loading
Karakterisering in Antigone
LAMPAS 58, 49 (2025); https://doi.org/10.5117/LAM2025.1.004.EMDE
/content/journals/10.5117/LAM2025.1.004.EMDE
/content/journals/10.5117/LAM2025.1.004.EMDE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): attribution; characterization; cognitive literary studies; mindreading; Sophocles’ Antigone

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error