Cognitive literary criticism originated in the 1980s and is a product of the "cognitive revolution" in the field of literary research. The core lies in the in-depth exploration of cognitive science and neuroscience by literary critics and theorists. However, this interdisciplinary perspective may lead to a loss of literary quality and neglect important issues such as gender and ideology. For example, the emotional reactions in "Anna Karenina" and the nostalgic gunshots in "Gentle Night", although academically interesting, may shift the focus of literary criticism practice. This article analyzes three typical risk areas in international cognitive literature research.

Deviation of stance based on terminology substitution

Cognitive literature research applies cognitive science theories to literary reading analysis, but there is a problem of using new terminology to package traditional criticism, which may lead to redundant criticism. Elfenbein analyzed the evaluations of historical critics on Browning's works and pointed out how they used background knowledge to meet the coherence standards of cognitive psychology. However, this research may only involve terminology substitution and does not provide new understanding. The interdisciplinary practice of cognitive science and literary criticism often involves literary researchers using cognitive science concepts, rather than the opposite, which may lead to a deviation in the academic stance of literary criticism practice. Cognitive scientists such as Damasio and Hogan explain phenomena in literary works using cognitive science terminology, but this explanation is not closely related to the literary nature itself and lacks systematic research on the artistic and aesthetic aspects of literary works. Ingarden emphasized the difference in purpose between literary and artistic works and scientific works, reminding us not to read literary and artistic works as scientific works, so as not to lose the humanistic spirit and systematic nature of literary criticism.

Discourse projection based on metaphorical logic

Explored the role and potential risks of metaphor in cognitive literary criticism. Lakoff regards metaphor as the fundamental way for humans to understand the world, while Turner believes that metaphor is the core of allegorical projection and a part of the literary mind. However, this unconscious automation process may lead to the temptation of metaphor in cognitive literature research, resulting in preconceived or compromising conclusions. Frye warns that interdisciplinary research in literature may fall into the trap of vertical and horizontal metaphors, leading to a lack of problem awareness. Embedding external theories into literary criticism can easily lead to preconceived or compromising conclusions, neglecting the independence of literary criticism. The author emphasizes that when introducing cognitive science theories, self reflection should be maintained to avoid interdisciplinary practice caused by metaphorical projection. By analyzing the research of Kef, Hogan, Caracciolo, and others, the author points out that cognitive science theories may inadvertently become metaphorical props, leading to the privatization and objectivity of literary criticism. In his emotional research on Anna Karenina, Hogan projected personal emotional experiences onto the characters, ignoring the differences in cognitive styles between critics and literary figures. The author calls on the academic community to pay attention to and reflect on the metaphorical traps in the practice of cognitive literary criticism, and to maintain the independence and objectivity of literary criticism.

Historical Intervention Based on Cognitive Commonalities

The popularization of cognitive science theories has had a significant impact on the field of modern humanities research, and the field of literary criticism is also facing new challenges. Frudnik assessed the risks of cognitive literature research and pointed out that interdisciplinary research may fall into the dilemma of universality and semiotic imperialism due to being too abstract and general. After post structuralism and cultural studies, the cognitive revolution seems to force us to face the ghost of structuralism again. Authoritative scholars have proposed a solution to establish a dialectical relationship between structuralism and historicism, with Hogan's "Study of Literary Commonalities" being a typical representative, emphasizing the complementarity between the study of differences in cultural and historical contexts and the study of commonalities in emotional and moral cognitive subjects. Richardson's concept of "cognitive historicism" applies cognitive science to literary production in different historical contexts, emphasizing cultural and historical differences and a stable frame of reference for human cognitive behavior. Cognitive historicism criticism often utilizes the theory of mind intelligence to examine the interaction between bodily behavior in literature and the development of cognitive science. Theory of mind is an innate social communication ability that helps readers track the conscious activities of characters. Palmer believed that the theory of mind is a necessary ideological mechanism for literary reading. Richardson's cognitive historicism construction is a positive response to disciplinary risks, which is positively demonstrated in Hogan's literary commonality and emotion studies. However, cognitive historicism also encounters logical contradictions between structuralism and historicism in practice. Sang Shan's "Cognitive Cultural Studies" is another academic branch of cognitive historicism. She discusses the "lying body" in 18th century British novels and points out that the "dual perspective" of body language is a rich resource for new representations and cultural reconstruction. However, Sang Shan cannot demonstrate the historical necessity of using the theory of mind to examine the representation of the body in 18th century British novels, nor can he explain the historical uniqueness of the "lying body" in 18th century British novels, reflecting the logical paradox that cognitive historicism cannot solve when dealing with certain literary phenomena. The concept of cognitive historicism is paradoxically trapped between the commonality of structuralism and the individuality of historicism, and the assumed perspectives of historicism and cognitivism are detached. Hogan's "affective historicism" is more secure than Sanshan's "cognitive historicism" because of the scientific selection of research subjects. The historical contextual effect of literary emotions, which are closely related to ethical and moral trends, is significantly higher than that of physical behavior. In order to endow cognitive literary criticism with "political correctness", forcibly incorporating the content that originally belonged to the common research of structuralism into the cognitive dimension of historicism is actually an excessive avoidance of the risk of structuralization. Cognitive literary critics are heroes in enclaves, providing us with an indispensable 'peripheral perspective' to examine the overall landscape of literature.