Towards a Linguistic Evaluation of Narratives: A Quantitative Stylistic Framework
Authors: Alessandro Maisto
Organizations: Università degli Studi di Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italia
Abstract
The evaluation of narrative quality remains a complex challenge, as it involves subjective factors such as plot, character development, and emotional impact. This work proposes a quantitative approach to narrative assessment by focusing on the linguistic dimension as a primary indicator of quality. The paper presents a methodology for the automatic evaluation of narrative based on the extraction of a comprehensive set of 33 quantitative linguistic features categorized into lexical, syntactic, and semantic groups. To test the model, an experiment was conducted on a specialized corpus of 23 books, including canonical masterpieces and self-published works. Through a similarity matrix, the system successfully clustered the narratives, distinguishing almost perfectly between professionally edited and self-published texts. Furthermore, the methodology was validated against a human-annotated dataset; it significantly outperforms traditional story-level evaluation metrics, demonstrating the effectiveness of quantitative linguistic features in assessing narrative quality.
Evaluating literary quality requires assessing interpretive dimensions such as cultural representation, emotional depth, and philosophical sophistication that resist straightforward computational measurement. We introduce SAGE, a hierarchical evaluation framework that decomposes literary quality into ontology-grounded interpretive dimensions assessed through structured large language model evaluation with multi-round iterative reflection and independent validation. We validate the framework on 100 short stories (50 canonical works, 30 pulp fiction, 20 LLM-generated narratives) across three analytical layers (cultural, emotional-psychological, existential-philosophical) using dual-mode assessment. Across 600 evaluations, the framework achieves 98.8% score convergence and greater than 94% inter-rater agreement, with near-perfect mode invariance between content-based and metadata-based evaluation. Statistical analysis reveals a consistent genre hierarchy (Canonical > Pulp > LLM, all p<0.001) with layer-specific discrimination: cultural critique and philosophical depth exhibit very large effect sizes (Cohen's d>2.4), while emotional representation shows smaller gaps (d=1.68), suggesting that affective patterns are more learnable from training data than critical stance or philosophical depth. Cross-layer correlations (r=0.649-0.683) confirm the three dimensions capture empirically distinguishable quality facets. These findings demonstrate that theory-driven LLM evaluation can achieve measurement-grade reliability and support systematic identification of where current generative models fall short of human literary production, with direct implications for scalable automated evaluation of open-ended text generation.
How people narrate their experiences offers a window into how the mind organizes them. Computational approaches to therapeutic writing have evolved from lexical counting to neural methods, yet remain fragmented: dictionary tools miss discourse structure, while embeddings conflate local coherence with global organization. No existing framework maps these techniques onto the hierarchical processes through which narratives are constructed. Here we introduce a three-level framework - micro-level lexical features, meso-level semantic embeddings, and macro-level LLM narrative evaluation - and show, across 830 Chinese therapeutic texts spanning depression, anxiety, and trauma, that macro-level evaluation substantially outperforms lexical and embedding features for mental health prediction. This challenges the field's emphasis on word-counting: formal structural features (Labov's story grammar, RST coherence, propositional composition) demonstrate that narrative organization per se carries predictive signal, while clinically-grounded narrative dimensions capture how psychological states are expressed through discourse. Semantic embeddings add minimal independent value but yield incremental gains in multi-level classification. By grounding computational levels in discourse processing theory, this framework identifies macro-structural organization as the primary locus of clinical signal and generates testable hypotheses for intervention design and longitudinal research.
This paper presents a small-scale quantitative experiment that links syntactic structure to stylistic functions in narrative prose. Starting from a dependency-parsed corpus of 3,300 sentences, we derive sentence-level stylistic labels across five categories --- descriptive, introspective, causal, ideological, and neutral --- using a transparent rule-based procedure that inspects lemmas, universal part-of-speech tags, and syntactic relations. For each sentence we construct a compact representation of its syntactic profile as a sequence of linearised triples combining lemma, POS tag, and dependency relation. These patterns serve as input to standard machine-learning classifiers trained to predict sentence-level style. The best-performing model achieves a macro-F1 of 0.948 under 10-fold cross-validation. The experiment is implemented entirely in Python using open-source tools. Our goal is not to propose a fully fledged stylistic theory, but to offer a reproducible and extensible workflow for exploring how grammatical structure contributes to narrative interpretation.