Article published in:
Scientific Study of Literature
Vol. 10:2 (2020) ► pp. 228–249

The role of linguistic prosody in the responses to recited poetry

| University of Porto
| University of Porto
| University of Porto
Psychological studies of poetry have focused on the responses to written text, and little is known on how choices made by reciters affect listeners’ responses. We hypothesized that syntax-compatible prosodic cues – pauses and pitch breaks – would increase preference by increasing comprehension. Participants rated different declamations of the same poem for preference and comprehension. The match between syntactic boundaries and linguistic prosody cues was quantified in each version, and then we tested how this match predicted listeners’ responses. Unlike our predictions, linguistic prosody had opposite effects on comprehension vs. preference: Comprehension was enhanced by using both sentence pauses and clause pitch breaks, while avoiding clause pauses. When controlling for comprehension, preference was enhanced by clause pauses but hampered by clause breaks and sentence pauses. Results are consistent with the possibility that listeners enjoyed losing track of syntactic boundaries, in line with the idea that deviation may lead to pleasure.
Keywords: poetry, linguistic prosody, comprehension, preference, aesthetics, syntactic hierarchy
Published online: 19 March 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.19019.pos
References

References

Acock, A. C.
(2014) A Gentle Introduction to Stata (4th ed.). Texas: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Balogh, J., Zurif, E., Prather, P., Swinney, D., & Finkel, L.
(1998) Gap-filling and end-of-sentence effects in real-time language processing: Implications for modeling sentence comprehension in aphasia. Brain and Language, 61(2), 169–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A.
(1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., et al.
(2015) Package‘lme4’. Available at: https://​cran​.rproject​.org​/web​/packages​/lme4​/index​.html
Belfi, A. M., Vessel, E. A., & Starr, G. G.
(2018) Individual ratings of vividness predict aesthetic appeal in poetry. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(3), 341–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belyk, M., & Brown, S.
(2013) Perception of affective and linguistic prosody: an ALE meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(9), 1395–1403. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C., Carlson, K., & Frazier, L.
(2006) Tracking the what and why of speakers’ choices: Prosodic boundaries and the length of constituents. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(5), 854–861. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J.
(1996) Inferring character from texts: Attribution theory and foregrounding theory. Poetics, 23(5), 335–361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & Van Donselaar, W.
(1997) Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and speech, 40(2), 141–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, P.
(2008) Syntax and pathways. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33(4), 265–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frota, S.
(2014) The intonational phonology of European Portuguese. Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 6–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fujisaki, H.
(1997) Prosody, models, and spontaneous speech. In Y. Sagisaka, N. Campbell, & N. Higuchi (Eds.) Computing prosody (pp. 27–42). New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hakemulder, J. F.
(2004) Foregrounding and its effect on readers’ perception. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 193–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanauer, D.
(1996) Integration of phonetic and graphic features in poetic text categorization judgements. Poetics, 23(5), 363–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) The genre-specific hypothesis of reading: Reading poetry and encyclopedic items. Poetics, 26(2), 63–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanauer, D. I.
(2015) Beauty judgements of non-professional poetry: Regression analyses of authorial attribution, emotional response and perceived writing quality. Scientific Study of Literature, 5(2), 183–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Intermediate states of literariness: Poetic lining, sociological positioning, and the activation of literariness. Scientific Study of Literature, 8(1), 114–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P., & Ladd, D. R.
(2008) Prosodic description: An introduction for fieldworkers. Language Documentation & Conservation, 2(2), 244–274.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. M.
(2015) Neurocognitive poetics: Methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, A. M., Lüdtke, J., Aryani, A., Meyer-Sickendieck, B., & Conrad, M.
(2016) Mood-empathic and aesthetic responses in poetry reception. Scientific Study of Literature, 6(1), 87–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keidel, J. L., Davis, P. M., Gonzalez-Diaz, V., Martin, C. D., & Thierry, G.
(2013) How Shakespeare tempests the brain: Neuroimaging insights. Cortex, 49(4), 913–919. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knoop, C. A., Wagner, V., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W.
(2016) Mapping the aesthetic space of literature “from below”. Poetics, 56, 35–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kraxenberger, M., & Menninghaus, W.
(2016a) Emotional effects of poetic phonology, word positioning and dominant stress peaks in poetry reading. Scientific Study of Literature, 6(2), 298–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Mimological reveries? Disconfirming the hypothesis of phono-emotional iconicity in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1779. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Affinity for poetry and aesthetic appreciation of joyful and sad poems. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2051. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kraxenberger, M., Menninghaus, W., Roth, A., & Scharinger, M.
(2018) Prosody-based sound-emotion associations in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1284–1284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D.
(2004) A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N.
(1985) Stylistics. In T. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse and literature: New approaches to the analysis of literary genres (pp 39–57). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, L., & Klein, K.
(2014) Suppressor variables: the difference between ‘is’ versus ‘acting as’. Journal of Statistics Education, 22(2), null. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S.
(2007) Mediation Analysis. Annual review of psychology, 58, 593. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M.
(2000) Equivalence of the Mediation, Confounding and Suppression Effect. Prevention science: the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 1(4), 173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Männel, C., Schipke, C. S., & Friederici, A. D.
(2013) The role of pause as a prosodic boundary marker: Language ERP studies in German 3-and 6-year-olds. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 5, 86–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Obermeier, C., Kotz, S. A., Jessen, S., Raettig, T., von Koppenfels, M., & Menninghaus, W.
(2016) Aesthetic appreciation of poetry correlates with ease of processing in event-related potentials. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(2), 362–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, S., & Elliott, W.
(2010) Suppressor Variables in Social Work Research: Ways to Identify in Multiple Regression Models. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 1(1), 28–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, B. R., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L.
(2014) Adult age differences in wrap-up during sentence comprehension: Evidence from ex-Gaussian distributional analyses of reading time. Psychology and Aging, 29(2), 213–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pessoa, F.
(1934) Mensagem (Prólogo e anotações de Pedro Sinde). Porto: Porto Editora.Google Scholar
de Pijper, J. R., & Sanderman, A. A.
(1994) On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96(4), 2037–2047. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R core team
(2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P.
(2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E.
(2011) Mediation analysis in social psychology: current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silva, S., Dias, C., & Castro, S. L.
(2019) Domain-specific expectations in music segmentation. Brain Sciences, 9(7), 169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siomopoulos, G.
(1977) Poetry as affective communication. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 46(3), 499–513. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N.
(1999) Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 137–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. D.
(1999) Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 2(2), 191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, L. A., Kaan, E., Sabourin, L., & Taylor, R. C.
(2018) The sentence wrap-up dogma. Cognition, 176, 232–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Terken, J., & Hermes, D.
(2000) The Perception of prosodic prominence. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment (14, pp. 89–129).Google Scholar
Thierry, G., Martin, C. D., Gonzalez-Diaz, V., Rezaie, R., Roberts, N., & Davis, P. M.
(2008) Event-related potential characterization of the Shakespearean functional shift in narrative sentence structure. NeuroImage, 40(2), 923–931. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tursunov, A., Kwon, S., & Pang, H. S.
(2019) Discriminating emotions in the valence dimension from speech using timbre features. Applied Sciences, 9(12), 2470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ullrich, S., Aryani, A., Kraxenberger, M., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M.
(2017) On the relation between the general affective meaning and the basic sublexical, lexical, and inter-lexical features of poetic texts – a case study using 57 poems of H. M. Enzensberger. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2073. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Heuven, V. J. J. P.
(1994) Introducing prosodic phonetics. In: C. Odé, & V. J. J. P. van Heuven (Eds.), Phonetic studies of Indonesian prosody (pp. 1–26). Leiden: Faculteit der Letteren.Google Scholar
Wassiliwizky, E., Koelsch, S., Wagner, V., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W.
(2017) The emotional power of poetry: Neural circuitry, psychophysiology and compositional principles. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(8), 1229–1240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yang, X., Shen, X., Li, W., & Yang, Y.
(2014) How listeners weight acoustic cues to intonational phrase boundaries. PloS One, 9(7), e102166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar