The role of linguistic prosody in the responses to recited poetry
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.
Article outline
- Method
- Participants
- Stimuli
- Procedure
- Statistical analysis
- Results
- 1.Effects of linguistic prosody on comprehension
- 2.Effects of linguistic prosody on preference
- 3.Effects of linguistic prosody and comprehension on preference
- 4.Effect of general acoustic cues on preference
- Discussion
- Supplementary materials
- Data availability statement
-
References
References (52)
References
Acock, A. C. (2014). A Gentle Introduction to Stata (4th ed.). Texas: Stata Press.
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.
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, 511, 1173–1182.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., et al. (2015). Package‘lme4’. Available at: [URL]
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.
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.
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.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Inferring character from texts: Attribution theory and foregrounding theory. Poetics, 23(5), 335–361.
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.
Davis, P. (2008). Syntax and pathways. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33(4), 265–277.
Frota, S. (2014). The intonational phonology of European Portuguese. Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 6–42.
Fujisaki, H. (1997). Prosody, models, and spontaneous speech. In Y. Sagisaka, N. Campbell, & N. Higuchi (Eds.) Computing prosody (pp. 27–42). New York: Springer.
Hakemulder, J. F. (2004). Foregrounding and its effect on readers’ perception. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 193–218.
Hanauer, D. (1996). Integration of phonetic and graphic features in poetic text categorization judgements. Poetics, 23(5), 363–380.
Hanauer, D. (1998). The genre-specific hypothesis of reading: Reading poetry and encyclopedic items. Poetics, 26(2), 63–80.
Himmelmann, N. P., & Ladd, D. R. (2008). Prosodic description: An introduction for fieldworkers. Language Documentation & Conservation, 2(2), 244–274.
Jacobs, A. M. (2015). Neurocognitive poetics: Methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 91, 186.
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.
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.
Knoop, C. A., Wagner, V., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2016). Mapping the aesthetic space of literature “from below”. Poetics, 561, 35–49.
Kraxenberger, M., & Menninghaus, W. (2016b). Mimological reveries? Disconfirming the hypothesis of phono-emotional iconicity in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology, 71, 1779.
Kraxenberger, M., & Menninghaus, W. (2017). Affinity for poetry and aesthetic appreciation of joyful and sad poems. Frontiers in Psychology, 71, 2051.
Kraxenberger, M., Menninghaus, W., Roth, A., & Scharinger, M. (2018). Prosody-based sound-emotion associations in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology, 91, 1284–1284.
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.
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.
Ludlow, L., & Klein, K. (2014). Suppressor variables: the difference between ‘is’ versus ‘acting as’. Journal of Statistics Education, 22(2), null.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation Analysis. Annual review of psychology, 581, 593.
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.
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, 51, 86–94.
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.
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.
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.
Pessoa, F. (1934). Mensagem (Prólogo e anotações de Pedro Sinde). Porto: Porto Editora.
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.
R core team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
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.
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.
Silva, S., Dias, C., & Castro, S. L. (2019). Domain-specific expectations in music segmentation. Brain Sciences, 9(7), 169.
Siomopoulos, G. (1977). Poetry as affective communication. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 46(3), 499–513.
Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 137–149.
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.
Stowe, L. A., Kaan, E., Sabourin, L., & Taylor, R. C. (2018). The sentence wrap-up dogma. Cognition, 1761, 232–247.
Terken, J., & Hermes, D. (2000). The Perception of prosodic prominence. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment (141, pp. 89–129).
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.
Tursunov, A., Kwon, S., & Pang, H. S. (2019). Discriminating emotions in the valence dimension from speech using timbre features. Applied Sciences, 9(12), 2470.
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, 71, 2073.
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.
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.
Yang, X., Shen, X., Li, W., & Yang, Y. (2014). How listeners weight acoustic cues to intonational phrase boundaries. PloS One, 9(7), e102166.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Barbosa, Plinio A.
2023.
The Dance of Pauses in Poetry Declamation.
Languages 8:1
► pp. 76 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.