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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Culpeper, J. (1996). Inferring character from texts: Attribution theory and foregrounding theory. Poetics, 23(5), 335–361. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davis, P. (2008). Syntax and pathways. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33(4), 265–277. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frota, S. (2014). The intonational phonology of European Portuguese. Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 6–42. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fujisaki, H. (1997). Prosody, models, and spontaneous speech. In Y. Sagisaka, N. Campbell, & N. Higuchi (Eds.) Computing prosody (pp. 27–42). New York: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hakemulder, J. F. (2004). Foregrounding and its effect on readers’ perception. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 193–218. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hanauer, D. (1996). Integration of phonetic and graphic features in poetic text categorization judgements. Poetics, 23(5), 363–380. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hanauer, D. (1998). The genre-specific hypothesis of reading: Reading poetry and encyclopedic items. Poetics, 26(2), 63–80. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Himmelmann, N. P., & Ladd, D. R. (2008). Prosodic description: An introduction for fieldworkers. Language Documentation & Conservation, 2(2), 244–274.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Knoop, C. A., Wagner, V., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2016). Mapping the aesthetic space of literature “from below”. Poetics, 561, 35–49. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kraxenberger, M., & Menninghaus, W. (2016b). Mimological reveries? Disconfirming the hypothesis of phono-emotional iconicity in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology, 71, 1779. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kraxenberger, M., & Menninghaus, W. (2017). Affinity for poetry and aesthetic appreciation of joyful and sad poems. Frontiers in Psychology, 71, 2051. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kraxenberger, M., Menninghaus, W., Roth, A., & Scharinger, M. (2018). Prosody-based sound-emotion associations in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology, 91, 1284–1284. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ludlow, L., & Klein, K. (2014). Suppressor variables: the difference between ‘is’ versus ‘acting as’. Journal of Statistics Education, 22(2), null. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation Analysis. Annual review of psychology, 581, 593. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pessoa, F. (1934). Mensagem (Prólogo e anotações de Pedro Sinde). Porto: Porto Editora.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
R core team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Silva, S., Dias, C., & Castro, S. L. (2019). Domain-specific expectations in music segmentation. Brain Sciences, 9(7), 169. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Siomopoulos, G. (1977). Poetry as affective communication. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 46(3), 499–513. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 137–149. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stowe, L. A., Kaan, E., Sabourin, L., & Taylor, R. C. (2018). The sentence wrap-up dogma. Cognition, 1761, 232–247. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Terken, J., & Hermes, D. (2000). The Perception of prosodic prominence. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment (141, pp. 89–129).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tursunov, A., Kwon, S., & Pang, H. S. (2019). Discriminating emotions in the valence dimension from speech using timbre features. Applied Sciences, 9(12), 2470. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yang, X., Shen, X., Li, W., & Yang, Y. (2014). How listeners weight acoustic cues to intonational phrase boundaries. PloS One, 9(7), e102166. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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.