Menninghaus - Etal. Parallelistic Diction 2017

G Model
POETIC 1260 No. of Pages 13
Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Poetics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/poetic
The emotional and aesthetic powers of parallelistic diction

Winfried Menninghausa,* , Valentin Wagnera , Eugen Wassiliwizkya ,
Thomas Jacobsenb , Christine A. Knoopa
a
Department of Language and Literature, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Grüneburgweg 14, 60322 Frankfurt am Main,
Germany
b
Experimental Psychology Unit, Helmut Schmidt University, University of the Federal Armed Forces, Holstenhofweg 85, 22043 Hamburg,
Germany
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 26 July 2016 Parallelistic features of poetic and rhetorical language use comprise a great variety of
Received in revised form 7 December 2016 linguistically optional patterns of phonological, prosodic, syntactic, and semantic
Accepted 8 December 2016 recurrence. Going beyond studies on cognitive facilitation effects of individual parallelistic
Available online xxx features (most notably rhyme, alliteration, and meter), the present study shows that the
joint employment of multiple such features in 40 sad and joyful poems intensifies all
Keywords: emotional response dimensions (joy, sadness, being moved, intensity, and positive affect)
Poetic/rhetorical language and all aesthetic appreciation dimensions (beauty, liking, and melodiousness) that we
Parallelistic diction
measured. Given that parallelistic diction is also used, to different degrees, in ritual
Emotion
language, commercial ads, political slogans, and everyday conversations, the implications
Being moved
Beauty of these findings are potentially far-reaching.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Parallelistic diction: definition and known functions
Roman Jakobson (1960) programmatically suggested that rhetorical and poetic language use implements multiple
linguistically optional ‘parallelisms’ at all levels (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics) of an utterance or text. For
instance, Shakespeare’s verse [73_TD$IF]“All days are nights to see till I see thee” [74_TD$IF]not only features ongoing iambic meter (and rhyme
with a subsequent verse), but also consistent morphological parallelism (all words are monosyllabic), repetition of entire
words (see-see), homoioteleuta (i.e., words with equal/identical endings: see-see-thee), alliteration (to-till), and
(paradoxical) semantic parallelism, or coincidentia oppositorum (all days are nights).
Importantly, linguistic structures of this type are by no means limited to poetry. Parallelistic diction has also been shown
to be employed routinely in infant-directed speech (Dissanayake, 2000; Falk, 2004; Trehub, 2000; Trehub, Schellenberg, [75_TD$IF]&
Kamenetsky, 1999; Unyk, Trehub, Trainor, & Schellenberg, 1992), ritual language (Bauman & Briggs, 1990; Bauman, 1975; Fox,
2006; Severi, 2002), proverbs (Menninghaus, Bohrn et al., 2015), non-ritual songs, slogans, ads (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996), as
well as ordinary language (Bohn, Knaus, Wiese, & Domahs, 2013; Kentner, 2012, 2015; Rothermich, Schmidt-Kassow,
Schwartze, & Kotz, 2010; Wiese & Speyer, 2015).
In its original meaning, the term ‘parallelism’ was, and partly still is, specifically used to designate entire sentences or
phrases that feature syntactically, morphologically and mostly also semantically parallel members. The repetitive sentence
patterns in several parts of the Old Testament are key examples of parallelism that received much attention in 18th-century
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: w.m@aesthetics.mpg.de (W. Menninghaus).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.12.001
0304-422X/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: W. Menninghaus, et al., The emotional and aesthetic powers of parallelistic diction, Poetics
(2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.12.001
G Model
2 W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
literary criticism (Czoik & Lauer, 2003; Lowth, 1787; for a survey, see Menninghaus, 1987). However, already in this context,
the term came to be used far beyond full-sentence parallelisms, or, as classical rhetoric called these structures, ‘isokola’ (cf.
Lausberg, 1998; x 719–754). Following this lead, Jakobson extended the concept so as to comprise essentially all features of
linguistically non-mandatory recurrence across all levels of language processing. In this understanding, “ongoing parallelism”
can be distinctive of texts even in the absence of full-blown parallelistic phrase structures. Regardless of whether it is
alliteration, anaphora, assonance, consonance, epistrophe, meter, repetition, rhyme, or any of the numerous other
parallelistic features which have not been assigned a special technical term, their shared linguistic property is always
similarity-driven self-reference. In their entirety, such features superimpose a dense web of perceptually salient patterns of
recurrence on sentences, stanzas/paragraphs, and entire texts (cf. Fabb, 2015). The present study uses the concept of
parallelistic diction only in this general [76_TD$IF]modern meaning in which it designates not just particular parallelistic figures and
tropes, but an entire factor of poetic diction.
Recent linguistic research on parallelistic structures [7_TD$IF]makes reference neither to Jakobson nor to the tradition in poetics. It
is largely about syntactic priming regarding verb or noun phrases in coordinated ordinary sentences such as “The tall
gangster hit John and the short thug [hit] Sam” (Knoeferle & Crocker, 2009; see also Frazier, Taft, Roeper, Clifton, & Ehrlich,
1984; Poirier, Walenski, Shapiro, 2012). In such contexts, individual parallelistic structures were found to facilitate cognitive
processing as measured by lower reading times. Importantly, studies of this type show preferences for parallelistic patterns
already in ordinary language use, i.e. far below a threshold of being perceived as stylistically conspicuous, let alone “poetic”.
Moreover, sensitivity to and priming through repetition is a general and highly important mechanism of human perception
and learning (Pickering & Ferreira, 2008). Given these premises and that the human arts in general can be understood as
making special, hypertrophied uses of general communicative capabilities (Dissanayake, 1988; Fabb, 2010), we surmise that
parallelistic diction as [78_TD$IF]a characteristic of rhetorical and poetic language use relies on general preferences in language use,
while pushing them to extraordinary levels.
Recent studies on some key features of poetic parallelism – specifically, alliteration, meter and rhyme – revealed
enhancing effects on memory (Hanauer, 1996, 1998; Lea, Rapp, Elfenbein, Mitchel, & Romine, 2008; Tillmann & Dowling,
2007), on overall intensity of processing (Obermeier et al., 2013), on truth attribution (McGlone & Tofighbakhsh, 2000), on
beauty and succinctness (praegnanz) ratings as well as on humor and power of persuasion ratings (Menninghaus, Bohrn,
Altmann, Lubrich, & Jacobs, 2014; Menninghaus, Bohrn et al., 2015). An EEG-study on meter and rhyme (Obermeier et al.,
2016) showed that the presence of meter, in part also of rhyme, facilitates processing as reflected in the N 400 and P 600
components. [79_TD$IF]Since this applied across a great variety of initial stanzas of poems – and hence regardless of substantial
differences in content, style, and time of origin – the finding suggests that parallelistic features of diction may in general
enhance ease of processing (McGlone & Tofighbakhsh, 2000; Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004). Studies that measured
reading times reported shorter reading times for more parallelistic variants of verses, thus providing another ‘objective’
indication for fluency-enhancing effects of parallelism (Lea et al., 2008; Menninghaus, Bohrn et al., 2015).
2. Aim and hypotheses of the present study
The primary aim of the present study is to introduce a variable into the study of poetic parallelism that has gone largely
untreated in studies informed by the strongly cognitively oriented ease-[80_TD$IF]of-processing hypothesis: namely, the emotional
effects of parallelistic patterning and the correlation of these effects with aesthetic appreciation.
2.1. Emotional effects: the case of being (emotionally) moved by poetry
Guided by assumptions widely held in classical theories of poetic and rhetorical diction (Lausberg, 1998; Quintilian, 1920),
we hypothesized that parallelistic patterns of diction should increase the levels of affective and emotional responses that are
targeted by a given text/speech (Hypothesis 1). Specifically, we investigated feelings of being (emotionally) moved. Moving
an audience has been a well-established goal of verbal art ever since the ancient rhetoric and poetics of movere (Cicero, 1962;
Quintilian, 1920). Contemporary ads for films (‘a deeply moving film’) and books continue to use the term. Recent research
(Menninghaus, Wagner et al., 2015) has shown that “being moved” is a full-blown discrete emotion featuring cognitive,
physiological, expressive, subjective feeling and motivational components (cf. Koelsch et al., 2015; Roseman, Wiest, &
Swartz, 1994; Russell, 2003; Scherer, 2005); it also showed that episodes of being moved are often of a mixed affective
nature.
Two prototypes account for a large share of emotional responses readily labeled as emotionally moving (Kuehnast,
Wagner, Wassiliwizky, Jacobsen, & Menninghaus, 2014; Menninghaus, Wagner et al., 2015; Sedikides, Wildschut, Arndt, &
Routledge, 2008; Tokaji, 2003; Wassiliwizky, Wagner, Jacobsen, & Menninghaus, 2015). The first is the sadly moving
prototype in which experiences of loss (separation, death) or acts of sacrifice are blended with a positive appreciation of the
value and the memory of a beloved one and/or with feelings of empathy on the part of bystanders and onlookers. The second
prototype is of a joyfully moving nature. Eliciting events include nostalgic memories as well as births, marriages, reunions,
and reconciliations. In these cases, the positive feelings are blended with some (often fairly discrete) negative counterparts,
such as an awareness that a happy reunion was preceded by a painful period of separation or that the happy times of
childhood are forever gone. Thus, the antithetical variants of being moved allow to test whether parallelistic patterning
drives both sad and joyful feelings to higher levels.
G Model
W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3
Guided by these findings, we gathered 20 sadly and 20 joyfully moving poems and produced modified versions of these
poems from which multiple parallelistic features were removed. [79_TD$IF]Since the construct of being moved routinely includes [81_TD$IF]
aspects of joy and sadness (Kuehnast et al., 2014; Menninghaus, Wagner et al., 2015), we asked participants to rate their
emotional responses to the two versions of the poems on scales for Being Moved, Felt Joy, and Felt Sadness. Moreover,
because states of being moved are mostly of a mixed affective nature, we followed the existing research on mixed emotions
(Larsen & McGraw, 2011; Oceja & Carrera, 2009; Schimmack, 2001) in that we additionally collected unipolar ratings for
Positive and Negative Affect. Finally, we also collected Intensity ratings, because previous research on being moved suggests
the usefulness of such ratings (Hanich, Wagner, Shah, Jacobsen, & Menninghaus, 2014; Menninghaus, Wagner et al., 2015).
We expected higher ratings for being moved, sadness, joy, intensity and positive affect for the original, highly parallelistic
versions of the poems (Hypothesis 1). The apparently paradoxical prediction of a parallel increase in perceived sadness and
positive affect was based on previous findings that reported sadness ratings to covary positively with beauty ratings and with
other affectively positive aesthetic appreciation measures for both sadly moving films (Hanich et al., 2014) and sad music
(Taruffi & Koelsch, 2014).
2.2. Emotional effects and aesthetic perception/appreciation
According to classical rhetoric and poetics (Lausberg, 1998; Quintilian, 1920), making a speech or a work of art
emotionally “moving” ipso facto amounts to an aesthetic achievement. Empirical studies on moving films confirmed this
assumption (Hanich et al., 2014; Wassiliwizky et al., 2015). We therefore hypothesized that the power of parallelistic diction
to make a poem more emotionally moving should translate into, or strongly correlate with, a concomitant power to [82_TD$IF]enhance
aesthetic perception and appreciation (Hypothesis 2).
To capture hypothetical aesthetic effects of parallelistic diction, we asked study participants for ratings of liking, beauty,
and melodiousness. We included Beauty, because beauty is one, if not the preeminent category used for evaluating aesthetic
appeal (Augustin, Wagemans, & Carbon, 2012; Jacobsen, Buchta, Köhler, & Schröger, 2004), and, regarding literature,
expectations of beauty have been shown to be specifically associated with poems, but far less so with other genres (Knoop,
Wagner, Jacobsen, & Menninghaus, 2016). We included Melodiousness, because poems are often attributed “song”-like
qualities and even frequently called “songs” across many languages. Taking the analogy of poetry and music seriously, we
decided to directly ask for musical properties of the poems. A pilot study using “harmonious”, “euphonious”, “rhythmical”
and “melodious” – items which have been shown to reflect important dimensions of the aesthetic appreciation of music
(Istók et al., 2009) – revealed that ratings for “melodious” yielded particularly distinctive results for our set of poems (for
details see Supplementary material S1). Finally, we also collected Liking ratings, because liking is widely used as the most
general indicator of positive aesthetic evaluation.
2.3. Effects on semantic comprehension
Jakobson (1960) suggested that interacting patterns of “ongoing parallelism” might make messages more ambiguous and
hence require greater cognitive effort. Formalist poetics and several empirical studies support this assumption, however,
without specific reference to parallelistic diction (Šhklovsky, 1965; Giora et al., 2004; Miall & Kuiken, 1994, 1998). Contrary to
these assumptions, other studies showed that parallelistic patterns actually enhanced ease of processing (McGlone &
Tofighbakhsh, 1999, 2000; Menninghaus et al., 2014; Reber et al., 2004). A recent study (Menninghaus, Bohrn et al., 2015)
reported adverse effects of meter and rhyme on ease of comprehension along with enhancing effects on prosodic fluency that
overcompensated the adverse effects on semantic processing (for a comparable finding see Song & Schwarz, 2009). Under
these auspices we collected ratings for comprehensibility in an exploratory fashion and in order to control the expected
effects on emotional and aesthetic processing for potential effects of comprehensibility.
Summing up, the present study aims to show that parallelistic diction renders emotional responses stronger and more
intense, while simultaneously enhancing aesthetic appreciation.
3. Method
3.1. General considerations concerning the choice of method
In first-time encounters with unfamiliar poems, non-expert readers typically do not go beyond establishing a basic
meaning model of the poems and do not pay much (explicit) attention to wordplay, rhyme, or other subtleties of poetic
language (Peskin, 1998). [83_TD$IF]Given that we specifically targeted effects that are strongly dependent on sensitivity to stylistic
subtleties, we decided to take recourse to the repeated reading paradigm (Dixon, Bortolussi, Twilley, & Leung, 1993). This
design has been shown to allow readers to consolidate their perception of stylistic nuances and differences. It combines
experimenter [84_TD$IF]selection of stimuli – and hence control over the object side – with taking advantage of the important role of
familiarity in self-sought exposure to artworks. After all, regarding the reception of (liked) songs and poems, repeated
exposure is the rule rather than the exception. By checking for prior exposure we made sure that the effects of repeated
exposure were confined to the experiment itself and hence highly controlled.
G Model
To be sure, some previous studies on individual parallelistic patterns found cognitive effects of parallelistic patterning
also in first-[85_TD$IF]time and single-exposure designs, partly even combined with a between-participant design (cf. Menninghaus,
Bohrn et al., 2015). However, the respective studies not only did not target emotional effects; they also mostly relied on fairly
conspicuous differences of single sentences only. In the auditory presentation of entire poems, however, participants have no
chance to directly compare individual sentences or verse lines. Rather, prior to listening to the first line of a modified poem
version, they listen on average to 12 intermittent lines of the original version. Thus, participants of such studies need to build
up, and store in memory, highly complex gestalt-like impressions of entire poems in all their stylistic subtleties and then
compare these impressions to subsequent impressions of similar complexity, regardless of whether the subsequent texts are
other poems or different versions of the same poem. These considerations motivated us to choose a repeated reading design
for its capacity to let participants consolidate stylistic impressions.
Moreover, we opted for a within-participant comparison of the two poem [86_TD$IF]versions for two reasons. First, as reported in
Section 1, parallelistic diction is known to strongly affect ease of processing; at the same time, many of the relevant studies
on ease of processing used a within-[87_TD$IF]subject design, because interindividual differences can easily override the effects
obtainable by the subtle experimental modifications that are typically employed in this type of research (for a discussion of
this issue, see Forster, Leder, & Ansorge, 2013). Liking of particular poems is likely to be among the cases where individuals
differ strongly. For these reasons, we, too, implemented a within-participant design and controlled the potential downsides
of this design – i.e., knowledge of one version is likely to affect the perception of the second – by systematically varying the
sequence [8_TD$IF]in which the two versions were presented (for details see Section 3.5.).
3.2. Participants
Eighty-six individuals participated in the study, most of them students of various subjects (literature, psychology,
education, philosophy, mathematics, business administration), but also a few professionals and retirees. [89_TD$IF]Given that previous
studies did not offer any guidance for our case, the sample size was determined based on the results of a pilot study; it was
furthermore constrained by the number of participants needed for a systematically balanced experimental design. Six
participants had to be replaced due to technical errors. The final sample of 80 participants (47 women, 33 men) was on
average 31.4 years old (SD = 11.0, min = 18, max = 67). All participants were native German speakers and reported no hearing
deficits. They were paid 10 EUR or given course credit. All experimental procedures were ethically approved by the Ethics
Council of the Max Planck Society, and were undertaken with written informed consent of each participant.
3.3. Stimuli
Previous research on individual features of poetic parallelism either drew on sets of single sentences (Menninghaus,
Bohrn et al., 2015), couplets (Menninghaus et al., 2014) or single stanzas (Obermeier et al., 2013) or – in cases where entire
poems were used – on only a single poem per study (Hanauer, 1998; Van Peer, 1990; but see, Lea et al., 2008). By contrast, the
text corpus for the present study [90_TD$IF]comprises 40 entire poems by 33 authors and [91_TD$IF]covers a broad range of later 18th century
through mid-20th century poetry. The corpus encompasses unfamiliar poems by famous authors as well as poems by
authors who are barely known to non-experts; it hence features substantial variance regarding historical epochs and
authors. The poems were not to contain historical wording that has become unfamiliar or [92_TD$IF]was used with a meaning that is no
longer accessible, or wording that was designed to be unusually difficult to understand (for further selection criteria and a
list of the finally selected poems, see Supplementary material S2).
In a first step of the selection process, one hundred and three poems were selected by a group of literary scholars, the task
being to choose poems that they [93_TD$IF]perceived as either sadly or joyfully moving. In a pre-study, 116 students rated these 103
poems on several scales for emotional effects (most notably, being moved), aesthetic evaluation, and familiarity; each poem
ended up being rated by 16 or 17 participants. Based on these data, we selected 20 sadly and 20 joyfully moving poems; all
selected poems had received relatively high mean ratings for the power to emotionally move readers, degrees of sadness or
joy, beauty, and liking, and were known to fewer than 15% of the participants. We preferred poems with high ratings for the
target dimensions, because we expected that this would increase the likelihood of (downward) variation dependent on the
experimental modification.
All selected poems feature meter and rhyme and multiple further parallelistic patterns on the levels of syntax, semantics,
phonology/prosody and morphology. Meter and rhyme are typically ongoing repetitive structures that allow for rapid
entrainment (Cutler & Foss, 1977; Essens & Povel, 1985; Obermeier et al., [94_TD$IF]2013, 2016; Rothermich et al., 2010); they prime
expectations that the upcoming verses be prosodically similar and facilitate prosodic processing. The other parallelistic
features are more local and less regular regarding frequency and timing of occurrence, with each verse of our poems on
average including more than three such parallelistic features on top of meter and rhyme. Even though experimental research
in parallelisms has not used stimuli of this complexity to date, some theoretical discussions have at least hinted at the
possibility that such studies might be doable and useful (Callahan, Shapiro, & Love, 2010; Dubey, Keller, Sturt, 2008; Frazier
et al., 1984; Sturt, Keller, & Dubey, 2010).
In the selective elimination of the multiple parallelistic features identified throughout the 40 poems,[95_TD$IF] great care was taken
to replace as few of the original words as possible and, where words were replaced, to keep the semantic content as close as
possible to the original version (for the details of the modification process and an annotated example of an original poem and
G Model
of the parallelistic features eliminated in the modified version see Supplementary material S3). In order to control for
differences in word frequency, word count, and phonemic inventory that might have resulted from our experimental
modification and could likewise have affected the ratings obtained, we statistically analyzed the two versions of all poems
for these parameters. We found no significant differences for word count (Morig = 95.1 vs. Mmod = 94.3; t(39) = 0.91, n.s.) or
word frequency (normalized word frequency based on the dlexDB.de corpus: Morig = 4779 vs. Mmod = 4570; t(39) = 1.50, n.s.).
Regarding phonemic inventory, we calculated [96_TD$IF]the phoneme frequency [97_TD$IF]distribution for each poem version and conducted
chi-square tests; again, we found no significant differences between the versions.
Importantly, numerous features characteristic of poetry other than parallelistic diction were exempt from modification
and left intact. Regarding content and composition of the poems, this applies to the low degree of narrative content, the
unmediated evocation of highly personal and highly emotional speech situations, and the frequent addressing of an absent
person/agent who is or was highly significant [98_TD$IF]to the lyrical speaker. Regarding poetic diction, we took care that non-
parallelistic features of poetic diction were also kept as constant as possible across the two versions high and low in
parallelism. This applies both to semantic figures – such as metaphor, metonymy, hyperbole, augmentation, and irony – and
to features of “poetic license” (cf. [9_TD$IF]Lausberg, 1998; Leech, 1969; Quintilian, 1920), such as deviations from, and outright
violations of, “normal” syntax, phonology, and [10_TD$IF]morphology, most notably elliptical sentence structures and syntactic
inversions. As a result, even though our modifications (largely) removed the parallelistic features of poetic diction, many
other features characteristic of poetic diction were still retained. Given that non-metered and non-rhymed poems account
for a substantial share specifically of 20th century poetry, no participant challenged the notion that both variants of the texts
were, in fact, poems.
Following the process of experimental modification, both versions of all 40 poems were recited by a professional speaker
and recorded at a professional recording studio, digitized at a sampling rate of 48 kHz. Care was taken that the different
versions were read in a similar voice and tone. Acoustic analyses showed no significant differences in mean pitch
(Morig = 99.9 Hz vs. Mmod = 100.0 Hz for original vs. modified version, Fs < 1) or mean intensity (Morig = 70.7 dB vs.
Mmod = 70.6 dB for original vs. modified version, F(1,38) = 1.31, n.s.). We did, however, find differences in duration (Morig = 69.9
vs. Mmod = 67.5 s, F(1,38) = 14.5, p < .[10_TD$IF]0 01) and speech rate (Morig = 2.37 vs. Mmod = 2.46 syllables per second, F(1,38) = 13.9, p < .[102_TD$IF]
001).
In a separate paper-and-pencil study designed to check our text modifications, 160 participants (mean age 24.7,
SD = 5.5, min = 17, max = 52; 78 men, 82 women) rated how convergent they found the two versions of the poems on a 7-point
Likert scale (with 1 = ‘very weakly convergent’ and 7 = ‘very strongly convergent’). For form, the mean rating was significantly
below 4 (the midpoint of the scale): M = 3.3, SD = 0.73, t(39) = !6.2, p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01, whereas for content, it was significantly above 4:
M = 5.7, SD = 0.68, t(39) = 15.5, p < .[104_TD$IF]0 01.
3.4. Design
In an orthogonal two-by-two design, we tested the effects of the experimental variables Poem Version [105_TD$IF](original poems
high in parallelistic features vs. modified versions low in parallelistic features[106_TD$IF]) and Key Emotional Content [107_TD$IF](the sadly versus
joyfully moving nature of the poems[108_TD$IF]) on emotional responses and aesthetic evaluations. Ten groups of four poems were
created, each consisting of two sadly and two joyfully moving poems. The order in which the four poems were presented
(henceforth referred to as Experimental Position) was balanced with a sequential Latin-square procedure, and the order of
presenting the two versions of each poem (henceforth referred to as Sequence) was systematically balanced across
participants, thus resulting in eight parallel lists.
3.5. Procedure
The data were collected in a language laboratory. Students were tested in groups of 1 to 8 participants; they were seated
separately in front of individual computers. In order to avoid prestige effects, we suggested that both versions were taken
from critical editions of the poems and that the participants were to evaluate different stages of the authors’ writing
processes (without being told which version was the ultimate one). Then the experimenter started the individual versions of
the experiment on the computers, and all further instructions were given on the computer screen.
For the theoretical and methodical reasons already reported at the beginning of Section 2, we implemented a repeated
reading design. Each participant was presented with 4 of the 40 poems in both the original and the modified version. First,
the two versions of one of the poems were auditorily presented; afterwards, the participants were asked three questions. The
same two versions of the respective poem were then presented two more times, each time with a different set of questions.
After the first presentation, participants rated the respective versions both for Liking and Comprehensibility on a 7-point
Likert-scale; they also indicated with [109_TD$IF]a yes or a no whether they knew one or both variants. In the second round of
presentations, they rated each of the two versions of the poem directly after hearing it for Intensity, Positive and Negative
Affect, Felt Sadness, Felt Joy, and Melodiousness, again on 7-point Likert-scales. In order to potentially capture coactivations
of positive and negative affect as well as of joy and sadness, we used unipolar 7-point rating scales for each item (Cacioppo &
Berntson, 1999; Larsen & McGraw, 2011; Larsen, McGraw, & Cacioppo, 2001; Norris, Gollan, Berntson, & Cacioppo, 2010;
Oceja & Carrera, 2009; Schimmack, 2001). On bipolar rating scales, the ratings for the opposite items will always be
reciprocal. Hence such scales cannot capture potential simultaneous activations of high levels of sadness and high levels of
G Model
joy, or other types of deviations from mere reciprocity. During the third presentation, the two variants of the poem were
again presented en bloc, as in trial 1. This time, participants rated how moving (Being Moved) and how beautiful (Beauty)
they found each version, and to what degree they liked the versions and judged them to differ in form and in content.
This procedure was repeated with three more poems. Participants were encouraged to take short breaks between the four
blocks, but could proceed at their own pace. After the fourth block, participants were asked to fill out two personality
questionnaires, a short German version of the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (Körner et al., 2008) and a short version of the Need
for Affect scale (Appel, Gnambs, Maio, 2012), as well as for their age, sex, and reading preferences. Finally, participants were
thanked, debriefed, and paid. The whole experiment took about one hour.
3.6. Analysis
We analyzed the data by computing multilevel regression analyses for the dependent variables regarding aesthetic
evaluation (Liking, Comprehensibility, Melodiousness, and Beauty) and the affective response (Intensity, Felt Sadness and
Felt Joy, Positive and Negative Affect, Being Moved), with varying intercepts for participants and poems. We included the two
experimental independent variables Poem Version (original poems high in parallelistic features vs. modified versions low in
parallelistic features) and Key Emotional Content (sadly vs. joyfully moving), as well as the control variable Sequence
(version was presented first vs. version was presented second) [10_TD$IF]and the full set of interactions (for a detailed model
specification, see Supplementary material S[1_TD$IF]4). All independent variables were contrast-coded as !0.5 vs. [12_TD$IF]0.5. All analyses
were conducted in R (R Core Team, 2015) with the lme4 package (Bates et al., 2015), using restricted maximum-likelihood
estimation. The reported effect sizes – estimating the level-1 modeled proportion of variance (pseudo R12) – were computed
following Snijders and Bosker (1994). The significance level was set to a = 0.05.
Finally, in order to check whether the emotional and aesthetic effects of Poem Version could be explained by perceived
minor differences in content (see Stimuli section), we computed correlations between the difference scores of the
aggregated dependent variables for each poem (e.g., mean Liking for the original poem minus mean Liking for the modified
version) and the mean convergence ratings for the content of the two versions of the poems obtained in the control study.
Thus, effects resulting from reduced convergence in content should yield negative correlations (a lower content convergence
score should predict larger differences between original and modified versions).
4. Results
The mean ratings per poem for all dependent variables are depicted in Fig. 1, broken down by Key Emotional Content and
Poem Version.
4.1. Emotional responses
Compared to the modified versions, the original poems were rated significantly higher for Intensity (Morig = 4.80 vs.
Mmo = 4.04, p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01, R12 = 0.068), Being Moved (Morig = 4.71 vs. Mmod = 3.92, p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01, R12 = 0.069), Positive Affect (Mori = 3.87
vs. Mmod = 3.34, p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01, R12 = 0.023), Felt Sadness (Morig = 3.10 vs. Mmod = 2.88, p = .[13_TD$IF]022, R12 = 0.003), and Felt Joy (Morig = 3.24
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
Fig. 1. Mean ratings for the dependent variables broken down by Poem Version (original: filled circles vs. modified: open squares) and Key Emotional
Content (joyfully moving vs. sadly moving) per poem (small symbols) and overall (large symbols); error bars represent the 95% CI. The colored lines connect
the mean ratings of the original and modified versions of the poems. Blue lines represent a decrease, red lines an increase, and purple lines no change in the
mean ratings when comparing the original with the modified version.
G Model
vs. Mmod = 2.86, p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01, R12 = 0.012; for details of the statistical results, see Table 1). Ratings of Negative Affect were virtually
no different for the original and the modified versions (Morig = 2.81 vs. Mmod = 2.82, n.s.). Hypothesis 1 thus found very strong
support.
As expected, sadly moving poems showed significantly higher mean ratings for Felt Sadness and Negative Affect than
joyfully moving poems (Msad = 3.80 vs. Mjoyful = 2.18, R12 = 0.235 and Msad = 3.45 vs. Mjoyful = 2.18, R12 = 0.172, respectively, both
ps < .[14_TD$IF]0 01), whereas joyfully moving poems showed higher mean ratings for Felt Joy and Positive Affect compared to sadly
moving poems (Mjoyful = 3.70 vs. Msad = 2.40, R12 = 0.163 and Mjoyful = 4.10 vs. Msad = 3.11, R12 = 0.092, respectively, both ps < .[102_TD$IF]
001).
For the control variable Sequence, the mean ratings of the first position compared to the second position were
significantly higher only for Intensity (Mfirst = 4.55 vs. Msecond = 4.29, p = .[15_TD$IF]0 02, R12 = 0.008) and Positive Affect (Mfirst = 3.76 vs.
Msecond = 3.45, p = .[16_TD$IF]0 03, R12 = 0.008). For the dependent variables Being Moved, Negative Affect, and Felt Sadness, the
interactions of Poem Version and Sequence were significant: The original versions received higher ratings when presented in
the second rather than the first position, while the reverse holds true for the modified versions (Morig/second = 4.86 vs. Morig/
2
first = 4.57 and Mmod/second = 3.69 vs. Mmod/first = 4.14, p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01, R1 = 0.015, for being-moved; Morig/second = 2.91 vs. Morig/
2
first = 2.70 and M mod/second = 2.72 vs. M mod/first = 2.93, p = .[ 0
] F I $ D T _ 7 1 23, R 1 = 0.004, for Negative Affect; Morig/second = 3.18 vs. Morig/
2
first = 3.01 and Mmod/second = 2.61 vs. Mmod/first = 3.14, for Felt Sadness, p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01, R1 = 0.012). These findings conform to the
principle of perceptual or cognitive contrast which predicts that stimuli following other stimuli of good quality are less
positively evaluated than when following stimuli of poor quality (Fechner, 1876; Parker, Bascom, Rabinovitz, & Zellner, 2008;
Tousignant & Bodner, 2014). Neither the interactions of Poem Version and Key Emotional Content, [18_TD$IF]nor the interactions of Key
Emotional Content and Sequence, nor the triple interactions were significant.
4.2. Aesthetic appreciation
The original versions of the poems received significantly higher ratings for Liking (Morig = 4.65 vs. Mmo = 3.75, p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01,
R12 = 0.092), Melodiousness (Morig = 5.30 vs. Mmod = 3.43, p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01, R12 = 0.0323), and Beauty (Morig = 4.96 vs. Mmod = 3.71, p < .[103_TD$IF]
001, R12 = 0.152) than the modified versions (for details of the statistical results, see Table 1). Hypothesis 2 was thus also
confirmed. There were no significant differences between joyfully and sadly moving poems regarding the aesthetic
appreciation variables. Sequence had a significant effect on Comprehensibility: The poem versions that were presented
second were rated as easier to understand than those presented first (Msecond = 5.38 vs. Mfirst = 5.05, p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01, R12 = 0.013). The
interaction of Poem Version and Sequence was significant for Liking as well as for Beauty (p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01, R12 = 0.016 and p = .[19_TD$IF]019,
Table 1
Results of the multilevel regression analyses for all dependent variables.
Comprehensibility Liking Beauty Melodious- Being Felt Felt Intensity Positive Negative
ness Moved Sadness Joy Affect Affect
(Intercept) 5.21 (0.12)*** 4.20 4.33 4.37 4.32 2.99 3.05 4.42 3.60 2.82
(0.09)*** (0.10)*** (0.08)*** (0.11)*** (0.12)*** (0.12)*** (0.11)*** (0.13)*** (0.12)***
Poem Version (PV) !0.02 (0.08) 0.90 1.25 1.88 0.80 0.22 0.38 0.75 0.53 !0.02
(0.10)*** (0.10)*** (0.10)*** (0.10)*** (0.10)* (0.10)*** (0.09)*** (0.10)*** (0.09)
Key Emotional 0.07 (0.17) 0.05 !0.18 0.02 !0.25 !1.62 1.30 !0.12 0.99 !1.27
Content (KEC) (0.13) (0.13) (0.11) (0.14) (0.17)*** (0.18)*** (0.13) (0.18)*** (0.18)***
Sequence (SEQ) 0.33 (0.08)*** !0.05 !0.10 !0.18 !0.08 !0.18 !0.08 !0.27 !0.31 !0.00
(0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.09)** (0.10)** (0.09)
PV " KEC 0.12 (0.16) !0.08 !0.03 0.17 0.06 !0.34 0.16 !0.12 0.05 !0.23
(0.19) (0.20) (0.19) (0.19) (0.19) (0.20) (0.17) (0.21) (0.18)
PV " SEQ 0.16 (0.16) 0.74 0.47 0.34 0.73 0.68 0.18 0.34 0.15 0.42
(0.19)*** (0.20)* (0.19) (0.19)*** (0.19)*** (0.20) (0.17)* (0.21) (0.18)*
KEC " SEQ !0.05 (0.16) 0.18 0.27 0.03 0.27 0.02 !0.01 0.14 0.06 0.06
(0.19) (0.20) (0.19) (0.19) (0.19) (0.20) (0.17) (0.21) (0.18)
PV " KEC " SEQ !0.30 (0.40) !0.86 !0.47 !0.12 !0.35 !0.83 0.22 !0.64 !0.43 !0.28
(0.45) (0.47) (0.45) (0.46) (0.46) (0.47) (0.42) (0.49) (0.44)
L2 variance: 0.53*** 0.36*** 0.45*** 0.31*** 0.54*** 0.61*** 0.48*** 0.59*** 0.60*** 0.54***
Participants
(intercept)
L2 variance: 0.22*** 0.07*** 0.07* 0.02 0.11*** 0.21*** 0.24*** 0.09*** 0.23*** 0.23***
Poems (intercept)
Residual variance 1.08 1.49 1.62 1.51 1.45 1.47 1.58 1.20 1.72 1.33
Note: In the upper part of the table, the coefficients with standard errors (in brackets) are given, marked with asterisks if significantly different from zero; in
the lower part the random effects are given. N = 80; number of poems: 40; number of observations: 638 (two observations are missing due to a technical
error).
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
G Model
R12 = 0.005, respectively): The original versions of the poems received higher Liking and Beauty ratings when presented
second rather than first, whereas the reverse holds true for the modified versions. Thus, there was a sequence effect for
aesthetic appreciation dimensions that parallels the effect for the emotional response dimensions: Highly parallelistic
poems profited from being preceded by a less parallelistic version, whereas the modified versions low in [120_TD$IF]parallelistic diction
profited from not being preceded by a highly parallelistic version. Again, as for the emotional response dimensions, none of
the other interactions was significant.
Multilevel regression analyses of Liking, Beauty, Being Moved, and Positive Affect on Felt Sadness (as well as Poem
Version, Key Emotional Content, and their interactions) revealed significant positive correlations in three cases: Higher
ratings of Felt Sadness predict higher ratings of Liking, Beauty, and Being Moved (with regression coefficients of 0.082, p = .[12_TD$IF]
037, R12 = 0.011; 0.25, p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01, R12 = 0.078; and 0.35, p < .[103_TD$IF]0 01, R12 = 0.179, respectively). For Beauty and Being Moved, this
effect was qualified by an interaction of Felt Sadness and Poem Version: Original versions yielded a steeper negative slope
than modified versions (!0.153, p = .[12_TD$IF]024, R12 = 0.013; and !0.135, p = .[123_TD$IF]032, R12 = 0.013). The effect of Felt Sadness on Positive
Affect turned out to be negative: !0.98, p = .[12_TD$IF]024, R12 = !0.011, in line with previous findings that sadness felt in response to
sadly moving films contributes to positive affect not directly, but only through its mediation through felt degrees of being
moved (Hanich et al., 2014; Wassiliwizky et al., 2015).
4.3. Statistical controls of the results
As already reported in the Stimuli section, statistical controls for differences of the two text versions in word frequency,
word and syllable count, and phonemic inventory showed no significant differences.
Similarly, ratings for Comprehensibility were virtually the same (Morig = 5.20 vs. Mmod = 5.22) for the two versions.
Contrary to a previous study on proverbial sentences (Menninghaus, Bohrn et al., 2015), this result does not confirm
Jakobson’s speculation (Jakobson, 1960) that highly parallelistic diction may make the respective texts more ambiguous and
hence more difficult to understand. Note, however, that [124_TD$IF]one of the criteria for choosing the poems was that they contain
neither historically obsolete word forms nor wording that was designed to be opaque or obscure for other reasons. In any
event, results suggest that the ratings obtained for aesthetic and emotional effects are likely not to be significantly affected by
differences in comprehensibility.
Almost all emotional and aesthetic effects reported above also hold when controlled for individual differences between
the participants (age, sex, Big Five personality scores, reading preferences), for the acoustic differences between the versions
of the poems, and for the experimental position (for details, see Supplementary material S5, where we also report the results
of the familiarity check and of the manipulation check).
Finally, we checked for correlations between the experimental modification (that is, difference [125_TD$IF]scores between the two [126_TD$IF]
versions of a poem) and the mean content convergence rating of the control study. However, no correlation turned out to be
significantly different from zero; descriptively, the results ranged from r = !0.20 for Negative Affect up to r = 0.20 for Positive
Affect (for details, see Supplementary material S6).
Summing up, all statistical control measures suggest that the effects reported above are highly likely to be selectively due
to the experimental modification of parallelistic diction.
5. Discussion
The present study is the first to provide empirical evidence that multi-parallelistic diction as employed in 40 entire poems
yields powerful effects on emotional responses. The presence vs. absence of the parallelistic patterns caused higher ratings
for sadness, being moved, joy, intensity, and positive affect in sadly moving poems and higher ratings for joy, being moved,
intensity, and positive affect in joyfully moving poems. Parallelistic features hence served as general [127_TD$IF]intensifiers of emotional
impact, regardless of whether the key emotional content of the poems was sad or joyful. A recent study on metaphor – i.e., on
a rhetorical figure which is a key feature of verbal imagery rather than of poetic parallelism and which is likewise found
throughout all uses of language – reported an analogous effect of supporting stronger emotional involvement (Citron,
Güsten, Michaelis, [128_TD$IF]& Goldberg, 2016).
Our findings imply that the subtleties of parallelistic diction clearly make a difference for the perception of the poems
altogether, suggesting that these subtleties interact, as classical aesthetics and also Jakobson (1960) speculated, with the
perception of the content. By implication, our study is by no means formalist in the sense that it separates the analysis of
formal features of poetic diction from all other textual levels. Rather, both our textual modifications and our hypotheses were
from the outset designed to capture interaction effects of poetic diction and a more holistic perception of how the poems in
their entirety affect readers both emotionally and aesthetically.
The emotional effects reported above include, as predicted, a simultaneous increase of apparently contradictory
dimensions of the emotional response. Specifically, in the case of the sadly moving poems, ratings for positive affect and felt
joy were increased by the presence vs. absence of parallelistic patterns along with those for liking, beauty, being moved, and
felt sadness. The latter finding entails implications for the much-discussed issue of aesthetic enjoyment associated with
negative emotions. [79_TD$IF]Since the versions high in parallelistic diction [129_TD$IF]neither reduced sadness ratings nor left them unchanged,
but actually increased them, our results are not compatible with a compensation hypothesis which can be derived from
Aristotle's prescription that some verses of tragedy be of a markedly “sweet” sound quality (Aristotle, 2013): namely, that the
G Model
perceptual virtues of parallelistic diction may serve as an antidote that balances out and thereby reduces the actual
experience of negative emotions. Our data rather support the hypothesis of an intensity effect: Higher levels of felt sadness
may positively correlate with higher liking and beauty ratings, because they also covary with higher levels of felt intensity of
being affected by the poem (for comparable findings see Hanich et al., 2014; Taruffi & Koelsch 2014; Vuoskoski & Eerola,
2012). This intensity effect may be inherently self-rewarding – comparable to the enjoyment of high suspense and arousal
elicited by horror films (Andrade & Cohen, 2007; Robinson, Callahan, & Evans, 2014; Tamborini & Stiff, 1987; Zuckerman,
1979) – regardless of the valence of the feelings involved (Hanich et al., 2014; Wassiliwizky et al., 2015), at least under the
protective frame of art [130_TD$IF]reception (Apter, 1984; Gerger, Leder, & Kremer, 2014; Wagner et al., 2016; Wagner, Menninghaus,
Hanich, & Jacobsen, 2014).
Parallelistic features also supported higher ratings for all dimensions of aesthetic appreciation targeted in this study
(liking, beauty, and melodiousness). Hence, [13_TD$IF]theyalso served as general intensifiers of perceived aesthetic appeal. In this double
capacity, multi-parallelistic text patterning thus emerges as a powerful means of message enhancement. The powers of
parallelistic diction are even more impressive [132_TD$IF]if one adds to these findings the already known effects on enhancing memory
(Hanauer, 1996, 1998; Lea et al., 2008; Tillmann & Dowling, 2007) and the other effects reported in Section 1.
Still, it is important to keep in mind that [13_TD$IF]the entirety of poetic diction constitutes only one of the four classical pillars of
the “making” (gr. poieín) of artful speeches and texts. The three others include the invention (inventio) of content features,
their higher order compositional arrangement (distributio), and in some cases the oral performance of speeches, poems, etc.
(actio). Moreover, contrary to what Jakobson seems to suggest (1960), we do not imply that “ongoing parallelism” covers all
distinctive features of poetic and rhetorical diction. Rather, we surmise that two other highly composite factors are also of
importance, one encompassing all features of “poetic license”, of violating linguistic rules (for instance, ellipsis of expectable
sentence parts, syntactic inversions, etc.) (cf. [134_TD$IF]Lausberg, 1998; Leech, 1969; Quintilian, 1920), and the other consisting of
semantic figures that primarily support poetic imagery (metaphor, metonymy, etc.). In light of these considerations,
parallelistic diction accounts only for a fraction of the making of poems in their entirety. Thus, it is all the more remarkable
that we found such strong and sustained effects dependent on our experimental modification.
Because parallelistic features can be considered as linguistic analogues to multi-layered patterns of recurrence and
symmetry in visual (Berlyne, 1974; Palmer & Hemenway, 1978) and music aesthetics (Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1977; Margulis,
2014), future research may show that Jakobson's construct of parallelistic diction may serve as a basis for comparative
studies that target perceptual patterns of recurrence across aesthetic domains. Our use of a rating item (melodious) that was
previously nearly exclusively used in research on music already highlights both the feasibility and the usefulness of such
studies.
As our study included a substantial variation in historical and individual poetic styles and idioms, our findings are limited
neither to the specific context of individual poems nor to specific individual or historical styles of diction and may well apply
far beyond the text corpus we used. Jakobson’s remark (1960) that political and commercial ad campaigns make systematic
use of this resource is only one of the many opportunities for future research regarding the powers of parallelistic diction.
5.1. Limitations and future directions
Our experimental modifications of the 40 original poems included replacing words through synonyms, altering
phonological word forms, and altering syntactic order. All these modifications are likely to involve subtle differences in
semantic nuances. After all, even very close synonyms are not strictly identical regarding the full range of their semantic
denotations and connotations, and even minor changes of phonological word form can be perceived as meaningful in a given
context. In this light, each and every experimental modification of a text cannot be perfectly orthogonal with regard to
semantic content. However, the multiple parallelistic patterns were systematically modified in a sustained and ongoing
fashion, guided by the Parallelism hypothesis of poetic language. By contrast, the subtle semantic differences resulting from
the replacement of individual words or word forms are non-systematic, vary from one another due to their local context, and
are thus highly unlikely to exert a homogenous effect across all 40 poems. Accordingly, our manipulation checks showed
that, as predicted, perceived differences in poetic diction were far more pronounced than perceived differences regarding
semantic content. However, it would be important for future studies to learn more about whether and how nuances in
semantic differences resulting from modifying the original wording – nuances that are non-systematically scattered
throughout the modified text variants – affect global post hoc ratings of the type collected in the present study.
The present study focused on investigating potential effects of multiple cooccuring features of parallelistic diction that
were identified and experimentally modified in selected poems and on establishing this highly composite textual property as
an important variable. A logical next step would be to investigate the relative contribution of the individual parallelistic
features, their threshold levels and their respective interaction effects (c.f. Fechner, 1876) to the total effects reported here.
Our findings are exclusively based on post-hoc subjective ratings. Continuous subjective ratings obtained during reading,
objective reading time measures, data regarding physiological responses as well as neuroscientific measures of real-time
processing and of brain activation patterns are likely to provide valuable additional insights into how readers process highly
parallelistic texts.
Even though the corpus of poems underlying our study includes a substantial range of historical and individual
differences in content and style, future research will need to determine the potential generalizability of our findings across a
far broader variety of texts, including non-metered poetry and non-poetic texts.
G Model
5.2. Conclusion
Drawing on 40 entire poems, the present study reveals that parallelistic patterns of diction powerfully enhance emotional
responses along with dimensions of aesthetic appreciation. By implication, the study shows that Jakobson’s programmatic
hypothesis of poetic parallelism has great potential for informing empirical research designs that target actual processing
effects of parallelistic diction.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author contributions
W. M., T. J., E. W. and V.W. designed research; W. M. and C. K. developed the stimuli; V.W. performed research and
analyzed data; W. M., C. K., and V.W. wrote the paper.
Acknowledgments
Andreas Degen, Bendix Düker, Philip Ekardt, Maria Kraxenberger and Mira Shah made important contributions to
selecting the poems, Christian Joswig to writing the modified versions, Vanessa Kegel, Anna Nissen, Sanja Methner and
Tobias Ertl to identifying the parallelistic features, Andreas Pysiewicz to recording and editing the recitations, Thomas K.
Jacobsen to analyzing the audio recordings, Johannes Bohn and Pauline Neumann to collecting the experimental data, and
Wolff Schlotz to analyzing them. Paul Sonderegger recited the poem versions. We are grateful for all these contributions.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
poetic.2016.12.001.
References
Andrade, E. B., & Cohen, J. B. (2007). On the consumption of negative feelings. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 283–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/519498.
Appel, M., Gnambs, T., & Maio, G. R. (2012). A short measure of the need for affect. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 418–426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00223891.2012.666921.
Apter, M. J. (1984). Reversal theory, [135_TD$IF]cognitive synergy and the arts. In W. R. Crozier, A. J. Chapman, & P. A. Vroon (Eds.), Cognitive processes in the perception of
art (pp. 411–426).North-Holland: Elsevier Science.
Aristotle (2013). Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Augustin, M. D., Wagemans, J., & Carbon, C. C. (2012). All is beautiful? Generality vs. specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psychologica, 139, 187–
201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.10.004.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., Dai, B., Grothendieck, G. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using
‘Eigen’ and S4, 1. 1–8 ed.
Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 59–88.
Bauman, R. (1975). Verbal art as performance. American Anthropologist, 77, 290–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1975.77.2.02a00030.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics. Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bohn, K., Knaus, J., Wiese, R., & Domahs, U. (2013). The influence of rhythmic (ir)regularities on speech processing: Evidence from an ERP study on German
phrases. Neuropsychologia, 51, 760–771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.01.006.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system: Architecture and operating characteristics. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 133–137.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00031.
Callahan, S. M., Shapiro, L. P., & Love, T. (2010). Parallelism effects and verb activation: The sustained reactivation hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 39, 101–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9128-0.
Cicero (1962). Orator. In T. E. Page, & E. Capps (Eds.), Cicero, Brutus/OratorCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Citron, F. M. M., Güsten, J., Michaelis, N., & Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Conventional metaphors in longer passages evoke affective brain response. NeuroImage,
139, 218–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.06.020.
Cutler, A., & Foss, D. J. (1977). On the role of sentence stress in sentence processing. Language and Speech, 20, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
002383097702000101.
Czoik, P., & Lauer, G. (2003). Parallelismus und Poetizität. Anmerkungen zu einem Grundbegriff Roman Jakobsons und seiner Applikation auf das Hohelied
[Parallelism and poeticity: Notes on a key concept of Roman Jakobson and its application to the Song of Songs]. In H. Birus, S. Donat, & B. Meyer-
Sickendiek (Eds.), Roman [136_TD$IF]Jakobsons Gedichtanalysen: Eine Herausforderung an die [137_TD$IF]Philologien [Roman Jakobson’s analyses of poetry: A challenge to literary
scholarship] (pp. 232–251).Göttingen: Wallstein.
[138_TD$IF]Dissanayake, E. (1988). What is art for? University of Washington Press,[139_TD$IF] Seattle and London.
Dissanayake, E. (2000). Antecedents of the temporal arts in early mother-infant interaction. In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, & S. Brown (Eds.), The origins of music
(pp. 389–410).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dixon, P., Bortolussi, M., Twilley, L. C., & Leung, A. (1993). Literary processing and interpretation: Towards empirical foundations. Poetics, 22, 5–33. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(93)90018-C.
Dubey, A., Keller, F., & Sturt, P. (2008). A probabilistic corpus-based model of syntactic parallelism. Cognition, 109, 326–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cognition.2008.09.006.
Essens, P. J., & Povel, D.-J. (1985). Metrical and nonmetrical representations of temporal patterns. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3758/BF03207132.
[140_TD$IF]Fabb, N. (2010). Is literary language a development of ordinary language? [14_TD$IF]Lingua 120: 1219–1232. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.[142_TD$IF]2009.07.007.
Fabb, N. (2015). What is poetry? Language and memory in the poems of the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
G Model
[143_TD$IF]Falk, D. (2004). Prelinguistic evolution in early hominins: Whence motherese? [14_TD$IF]Behavioral and Brain Sciences [145_TD$IF]27: 491–503. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X[146_TD$IF]04000111.
Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Ästhetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf rtel.
Forster, M., Leder, H., & Ansorge, U. (2013). It felt fluent, and I liked it: Subjective feeling of fluency rather than objective fluency determines liking. Emotion,
13, 280–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030115.
Fox, J. J. (2006). To speak in pairs: Essays on the ritual languages of eastern Indonesia, Cambridge Studies in Oral and Literate Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Frazier, L., Taft, L., Roeper, T., Clifton, C., & Ehrlich, K. (1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 12,
421–430. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03198303.
Gerger, G., Leder, H., & Kremer, A. (2014). Context effects on emotional and aesthetic evaluations of artworks and IAPS pictures. Acta Psychologica, 151, 174–
183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.06.008.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A. (2004). Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and
Symbol, 19, 115–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2.
Hanauer, D. (1996). Integration of phonetic and graphic features in poetic text categorization judgements. Poetics, 23, 363–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0304-422X(95)00010-H.
Hanauer, D. (1998). Reading poetry: An empirical investigation of formalist, stylistic, and conventionalist claims. Poetics Today, 19, 565–580. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/1773260.
Hanich, J., Wagner, V., Shah, M., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2014). Why we like to watch sad films. The pleasure of being moved in aesthetic
experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 130–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035690.
Istók, E., Brattico, E., Jacobsen, T., Krohn, K., Muller, M., & Tervaniemi, M. (2009). Aesthetic responses to music: A questionnaire study. Musicae Scientiae, 13,
183–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/102986490901300201.
Jacobsen, T., Buchta, K., Köhler, M., & Schröger, E. (2004). The primacy of beauty in judging the aesthetics of objects. Psychological Reports, 94, 1253–1260.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.3c.1253-1260.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377).New York, NY: Wiley.
Körner, A., Geyer, M., Roth, M., Drapeau, M., Schmutzer, G., Albani, C., Schumann, S., & Brähler, E. (2008). Persönlichkeitsdiagnostik mit dem NEO-Fünf-
Faktoren-Inventar: Die 30-Item-Kurzversion (NEO-FFI-30) [Personality assessment with the NEO-Five-Factor inventory: The 30-[148_TD$IF]itemshortversion
(NEO-FFI-30)]. Psychotherapie # Psychosomatik # Medizinische Psychologie, 58, 238–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-986199.
Kentner, G. (2012). Linguistic rhythm guides parsing decisions in written sentence comprehension. Cognition, 123, 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cognition.2011.11.012.
Kentner, G. (2015). Problems of prosodic parallelism: A reply to Wiese and Speyer (2015). Linguistics, 53, 1233–1241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-
0029.
Knoeferle, P., & Crocker, M. W. (2009). Constituent order and semantic parallelism in online comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence from German. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 2338–2371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470210902790070.
Knoop, C. A., Wagner, V., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2016). Mapping the aesthetic space of literature from below. Poetics, 56, 35–49. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.001.
Koelsch, S., Jacobs, A. M., Menninghaus, W., Liebal, K., Klann-Delius, G., von Scheve, C., & Gebauer, G. (2015). The quartet theory of human emotions: An
integrative and neurofunctional model. Physics of Life Reviews, 13, 1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2015.03.001.
Kuehnast, M., Wagner, V., Wassiliwizky, E., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2014). Being moved: Linguistic representation and conceptual structure.
Frontiers in Psychology. Emotion Science, 5, 1242. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01242.
Larsen, J. T., & McGraw, A. P. (2011). Further evidence for mixed emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1095–1110. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0021846.
[150_TD$IF]Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the same time? [14_TD$IF]Journal of Personality and Social Psychology [15_TD$IF]81: 684–696.
doi: [152_TD$IF]10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.684.
Lausberg, H. (1998). Handbook of literary rhetoric: A foundation for literary study. Brill Leiden.
Lea, R. B., Rapp, D. N., Elfenbein, A., Mitchel, A. D., & Romine, R. S. (2008). Sweet silent thought. Alliteration and resonance in poetry comprehension.
Psychological Science, 19, 709–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02146.x.
Leech, G. N. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. Harlow: Longman.
Lerdahl, F., & Jackendoff, R. (1977). Toward a formal theory of tonal music. Journal of Music Theory, 21, 111–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/843480.
Lowth, R. (1787). Lectures on the sacred poetry of the Hebrews. London: J. Johnson.
Margulis, E. H. (2014). On repeat: How music plays the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGlone, M. S., & Tofighbakhsh, J. (2000). Birds of a feather flock conjointly (?): Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science, 11, 424–428. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00282.
McGlone, M. S., & Tofighbakhsh, J. (1999). The Keats heuristic: Rhyme as reason in aphorism interpretation. Poetics, 26, 235–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0304-422X(99)00003-0.
McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1996). Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 424–438.
Menninghaus, W., Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., & Jacobs, A. M. (2014). Sounds funny? Humor effects of phonological and prosodic figures of speech.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 71–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035309.
Menninghaus, W. (1987). Unendliche Verdopplung:[154_TD$IF] Die Frühromantische Grundlegung der Kunsttheorie [15_TD$IF]im Begriff absoluter Selbstreflexion. Suhrkamp; Frankfurt
am Main.
Menninghaus, W., Bohrn, I. C., Knoop, C. A., Kotz, S. A., Schlotz, W., & Jacobs, A. M. (2015). Rhetorical features facilitate prosodic processing while
handicapping ease of semantic comprehension. Cognition, 143, 48–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.026.
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Hanich, J., Wassiliwizky, E., Kuehnast, M., & Jacobsen, T. (2015). Towards a psychological construct of being moved. PLoS ONE,
10, e0128451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128451.
Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 389–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0304-422X(94)00011-5.
Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1998). The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness. Poetics, 25, 327–341.
Norris, C. J., Gollan, J., Berntson, G. G., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). The current status of research on the structure of evaluative space. Biological Psychology, 84,
422–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.03.011.
Obermeier, C., Menninghaus, W., von Koppenfels, M., Raettig, T., Schmidt-Kassow, M., Otterbein, S., & Kotz, S. A. E. (2013). Aesthetic and emotional effects of
meter and rhyme in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00010.
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, 362–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13415-015-0396-x.
Oceja, L., & Carrera, P. (2009). Beyond a single pattern of mixed emotional experience: Sequential, prevalence, inverse, and simultaneous. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 25, 58–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.58.
Palmer, S. E., & Hemenway, K. (1978). Orientation and symmetry: Effects of multiple, rotational, and near symmetries. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 4, 691–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.4.4.691.
Parker, S., Bascom, J., Rabinovitz, B., & Zellner, D. (2008). Positive and negative hedonic contrast with musical stimuli. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and
the Arts, 2, 171–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.3.171.
Peskin, J. (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 235–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s1532690xci1603_1.
G Model
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427.
Poirier, J., Walenski, M., & Shapiro, L. P. (2012). The role of parallelism in the real-time processing of anaphora. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 868–886.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.601623.
Quintilian (1920). The institutio oratoria of Quintilian. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
R Core Team (2015). R: The R project for statistical computing, 3.2.1 ([158_TD$IF]World-Famous Astronaut). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
[159_TD$IF]Reber, R., Schwarz, N., Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver[160_TD$IF]’s processing experience? [14_TD$IF]Personality and
Social Psychology Review [16_TD$IF]8: 364–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr[162_TD$IF]0804_3.
Robinson, T., Callahan, C., & Evans, K. (2014). Why do we keep going back? A Q method analysis of our attraction to horror movies. Operant Subjectivity, 37, 41–
57. http://dx.doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2014.004.
Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 206–221.
Rothermich, K., Schmidt-Kassow, M., Schwartze, M., & Kotz, S. A. (2010). Event-related potential responses to metric violations: Rules versus meaning.
[Miscellaneous Article]. NeuroReport, 21, 580–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e32833a7da7.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110, 145–172.
[163_TD$IF]Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? [14_TD$IF]Social Science Information—Sur Les Sciences Sociales [164_TD$IF]44: 695–729 . doi: [165_TD$IF]10.1177/
0539018405058216.
[16_TD$IF]Schimmack, U. (2001). Pleasure, displeasure, and mixed feelings: Are semantic opposites mutually exclusive? [167_TD$IF]Cognition & Emotion 15: 81–97. doi: [168_TD$IF]10.1080/
02699930126097.
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2008). Nostalgia. Past, present, and future. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 304–307.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00595.x.
Severi, C. (2002). Memory, reflexivity and belief. Reflections on the ritual use of language. Social Anthropology, 10, 23–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
8676.2002.tb00044.x.
Šhklovsky, V. (1965). Art as technique. In L. T. Lemon, & M. J. Reis (Eds.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 3–24).Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1994). Modeled variance in two-level models. Sociological Methods & Research, 22, 342–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0049124194022003004.
Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky. Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20, 135–138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02267.x.
Sturt, P., Keller, F., & Dubey, A. (2010). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Parallelism effects with and without coordination. Journal of Memory and
Language, 62, 333–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.001.
Tamborini, R., & Stiff, J. (1987). Predictors of horror film attendance and appeal. An analysis of the audience for frightening films. Communication Research, 14,
415–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365087014004003.
Taruffi, L., & Koelsch, S. (2014). The paradox of music-evoked sadness: An online survey. PLoS ONE, 9, e110490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0110490.
Tillmann, B., & Dowling, W. J. (2007). Memory decreases for prose, but not for poetry. Memory & Cognition, 35, 628–639. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/
BF03193301.
Tokaji, A. (2003). Research for determinant factors and features of emotional responses of kandoh (the state of being emotionally moved). Japanese
Psychological Research, 45, 235–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-5884.00226.
Tousignant, C., & Bodner, G. E. (2014). Context effects on beauty ratings of photos: Building contrast effects that erode but cannot be knocked down.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 81–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034942.
Trehub, S. E., Schellenberg, G. E., & Kamenetsky, S. B. (1999). Infants' and adults' perception of scale structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 25, 965–975. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.965.
Trehub, S. E. (2000). Human processing predispositions and musical universals. In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, & S. Brown (Eds.), The origins of music (pp. 427–
448).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Unyk, A. M., Trehub, S. E., Trainor, L. J., & Schellenberg, G. E. (1992). Lullabies and simplicity: A cross-cultural perspective. Psychology of Music, 20, 15–28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0305735692201002.
Van Peer, W. (1990). The measurement of metre: Its cognitive and affective functions. Poetics, 19, 259–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(90)90023-
X.
Vuoskoski, J. K., & Eerola, T. (2012). Can sad music really make you sad? Indirect measures of affective states induced by music and autobiographical
memories. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 204–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026937.
Wagner, V., Menninghaus, W., Hanich, J., & Jacobsen, T. (2014). Art schema effects on affective experience: The case of disgusting images. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 120–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036126.
Wagner, V., Klein, J., Hanich, J., Shah, M., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobsen, T. (2016). Anger framed: A field study on emotion, pleasure, and art. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 134–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000029.
Wassiliwizky, E., Wagner, V., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2015). Art-elicited chills indicate states of being moved. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and
the Arts, 9, 405–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000023.
Wiese, R., & Speyer, A. (2015). Prosodic parallelism explaining morphophonological variation in German. Linguistics, 53, 525–559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/
ling-2015-0011.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Winfried Menninghaus is director of the Department of Language and Literature of the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics (Frankfurt am Main).
He is a member of the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, and has served as a Visiting Professor at the universities of Jerusalem,
Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, Rice, and the EHESS Paris. Fields of research: classical rhetoric and poetics; philosophical, evolutionary and empirical aesthetics;
literature from 1750 until present.
Valentin Wagner is a Senior Research Fellow at the Max-Planck-Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt. He holds a Ph.D. in psychology (University of
Leipzig, Germany) and has been working in the fields of language psychology, emotion psychology, and empirical aesthetics.
Eugen Wassiliwizky has studied Psychology with main emphasis on Cognitive Neuroscience as well as Classics and Musicology at the Philipps University in
Marburg, the McGill University in Montreal and at the Max-Planck-Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig. His main research topics
include aesthetic emotions – especially to films and poetry – as well as neural and physiological correlates of emotional processes. Eugen Wassiliwizky has
worked as a PhD student at the Cluster of Excellence Languages of Emotion“, Freie Universität Berlin, and is currently a member of the research staff at the
Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt.
G Model
Thomas Jacobsen is Professor of Experimental and Biological Psychology at Helmut-Schmidt-University/UniBw Hamburg. He received his degree in
Psychology (Diplom-Psychologe) from Freie Universität Berlin in 1994. He was visiting scholar in Cognitive Neuroscience at UCSD and pre-doctoral
researcher at the MPI of Cognitive Neuroscience. He obtained his PhD in Psychology in 2000 from the University of Leipzig. There he became Assistant
Professor, and, after his Habilitation in 2004, Associate Professor. He was a Visiting Professor at the University of Vienna and the Freie Universität Berlin. In
2009, he took his current position as Professor of Psychology in Hamburg.
Christine A. Knoop is a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics (MPIEA) in Frankfurt. She holds a Ph.D. in Comparative
Literature from University College London, and taught and conducted research at UCL and Freie Universität Berlin prior to joining the MPIEA. Her main
research interests include experimental approaches to literary aesthetics, aesthetic emotion, and authorship theories.

Menninghaus - Etal. Parallelistic Diction 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Menninghaus - Etal. Parallelistic Diction 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G Model

POETIC 1260 No. of Pages 13

Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The emotional and aesthetic powers of parallelistic diction

1. Parallelistic diction: deﬁnition and known functions

2 W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

2. Aim and hypotheses of the present study

2.1. Emotional effects: the case of being (emotionally) moved by poetry

W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3

2.2. Emotional effects and aesthetic perception/appreciation

2.3. Effects on semantic comprehension

3.1. General considerations concerning the choice of method

4 W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

6 W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

4.1. Emotional responses

W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 7

4.2. Aesthetic appreciation

8 W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

4.3. Statistical controls of the results

W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 9

5.1. Limitations and future directions

10 W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 11

12 W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

W. Menninghaus et al. / Poetics xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 13

You might also like