Poems, as aesthetic objects, generate a subjective experience, which can be different for different readers. In this paper, we propose a method to quantify these subjective experiences. We gave participants three parallel excerpts and asked them to describe, in free text, the perceived emotive qualities of these excerpts. The descriptions were analysed quantitatively according to the dimensions of the Valence-Arousal-Dominance model of emotion. With the help of additional rating tasks and a structural theory of phonetic symbolism, we attribute the perceived emotive qualities to an interaction between the meaning of words, patterns of alliteration, and metric deviation.
AryaniA.ConradM.SchmidtkeD.JacobsA. (2018).
Why “piss” is ruder than “pee”? The role of sound in affective meaning making. Plos One,
13(6), e0198430. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198430
AryaniA.KraxenbergerM.UllrichS.JacobsA. M.ConradM. (2016).
Measuring the basic affective tone of poems via phonological saliency and iconicity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
10(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000033
4.
AuracherJ.AlbersS.ZhaiY.GareevaG.StavniychukT. (2011).
P is for happiness, N is for sadness: Universals in sound iconicity to detect emotions in poetry. Discourse Processes,
48(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638531003674894
5.
BachorowskiJ.-A. (1999).
Vocal expression and perception of emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
8(2), 53–57.
6.
BakkerI.Van der VoordtT.VinkP.De BoonJ. (2014).
Pleasure, arousal, dominance: Mehrabian and Russell revisited. Current Psychology,
33(3), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9219-4
DingemanseM.PerlmanM.PernissP. (2020).
Construals of iconicity: Experimental approaches to form-meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition,
12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.48
9.
GafniC.TsurR. (2019).
Some experimental evidence for Sound-Emotion interaction. Scientific Study of Literature,
9(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.19002.gaf
10.
HoshiH.KwonN.AkitaK.AuracherJ. (2019).
Semantic associations dominate over perceptual associations in vowel–size iconicity. i-Perception,
10(4), 2041669519861981. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669519861981
11.
HrushovskiB. (1980).
The meaning of sound patterns in poetry: An interaction theory. Poetics Today,
2(1a), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/1772351
12.
IBM Corp (2012). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 21.0.
IBM Corp.
13.
KraxenbergerM.MenninghausW. (2016).
Mimological reveries? Disconfirming the hypothesis of phono-emotional iconicity in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology,
7, 1779–1779. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01779
14.
LibermanA. M.CooperF. S.ShankweilerD. P.Studdert-KennedyM. (1967).
Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review,
74(6), 431–461.
15.
MehrabianA.RussellJ. A. (1974).
The basic emotional impact of environments. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
38(1), 283–301.
16.
MeyerL. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music.
The University of Chicago press.
17.
MohammadS. M. (2018). Obtaining reliable human ratings of valence, arousal, and dominance for 20,000 English words. In ACL 2018 – proceedings of the 56th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, conference (Vol. 1: Long Papers, pp. 174–184). Association for Computational Linguistics.
RussellJ. A.MehrabianA. (1977).
Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journal of Research in Personality,
11(3), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(77)90037-X
20.
SauterD. A.EisnerF.CalderA. J.ScottS. K. (2010).
Perceptual cues in nonverbal vocal expressions of emotion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006),
63(11), 2251–2272. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470211003721642
TengX.MaM.YangJ.BlohmS.CaiQ.TianX. (2020).
Constrained structure of ancient Chinese poetry facilitates speech content grouping. Current Biology : Cb,
30(7), 1299.e7–1305.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.01.059
23.
TraskR. L. (1996). A dictionary of phonetics and phonology.
Routledge.
24.
TsurR. (1992). What makes sound patterns expressive: The poetic mode of Speech-Perception.
Duke University Press.
25.
TsurR. (2019).
Statistical versus structural-cognitive approaches to phonetic symbolism: Two case studies. Style,
53(3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.5325/style.53.3.0281
26.
TsurR.GafniC. (2018).
Enjambment – Irony, wit, emotion. A case study suggesting wider principles. Studia Metrica et Poetica,
5(2), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.12697/SMP.2018.5.2.01
27.
TsurR.GafniC. (2019a).
Methodological issues in the study of phonetic symbolism. Scientific Study of Literature,
9(2), 195–229.
UllrichS.AryaniA.KraxenbergerM.JacobsA. M.ConradM. (2017).
On the relation between the general affective meaning and the basic sublexical, lexical, and inter-lexical features of poetic texts-a case study using 57 poems of H. M. Enzensberger. Frontiers in Psychology,
7, 2073–2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02073
30.
UllrichS.KotzS. A.SchmidtkeD. S.AryaniA.ConradM. (2016).
Phonological iconicity electrifies: An ERP study on affective sound-to-meaning correspondences in German. Frontiers in Psychology,
7(AUG), 1200. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01200
31.
WhissellC. (1999).
Phonosymbolism and the emotional nature of sounds: Evidence of the preferential use of particular phonemes in texts of differing emotional tone. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
89(1), 19–48. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.89.5.19-48
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
