While much remains unexplored about what influences how poetry is perceived, this study investigates how themes, form, and language interact in poetry perception, shedding light on their effects on the reading responses of Chinese ESL learners. Findings showed: (1) Versified form and L1 poems were more comprehensible; (2) Idyll and L1 poems were perceived as having richer imagery; (3) Form and language interact for rhythmicity, favoring L1 poems, especially the paragraphed L1 ones; (4) Language influenced perceived beauty, with L1 poems, especially love poems in versified form, rated as exceptionally beautiful; (5) Theme and language impacted perceived valence, with idyll and L2 poems being viewed more positively; form affected the perceived arousal, with versified poems rated as more exciting; (6) Form and language interacted, affecting reading time; versified L2 poems were read faster than paragraphed L1 and L2 poems. These findings hold significance for literary education and cross-cultural understanding.
AyarsM. I. (2018). A history of research of the discourse shape of biblical Hebrew poetry. In The shape of hebrew poetry (pp. 5–18). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
2.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB. M.WalkerS. C. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
3.
BelfiA. M.VesselE. A.StarrG. G. (2018). Individual ratings of vividness predict aesthetic appeal in poetry. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(3), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000153
4.
BlohmS.VersaceS.MethnerS.WagnerV.SchlesewskyM.MenninghausW. (2022). Reading poetry and prose: Eye movements and acoustic evidence. Discourse Processes, 59(3), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2021.2015188
5.
BradleyM. M.LangP. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical report C-1, the center for research in psychophysiology.
6.
BröggelwirthJ. (2007). Ein rhythmisch-prosodisches Modell lyrischen Sprechstils. Bonn, Germany: Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek Bonn.
7.
Caldwell-HarrisC. L. (2014). Emotionality differences between a native and foreign language: theoretical implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01055.
ChangA. C. (2012). Improving reading rate activities for EFL students: Timed reading and repeated oral reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24(1), 56–83. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/66667.
ChenQ.ZhangJ.XuX.ScheepersC.YangY.TanenhausM. K. (2016). Prosodic expectations in silent reading: ERP evidence from rhyme scheme and semantic congruence in classic Chinese poems. Cognition, 154, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGNITION.2016.05.007
12.
ChiassonM.RogersJ. (2009). Beauty bare: The sonnet form, geometry and aesthetics. The Journal of Literature and Science, 2(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.12929/jls.02.1.03
13.
DaiX. (2020). Understanding English classic poems. Beijing, China: China Renmin University Press.
14.
DörnyeiZ.ChanL. (2013). Motivation and vision: An analysis of future L2 self images, sensory styles, and imagery capacity across two target languages. Language Learning, 63(3), 437–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12005
15.
FabbN. (2015). What is poetry?: Language and memory in the poems of the world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
FechinoM.JacobsA. M.LüdtkeJ. (2020). Following in Jakobson and Lévi-Strauss’ footsteps: A neurocognitive poetics investigation of eye movements during the reading of Baudelaire’s ‘Les Chats.’. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 13(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.16910/JEMR.13.3.4.
GambinoR.PulvirentiG. (2019). Neurohermeneutics a transdisciplinary approach to literature. Gestalt Theory, 41(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.2478/gth-2019-0018
19.
GarridoM. V.PradaM. (2021). Comparing the valence, emotionality and subjective familiarity of words in a first and a second language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(2), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1456514
20.
GoetzE. T.SadoskiM.OlivarezA. (1991). Getting a reading on reader response: Relationships between imagery, affect, and importance ratings, recall, and imagery reports. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 12(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271910120103
21.
GoswamiU.ZieglerJ. C.RichardsonU. (2005). The effects of spelling consistency on phonological awareness: A comparison of English and German. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(4), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.06.002
22.
GrabeW. (2008). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
GrayE. (2018). The art of love poetry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
GreenM. C. (2017b). Transportation into narrative worlds : The role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3802
HernandezA.LiP.MacWhinneyB. (2005). The emergence of competing modules in bilingualism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 220–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2005.03.003
30.
HitsuwariJ.NomuraM. (2022). Ambiguity and beauty: Japanese–German cross-cultural comparisons on aesthetic evaluation of haiku poetry. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000497
31.
JacobsA. M. (2011). Neurokognitive poetik: Elemente eines modells des literarischen lesens [neurocognitive poetics: Elements of a model of literary reading]. In SchrottR.JacobsA. M. (Eds.), Gehirn und Gedicht: Wie wir unsere Wirklichkeiten konstruieren [Brain and poetry: How we construct our realities] (pp. 492–520). Munich, Germany: Carl Hanser.
32.
JacobsA. M. (2015a). Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading. In WillemsR. M. (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of natural language use (pp. 135–159). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
JacobsA. M. (2015b). Neurocognitive poetics: Methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 186. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186
34.
JacobsA. M. (2018). The Gutenberg English poetry corpus: Exemplary quantitative narrative analyses. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 5, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2018.00005
35.
JakobsonR. (1966). Grammatical parallelism and its Russian facet. Language, 42(2), 399–429. https://doi.org/10.2307/411699
36.
JATOS Study Group (2008). Principal results of the Japanese trial to assess optimal systolic blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients (JATOS). Hypertension Research : Official Journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension, 31(12), 2115–2127. https://doi.org/10.1291/HYPRES.31.2115
37.
JończykR.BoutonnetB.MusiałK.HoemannK.ThierryG. (2016). The bilingual brain turns a blind eye to negative statements in the second language. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(3), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-016-0411-x
38.
KirillovaK.FuX.LehtoX.CaiL. (2014). What makes a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment. Tourism Management, 42, 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.006
39.
KrasnyK. A.SadoskiM. (2008). Mental imagery and affect in English/French bilingual readers: A cross-linguistic perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(3), 399–428. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.3.399
40.
KuikenD. (2008). A theory of expressive reading. In Directions in empirical literary studies (pp. 49–73). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. http://digital.casalini.it/9789027290625.
41.
LangeK.KühnS.FilevichE. (2015). Just another tool for online studies” (JATOS): An easy solution for setup and management of web servers supporting online studies. PloS One, 10(6), e0130834. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0130834
42.
LarsenS. F.SeilmanU. (1988). Personal remindings while reading literature. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8(4), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.4.411
43.
LeaR. B.RappD. N.ElfenbeinA.MitchelA. D.RomineR. S. (2008). Sweet silent thought: Alliteration and resonance in poetry comprehension. Psychological Science, 19(7), 709–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-9280.2008.02146.X
44.
LederH.MitrovicA.GollerJ. (2016). How beauty determines gaze! facial attractiveness and gaze duration in images of real world scenes. I-Perception, 7(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669516664355
45.
LiuQ. (2023). Tang Poetry: Ten Lectures. Beijing, China: Peking University Press.
46.
LüdtkeJ.Meyer-SickendieckB.JacobsA. M. (2014). Immersing in the stillness of an early morning: Testing the mood empathy hypothesis of poetry reception. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036826
47.
MangenA. (2016). What hands may tell us about reading and writing. Educational Theory, 66(4), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12183
48.
MarinM. M.BhattacharyaJ. (2010). Music induced emotions: Some current issues and cross-modal comparisons. In Music education (pp. 1–38). New York, USA: Nova Science Publishers.
49.
MehlK.GuglianoM.BelfiA. M. (2023). The role of imagery and emotion in the aesthetic appeal of music, poetry, and paintings. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000623
50.
MenninghausW.BohrnI. C.KnoopC. A.KotzS. A.SchlotzW.JacobsA. M. (2015). Rhetorical features facilitate prosodic processing while handicapping ease of semantic comprehension. Cognition, 143, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGNITION.2015.05.026
51.
MenninghausW.WagnerV.WassiliwizkyE.JacobsenT.KnoopC. A. (2017). The emotional and aesthetic powers of parallelistic diction. Poetics, 63, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POETIC.2016.12.001
52.
MillisK. K.SimonS. (1994). Rereading scientific texts: Changes in resource allocation. In Naturalistic text comprehension (pp. 115–134). New York, USA: Ablex.
53.
Navarro-ColoradoB. (2018). On poetic topic modeling: Extracting themes and motifs from a corpus of Spanish poetry. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 5, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2018.00015
54.
NicklasP.JacobsA. M. (2017). Rhetoric, neurocognitive poetics, and the aesthetics of adaptation. Poetics Today, 38(2), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3869311
55.
ObermeierC.MenninghausW.von KoppenfelsM.RaettigT.Schmidt-KassowM.OtterbeinS.KotzS. A. (2013). Aesthetic and emotional effects of meter and rhyme in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00010
56.
OsgoodC. E.SuciG. J.TannenbaumP. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning (Issue 47). Illinois, USA: University of Illinois Press.
57.
O’SullivanN.DavisP.BillingtonJ.Gonzalez-DiazV.CorcoranR. (2015). Shall I compare thee”: The neural basis of literary awareness, and its benefits to cognition. Cortex, 73, 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CORTEX.2015.08.014
58.
Papp-ZipernovszkyO.MangenA.JacobsA.LüdtkeJ. (2022). Shakespeare sonnet reading: An empirical study of emotional responses. Language and Literature, 31(3), 296–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/09639470211054647
59.
PearsonJ.NaselarisT.HolmesE. A.KosslynS. M. (2015). Mental imagery: Functional mechanisms and clinical applications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 590–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.003
60.
RappD. N.SamuelA. G. (2002). A reason to rhyme: Phonological and semantic influences on lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 564. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.3.564
61.
R Core Team (2020). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/.
62.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
63.
ReevesC. E. (1986). The languages of convention: Literature and consensus. Poetics Today, 7(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1772086
64.
RummerR.EngelkampJ. (2001). Phonological information contributes to short-term recall of auditorily presented sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(3), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2788
65.
SchaffnerA. K.KnowlesK.WegerU. W.RobertsA. M. (2012). Reading space in visual poetry: New cognitive perspectives. Writing Technologies, 4(1), 75–106.
66.
SchindlerI.HosoyaG.MenninghausW.BeermannU.WagnerV.EidM.SchererK. R. (2017). Measuring aesthetic emotions: A review of the literature and a new assessment tool. PloS One, 12(6), e0178899. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178899
ShawG. (2008). The multisensory image and emotion in poetry. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3), 175–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.3.175
69.
SilviaP. J. (2005a). Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring an appraisal theory of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23(2), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.2190/12AV-AH2P-MCEH-289E
70.
SilviaP. J. (2005b). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), 342–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.4.342
71.
TarlinskajaM. (1995). Beyond “loose lamb”: The form and themes of the English “Dolnik”. Poetics Today, 16(3), 493–522. https://doi.org/10.2307/1773176.
72.
TizhooshH. R.SahbaF.DaraR. (2008). Poetic features for poem recognition: A comparative study. Journal of Pattern Recognition Research, 3(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/1773176
WagnerP. (2012). Meter specific timing and prominence in German poetry and prose. In Understanding prosody: The role of context, function and communication (pp. 219–237). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
75.
WillemsR. M.JacobsA. M. (2016). Caring about Dostoyevsky: The untapped potential of studying literature. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 243–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2015.12.009
76.
WoloskyS. (2008). The art of poetry: How to read a poem. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
77.
XuY.CaoS.JiJ.XiaoQ.WuA.WangX. (2020). Differentiated prosodic adaption of Chinese and English poetry: An acoustic approach to reading of Chinese tang poetry and Shakespearean sonnets. Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA ASC), Auckland, New Zealand.
78.
XueS.JacobsA. M.LüdtkeJ. (2020). What is the difference? Rereading Shakespeare’s sonnets —an eye tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(March), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00421
79.
XueS.LüdtkeJ.JacobsA. M. (2023). Once known, twice hedonic: Enjoying Shakespeare’s sonnets through rereading — A deep learning perspective. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000621
80.
XueS.LüdtkeJ.SylvesterT.JacobsA. M. (2019). Reading Shakespeare sonnets : Combining quantitative narrative analysis and predictive modeling —An eye tracking study. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 12(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.12.5.2.
81.
XueS.SonY. J.YangL.ChenS. (2024). Effects of prior knowledge and peer assessment on the quality of English as a foreign language poetry writing. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 42(2), 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374231196735
82.
ZhangY.YuJ.BolandJ. E. (2010). Semantics does not need a processing license from syntax in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 36(3), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019254
ZolkovskijA. K. (1978). At the intersection of linguistics, paremiology and poetics: On the literary structure of proverbs. Poetics, 7(3), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(78)90031-1
