Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article describes a preliminary study of linguistic attributes that differentiate popular from obscure poems in English. Following in the footsteps of Simonton (1989), Martindale (1990) and others, frequency of appearance in anthologies was used as an index of poetic popularity. Twenty general anthologies published between 1966 and 1997 were selected and all poems appearing in more than five of them were taken as a reference sample. This gave eighty-five poems by fifty-four different authors. (The two most popular were Matthew Arnold's Dover Beach with 16 occurrences and Kubla Khan by Samuel T. Coleridge with 15.)

As a control group, fifty-four other poets were selected by finding a less eminent poet of the same sex born within ten years of each poet in the reference sample. The same number of poems were chosen (as near as possible randomly) from each obscure poet as from the matching popular poet. This gave eighty-five obscure poems, also by fifty-four different authors. As a check on this dichotomy, the number of quotations from each of these authors in the Little Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Ratcliffe, 1994) was tallied. For the popular poets the median was seven entries, for the obscure poets the median was zero. This difference is highly significant.

Some aspects of the language of the two subsets were then examined. Although the popular poems were on average longer than the obscure ones (median length 155 and 127 words respectively), this difference was not statistically significant. However, a number of significant differences were found: 1) the popular poems had significantly fewer syllables per word in their first lines; 2) popular poems were more likely to begin with an initial line composed entirely of monosyllables; 3) the mean number of letters per word in the popular poem was very significantly less (4.13 versus 4.29) than the obscure poems; and 4) the vocabulary of the popular poems was on average less rich than that of the obscure ones. Syntactic differences were also investigated. Overall a clear tendency for famous poems to use simpler language than obscure poems was found. In poetry, simplicity would seem to be a virtue.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baayen

van Halteren

, & Tweedie

F. J.

(1996). Outside the cave of shadows: Using syntactic annotation to enhance authorship attribution. Literacy & Linguistic Computing, 11(3), 121–131.

Binongo

J. N. G.

(1994). Joaquin's Joaquinesquerie, Joaquinesquerie's Joaquin: A statistical expression of a Filipino writer's style. Literary & Linguistic Computing, 9(4), 267–279.

Brainerd

(1972). On the relation between types and tokens in literary text. Journal of Applied Problems, 9, 507–518.

Burrows

J. F.

(1989). “An ocean where each kind …”: Statistical analysis and some major determinants of literary style. Computers & the Humanities, 23, 309–321.

Burrows

J. F.

(1992). Not unless you ask nicely: The interpretive nexus between analysis and information. Literary & Linguistic Computing, 7(2), 91–109.

Craig

D. H.

(1992). Authorial styles and frequencies of very common words: Jonson, Shakespeare and the additions to the Spanish Tragedy. Style, 26, 199–220.

Everitt

B. S.

(1998). The Cambridge dictionary of statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1997). The objectivity and lawfulness of aesthetic judgements. In Dorfman

(Eds.), Emotion, Creativity and Art. Perm, Russia: Perm State Institute of Arts & Culture.

Francis

W. N.

, & Kucera

(1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

10.

Herdan

(1966). The advanced theory of language as choice and chance. New York: Springer-Verlag.

11.

Hofland

, & Johansson

(1982). Word frequencies in British and American English. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities.

12.

Holmes

D. I.

(1985). The analysis of literary style: A review. Journal of Royal Statistical Society (A), 148(4), 328–341.

13.

Holmes

D. I.

, & Forsyth

R. S.

(1995). The “federalist” revisited: New directions in authorship attribution. Literary & Linguistic Computing, 10(2), 111–127.

14.

Leavitt

J. A.

, & Mitchell

J. L.

(1977). SPAN: A lexicostatistical measure and some applications. In Lusignan

and North

J. S.

(Eds.), Computing in the humanities. University of Waterloo, Ontario: Waterloo Press.

15.

Martindale

(1990). The clockwork muse. New York: Basic Books.

16.

McKinnon

, & Webster

(1971). A method of “author” identification. In Wisbey

R. A.

(Ed.), The computer in literary and linguistic research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Mosteller

, & Wallace

D. L.

(1984). Applied Bayesian and classical inference: The case of the federalist papers. New York: Springer-Verlag. [First edition published 1964.]

18.

Ratcliffe

(1994) (Ed.). The Little Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19.

Simonton

D. K.

(1989). Shakespeare's sonnets: A case of and for single-case historiometry. Journal of Personality, 57(3), 695–721.

20.

Simonton

D. K.

(1990). Lexical choices and aesthetic success: A computer content analysis of 154 Shakespeare sonnets. Computers & the Humanities, 24, 251–264.

21.

Yule

G. U.

(1944). The statistical study of literary vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Zipf

(1935). The psycho-biology of language. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Pops and Flops: Some Properties of Famous English Poems

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References