Literature DB >> 26113449

Rhetorical features facilitate prosodic processing while handicapping ease of semantic comprehension.

Winfried Menninghaus1, Isabel C Bohrn2, Christine A Knoop3, Sonja A Kotz4, Wolff Schlotz3, Arthur M Jacobs5.   

Abstract

Studies on rhetorical features of language have reported both enhancing and adverse effects on ease of processing. We hypothesized that two explanations may account for these inconclusive findings. First, the respective gains and losses in ease of processing may apply to different dimensions of language processing (specifically, prosodic and semantic processing) and different types of fluency (perceptual vs. conceptual) and may well allow for an integration into a more comprehensive framework. Second, the effects of rhetorical features may be sensitive to interactions with other rhetorical features; employing a feature separately or in combination with others may then predict starkly different effects. We designed a series of experiments in which we expected the same rhetorical features of the very same sentences to exert adverse effects on semantic (conceptual) fluency and enhancing effects on prosodic (perceptual) fluency. We focused on proverbs that each employ three rhetorical features: rhyme, meter, and brevitas (i.e., artful shortness). The presence of these target features decreased ease of conceptual fluency (semantic comprehension) while enhancing perceptual fluency as reflected in beauty and succinctness ratings that were mainly driven by prosodic features. The rhetorical features also predicted choices for persuasive purposes, yet only for the sentence versions featuring all three rhetorical features; the presence of only one or two rhetorical features had an adverse effect on the choices made. We suggest that the facilitating effects of a combination of rhyme, meter, and rhetorical brevitas on perceptual (prosodic) fluency overcompensated for their adverse effects on conceptual (semantic) fluency, thus resulting in a total net gain both in processing ease and in choices for persuasive purposes.
Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Beauty; Conceptual and perceptual fluency/disfluency; Persuasion; Rhetorical features; Succinctness

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26113449     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  8 in total

1.  Aesthetic appreciation of poetry correlates with ease of processing in event-related potentials.

Authors:  Christian Obermeier; Sonja A Kotz; Sarah Jessen; Tim Raettig; Martin von Koppenfels; Winfried Menninghaus
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.282

2.  Sentence-Level Effects of Literary Genre: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Evidence.

Authors:  Stefan Blohm; Winfried Menninghaus; Matthias Schlesewsky
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-11-20

3.  Preserved appreciation of aesthetic elements of speech and music prosody in an amusic individual: A holistic approach.

Authors:  Ariadne Loutrari; Marjorie Perlman Lorch
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 2.310

4.  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.

Authors:  Susann Ullrich; Arash Aryani; Maria Kraxenberger; Arthur M Jacobs; Markus Conrad
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-01-11

5.  Poetic speech melody: A crucial link between music and language.

Authors:  Winfried Menninghaus; Valentin Wagner; Christine A Knoop; Mathias Scharinger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  NeuroDante: Poetry Mentally Engages More Experts but Moves More Non-Experts, and for Both the Cerebral Approach Tendency Goes Hand in Hand with the Cerebral Effort.

Authors:  Giulia Cartocci; Dario Rossi; Enrica Modica; Anton Giulio Maglione; Ana C Martinez Levy; Patrizia Cherubino; Paolo Canettieri; Mariella Combi; Roberto Rea; Luca Gatti; Fabio Babiloni
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2021-02-25

7.  Is less readable liked better? The case of font readability in poetry appreciation.

Authors:  Xin Gao; Jeroen Dera; Annabel D Nijhof; Roel M Willems
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-13       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Predictive Processing in Poetic Language: Event-Related Potentials Data on Rhythmic Omissions in Metered Speech.

Authors:  Karen Henrich; Mathias Scharinger
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-01-05
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.