Channels, Fall 2017

Page 14 Montgomery • Linguistic Self-Awareness Other studies have noted the underlying importance of linguistics on the interpretation and appreciation of poetry, and while they occasionally lean towards traditional literary analysis, they maintain a distinctly linguistic bent. Studniarz (2015) highlighted this fact through a phonemic and semantic analysis of Poe’s “Annabel Lee.” The study determined that phonemic similarity was used throughout the work to shape semantic meaning. To put it another way, the shape and sound of the poem were influential in how readers interpreted it. This demonstrates the correlation between underlying linguistic forces and aesthetic appeal. Ufot (2013) further strengthened the argument that literary interpretation is built on a linguistic framework through a study on Thomas Gray’s “Elegy Written in a Churchyard.” The phonological features throughout the work are used to subvert the surface-level tone of the work and change the reading. As a simple explanation, consider the difference between the headlines: “Big Black Bear Bites Brian” and “Bear Maims Hiker.” Although the surface-level message is the same in both examples, the tone of the first phrase is radically different than the second because of the way it utilizes phonemic play. Sound and semantics are inextricably linked, but the two will be addressed separately in this article. As mentioned, one of the primary concerns of this study is phonemic. There has been extensive research on phonological deviance, and this is a strong basis for the work of this particular study. Poetry is a language of metaphor, but phonological factors, such as alliteration and rhyme, play a significant role in shaping novel metaphor. Benczes (2013) addresses the overlap with semantics, concluding that phonological analogy allows foregrounded meaning and the implementation of shared schemas. This characteristic indicates a natural appeal in rhyming compounds that may be reflected in this study. Similarly, Önkas (2011) found that the link between phonemics and semantics is crucial in overall comprehension of a poetic work. Lea et al. (2008) studied the role of alliteration in poetry comprehension and found that readers were more likely to recall poems and remember relevant information from earlier in the works if they made extensive use of alliteration. Again, this study demonstrates that readers have a natural draw to these phonemic features. It seems that phonemic play in poetry is a bit more clear-cut than semantic flouting. Research on semantic variability has been extensive, though it is often completed tangentially to its relationship to poetry. In a study by Hoffman, Ralph, & Rogers (2012), they determined that polysemous words (words with a wide semantic range) were recognized faster than unambiguous words. Abstract words have a wider semantic range than concrete words, and, as noted by Dalvean (2013) and Kao & Jurafsky (2015), amateur poetry tends to use abstract language. This predilection may explain why the participants in this study prefer the poems they do. A psycholinguistic study by Musz & Thompson- Schill (2015) found that words with a higher semantic range activated more regions in the brain than those with a limited range. This, again, could indicate a cognitive preference for abstract language in poetry, as it is more easily processed. Although phonemics and semantics are the two primary foci of this project, a brief note on syntax is in order. Finally, with regard to syntactical manipulation, both Nofal (2011) and Kiparsky (1973) have written on the ways in which poets subvert characteristics of traditional syntax for