Channels, Fall 2017

Page 20 Montgomery • Linguistic Self-Awareness 2. Amateur readers have a limited self-awareness about their own linguistic preferences; and, similarly, 3. Readers are somewhat aware of the way in which poets subvert linguistic trends. Based on the results of the surveys, it would appear that preference is jointly predicated upon phonemic consistency of rhyme scheme and semantic open-endedness. The poems that featured extensive use of both ranked highest, whereas those that favored one over the other—or utilized neither—were ranked lower. The interviews also affirmed the preference for Longfellow’s piece, and as seen in the interviews, most participants were not linguistically aware of why they chose the work. They cited reasons that were as abstract as the words comprising the poem itself. This tendency aligns with what was predicted in accordance with Musz & Thompson-Schill’s (2015) study on semantic association and the psycholinguistic preference for words with a broad semantic range. In alignment with Kao & Jurafsky’s study (2015), the poem is heavily reliant on abstract language, with the most “concrete” word being “tide.” As seen in the interviews, many participants identified with the poem, which is certainly tied to the aforementioned semantic broadness. Readers are able to place themselves in the author’s role because a concept like “victory” or “loss” is abstract and defined almost exclusively by an individual’s personal experience with the concepts. Sound preference also came into play, as Longfellow’s work opts for extensive phonemic repetition through the use of assonance and rhyme, as seen through phrases like: “What I have lost with what I have gained What I have missed with what attained” The /s/ phoneme is repeated, as is the /æ/ phoneme, and this sampling is only a small representation of multiple subsequent uses of phonemic play. Recalling Benczes (2013), Studniarz (2015), and Önkas (2011), the phonemic repetition through the use of assonance acts on a natural preference readers have for such forms and even shapes the semantic interpretation of the works. In light of Hoffman, Ralph, & Rogers (2012), this preference also makes sense as readers will feel that a poem they have never read is familiar if it relies on semantically open language. Although other works, such as “The Tyger,” relied more on phonemic repetition, they scored lower because they were more semantically limited. Some participants even asked if there was more to the poem because they did not understand why something as specific as a tiger would be the subject of a poem. The influence of phonology and semantics was anticipated, but the importance of syntactical subversion was surprising. As noted, Nofal (2011) and Kiparsky (1973) argue that poetry’s irregular syntax influences how readers appreciate it, and this fact is evident in the irregularity of lines like, “Little room do I find for pride,”