Channels, Fall 2017

Page 22 Montgomery • Linguistic Self-Awareness “Kitty,” and while this contributes to the appeal, it is not immediately obvious in the way that Longfellow’s phonemic play is. The language is also very semantically tight with little room for the individual to read his or her self into the piece. Syntactically, the poem is also relatively straightforward and does not read as “poetically” as many amateur readers would want. The lack of obvious pattern is why Sarah felt the poem was fragmented and “nonsensical.” Patterns feel familiar to readers, which is why readers are more likely to identify with works that utilize them. The results of the study confirmed initial expectations. Readers demonstrated a definite preference for works with a heavy reliance on rhyme and semantically open language. They were, however, more self-aware than predicted, with four out of six interviewees identifying linguistic characteristics as the basis for their preference. Only one participant noted semantic features, whereas the others mentioned the phonology of the rhyme scheme. Finally, participants also showed a limited awareness of how poets subvert linguistic expectations, as two participants justified their preferences by suggesting that they were not avid readers or simply did not know how to read and appreciate poetry. Future Study All work relating to poetry is inherently difficult to pin down; the number of variables is extensive, and the researcher’s personal relationship with it could risk influencing the structure of a project. This study was designed to reduce these variables, but in doing so, the scope of the project is limited at best and should be considered only as guidance for future research. There are, however, some ways for those with similar interests to avoid potential pitfalls. In retrospect, this study would have benefited from more foresight of the poetry use in the survey. Intentionally selecting works with varying degrees of semantic range and phonemic play would be helpful. This study used specific poems to some extent but not to the degree necessary to make any sort of quantifiable statement about preference. However, poetry and its interpretation are fluid, so perhaps it would make little difference. In the future, studies should target a broader demographic or focus comparatively on individuals who would consider themselves avid readers of poetry. In this case, they should select more obscure poems so that the participants are still reading “blind.” Otherwise, it would be possible for the data to be skewed when a participant encounters a favorite poem. Additionally, this project dealt only with English-language poetry, which has different linguistic tropes and features associated with it than poetry in other languages. A contrastive study between two languages would be interesting, and it would provide a helpful explanation of psycholinguistic universals. Despite the limitations on this study, it provides an effective starting point for future research on the linguistic underpinnings of poetry and its appreciation. Art is an