Rhetorical features facilitate prosodic processing while handicapping ease of semantic comprehension

Cognition

Volumn 143, Issue , 2015, Pages 48-60

  Menninghaus, Winfried ^a,b   Bohrn, Isabel C ^b   Knoop, Christine A ^a   Kotz, Sonja A ^c,d   Schlotz, Wolff ^a   Jacobs, Arthur M ^b,e  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EMPIRICAL AESTHETICS   (Germany)

^b FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^e Dahlem Institute for Neuroimaging of Emotion (DINE)   (Germany)

Author keywords

Beauty; Conceptual and perceptual fluency disfluency; Persuasion; Rhetorical features; Succinctness

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ART; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; MALE; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ADOLESCENT; COGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84934921297     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.026     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Acheson D.J., MacDonald M.C. The rhymes that the reader perused confused the meaning: Phonological effects during on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 2011, 65(2):193-207. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.006.
2. Adelman J.S., Brown G.D.A., Quesada J.F. Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science 2006, 17(9):814-823. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01787.x.
3. Alter A.L. The benefits of cognitive disfluency. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2013, 22(6):437-442. 10.1177/0963721413498894.
4. Alter A.L., Oppenheimer D.M. Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2009, 13(3):219-235. 10.1177/1088868309341564.
5. Arewa E.O., Dundes A. Proverbs and the ethnography of speaking folklore. American Anthropologist 1964, 66(6):70-85. 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00040.
6. Aristotle (1926). The art of rhetoric. In T.E. Page, E. Capps, W. Rouse (Eds.), The "art" of rhetoric (H. Freese, Trans.). Cambridge Mass/London: Harvard University Press/Heinemann.
7. Armstrong T., Detweiler-Bedell B. Beauty as an emotion: The exhilarating prospect of mastering a challenging world. Review of General Psychology 2008, 12(4):305-329. 10.1037/a0012558.
8. Asher N., Lascarides A. Lexical disambiguation in a discourse context. Journal of Semantics 1995, 12(1):69-108.
9. Asher N., Lascarides A. Logics of conversation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
10. Augustin M.D., Wagemans J., Carbon C.-C. All is beautiful? Generality vs. specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psychologica 2012, 139(1):187-201. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.10.004.
11. Baayen R.H., Davidson D.J., Bates D.M. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59(4):390-412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.
12. Barley N. A structural approach to the proverb and maxim with special reference to the Anglo-Saxon corpus. Proverbium 1972, 20:737-750.
13. Barthes, R. (1980). "La Rochefoucauld: 'Reflections or Sentences and Maxims'" (R. Howard, Trans.) New Critical Essays (Vol. II, pp. 3-22). New York: Hill and Wang.
14. Berlyne D.E. Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation 1974, Hemisphere, Oxford, England.
15. Bock J.K., Brewer W.F. Comprehension and memory of the literal and figurative meaning of proverbs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1980, 9(1):59-72. 10.1007/BF01067302.
16. Bohrn I.C., Altmann U., Lubrich O., Menninghaus W., Jacobs A.M. When we like what we know: A parametric fMRI analysis of beauty and familiarity. Brain and Language 2013, 124(1):1-8. 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.10.003.
17. Bullot N.J., Reber R. The artful mind meets art history: Toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2013, 36(2):123-137. 10.1017/s0140525x12000489.
18. Bumkrant R.E., Howard D.J. Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical questions versus statements on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1984, 47:1218-1230.
19. Chafe W.L. Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskyan paradigm. Foundations of Language 1968, 4(2):109-127.
20. Coch D., Grossi G., Skendzel W., Neville H. ERP nonword rhyming effects in children and adults. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2005, 17(1):168-182. 10.1162/0898929052880020.
21. Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Psychologie (2004). Ethische Richtlinien der DGPs und des BDP (1999, Amended September 28, 2004) <>. https://www.dgps.de/index.php?id=96422.
22. Di Dio C., Macaluso E., Rizzolatti G. The golden beauty: Brain response to classical and renaissance sculptures. PLoS ONE 2007, 2(11):e1201. 10.1371/journal.pone.0001201.
23. Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Ästhetik (Vol. 1-2). Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
24. Fitch W.T., von Graevenitz A., Nicolas E. Bio-aesthetics and the aesthetic trajectory: A dynamic cognitive and cultural perspective. Neuroaesthetics 2009, 59-102. Baywood, Amityville, NY. M. Skov, O. Vartanian (Eds.).
25. Forgacs B., Bohrn I., Baudewig J., Hofmann M.J., Pleh C., Jacobs A.M. Neural correlates of combinatorial semantic processing of literal and figurative noun noun compound words. Neuroimage 2012, 63(3):1432-1442. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.029.
26. Galak J., Nelson L.D. The virtues of opaque prose: How lay beliefs about fluency influence perceptions of quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2011, 47(1):250-253. 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.002.
27. Garner W.R. The processing of information and structure 1974, L. Erlbaum, Potomac, MD.
28. Gerger G., Leder H., Tinio P.P.L., Schacht A. Faces versus patterns: Exploring aesthetic reactions using facial EMG. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2011, 5(3):241-250. 10.1037/a0024154.
29. Gerrig R.J., Gibbs R.W. Beyond the lexicon: Creativity in language production. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1988, 3(1):1-19. 10.1207/s15327868ms0301_1.
30. Gibbs R.W., Beitel D. What proverb understanding reveals about how people think. Psychological Bulletin 1995, 118(1):133-154. 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.133.
31. Giora R., Fein O., Kronrod A., Elnatan I., Shuval N., Zur A. Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol 2004, 19(2):115-141. 10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2.
32. Grossberg S., Pinna B. Neural dynamics of gestalt principles of perceptual organization: From grouping to shape and meaning. Gestalt Theory 2012, 34(3/4):399-443.
33. Hekkert P., Snelders D., van Wieringen P.C.W. 'Most advanced, yet acceptable': Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology 2003, 94:111-124. 10.1348/000712603762842147.
34. Huron D.B. Sweet anticipation music and the psychology of expectation 2006, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
35. Istok E., Brattico E., Jacobsen T., Krohn K., Mueller M., Tervaniemi M. Aesthetic responses to music: A questionnaire study. Musicae Scientiae 2009, 13(2):183-206. 10.1177/102986490901300201.
36. Jacobs A.M. Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading. Towards a cognitive neuroscience of natural language use 2015, 135-159. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. R. Willems (Ed.).
37. Jacobs A.M. Neurocognitive poetics: Methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2015, 9:186. 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186.
38. Jacobsen T., Buchta K., Köhler M., Schröger E. The primacy of beauty in judging the aesthetics of objects. Psychological Reports 2004, 94(3):1253-1260. 10.2466/pr0.94.3c.1253-1260.
39. Jakesch M., Leder H., Forster M. Image ambiguity and fluency. PLoS ONE 2013, 8(9):e74084. 10.1371/journal.pone.0074084.
40. Jakobson R. Linguistics and poetics. Style in language 1960, 350-377. Wiley, New York, NY. T.A. Sebeok (Ed.).
41. Kemper S. Comprehension and the interpretation of proverbs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1981, 10(2):179-198.
42. Kluge F., Seebold E. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache [Etymological dictionary of the German language] 2002, De Gruyter, Berlin, Germany.
43. Koffka K. Principles of Gestalt psychology 1935, Harcourt, Brace and Co, London.
44. Kotz S.A., D'Ausilio A., Raettig T., Begliomini C., Craighero L., Fabbri-Destro M., et al. Lexicality drives audio-motor transformations in Broca's area. Brain and Language 2010, 112(1):3-11. 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.07.008.
45. Kramer A.F., Donchin E. Brain potentials as indexes of orthographic and phonological interaction during word matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1987, 13(1):76-86. 10.1037//0278-7393.13.1.76.
46. Kuchinke L., Trapp S., Jacobs A.M., Leder H. Pupillary responses in art appreciation: Effects of aesthetic emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2009, 3(3):156-163. 10.1037/a0014464.
47. Leder H., Belke B., Oeberst A., Augustin M.D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology 2004, 95:489-508. 10.1348/0007126042369811.
48. Leder H., Gerger G., Dressler S.G., Schabmann A. How art is appreciated. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2012, 6(1):2-10. 10.1037/a0026396.
49. Longinus (1932). On the Sublime. In: G. P. Goold (Ed.). Aristotle/"Longinus"/Demetrius, "The Poetics"/"On The Sublime"/"On Style". W. H. Fyfe & W. R. Roberts (Trans.), pp. 143-307. Cambridge Mass./London: Harvard University Press/Heinemann.
50. Luo Y., Zhou X. ERP evidence for the online processing of rhythmic pattern during Chinese sentence reading. Neuroimage 2010, 49(3):2836-2849. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.008.
51. Magne C., Astesano C., Aramaki M., Ystad S., Kronland-Martinet R., Besson M. Influence of syllabic lengthening on semantic processing in spoken French: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Cerebral Cortex 2007, 17(11):2659-2668. 10.1093/cercor/bhl174.
52. McFadden D.L. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
53. McGlone M.S., Tofighbakhsh J. The Keats heuristic: Rhyme as reason in aphorism interpretation. Poetics 1999, 26(4):235-244. 10.1016/s0304-422x(99)00003-0.
54. McGlone M.S., Tofighbakhsh J. Birds of a feather flock conjointly: Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science 2000, 11(5):424-428. 10.1111/1467-9280.00282.
55. McQuarrie E.F., Mick D.G. A laboratory study of the effect of verbal rhetoric versus repetition when consumers are not directed to process advertising. International Journal of Advertising 2009, 28(2):287-312. 10.2501/s0265048709200576.
56. Menninghaus W. Disgust: Theory and history of a strong sensation 2003, SUNY Press, Albany, NY.
57. Menninghaus W., Bohrn I.C., Altmann U., Lubrich O., Jacobs A.M. Sounds funny? Humor effects of phonological and prosodic figures of speech. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2014, 8(1):71-76. 10.1037/a0035309.
58. Miall D.S., Kuiken D. Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect-response to literary stories. Poetics 1994, 22(5):389-407. 10.1016/0304-422x(94)00011-5.
59. Miall D.S., Kuiken D. The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness. Poetics 1998, 25(6):327-341. 10.1016/s0304-422x(98)00002-3.
60. Mothersbaugh D.L., Huhmann B.A., Franke G.R. Combinatory and separative effects of rhetorical figures on consumers' effort and focus in ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research 2002, 28(4):589-602. 10.1086/338211.
61. Obermeier C., Menninghaus W., von Koppenfels M., Raettig T., Schmidt-Kassow M., Otterbein S., et al. Aesthetic and emotional effects of meter and rhyme in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology 2013, 4:10. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00010.
62. Palmer S.E., Hemenway K. Orientation and symmetry of multiple, rotational, and near symmetries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1978, 4(4):691-702. 10.1037//0096-1523.4.4.691.
63. Palmer S.E. Goodness, Gestalt, Groups, and Garner: Local symmetry subgroups as a theory of figural goodness. The perception of structure 1991, 23-39. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. G.R. Lockhead, J.R. Pomerantz (Eds.).
64. Petty R.E., Cacioppo J.T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in experimental social psychology 1986, Vol. 19:123-205. Academic Press, New York, NY.
65. Petty R.E., Cacioppo J.T., Heesacker M. Effects of rhetorical questions on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1981, 40:432-440.
66. Quintilian (1953). The Instituto oratoria of Quintilian (H.E. Butler, Ed.). London; Cambridge, Mass.: W. Heinemann; Harvard University Press.
67. Rapp D.N., Samuel A.G. A reason to rhyme: Phonological and semantic influences on lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28(3):564-571. 10.1037//0278-7393.28.3.564.
68. Reber R., Schwarz N. Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition 1999, 8(3):338-342. 10.1006/ccog.1999.0386.
69. Reber R., Schwarz N., Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2004, 8(4):364-382. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3.
70. Reber R., Winkielman P., Schwarz N. Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science 1998, 9(1):45-48. 10.1111/1467-9280.00008.
71. Rothermich K., Schmidt-Kassow M., Kotz S.A. Rhythm's gonna get you: Regular meter facilitates semantic sentence processing. Neuropsychologia 2012, 50(2):232-244. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.10.025.
72. Rothermich K., Schmidt-Kassow M., Schwartze M., Kotz S.A. Event-related potential responses to metric violations: Rules versus meaning. NeuroReport 2010, 21(8):580-584. 10.1097/WNR.0b013e32833a7da7.
73. Royer F.L. Detection of symmetry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1981, 7(6):1186-1210. 10.1037/0096-1523.7.6.1186.
74. Rugg M.D. Event-related potentials and the phonological processing of words and non-words. Neuropsychologia 1984, 22(4):435-443. 10.1016/0028-3932(84)90038-1.
75. Rugg M.D. Event-related potentials in phonological matching tasks. Brain and Language 1984, 23(2):225-240. 10.1016/0093-934x(84)90065-8.
76. Schmidt-Kassow M., Kotz S.A. Entrainment of syntactic processing? ERP-responses to predictable time intervals during syntactic reanalysis. Brain Research 2008, 1226:144-155. 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.06.017.
77. Shklovsky, V. (1965) [1917]. Art as technique. In: L. T. Lemon, & M. J. Reis (Eds. and Trans.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 3-24). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
78. Song H., Schwarz N. If it's difficult to pronounce, it must be risky. Psychological Science 2009, 20(2):135-138.
79. Stata (Version 13.1) [Computer software]. (2013). College Station, TX: StataCorp.
80. Thoma P., Daum I. Neurocognitive mechanisms of figurative language processing: Evidence from clinical dysfunctions. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 2006, 30(8):1182-1205. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.09.001.
81. Tyler L., Marslen-Wilson W. The on-line effects of semantic context on syntactic processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1977, 16(6):683-692.
82. van Holt N., Groeben N. Das Konzept des Foregrounding in der modernen Textverarbeitungspsychologie [The concept of foregrounding in the modern psychology of text processing]. Journal für Psychologie 2005, 13:311-332.
83. van Peer W. The measurement of meter: Its cognitive and affective functions. Poetics 1990, 19:259-275.
84. van Peer W. Introduction to foregrounding: A state of the art. Language and Literature 2007, 16(2):99-104.
85. Wagner M., McCurdy K. Poetic rhyme reflects cross-linguistic differences in information structure. Cognition 2010, 117(2):166-175. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.007.
86. Wertheimer M. Drei Abhandlungen zur Gestalttheorie [Three treatises on the theory of gestalt] 1925, Philosophische Akademie, Erlangen, Germany.
87. Winkielman P., Cacioppo J.T. Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation leads to positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2001, 81:989-1000.
88. Winkielman P., Halberstadt J., Fazendeiro T., Catty S. Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science 2006, 17(9):799-806. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01785.x.
89. Winkielman P., Schwarz N., Fazendeiro T.A., Reber R. The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion 2003, 189-217. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, US. J.M.K.C. Klauer (Ed.).