Rhyme as reason: Experimental evidence from Dutch verse

:speech_balloon: Speaker: Stefan Blohm @StefanBlohm

:classical_building: Affiliation: Radboud University Nijmegen

Title: Rhyme as reason: Experimental evidence from Dutch verse

Abstract (long version below): Rhyme is a euphonic ornament of verbal art and song. Perhaps counterintuitively, rhyme may have quasi-semantic effects, e.g., making statements appear more accurate/convincing. Such rhyme-as-reason effects have been related to processing events during comprehension. Specifically, it has been argued that “rhyme […] affords statements an enhancement in processing fluency that can be misattributed to heightened conviction about their truthfulness” (McGlone & Tofighbakhsh, 2000). Here, we report evidence from a study of verse comprehension in Dutch that lends support to the key claim of the fluency-misattribution account: that rhyme facilitation during online sentence comprehension is systematically related to rhyme-induced semantic effects.


:movie_camera:


:newspaper: Long abstract

Rhyme is a euphonic ornament of verbal art and song. Perhaps counterintuitively, rhyme may have quasi-semantic effects, e.g., making statements appear more accurate/convincing. Such rhyme-as-reason effects have been related to processing events during comprehension. Specifically, it has been argued that “rhyme […] affords statements an enhancement in processing fluency that can be misattributed to heightened conviction about their truthfulness” (McGlone & Tofighbakhsh, 2000). Here, we report evidence from a study of verse comprehension in Dutch that lends support to the key claim of the fluency-misattribution account: that rhyme facilitation during online sentence comprehension is systematically related to rhyme-induced semantic effects.

Summary: Combining eye-tracking during reading with intuitive semantic judgments allowed us to test the hypotheses that 1) rhyme leads comprehenders to perceive a “deeper meaning” in statements, that 2) rhyme facilitates word processing (e.g., Obermeier et al., 2016), and that 3) rhyme-induced facilitation predicts rhyme-dependent meaningfulness effects. We selected 48 couplets of Dutch verse and created non-rhyming versions by replacing the first rhyme word (pre-rhyme) with a synonym as in example (1).

(1)  wat niemand kan weten/kennen || kan ik niet meten
       what nobody can know can I not measure
       ‘I cannot measure what nobody can know’

Participants (n=54) read each couplet in either the original or the modified version while their eye movements were recorded; they rated the aesthetic appeal, comprehensibility, and perceived meaningfulness of each couplet on a quasi-continuous scale (0-100). Linear mixed-effects regression analyses of ratings and of several gaze-time measures confirmed that rhyming couplets were perceived as more meaningful than non-rhyming versions (rhyme-as-reason effect; H1; p = .019) but failed to reveal a general facilitation effect of rhyme (fluency effect; H2; all ps > .20). Crucially, results of multiple linear regression indeed support the fluency-misattribution account, showing that rhyme-induced differences in total reading times of critical rhyme words partly accounted (ΔR2 = 0.11) for the observed meaningfulness effect of rhyme (H3; p = .023).

We further collected self-report data about participants’ reading habits (Kuijpers, Douglas & Kuiken, 2019), and administered standardized tests of personality traits (Big Five Inventory; Denissen et al., 2008) and print exposure (Dutch author recognition test; Brysbaert et al., 2020). We used the self-report data to calculate a “poetry-affinity index”, which allowed us to assess whether affinity for poetry can be predicted on the basis of personality traits or prior print exposure. Results of this analysis not only revealed that – similar to other aesthetic domains – openness to experience is a key determinant of poetry affinity (ΔR2 = 0.21) but also identified neuroticism (ΔR2 = 0.06) as a relevant personality trait.

References

Brysbaert, M., Sui, L., Dirix, N., & Hintz, F. (2020). Dutch author recognition test. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 6. doi:10.5334/joc.95

Denissen, J. J. A., Geenen, R., van Aken, M. A. G., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). Development and validation of a Dutch translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 152-157. doi:10.1080/00223890701845229

Kuijpers, M., Douglas, S., & Kuiken, D. (2019). Personality traits and reading habits that predict absorbed narrative fiction reading. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(1), 74-88. doi:10.1037/aca0000168

McGlone, M. S., & Tofighbakhsh, J. (2000). Birds of a feather flock conjointly (?): Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science, 11(5), 424–428. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00282

Obermeier, C., Kotz, S. A., Jessen, S., Raettig, T., von Koppenfels, M., & Menninghaus, W. (2016). Aesthetic appreciation of poetry correlates with ease of processing in event-related potentials. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(2), 362-373. doi:10.3758/s13415-015-0396-x

Hi Stefan,

thx again for your talk - I do have more questions but I had seen that other hands hat gone up, too, and I did not want then to take up too much off the Q&A time of others…

So one of my questions is, whether the found effects would be the same/similar for rhymes either a) at beginning of lines or b) half-line (compared to the conventional couplet).
Another question is what processing fluency “facilitated” by rhymes is exactly defined by: Is it syntactic parsing or is it semantic comprehension or is it the combination of both and how then to distinguish/extract the found effects?
Also, I am interested in whether the "rhyme as reason"approach deals with what I would call ‘degrees of comprehension complexity’, that can be induced by the interaction of foregrounding and backgrounding features of poetic lines, and at what end of the scale (high/low) then the couplets would range, so to what extend would the effects found have to be also interpreted within the “space” that couplets give for these aspects?

Looking forward to your answers!

Best
Judy

Dear Judith,

Thanks for your interest in our research.

Regarding position-dependent differences:
The short answer is that I don’t know for sure but I doubt that effects would be comparable for rhyme in different positions.
My guess would be that line-initial or line-medial rhymes (there typically was no half-line structure in our text sample) result in reduced processing fluency due to similarity-based interference, detectable in longer first fixations and first-pass gaze durations. At least that’s what the results from rhyme processing in sentence comprehension suggest…
I’d also expect less pronounced effects on subjective evaluation, but this guess merely reflects my belief that, for couplets at least, these effects largely depend on the coincidence of phonological foregrounding and wrap-up/control; with auditory presentation, the actual rhyming frequently occurs after the word-uniqueness point and thus possibly interferes with later processes than e.g., alliteration. Whether I’m on the right track or totally wrong is an open, empirical question, though.

Fluency enhancement was operationalised as “faster reading times / more word-skipping / less fixations for identical words”. Which stages of comprehension the observed differences reflect can, to some degree, be deduced from the eye-tracking measures that prove sensitive to rhyme; this is the main reason why we chose to cast a wide net and examine five different measures.
None of these measures was sensitive to rhyme; the number of fixations had a marginally significant effect (p = .10) in the expected direction before p-value adjustment. EEG studies, which provide a clearer idea of the time-course of rhyme-word processing, suggest that rhyme may facilitate early phonological processing, lexical integration, and late controlled processing stages.
We found no relation between the rhyme-as-reason effect and differences in “early” eye-tracking measures (e.g., the duration of the first fixation on the critical word) – only total reading times were systematically related to the differences in perceived meaningfulness. To me, this pattern suggests that the meaningfulness effect we observed is related to neither lexical nor syntactic processing but rather to late, controlled processes that might be interpretive / pragmatic / evaluative. This actually does not fit very well with the fluency-misattribution account under the assumption that attributional processes also happen at this stage, i.e., if the trigger and the result (=the attributional process) happen simultaneously.

I’m not sure I understand your last question / the term “comprehension complexity”. As you point out, comprehension is a complex process that comprises a number of sub-processes. In this view, the different eye-tracking measures can be seen as indices of “complexity” at different processing stages; these processing stages are certainly sensitive to foregrounding at different levels (i.e., based on different linguistic cues, e.g., sound or syntax). I’m unaware of any formulation of the misattribution account of rhyme-as-reason effects that clearly specifies the source/locus of rhyme-induced facilitation, i.e., that would allow for re-formulation in terms of comprehension complexity in this sense.
Although I believe that foregrounding is real, I believe that the foreground/backgrounding dichotomy is insufficient to capture the intricacies of literary comprehension. As a linguist, I’m used to analysing and describing verbal utterances in terms of more fine-grained descriptive systems and I have to admit that I struggle with the application of the foregrounding/backgrounding dichotomy to concrete formal and semantic text features. That makes it hard for me to place our materials on a comprehension-complexity scale in the backgrounding/foregrounding sense. But if foregrounding-based comprehension complexity could be quantified for our materials, it could, of course, also be included in the analysis.
What we do have are estimates of each item’s average processing difficulty (as reflected in eye-tracking measures), average meaningfulness (mostly average range with very few outliers at both ends), and average self-reported comprehensibility (mostly average range with a few outliers at both ends).

Hope that answers your questions.
Feel free to get in touch if you have more.

All the best,
Stefan

Hi Stefan,

thanks for your answer! I will reply in more detail but it’ll take some time because I have to first get rid off some workload. But I’ll keep in touch!

Best
Judy

Dear Judith,

No worries – feel free to get in touch anytime that suits you.
We could also discuss our common research interests in a zoom call.

All the best,
Stefan