(Neuro-)Cognitive poetics and computational stylistics

References

1. Abramo, F., Gambino, R., Pulvirenti, G., Xue, S., Sylvester, T., Mangen, A., Papp-Zipernovszky, O., Lüdtke, J. & Jacobs, A. M.
   (2018) A qualitative-quantitative analysis of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 60. Style, in revision.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Altmann, U., Bohrn, I. C., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M.
   (2012) The power of emotional valence-from cognitive to affective processes in reading. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(192). doi:  10.3389/fnhum.2012.00192
   https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00192 [Google Scholar]
3. Altmann, U., Bohrn, I. C., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M.
   (2014) Fact vs fiction: How paratextual information shapes our reading processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(1), 22–29. doi:  10.1093/scan/nss098
   https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss098 [Google Scholar]
4. Andrzejewski, D., Zhu, X., & Craven, M.
   (2009) Incorporating domain knowledge into topic modeling via dirichlet forest priors. ICML ’09: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.25–32, New York, NY: ACM. 10.1145/1553374.1553378
   https://doi.org/10.1145/1553374.1553378 [Google Scholar]
5. Armeni, K., Willems, R. M., & Frank, S. L.
   (2017) Probabilistic language models in cognitive neuroscience: promises and pitfalls. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 83, 579–588. doi:  10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.09.001
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.09.001 [Google Scholar]
6. Aryani, A., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M.
   (2013) Extracting salient sublexical units from written texts: “Emophon,” a corpus-based approach to phonological iconicity. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(654). doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00654
   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00654 [Google Scholar]
7. Aryani, A., Kraxenberger, M., Ullrich, S., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M.
   (2016) Measuring the basic affective tone of poems via phonological saliency and iconicity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 191–204. doi:  10.1037/aca0000033
   https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000033 [Google Scholar]
8. Bambini, V., Canal, P., Resta, D., & Grimaldi, M.
   (2018) Time course and neurophysiological underpinnings of metaphor in literary context. Discourse Processes. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2017.1401876
   https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1401876 [Google Scholar]
9. Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Zanchetta, E.
   (2009) The WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43, 209–226. doi:  10.1007/s10579‑009‑9081‑4
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4 [Google Scholar]
10. Berlyne, D. E.
    (1971) Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Bestgen, Y., & Vincze, N.
    (2012) Checking and boot-strapping lexical norms by means of word similarity indexes. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 998–1006. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑012‑0195‑z
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0195-z [Google Scholar]
12. Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E.
    (2009) Natural language processing with Python. O’Reilly Media.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2013) When we like what we know – a parametric fMRI analysis of beauty and familiarity. Brain Language, 124, 1–8. doi:  10.1016/j.bandl.2012.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.10.003 [Google Scholar]
14. Bornet, C., & Kaplan, F.
    (2017) A simple set of rules for characters and place recognition in French novels. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 4(6). doi:  10.3389/fdigh.2017.00006
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2017.00006 [Google Scholar]
15. Braun, M., Jacobs, A. M., Hahne, A., Ricker, B., Hofmann, M., & Hutzler, F.
    (2006) Model-generated lexical activity predicts graded ERP amplitudes in lexical decision. Brain Research, 1073–1074, 431–439.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J.
    (1999) Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Stimuli instruction and affective ratings technical report C-1. Gainesville: University of Florida.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Braun, M., Hutzler, F., Ziegler, J. C., Dambacher, M., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2009) Pseudo homophone effects provide evidence of early lexico-phonological processing in visual word recognition. Human Brain Mapping, 30(7), 1977–1989. 10.1002/hbm.20643
    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20643 [Google Scholar]
18. Braun, M., Hutzler, F., Munte, T. F., Rotte, M., Dambacher, M., Richlan, F., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2015) The neural bases of the pseudohomophone effect: Phonological constraints on lexico-semantic processing in reading. Neuroscience, 295, 151–163. doi:  10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.03.035
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.03.035 [Google Scholar]
19. Breen, M.
    (2014) Empirical investigations of the role of implicit prosody in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(2), 37–50. 10.1111/lnc3.12061
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12061 [Google Scholar]
20. Briesemeister, B. B., Kuchinke, L., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2011) Discrete emotion norms for nouns: Berlin a ective word list (DENN – BAWL). Behavior Research Methods, 43(2), 441–448. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑011‑0059‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0059-y [Google Scholar]
21. Brunswik, E.
    (1956) Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Burke, M.
    (2013) The rhetorical neuroscience of style: On the primacy of style elements during literary discourse processing. Journal of Literary Semantics, 42, 199–215. 10.1515/jls‑2013‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2013-0010 [Google Scholar]
23. Burrows, J. F.
    (1986) Modal verbs and moral principles: an aspect of Jane Austen’s style, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 1, 9–23. 10.1093/llc/1.1.9
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/1.1.9 [Google Scholar]
24. Burrows, J.
    (2002) ‘Delta’: A measure of stylistic difference and a guide to likely authorship. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 17(3), 267–87. 10.1093/llc/17.3.267
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/17.3.267 [Google Scholar]
25. Busemann, A.
    (1948) Stil und Charakter. Untersuchungen zur Psychologie der individuellen Redeform, Meisenheim.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Castiglione, D.
    (2017) Difficult poetry processing: Reading times and the narrativity hypothesis. Language and Literature, 26, 99–121. 10.1177/0963947017704726
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947017704726 [Google Scholar]
27. Citron, F. M. M., Weekes, B. S., & Ferstl, E. C.
    (2012) How are affective word ratings related to lexico-semantic properties? Evidence from the Sussex Affective Word List (SAWL). Applied Psycholinguist, 35, 313–331. doi:  10.1017/S0142716412000409
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000409 [Google Scholar]
28. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2017) Sentiment Analysis and Social Cognition Engine (SEANCE): An automatic tool for sentiment, social cognition, and social-order analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 49(3), 803–821. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑016‑0743‑z
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0743-z [Google Scholar]
29. Dalvean, M.
    (2015) Ranking contemporary American poems. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 30, 1. 10.1093/llc/fqt036
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqt036 [Google Scholar]
30. Davies, M.
    (2009) The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14, 159–190. 10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02dav [Google Scholar]
31. Davis, P.
    (2013) Reading and the reader. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., & Harshman, R.
    (1990) Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 391–407. 10.1002/(SICI)1097‑4571(199009)41:6<391::AID‑ASI1>3.0.CO;2‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199009)41:6<391::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-9 [Google Scholar]
33. Delmonte, R.
    (2016) Exploring Shakespeare’s Sonnets with SPARSAR. Linguistics and Literature Studies, 4(1), 61–95. doi:  10.13189/lls.2016.040110
    https://doi.org/10.13189/lls.2016.040110 [Google Scholar]
34. De Smedt, T., & Daelemans, W.
    (2012) Pattern for Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13, 2031–2035.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Eder, M.
    (2013) Mind your corpus: Systematic errors in authorship attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 28(4), 604–614. 10.1093/llc/fqt039
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqt039 [Google Scholar]
36. Eder, M., Rybicki, J., & Kestemont, M.
    (2016) Stylometry with R: A package for computational text analysis. R Journal, 8(1), 107–121.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Epstein, R.
    (2004) Consciousness, art and the brain: Lessons from Marcel Proust. Consciousness and Cognition, 13, 213–240. doi:  10.1016/S1053‑8100(03)00006‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00006-0 [Google Scholar]
38. Fechner, G. T.
    (1876) Vorschule der Ästhetik, Vol.2. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Fónagy, I.
    (1961) Communication in poetry. Word, 17, 194–218. doi:  10.1080/00437956.1961.11659754
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1961.11659754 [Google Scholar]
40. Fónagy, I.
    (1983/1991) La vive voix: essais de psycho-phonetique. Paris: Payot.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Forsyth, R. S.
    (2000) Pops and flops: Some properties of famous English poems. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18(1), 49–67. 10.2190/E7Q8‑6062‑K6H4‑XFRW
    https://doi.org/10.2190/E7Q8-6062-K6H4-XFRW [Google Scholar]
42. Forsyth, R. S., & Holmes, D. I.
    (1996) Feature-finding for text classification. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 11, 163–174. 10.1093/llc/11.4.163
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/11.4.163 [Google Scholar]
43. Fucks, W.
    (1955) Mathematische Analyse von Sprachelementen, Sprachstil und Sprachen, Köln. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑04287‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-04287-7 [Google Scholar]
44. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z.
    (2004) Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193–202. doi:  10.3758/BF03195564
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564 [Google Scholar]
45. Hanauer, D.
    (2017) Towards a critical mass of accumulated knowledge in the field of scientific literary studies. Scientific Study of Literature, 7(1), 1–3. 10.1075/ssol.7.1.01edi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.7.1.01edi [Google Scholar]
46. Hayward, M.
    (1991) A connectionist model of poetic meter. Poetics, 20, 303–317. 10.1016/0304‑422X(91)90012‑E
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(91)90012-E [Google Scholar]
47. Henrich, V., Hinrichs, E., & Suttner, K.
    (2012) Automatically linking germanet to Wikipedia for harvesting corpus examples for germanet senses. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics, 27, 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Herrmann, J. B., van Dalen-Oskam, K., & Schöch, C.
    (2015) Revisiting style, a key concept in literary studies. Journal of Literary Theory, 9(1), 25–52.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Hoffstaedter, P.
    (1987) Poetic text processing and its empirical investigation. Poetics, 16, 75–91. doi:  10.1016/0304‑422X(87)90037‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(87)90037-4 [Google Scholar]
50. Hofmann, M. J., Kuchinke, L., Biemann, C., Tamm, S., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2011) Remembering words in context as predicted by an associative read-out model. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(252). doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00252
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00252 [Google Scholar]
51. Hofmann, M. J., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2014) Interactive activation and competition models and semantic context: From behavioral to brain data. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 85–104. doi:  10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.011 [Google Scholar]
52. Hogan, P. C.
    (2003) Cognitive science, literature and the arts. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Hollis, G., Westbury, C., & Lefsrud, L.
    (2017) Extrapolating human judgments from skip-gram vector representations of word meaning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1–45. doi:  10.1080/17470218.2016.1195417
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1195417 [Google Scholar]
54. Hoorn, J., Frank, S., Kowalczyk, W., & van der Ham, F.
    (1999) Neural network identification of poets using letter sequences. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 14(3), 311–338. 10.1093/llc/14.3.311
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/14.3.311 [Google Scholar]
55. Hoover, D. L.
    (2007) Corpus stylistics, stylometry, and the styles of Henry James. Style, 41(2), 174–203.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Hoshi, H., & Menninghaus, W.
    (2018) The eye tracks the aesthetic appeal of sentences. Journal of Vision, 18(3). doi:  10.1167/18.3.19
    https://doi.org/10.1167/18.3.19 [Google Scholar]
57. Hsu, C. T., Jacobs, A. M., Citron, F., & Conrad, M.
    (2015) The emotion potential of words and passages in reading harry potter: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 142, 96–114. doi:  10.1016/j.bandl.2015.01.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.01.011 [Google Scholar]
58. Hutto, C. J., & Gilbert, E. E.
    (2014) VADER: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media rext. Eighth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM-14). Ann Arbor, MI.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Jacobs, A. M.
    (2015a) Towards a neurocognitive poetics model of literary reading. InR. Willems (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of natural language use (pp.135–159). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107323667.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107323667.007 [Google Scholar]
60. Jacobs, A. M.
    (2015b) Neurocognitive poetics: Methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 186. doi:  10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186 [Google Scholar]
61. Jacobs, A.
    (2015c) The scientific study of literary experience: Sampling the state of the art. Scientific Study of Literature, 5(2), 139–170. 10.1075/ssol.5.2.01jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.5.2.01jac [Google Scholar]
62. Jacobs, A. M.
    (2017) Quantifying the beauty of words: A neurocognitive poetics perspective. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 622. doi:  10.3389/fnhum.2017.00622
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00622 [Google Scholar]
63. Jacobs, A. M.
    (2018) The Gutenberg English Poetry Corpus: Exemplary quantitative narrative analyses. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 5(5). doi:  10.3389/fdigh.2018.00005
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2018.00005 [Google Scholar]
64. Jacobs, A. M., & Kinder, A.
    (2017) The brain is the prisoner of thought: A machine-learning assisted quantitative narrative analysis of literary metaphors for use in Neurocognitive Poetics. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(3), 139–160. doi:  10.1080/10926488.2017.1338015
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1338015 [Google Scholar]
65. Jacobs, A. M., & Kinder, A.
    (2018) What makes a metaphor literary? Answers from two computational studies. Metaphor and Symbol, in press. 10.1080/10926488.2018.1434943
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1434943 [Google Scholar]
66. Jacobs, A. M., & Lüdtke, J.
    (2017) Immersion into narrative and poetic worlds: A neurocognitive poetics perspective. InF. Hakemulder, M. M. Kuijpers, E. S. Tan, K. Bálint, & M. M. Doicaru (Eds.), Narrative absorption (pp.69–96). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.27.05jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.27.05jac [Google Scholar]
67. Jacobs, A. M., & Willems, R. M.
    (2017) The fictive brain: Neurocognitive correlates of engagement in literature. Review of General Psychology. 22, 147–160. doi:  10.1037/gpr0000106
    https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000106 [Google Scholar]
68. Jacobs, A. M., Võ, M. L. H., Briesemeister, B. B., Conrad, M., Hofmann, M. J., Kuchinke, L., Lüdtke, J., & Braun, M.
    (2015) 10 years of BAWLing into a ective and aesthetic processes in reading: What are the echoes?Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 714. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00714
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00714 [Google Scholar]
69. Jacobs, A. M., Hofmann, M. J., & Kinder, A.
    (2016) On elementary affective decisions: To like or not to like, that is the question. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1836. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01836
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01836 [Google Scholar]
70. Jacobs, A. M., Lüdtke, J., Aryani, A., Meyer-Sickendiek, B., & Conrad, M.
    (2016) Mood- empathic and aesthetic responses in poetry reception: A model-guided, multilevel, multimethod approach. Scientific Study of Literature, 6(1), 87–130. doi:  10.1075/ssol.6.1.06jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.6.1.06jac [Google Scholar]
71. Jacobs, A. M., Schuster, S., Xue, S., & Lüdtke, J.
    (2017) What’s in the brain that ink may character.…: A quantitative narrative analysis of Shakespeare’s 154 sonnets for use in Neurocognitive Poetics. Scientific Study of Literature, 7(1), 4–51. doi:  10.1075/ssol.7.1.02jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.7.1.02jac [Google Scholar]
72. James, W.
    (1890/1950) The principles of psychology. New York, NY: Dover.
    [Google Scholar]
73. Jannidis, F., & Lauer, G.
    (2014) Burrows’s delta and its use in German literary history. InM. Erlin & L. Tatlock (Eds.), Distant readings: Topologies of German culture in the long nineteenth century (pp.29–54). Rochester, NY: Camden House.
    [Google Scholar]
74. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H.
    (2016) N-grams (draft chapter). https://web.stanford.edu/˜jurafsky/slp3/4.pdf
75. Kao, J., & Jurafsky, D.
    (2012) A computational analysis of style, affect, and imagery in contemporary poetry. NAACL Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Literature. www.stanford.edu/jurafsky/kaojurafsky12.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
76. Kaplan, D., & Blei, D.
    (2007) A computational approach to style in American poetry. IEEE Conference on Data Mining.
    [Google Scholar]
77. Katz, A. N., Paivio, A., & Marschark, M.
    (1985) Poetic comparisons: Psychological dimensions of metaphoric processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14, 365–383. 10.1007/BF01067881
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067881 [Google Scholar]
78. Katz, A., Paivio, A., Marschark, M., & Clark, J.
    (1988) Norms for 204 literary and 260 non- literary metaphors on psychological dimensions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3(4), 191–214. 10.1207/s15327868ms0304_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0304_1 [Google Scholar]
79. Keats, J.
    (1958) Letter 199, To George and Georgiana Keats. InH. Rollins (Ed.), The letters of John Keats (Vol.2). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
80. Keidel, J. L., Davis, P. M., Gonzalez-Diaz, V., Martin, C. D., & Thierry, G.
    (2013) How Shakespeare tempests the brain: Neuroimaging insights. Cortex, 49(4). doi:  10.1016/j.cortex.2012.03.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.03.011 [Google Scholar]
81. Kintsch, W.
    (1980) Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9, 87–98. doi:  10.1016/0304‑422X(80)90013‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(80)90013-3 [Google Scholar]
82. Kintsch, W.
    (2000) Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 257–266. doi:  10.3758/BF03212981
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212981 [Google Scholar]
83. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A.
    (1978) Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394. doi:  10.1037/0033‑295X.85.5.363
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363 [Google Scholar]
84. Kraxenberger, M.
    (2017) On sound-emotion associations in poetry (Doctoral dissertation). Freie Universität Berlin.
85. Kraxenberger, M., & Menninghaus, W.
    (2016) Emotional effects of poetic phonology, word positioning and dominant stress peaks in poetry. Scientific Study of Literature, 6(2), 298–313. doi:  10.1075/ssol.6.2.06kra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.6.2.06kra [Google Scholar]
86. Kraxenberger, M., & Menninghaus, W.
    (2017) Affinity for poetry and aesthetic appreciation of joyful and sad poems. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2051.
    [Google Scholar]
87. Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N.
    (1967) Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
88. Kutas, M.
    (2006) One lesson learned: Frame language processing – literal and figurative – as a human brain function. Metaphor and Symbol, 21, 285–325. doi:  10.1207/s15327868ms2104_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2104_5 [Google Scholar]
89. Larsen, S. E., & Seilman, U.
    (1988) Personal remindings while reading literature. Text, 8, 411–429. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.4.411
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.4.411 [Google Scholar]
90. Lea, R. B., Rapp, D. N., Elfenbein, A., Mitchel, A. D., & Romine, R. S.
    (2008) Sweet silent thought: Alliteration and resonance in poetry comprehension. Psychological Science, 19(7), 709–716. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02146.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02146.x [Google Scholar]
91. Leech, G. N.
    (1969) A linguistic guide to English poetry. London, United Kingdom: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
92. Lehne, M., Engel, P., Menninghaus, W., Jacobs, A. M., & Koelsch, S.
    (2015) Reading a suspenseful literary text activates brain areas related to social cognition and predictive inference. PLOS One, 10(5). doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0124550
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124550 [Google Scholar]
93. Louwerse, M. M.
    (2001) An analytic and cognitive parametrization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(3), 291–315.
    [Google Scholar]
94. Lüdtke, J., Meyer-Sickendiek, B., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2014) Immersing in the stillness of an early morning: Testing the mood empathy hypothesis in poems. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 363–377. doi:  10.1037/a0036826
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036826 [Google Scholar]
95. Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M.
    (2015) How useful are corpus-based methods for extrapolating psycholinguistic variables?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1623–1642. 10.1080/17470218.2014.988735
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.988735 [Google Scholar]
96. Marschark, M., Katz, A. N., & Paivio, A.
    (1983) Dimensions of metaphor. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12, 17–40. 10.1007/BF01072712
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01072712 [Google Scholar]
97. Martindale, C.
    (1978) The evolution of English poetry. Poetics, 7, 231–248. 10.1016/0304‑422X(78)90039‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(78)90039-6 [Google Scholar]
98. Menninghaus, W., Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., & Jacobs, A. M.
    (2014) Sounds funny? Humor effects of phonological and prosodic figures of speech. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 71. 10.1037/a0035309
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035309 [Google Scholar]
99. Miall, D. S.
    (2001) Sounds of contrast: An empirical approach to phonemic iconicity. Poetics, 29, 55–70. 10.1016/S0304‑422X(00)00025‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(00)00025-5 [Google Scholar]
100. Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D.
     (1994) Foregrounding, defamiliarization and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 389–407. doi:  10.1016/0304‑422X(94)00011‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94)00011-5 [Google Scholar]
101. Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D.
     (2002) The effects of local phonetic contrasts in readers’ responses to a short story. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20, 157–175. 10.2190/M9RC‑WBP5‑4NDQ‑2EJD
     https://doi.org/10.2190/M9RC-WBP5-4NDQ-2EJD [Google Scholar]
102. Michel, J. B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., The Google Books Team, … Lieberman Aiden, E.
     (2011) Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331(6014), 176–182. 10.1126/science.1199644
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199644 [Google Scholar]
103. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J.
     (2013) Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Retrieved fromhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781
104. Miller, G. A.
     (1995) WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41. 10.1145/219717.219748
     https://doi.org/10.1145/219717.219748 [Google Scholar]
105. Neuhäuser, R.
     (1991) Sound and meaning in romantic poetry: Preseren’s Poeziie. Russian Literature, 85–108. 10.1016/0304‑3479(91)90068‑C
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3479(91)90068-C [Google Scholar]
106. O’Sullivan, N., Davis, P., Billington, J., Gonzalez-Diaz, V., & Corcoran, R.
     (2015) “Shall I compare thee”: e neural basis of literary awareness, and its bene ts to cognition. Cortex, 73, 144–157. doi:  10.1016/j.cortex.2015.08.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.08.014 [Google Scholar]
107. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., … Dubourg, V.
     (2011) scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830.
     [Google Scholar]
108. Pennebaker, J. W., & Francis, M. E.
     (1999) Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
109. Petrie, K. J., Pennebaker, J. W., & Sivertsen, B.
     (2008) Things we said today: A linguistic analysis of the Beatles. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 197–202. 10.1037/a0013117
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013117 [Google Scholar]
110. Recchia, G., & Louwerse, M. M.
     (2015) Reproducing affective norms with lexical co-occurrence statistics: Predicting valence, arousal, and dominance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1584–1598. 10.1080/17470218.2014.941296
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.941296 [Google Scholar]
111. Rehuřek, R., & Sojka, P.
     (2010) Software framework for topic modelling with large corpora. Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks (pp.45–50). Valletta, Malta: ELRA.
     [Google Scholar]
112. Riegel, M., Wierzba, M., Wypych, M., Zurawski, L., Jednorog, K., Grabowska, A., & Marchewka, A.
     (2015) Nencki Affective Word List (NAWL): Cultural adaptation of the Berlin Affective Word List-Reloaded (BAWL-R) for Polish. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1222–1236. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑014‑0552‑1
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0552-1 [Google Scholar]
113. Rouse, B., & Bennett, J. R.
     (1967) Editorial. Style, 1(1), v–vii.
     [Google Scholar]
114. Salgaro, M.
     (2015) How literary can literariness be? Methodological problemsin the study of foregrounding. Scientific Study of Literature, 5(2), 229–249. doi:  10.1075/ssol.5.2.06sal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.5.2.06sal [Google Scholar]
115. Schmidtke, D. S., Schröder, T., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M.
     (2014a) ANGST: Affective norms for German sentiment terms, derived from the affective norms for English words. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1108–1118. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑013‑0426‑y
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0426-y [Google Scholar]
116. Schmidtke, D. S., Conrad, M., & Jacobs, A. M.
     (2014b) Phonological iconicity. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 80. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00080
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00080 [Google Scholar]
117. Schrott, R., & Jacobs, A. M.
     (2011) Gehirn und Gedicht: Wie wir unsere Wirklichkeiten konstruieren (Brain and Poetry: How We Construct Our Realities). München: Hanser.
     [Google Scholar]
118. Shen, Y.
     (2008) Metaphor and poetic figures. InR. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.295–307). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.019
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.019 [Google Scholar]
119. Simonton, D. K.
     (1989) Shakespeare’s sonnets: A case of and for single-case historiometry. Journal of Personality, 57(3), 695–721. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑6494.1989.tb00568.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00568.x [Google Scholar]
120. Simonton, D. K.
     (1990) Lexical choices and aesthetic success: A computer content analysis of 154 Shakespeare sonnets. Computers and the Humanities, 24, 254–264.
     [Google Scholar]
121. Steen, G.
     (2004) Can discourse properties of metaphor affect metaphor recognition?Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1295–1313. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.014 [Google Scholar]
122. Steyvers, M., Smyth, P., & Chemuduganta, C.
     (2011) Combining background knowledge and learned topics. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 18–47. doi:  10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2010.01097.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01097.x [Google Scholar]
123. Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G.
     (2009) An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods, 14(4), 323–348. 10.1037/a0016973
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016973 [Google Scholar]
124. Stockwell, P.
     (2009) The cognitive poetics of literary resonance. Language and Cognition, 1, 25–44. doi:  10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.002 [Google Scholar]
125. Stone, P. J., Dunphy, D. C., Smith, M. S., & Ogilvie, D. M.
     (1966) The general inquirer: A computer approach to content analysis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
126. Tsur, R.
     (1992) What makes sound patterns expressive? The poetic mode of speech perception. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
127. Tsur, R.
     (1997) Sound effects of poetry: Critical impressionism, reductionism and cognitive poetics. Pragmatics & Cognition, 5, 283–304. doi:  10.1075/pc.5.2.05tsu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.5.2.05tsu [Google Scholar]
128. Turner, F., & Poeppel, E.
     (1983) The neural lyre: Poetic meter, the brain and time. Poetry Magazine, 12, 277–309.
     [Google Scholar]
129. Turney, P. D., & Littman, M. L.
     (2003) Measuring praise and criticism: Inference of semantic orientation from association. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 21(4), 315–346. 10.1145/944012.944013
     https://doi.org/10.1145/944012.944013 [Google Scholar]
130. Ullrich, S., Aryani, A., Kraxenberger, M., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M.
     (2017) On the relation between the general affective meaning and the basic sublexical, lexical, and interlexical features of poetic texts – A case study using 57 poems of H. M. Enzensberger. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2073. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02073
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02073 [Google Scholar]
131. van den Hoven, E., Hartung, F., Burke, M., & Willems, R. M.
     (2016) Individual differences in sensitivity to style during literary reading: Insights from eye-tracking. Collabra, 2, 1–16. doi:  10.1525/collabra.39
     https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.39 [Google Scholar]
132. van Peer, W., Hakemulder, J., & Zyngier, S.
     (2007) Lines on feeling: Foregrounding, aesthetics and meaning. Language and Literature, 16, 197–213. doi:  10.1177/0963947007075985
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007075985 [Google Scholar]
133. Vendler, H.
     (1997) The art of Shakespeare’s sonnets. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
134. Võ, M. L. H., Jacobs, A. M., & Conrad, M.
     (2006) Cross-validating the Berlin affective word list. Behavioral Research Methods, 38, 606–609. doi: 10.3758/B.F.03193892
     https://doi.org/10.3758/B.F.03193892 [Google Scholar]
135. Võ, M. L. H., Conrad, M., Kuchinke, L., Hartfeld, K., Hofmann, M. J., & Jacobs, A. M.
     (2009) The Berlin Affective Word List reloaded (BAWL-R). Behavioral Research Methods, 41, 534–539. doi:  10.3758/BRM.41.2.534
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.534 [Google Scholar]
136. Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M.
     (2013) Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1191–1207. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑012‑0314‑x
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x [Google Scholar]
137. Westbury, C., Keith, J., Briesemeister, B. B., Hofmann, M. J., & Jacobs, A. M.
     (2015) Avoid violence, rioting, and outrage; approach celebration, delight, and strength: Using large text corpora to compute valence, arousal, and the basic emotions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1599–1622. doi:  10.1080/17470218.2014.970204
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.970204 [Google Scholar]
138. Whissell, C.
     (1999) Phonosymbolism and the emotional nature of sounds: Evidence of the preferential use of particular phonemes in texts of differing emotional tone. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 19–48. doi:  10.2466/pms.1999.89.1.19
     https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1999.89.1.19 [Google Scholar]
139. Willems, R. M., Frank, S. L., Nijhof, A. D., Hagoort, P., & Van den Bosch, A.
     (2016) Prediction during natural language comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 26, 2506–2516. doi:  10.1093/cercor/bhv075
     https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv075 [Google Scholar]
140. Wu, Z., & Palmer, M.
     (1994) Verbs semantics and lexical selection. Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL ’94, pages133–138, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/981732.981751
     https://doi.org/10.3115/981732.981751 [Google Scholar]
141. Wundt, W. M.
     (1874) Grundzüge der Physiologischen Psychologie. Leipzig: Engelmann.
     [Google Scholar]
142. Xue, X., Giordano, D., Lüdtke, J., Gambino, R., Pulvirenti, G., Spampinato, C., & Jacobs, A. M.
     (2017) Weary with toil, I haste me to my bed: Eye tracking Shakespeare sonnets. Talk given atthe 19th European Conference on Eye Movements, Wuppertal, Germany, 2017.
     [Google Scholar]
143. Yaron, I.
     (2008) What is a “difficult” poem? Towards a definition. Journal of Literary Semantics, 37(2), 129–150. doi:  10.1515/jlse.2008.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.2008.008 [Google Scholar]
144. Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., & Klueppel, D.
     (2001) Pseudohomophone effects in lexical decision: Still a challenge for current word recognition models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 547–559.
     [Google Scholar]