Page 92 - AC-2-1

Arts & Communication Esthetics in wényán and modern báihuà poetry

Table 1. Repeated measure mixed ANOVA on reading experience by poem types and topics
SS df MS F p η 2
Beauty of language
Poem type 88.04 (1,45) 88.04 76.26 0.000 0.63
Poem topic 15.57 (3,135) 5.19 5.89 0.001 0.12
Poem type*Poem topic a 17.09 (2.52,113.54) 5.70 8.02 0.000 0.15
Imaginativeness
Poem type 14.80 (1,44) 14.80 15.12 0.000 0.26
Poem topic 42.88 (3,132) 14.29 11.28 0.000 0.20
Poem type*Poem topic 14.81 (3,132) 4.94 5.63 0.001 0.11
Precision
Poem type 112.58 (1,37) 112.58 70.25 0.000 0.66
Poem topic 0.59 (3,111) 0.20 0.19 0.901 0.01
Poem type*Poem topic 3.17 (3,111) 1.06 1.33 0.270 0.04
Complexity of imagery
Poem type 51.42 (1,42) 51.42 32.75 0.000 0.44
Poem topic 18.73 (3,126) 6.24 3.19 0.026 0.07
Poem type*Poem topic 32.47 (3, 126) 10.83 9.50 0.000 0.18
Profundity in meaning
Poem type 35.36 (1,41) 35.36 27.35 0.000 0.40
Poem topic 8.44 (3,123) 2.81 2.46 0.066 0.06
Poem type*Poem topica 39.10 (2.10,86.00) 18.64 12.43 0.000 0.23
Emotion elicited
Poem type 13.61 (1,44) 13.61 7.54 0.009 0.15
Poem topica 9.40 (2.61,114.73) 3.61 2.48 0.073 0.05
Poem type*Poem topic 9.52 (3,132) 3.17 2.60 0.055 0.06
Resonance elicited
Poem type 14.26 (1,47) 14.26 6.62 0.013 0.12
Poem topic 23.50 (3,141) 7.83 5.52 0.001 0.11
Poem type*Poem topic 22.87 (3,141) 7.62 5.13 0.002 0.10
Familiarity
Poem type 189.84 (1,47) 189.84 53.70 0.000 0.53
Poem topic 29.81 (3,141) 9.94 6.85 0.000 0.13
Poem type*Poem topic 39.72 (3,141) 13.24 12.26 0.000 0.21
Difficulty in understanding
Poem type 75.24 (1,41) 75.24 26.00 0.000 0.39
Poem topic 17.34 (3,123) 5.78 3.41 0.020 0.08
Poem type*Poem topic 54.37 (3,123) 18.12 13.41 0.000 0.25
Note: Greenhouse–Geisser correction for sphericity.
a
hand, were enjoyed for their unadorned plain language 4. Discussion
(“直白”) which, while making them easy to understand Essentially, we collected data on poem appreciation
(“通俗易懂”) and resonate with (“引发共鸣”), created a experiences by asking participants to provide subjective
sense of purity (“质朴”) that was profound in meaning ratings (quantitative data) and textual explanations
(“意义深远”). (qualitative data). We analyzed these data and the

Volume 2 Issue 1 (2024) 7 https://doi.org/10.36922/ac.1825