“…In turn, the interpreter of poetry, whether aural or scribal, recruits different interpretive and synthesizing capacities during sense making, with the result that the processing of poetic schemas and constructions must be distinctive – less strictly linear, more acoustically driven, and reliant on the comprehension of more complex patterning. Moreover, there is wide critical acknowledgement that gaps among meaning units can be larger in poetic texts; form cannot properly be separated from content; ‘poetic licence’ – an expectation of or tolerance for the flouting of grammatical and semantic rules – is contextually constructed and embedded in the interpretive contract; and the brain responds to the overlapping and interaction of the connections created by rhythm, rhyme, assonance, alliteration and other forms of sound patterning, in conjunction with semantic elements in poetry, in ways that must differ from the cognitive processing of prose (see Tsur 1996: 59). In turn, modifications to conventionalized constructions and chunking must arise from the expectations and realities of the poetic context.…”