The questionnaire proposed to six poets, echoing the one for linguists, is filled up by: Edith Azam, Françoise Delorme, Danièle Faugeras, Irène Gayraud, Liliane Giraudon, Marie de Quatrebarbes. Each of them has selected, at the end of the interview, two titles of her own works and one or two contemporaries from her recent reading who deserve to be known. Among these 20 books, only one author is referred twice. One of the poets is moreover an editor, two are translators, and two practice another art, one handicraft. Almost all of them are used to perform their poems in primary or secondary schools and some of them lead creative writing workshops. Here are the issues raised by the questionnaire: 1) Their reaction towards the “women-only” sampling in the questionnaire and their attitudes towards the word “poetess”; 2) their relation with language and syntax; 3) The exploration and experimentation of world and life through poetry ; 4) imaginary (as a noun): its problematic definition, its role in writing and learning; 5) the relation between poetry and voice: internal and external voice(s); 6) poetry, education, non-enhanced students and poets’ interventions in schools. Most of the poets do not accept the word ‘poetess’, regarding it as a discrimination, which suggests the so-called difference between masculine and feminine poetry. The “women-only” sampling becomes therefore a problem. Language is widely accepted as a fundamental component in writing and reading but people share distinguished definitions of syntax including the standard syntax, the extended syntax as an open system, or the same behavior towards norms and rules. A majority emphasizes the role of sound /visual materials in words, but dare not to admit their places in extended syntax. Language is considered as life, physical movement, desire but also as failure, perpetual attempt, sometimes as disaster or disease. The poets’ point of view of language is less linguistic, more existential and philosophical. Two camps stand against each other on the question whether language or the world/the observation/the perception/the feeling, comes the first? Some of them make the difference between ‘real” and ‘reality’, i.e. common and superficial reality: their target would be to face the real, sometimes by getting rid of their own subjectivity and themselves. But the target is regularly missed. The world and life on one side, and language on the other side, stand as two mysteries hard to connect, however inseparable. Imaginary is defined differently along with the culture. Some refer to the psychoanalysis or Lacan, some accept the proposed distinction between singular imaginary and collective imaginary, others take it as an adjective of the imaginary world built by each person. Just one does not consider it as an issue for adults, whereas most of them discuss this issue with passion. Imaginary would connect the fear, the ancestoral fear and their failures: energy, courage, creative impulse, intersubjectivity, and even reflexivity. Imaginary, at the crossroad of unconscious, together with the first rise of images and words, would feed the desire to revive again and again through language and to unveil or intensify the real. Saying poetry aloud in public is a common practice poets generally like and fear. Body is involved, almost naked, which therefore needs mutual confidence. For some, it is an experimentation area or a step of creation. Saying poetry, even just in silence, is also a frequent help to writing. Almost all the poets manage performances and workshops (writing or translating poems) in schools or in other social places, therefore strengthening the social role of poetry. Everyone says about positive reactions in some pupils triggered by poetry, especially in the non-enhanced ones. The first benefit would be a better self-image and motivation in connection with inner life; the second is the appetites to learn, to live and to look, whatever the discipline is; and thirdly, it brings an accurate attention towards the language, its functioning and the semiosis. But all insist on ‘écopoésie’, i.e learning environment all along the year, and the human meetings rather than strict teaching projects devoted to one topic only, mother tongue or foreign language. So, even if the responses from the poets and linguists demonstrate their wide agreements on language, voice and teaching, they, nevertheless, differ a lot on their definition of poetry: linguists concentrate on the language functioning while poets focus more on body, imaginary and ‘real’. But there exists a kind of mutual charm flowing between them, as if each side held the mysterious power that the other side had been deprived of.