On Aug 26, 2005, at 5:42 AM, Robin Hamilton wrote:
>
> "Prosody" in linguistics means something utterly different from
> "prosody" in
> metrics.
yes, and yet some linguists are doing metrics.
>> .
>
> Could you post the poem, Annie?
I've posted a link
>
> I'd see Attridge as a metricist who's drawing on linguistics (in +The
> Rhythms of English Poetry+). REP is fascinating, but I'm not sure it's
> acceptable as descriptive system -- over-complicated.
I agree!
>
> The other name in the frame of busting traditional scansion is Marina
> Tarlinskaja, +EnglishVerse: Theory and History+ (tr. 1976), but I've
> never
> managed to find a copy of this to read.
>> I've recently begun distinguishing explicitly between three kinds of
>> accent when I scan a line (as when teaching), and it's helped:
>>
>> lexical stress (dictionary syllable-stress on words of more than one
>> syllable)
>> phrasal stress (common customs of stressing nouns more than articles,
>> etc.)
>> performative stress (emphasis by an individual person or situation)
>
> I don't get this. Seems over-complicated. What's wrong with the
> traditional distinction between speech-stress and metrical stress
> (ictus),
> with rhythm emerging from the interaction between the two?
These are three ways of arriving at speech-stress itself. I have found
it helpful when teaching, to explain that the scansion of some lines is
more subjective than of others. The last kind of stress can always be
affected by the ictus, whereas the first never can.
Ta,
A
|