Abstract
In this paper I propose a theory of meter that treats meter as Optimality-Theoretic (OT) faithfulness. At the core of the proposal is the notion of meter as similarity between an abstract metrical template consisting of prosodic structure without segmental content, and the prosodic structure of a line of verse. Faithfulness is the measure of similarity in OT. I develop a general theory of faithfulness between prosodic structures using standard OT tools, and apply it to meter. I test the theory by investigating two aspects of English iambic meters, phrasal peaks in weak positions, and stressed syllables in weak positions. Because many analytically interesting aspects of meter involve gradient preference rather than absolute metricality, the theory is embedded in the multiple-grammars theory of variation. The chief advantage of the present approach is its commitment to the grounding hypothesis, viz. the claim that rule-governed aspects of meter can be analyzed using the same tools as ordinary grammar.
Notes
This notion is also known by other names, e.g. Fabb’s “development hypothesis”, that “poetic language is formed and regulated by developing only the linguistic elements, rules, and constraints of the language faculty” (Fabb 2010:3).
Readers will notice below the frequent use of constraint conjunction that is necessary in MAF. Each use of constraint conjunction can be thought of as an argument in favor of Maxent grammar over standard OT.
However, see Devine and Stephens (1975) for a different view of traditional metrics.
One tradition where the unit of repetition is selected at the realization rather than template level is found in Classical Sanskrit (Deo 2007).
A pre-generative idea of fully specified templates belongs to Richards (1960[1929]:232); see also Wimsatt and Beardsley (1959). To illustrate the abstract properties of meter, Richards used what he called a “dummy”: a text consisting of nonsense words endowed with English prosody. The following dummy is based on a stanza from Milton’s Nativity Ode: “J. Drootan-Sussting Benn/Mill-down Leduren N./Telambas-taras oderwainto weiring/Awersey zet bidreen,” etc.
Underspecified templates have the advantage of not burdening the analyst with the grueling task of coining the nonsense words.
Imperfection is due to misaligned bracketing. Perfectly aligned bracketing in iambic meters is impossible in English, because its ph-feet are trochees, not iambs.
Here and in the rest of the paper I assume non-lexical monosyllables to be unstressed, both in verse and in the prose baseline (see below).
As McCarthy puts it, “[a]lthough discussions of stress in OT rarely mention faithfulness constraints, the existence of Ident(Stress) or something like it follows from a basic point of OT logic: any property that a language can use contrastively must have a corresponding faithfulness constraint, since otherwise markedness constraints would always obliterate the contrast… Stress is predictable in some languages, but it is not predictable in all languages, so a stress faithfulness constraint is needed in universal CON” (McCarthy 2008:501, fn. 2).
As defined in (17b), two gridmarks at different levels can stand in p-correspondence. This kind of relation is not relevant for the Max and Dep constraints defined here, but will become useful for Align constraints defined below.
An anonymous reviewer suggests another family of constraints, Coalescence, militating against a single syllable in several MPs. Such constraints would be useful in e.g. sung verse, but not in the data analyzed below.
As an anonymous reviewer points out, perhaps related to such strength effects is the principle of closure (cf. Smith Herrnstein 1968), which implies stronger restrictions at the end of the line. Such effects can also be modeled with positional faithfulness.
I am grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for careful critique that improved this section.
The existence of extrametricality, which adds the option of a line-final weak syllable not associated to a position, does not significantly complicate the matching problem, and in any case does not arise in the case studies below.
More precisely, the inviolable preference is expressed by the conjunction Align(1,2,L) and Uniformity-1. Outside of resolution, violations of Align(1,2,L) are routine; they are avoided only when coupled with a Uniformity violation.
Schlerman’s (1989) data from Webster was not used due to low numbers.
The two components of the model, James and Twain, are quite consistent with each other. The greatest discrepancy between the two prose authors is in the type of wild DUCKS, which is somewhat underrepresented in Twain, but the difference is not statistically significant.
Many of the resulting examples, such as the following, sound quite Frostian: “We don’t/enjoy giving directions in New Hampshire—/we tend to think that if you don’t know where/you’re going, you don’t belong where you are./In Canada, we give directions more/freely—to anywhere, to anyone/who asks.”
References
Alderete, John. 1997. Dissimilation as local conjunction. Proc. NELS 27: 17–32.
Alderete, John. 2001a. Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faithfulness. Phonology 18: 201–253.
Alderete, John. 2001b. Morphologically governed accent in optimality theory. New York: Routledge.
Anttila, Arto, and Curtis Andrus. 2006. T-Order generator. Software. http://www.stanford.edu/~anttila/research/software.html.
Anttila, Arto. 2006. Variation and opacity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(4): 893–944.
Anttila, Arto. 2007. Variation and optionality. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology, ed. Paul de Lacy, 519–536. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anttila, Arto. 2008. Gradient phonotactics and the complexity hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(4): 695–729.
Anttila, Arto. 2009. Derived environment effects in colloquial Helsinki Finnish. In The nature of the word: essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, eds. Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas, 433–460. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Anttila, Arto. 2012. Modeling phonological variation. In The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology, eds. Abigail C. Cohn, Cécile Fougeron, and Marie Huffman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 76–94.
Beckman, Jill. 1998. Positional faithfulness. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Bely, Andrei. 1929. Ritm kak dialektika i “Mednii vsadnik”: issledovanie. Moskva: Federatsiia.
Boersma, Paul, and Bruce Hayes. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45–86.
Buss, Karen, and Orton Hodges. 1974. Stress placement in Milton’s verse: implications for the Halle-Keyser theory of English iambic pentameter. PhD thesis, Brandeis University.
Bye, Patrik. 1997. A generative perspective on ‘overlength’ in Estonian and Saami. In Estonian prosody: papers from a symposium, eds. Ilse Lehiste and Jaan Ross. 36–70. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.
Campos-Astorkiza, Rebeka. 2004. Faith in moras: a revised approach to prosodic faithfulness. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS), eds. Kier Moulton and Matthew Wolf. Vol. 34, 163–174. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Davis, Stuart. 2005. “Capitalistic” vs. “militaristic”: the paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered. In Paradigms in phonological theory, eds. Laura Downing, T. Alan Hall, and Renate Raffelsieffen, 107–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deo, Ashwini. 2007. The metrical organization of classical Sanskrit verse. Journal of Linguistics 43: 63–114.
Devine, Andrew M., and Laurence D. Stephens. 1975. The abstractness of metrical patterns: generative metrics and explicit traditional metrics. Poetics 4(4): 411–430.
Elfner, Emily. 2009. Syllabification and stress-epenthesis interactions in harmonic serialism. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available on ROA, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
Fabb, Nigel. 1997. Linguistics and literature. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fabb, Nigel. 2002. Language and literary structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fabb, Nigel. 2010. The non-linguistic in poetic language. J. Liter. Theory 4(1): 1–18.
Fabb, Nigel, and Morris Halle. 2008. Meter in poetry: a new theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fitzgerald, Colleen. 2007. An optimality treatment of syntactic inversions in English verse. Language Sciences 29(2–3): 203–217.
Friedberg, Nila. 2002. Metrical complexity in Russian iambic verse: a study of form and meaning. PhD thesis, University of Toronto.
Gasparov, Mikhail. 1987. A probability model of verse: English, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese. Style 21(3): 322–358.
Golston, Chris. 1998. Constraint-based metrics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 719–770.
Golston, Chris, and Thomas Riad. 2000. The phonology of classical Greek meter. Journal of Linguistics 38: 99–167.
Golston, Chris, and Thomas Riad. 2005. The phonology of Greek lyric meter. Journal of Linguistics 41: 77–115.
Gouskova, Maria. 2007. The reduplicative template in Tonkawa. Phonology 24(3): 367–396.
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2006. Modelling the linguistics-poetics interface. In Formal approaches to poetry, eds. Bezalel Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg, 233–249. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Halle, Morris, and William Idsardi. 1995. General properties of stress and metrical structure. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 403–444. Oxford: Blackwell.
Halle, Morris, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1966. Chaucer and the study of prosody. College English 28(3): 187–219.
Halle, Morris, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1971. Illustration and defense of a theory of the iambic pentameter. College English 33(2): 154–176.
Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hammond, Michael. 1984. Constraining metrical theory: a modular theory of rhythm and destressing. PhD thesis, UCLA.
Hanson, Kristin. 1991. Resolution in modern meters, Doctoral diss., Stanford University.
Hanson, Kristin. 2006. Shakespeare’s lyric and dramatic metrical styles. In Formal approaches to poetry, eds. Bezalel Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg, 111–133. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hanson, Kristin. 2009a. Metrical alignment. In Towards a typology of poetic forms, eds. Jean-Louis Aroui and Andy Arleo, 267–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hanson, Kristin. 2009b. Nonlexical word stress in the English iambic pentameter: the study of John Donne. In The nature of the word: essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, eds. Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas, 21–61. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hanson, Kristin, and Paul Kiparsky. 1996. A parametric theory of poetic meter. Language 72: 287–335.
Hayes, Bruce. 1983. A grid-based theory of English meter. Linguistic Inquiry 14(3): 357–393.
Hayes, Bruce. 1988. Metrics and phonological theory. In Linguistics: the Cambridge survey, ed. Frederick J. Newmeyer. Vol. II of Linguistic theory: extensions and implications, 220–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Phonetics and phonology. I. Rhythm and meter, eds. Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans, 201–260. San Diego: Academic Press.
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hayes, Bruce. 2009. Textsetting as constraint conflict. In Towards a typology of poetic forms: from language to metrics and beyond, eds. Jean-Louis Aroui and Andy Arleo, 43–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hayes, Bruce, and Colin Wilson. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3): 379–440.
Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar, and Kie Zuraw. 2003. OTSoft 2.3, software package. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.
Hayes, Bruce, Colin Wilson, and Anne Shisko. 2012. Maxent grammars for the metrics of Shakespeare and Wilson. Language 88(4): 691–731.
Inkelas, Sharon. 1989. Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. PhD thesis, Stanford University.
Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1998. Markedness and word structure: OCP effects in Japanese. Ms., ROA, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2003. Japanese morphophonemics: markedness and word structure. Boston: MIT Press.
Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2003[1992]. Weak layering and word binarity. In A new century of phonology and phonological theory: a festschrift for professor Shosuke Haraguchi on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. ed. Takeru Honma, et al., 25–65. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2006. Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. In Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics (FAJL4), Osaka, Japan. MIT working papers in linguistics.
Itô, Junko, Yoshihiza Kitagawa, and Armin Mester. 1996. Prosodic faithfulness and correspondence: evidence from a Japanese argot. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5: 217–294.
Jackendoff, Ray, and Fred Lerdahl. 1983. A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jakobson, Roman. [1923]1979. O Češkom stixe, preimušČestvenno v sopostavlenii s russkim. Vol. 5. 3–130. Mouton: Hague.
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Linguistics and poetics. In Style in language, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jensen, John. 2000. Against ambisyllabicity. Phonology 17: 187–235.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1975. Stress, syntax, and meter. Language 51: 576–616.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1977. The rhythmic structure of English verse. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2): 189–247.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1979. Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10(3): 421–441.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. Syllables and moras in Arabic. In The syllable in optimality theory, eds. Caroline Fery and Ruben van de Vijver, 147–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2006a. Iambic inversion in Finnish. In A man of measure: festschrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday, eds. Mickael Suominen et al., 138–148. Turku: The Linguistic Association of Finland.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2006b. A modular metrics for folk verse. In Formal approaches to poetry, eds. Bezalel Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg, 7–49. Mouton: Hague.
Kolmogorov, Andrei Nikolaevich. 1968. Primer izucheniia metra i ego ritmicheskikh variantov. In Teoriia stikha, eds. V. M. Zhirmunsky et al. Leningrad: Nauka.
Kolmogorov, Andrei Nikolaevich, and A. Prokhorov. 1968. Kosnovam russkoi klassicheskoi metriki. In Sodruzhestvo nauk i tainy tvorchestva, ed. B. S. Meilakh. Moscow: Iskusstvo.
De Lacy, Paul. 2001. Markedness in prominent positions. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40: 53–66.
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lotman, Mikhail. 2006. Generative metrics and the comparative approach: Russian iambic tetrameter in a comparative perspective. In Formal approaches to poetry, ed. Bezalel Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg, 253–266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Łubowicz, Anna. 1999. Derived environment effects in OT. In West coast conference on formal linguistics (WCCFL 17), eds. Kimary Shahin, Susan Blake, and Eun Sook Kim, 451–465. Stanford: CSLI.
Łubowicz, Anna. 2005. Locality of conjunction. In West coast conference on formal linguistics (WCCFL 24), eds. John Alderete, Chung-hye Han, and Alexie Kochetov, 254–262. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
Magnuson, Karl, and Frank G. Ryder. 1970. The study of English prosody: an alternative proposal. College English 31(8): 789–820.
Magnuson, Karl, and Frank G. Ryder. 1971. Second thoughts on English prosody. College English 33: 198–216.
McCarthy, John J. 1995. Extensions of faithfulness: rotuman revisited. ROA, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
McCarthy, John J. 2008. The serial interaction of stress and syncope. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 26: 499–546.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized alignment. Ms., available on ROA: http://roa.rutgers.edu.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics, Vol. 18, eds. Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 249–384. Amherst: GLSA Publications.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1999. Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology: the prosody morphology interface. eds. René Kager, Harry van der Hulst, and Wim Zonneveld 218–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, John, Wendell Kimper, and Kevin Mullin. 2012. Reduplication in harmonic serialism. Morphology 22: 173–232.
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1989. On clashes and lapses. Phonology 6: 69–116.
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004[1993]. Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.
Prince, Alan. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14(1): 19–100.
Prince, Alan. 1989. Metrical forms. In Phonetics and phonology. I. Rhythm and meter, eds. Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans, 45–80. San Diego: Academic Press.
Raven, D. S. 1962. Greek metre: an introduction, 2nd edn. London: Faber & Faber.
Revithiadou, Anthi. 1998. Headmost accent wins: head dominance and ideal prosodic form in lexical accent systems. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Richards, Ivor Armstrong. 1960[1929]. Practical criticism: a study of literary judgment. New York: Harcourt.
Saintsbury, George. 1914. Historical manual of English prosody. London: McMillan and Co.
Saintsbury, George. 1923. A history of English prosody from the twelfth century to the present day. London: McMillan and Co.
Betty Jane Schlerman. 1989. The meters of John Webster. New York: Peter Lang.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1978. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Nordic prosody, Vol. 2, ed. Thorstein Fretheim, 111–120. Trondheim: TAPIR.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1980. Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Juncture, eds. Mark Aronoff and Mary-Louise Kean, 107–129. Saratoga: Anma Libri.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 550–569. London: Blackwell.
Smith Herrnstein, Barbara. 1968. Poetic closure: a study of how poems end. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tarlinskaja, Marina. 1976. English verse: theory and history. Hague: Mouton.
Tarlinskaja, Marina. 1993. Strict stress-meter in English poetry compared with German and Russian. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Tomashevsky, Boris. 1918. Ritmika 4-kh stopnogo iamba po nabliudeniiam nad stikhom “Evgeniia Onegina”. Pushkin i ego sovremenniki 29–30: 144–187.
Versace, Stefano. 2011. On the meter-phonology interface: evidence from Italian. In Philological research, eds. Gilda M. Socarras and Almitra Medina, 25–42. Athens: Atiner.
Wimsatt, W. K., and Monroe C. Beardsley. 1959. The concept of meter: an exercise in abstraction. Proceedings of Modern Language Association 74(5): 585–598.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to audiences at McGill, University of Ottawa, and Stanford, to my colleagues at Carleton, and to three anonymous referees. Errors are my own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blumenfeld, L. Meter as faithfulness. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 33, 79–125 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9254-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9254-8