Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 79–125 | Cite as

Meter as faithfulness

Article

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.

Keywords

Metrics Prosody Faithfulness Poetics 

References

  1. Alderete, John. 1997. Dissimilation as local conjunction. Proc. NELS 27: 17–32. Google Scholar
  2. Alderete, John. 2001a. Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faithfulness. Phonology 18: 201–253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alderete, John. 2001b. Morphologically governed accent in optimality theory. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  4. Anttila, Arto, and Curtis Andrus. 2006. T-Order generator. Software. http://www.stanford.edu/~anttila/research/software.html.
  5. Anttila, Arto. 2006. Variation and opacity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(4): 893–944. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anttila, Arto. 2007. Variation and optionality. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology, ed. Paul de Lacy, 519–536. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  7. Anttila, Arto. 2008. Gradient phonotactics and the complexity hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(4): 695–729. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. Google Scholar
  9. 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. Google Scholar
  10. Beckman, Jill. 1998. Positional faithfulness. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  11. Bely, Andrei. 1929. Ritm kak dialektika i “Mednii vsadnik”: issledovanie. Moskva: Federatsiia. Google Scholar
  12. Boersma, Paul, and Bruce Hayes. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. Google Scholar
  14. 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. Google Scholar
  15. 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. Google Scholar
  16. 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. Google Scholar
  17. Deo, Ashwini. 2007. The metrical organization of classical Sanskrit verse. Journal of Linguistics 43: 63–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Devine, Andrew M., and Laurence D. Stephens. 1975. The abstractness of metrical patterns: generative metrics and explicit traditional metrics. Poetics 4(4): 411–430. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elfner, Emily. 2009. Syllabification and stress-epenthesis interactions in harmonic serialism. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available on ROA, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  20. Fabb, Nigel. 1997. Linguistics and literature. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  21. Fabb, Nigel. 2002. Language and literary structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fabb, Nigel. 2010. The non-linguistic in poetic language. J. Liter. Theory 4(1): 1–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fabb, Nigel, and Morris Halle. 2008. Meter in poetry: a new theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fitzgerald, Colleen. 2007. An optimality treatment of syntactic inversions in English verse. Language Sciences 29(2–3): 203–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Friedberg, Nila. 2002. Metrical complexity in Russian iambic verse: a study of form and meaning. PhD thesis, University of Toronto. Google Scholar
  26. Gasparov, Mikhail. 1987. A probability model of verse: English, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese. Style 21(3): 322–358. Google Scholar
  27. Golston, Chris. 1998. Constraint-based metrics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 719–770. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Golston, Chris, and Thomas Riad. 2000. The phonology of classical Greek meter. Journal of Linguistics 38: 99–167. Google Scholar
  29. Golston, Chris, and Thomas Riad. 2005. The phonology of Greek lyric meter. Journal of Linguistics 41: 77–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gouskova, Maria. 2007. The reduplicative template in Tonkawa. Phonology 24(3): 367–396. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. Google Scholar
  32. 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. Google Scholar
  33. Halle, Morris, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1966. Chaucer and the study of prosody. College English 28(3): 187–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Halle, Morris, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1971. Illustration and defense of a theory of the iambic pentameter. College English 33(2): 154–176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  36. Hammond, Michael. 1984. Constraining metrical theory: a modular theory of rhythm and destressing. PhD thesis, UCLA. Google Scholar
  37. Hanson, Kristin. 1991. Resolution in modern meters, Doctoral diss., Stanford University. Google Scholar
  38. 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. Google Scholar
  39. Hanson, Kristin. 2009a. Metrical alignment. In Towards a typology of poetic forms, eds. Jean-Louis Aroui and Andy Arleo, 267–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. Google Scholar
  41. Hanson, Kristin, and Paul Kiparsky. 1996. A parametric theory of poetic meter. Language 72: 287–335. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hayes, Bruce. 1983. A grid-based theory of English meter. Linguistic Inquiry 14(3): 357–393. Google Scholar
  43. 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. Google Scholar
  44. 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. Google Scholar
  45. Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  46. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hayes, Bruce, and Colin Wilson. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3): 379–440. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar, and Kie Zuraw. 2003. OTSoft 2.3, software package. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.
  49. Hayes, Bruce, Colin Wilson, and Anne Shisko. 2012. Maxent grammars for the metrics of Shakespeare and Wilson. Language 88(4): 691–731. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Inkelas, Sharon. 1989. Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. PhD thesis, Stanford University. Google Scholar
  51. Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1998. Markedness and word structure: OCP effects in Japanese. Ms., ROA, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  52. Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2003. Japanese morphophonemics: markedness and word structure. Boston: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  53. 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. Google Scholar
  54. 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. Google Scholar
  55. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jackendoff, Ray, and Fred Lerdahl. 1983. A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  57. Jakobson, Roman. [1923]1979. O Češkom stixe, preimušČestvenno v sopostavlenii s russkim. Vol. 5. 3–130. Mouton: Hague. Google Scholar
  58. Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Linguistics and poetics. In Style in language, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  59. Jensen, John. 2000. Against ambisyllabicity. Phonology 17: 187–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kiparsky, Paul. 1975. Stress, syntax, and meter. Language 51: 576–616. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kiparsky, Paul. 1977. The rhythmic structure of English verse. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2): 189–247. Google Scholar
  62. Kiparsky, Paul. 1979. Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10(3): 421–441. Google Scholar
  63. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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. Google Scholar
  65. 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. Google Scholar
  66. Kolmogorov, Andrei Nikolaevich. 1968. Primer izucheniia metra i ego ritmicheskikh variantov. In Teoriia stikha, eds. V. M. Zhirmunsky et al. Leningrad: Nauka. Google Scholar
  67. Kolmogorov, Andrei Nikolaevich, and A. Prokhorov. 1968. Kosnovam russkoi klassicheskoi metriki. In Sodruzhestvo nauk i tainy tvorchestva, ed. B. S. Meilakh. Moscow: Iskusstvo. Google Scholar
  68. De Lacy, Paul. 2001. Markedness in prominent positions. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40: 53–66. Google Scholar
  69. Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  70. 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. Google Scholar
  71. 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. Google Scholar
  72. 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. Google Scholar
  73. Magnuson, Karl, and Frank G. Ryder. 1970. The study of English prosody: an alternative proposal. College English 31(8): 789–820. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Magnuson, Karl, and Frank G. Ryder. 1971. Second thoughts on English prosody. College English 33: 198–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. McCarthy, John J. 1995. Extensions of faithfulness: rotuman revisited. ROA, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  76. McCarthy, John J. 2008. The serial interaction of stress and syncope. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 26: 499–546. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized alignment. Ms., available on ROA: http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  78. 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. Google Scholar
  79. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. McCarthy, John, Wendell Kimper, and Kevin Mullin. 2012. Reduplication in harmonic serialism. Morphology 22: 173–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  82. Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1989. On clashes and lapses. Phonology 6: 69–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004[1993]. Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Prince, Alan. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14(1): 19–100. Google Scholar
  85. 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. Google Scholar
  86. Raven, D. S. 1962. Greek metre: an introduction, 2nd edn. London: Faber & Faber. Google Scholar
  87. Revithiadou, Anthi. 1998. Headmost accent wins: head dominance and ideal prosodic form in lexical accent systems. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Google Scholar
  88. Richards, Ivor Armstrong. 1960[1929]. Practical criticism: a study of literary judgment. New York: Harcourt. Google Scholar
  89. Saintsbury, George. 1914. Historical manual of English prosody. London: McMillan and Co. Google Scholar
  90. Saintsbury, George. 1923. A history of English prosody from the twelfth century to the present day. London: McMillan and Co. Google Scholar
  91. Betty Jane Schlerman. 1989. The meters of John Webster. New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
  92. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1978. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Nordic prosody, Vol. 2, ed. Thorstein Fretheim, 111–120. Trondheim: TAPIR. Google Scholar
  93. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1980. Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Juncture, eds. Mark Aronoff and Mary-Louise Kean, 107–129. Saratoga: Anma Libri. Google Scholar
  94. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  95. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 550–569. London: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  96. Smith Herrnstein, Barbara. 1968. Poetic closure: a study of how poems end. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  97. Tarlinskaja, Marina. 1976. English verse: theory and history. Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  98. Tarlinskaja, Marina. 1993. Strict stress-meter in English poetry compared with German and Russian. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Google Scholar
  99. Tomashevsky, Boris. 1918. Ritmika 4-kh stopnogo iamba po nabliudeniiam nad stikhom “Evgeniia Onegina”. Pushkin i ego sovremenniki 29–30: 144–187. Google Scholar
  100. 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. Google Scholar
  101. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SLaLSCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations