Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:21:24.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three models for the description of poetry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

William O. Hendricks
William O. Hendricks
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the increasing concern for explicit, precise and complete grammatical descriptions of languages (primarily under the impetus of Chomsky), the relation between poetry and grammar has come to command particular attention since sentences occurring in poetry often fail to be accounted for by the grammar of the language. That is, poetic sentences may simultaneously manifest more constraints and less constraints on combinatorial possibilities than exist in non-poetic language. Some linguists, not content merely to list such sentences as exceptions to the grammatical rules, have suggested ways of ‘expanding’ the grammar to account for such sentences. One well-known effort is Levin's (1964) attempt to ‘fix’ a generative grammar of English so it will generate such deviant sentences as, for example, Cummings's He danced his did. Another approach, though not specifically applied to poetic texts, is represented by Harris's (1952) discourse analysis. Here many vexing problems are avoided in that the aim is to construct a ‘grammar’ of a single text by setting up categories, empirically defined in terms of morphological environments, that apply only to the given text.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , April 1969 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bazell, C. E. (1964). Three mìsconceptions of grammaticalness. MSLL 17. 3–10.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, R. B. (1953). Scientific Explanation. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bremond, C. (1964). Le message narratif. Communications 4. 4–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, C. (1947). The Well Wrought Urn. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Burke, K. (1957). The Philosophy of Literary Form. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Burke, K. (1966). Formalist criticism: its principles and limits. Texas Quarterly 9. 242–268.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1961). Some methodological remarks on generative grammar. Word 17. 219–239.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. (1960). A systematization of the Whorfian hypothesis. Behavioral Science 5. 323–339.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1952). Discourse analysis. Lg 28. 1–30.Google Scholar
Hendricks, W. O. (1966). Review of Levin (1962). Lg 42. 639–649.Google Scholar
Hendricks, W. O. (1967). On the notion ‘beyond the sentence’. Linguistics 37. 12–51.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. & Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). Les Chats de Charles Baudelaire. L'Homme 2. 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1965). The Philosophy of Grammar. New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (1958). Semology: a linguistic theory of meaning. Studies in Linguistics 13. 53–70.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (1904). A chapter of semology in the English verb. MSLL 17. 59–72.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Lg 39. 170–210.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1965). ‘This bread I break’ – language and interpretation. A Review of English Literature 6. 66–75.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1960). The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Supplement to IJAL, 26. 3.Google Scholar
Levin, S. R. (1962). Linguistic Structures in Poetry. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Levin, S. R. (1964). Poetry and grammaticalness. In Lunt, H. (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, pp. 308–314. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Levin, S. R. (1965). Internal and external deviation in poetry. Word 21. 225–237.Google Scholar
Marckwardt, A. H. (1966). Linguistics and the Teaching of English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
McIntosh, A. (1961). Patterns and ranges. Lg 37. 325–337.Google Scholar
Riffaterre, M. (1966). Describing poetic structures: two approaches to Baudelaire's Les Chats. Yale French Studies 36 /37. 200–242.Google Scholar
Thorne, J. P. (1965). Stylistics and generative grammars. JL 1. 49–59.Google Scholar
Wellek, R. & Warren, A. (1956). Theory of Literature. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. (1965). Axioms of geometry. In A Philosopher Looks at Science. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar