Notice bibliographique
Résumé
1. IN THE 1959 INTERVIEWS WITH EDITH HEAL, William Carlos Williams talks of his Complete Collected Poems in 1938 as providing him with whole picture, chance appraise all he gone through technically learn about the making of Then he recounts learning organize poem into lines: greatest problem was that I didn't know how divide poem into what perhaps my lyrical sense wanted. Free verse was not the answer. From the beginning I knew that the American must shape the pattern; later I rejected the word and spoke of the American idiom--this was better word than language, less academic, more identified with speech. (I Wanted 64-65) This kind of statement draws skeptical comments from critics (for example, Cushman 81-83, 99, and Perloff 160). In point of fact, Williams spoke the problem of lineation in letter James Laughlin in 1939. When Laughlin related how his professors at Harvard had told the young editor not mix and visual standards in poetry, Williams was contemptuous. What they, the formulators of that particular question do not know, Williams snapped, that an quality, NEW quality, underlies and determines the visual which they object to (Williams and Laughlin 49). Williams had argued for this throughout the 1930s and proposed formalize it--what he refers above as pattern in verse line. The verse is time; he insisted in 1931, time manifest in and measured by this line. Not forced, metric time but something invented, a time that catches thought as it lags and swings up into the attention (Selected Letters 136). That verse line, the basis of poetic form, was be discovered in--invented from--the American vernacular. (1) Williams's attempts at measuring the vernacular line have largely been dismissed; the sound and shape of his poems remain topic of contention. (2) No doubt visual and aural elements are both at play, and any discussion of Williams's verse line needs consider their interlinking complexities. issue here is twofold. First, if what guides Williams is primarily an auditory quality found in American speech, then exactly in what way are his lines modeled on speech? Second, and more difficult establish, if Williams's prosody is speech-based, how might those lines express, as he insisted, musical time and so be the basis of what he notoriously called new measure? In the following I'll argue that Williams's verse line functions as prosodic device, indicative of several aural factors, chiefly intonation, pace, and rhythm, and that it is fashioned with regard its impact on the total poem--that is, subordinate the poem as whole--rather than functioning simply as visual or rhythmic unit (such as an iambic pentameter line). (3) Further, I'll demonstrate in what ways Williams's prosody is in fact speech-based and show, by listening Williams, how line breaks give clear evidence of his prosodic practice--breaks best explained by use of syntax, intonation, and pace. 2. In December 1931, Williams composed letter Kay Boyle, intended as the opening declaration for incarnation of Contact (Mariani 328-29). His premise was, bluntly, There is no workable poetic extant among us today (Selected Letters 129). He writes of listening speech in my own environment for prosodic model which he'd develop into form. The of poetry, he insists, that of language (4) Because the of poetry is be found in characteristics of the spoken language, Williams will consequently search the vernacular for formal characteristics and argue that Greek prosody emerges from the Greek and English prosody from English. It follows that, because American is distinct from British speech--shaped by relationship place, an argument central In the American Grain (1925) (5)--American poetry should be distinguished by its development from vernacular, hence his later insistence on intrinsic form (Collected II, 54). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».