MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2013194797 · doi:10.1353/esc.0.0088

On Discreteness: Event and Sound in Poetry

2007· article· en· W2013194797 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Louis Cabri

Notice bibliographique

RevueEnglish studies in Canada · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueMedia, Communication, and Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of Pennsylvania
Mots-clésPoetryEvent (particle physics)LiteratureLoudnessSpoken wordEnglish poetryHistoryLinguisticsArtPhilosophyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

On Discreteness: Event and Sound in Poetry Louis Cabri (bio) I Twenty-six letterforms—the alphabet—part of poetry’s visual dimension. One-hundred-plus sounds, derived from forty-plus phonemes—spoken English—part of poetry’s sonic dimension. On Discreteness: Event and Sound in Poetry largely explores the latter dimension—sound—in poetry. However, the mix of “auditory and visual standards in poetry” (in the wry words of James Laughlin to William Carlos Williams)1 also arises, for several contributors, as a theoretical and practical (that is, descriptive and experiential) concern. In the call for papers for this special issue, poetry was conceived of as an event in sound branching out and dividing through language, technology, history—”ramifying.” To ramify means “To extend; to spread (in various directions); to grow in complexity or range” (oed). Such happens in sounding-out poetry by way of durational, intonational, pitch, stress, and loudness variation, by way of the print and recording technologies that mediate and condition the quality and kind of aural reception, and by way of shifts in cultural contexts shaping poetry’s multimodal existence. What most of these sixteen contributors to esc: English [End Page 1] Studies in Canada share—which makes this issue somewhat timely—is the intent to listen to the sound of poets’ (and for one contributor, to listen to the sound of actors’) poetry recordings, including other poetry performances. In this respect, there are contributors who consider recordings of Gertrude Stein and William Carlos Williams, Brion Gyson and Kenneth Rexroth, and contemporaries Caroline Bergvall, Charles Bernstein, Anne Carson, and Geraldine Monk, among others, from Canada, the U.S., and the UK. Uttered sound is unstable—allophonic, noisy. A poem as a temporal sequence of recorded utterances shows more differences from itself than as word forms in print. In translating, Ezra Pound needed to discern between multiple versions of Arnaut Daniel’s poetry that print transmission had ramified through half a millennium. Today, in order to achieve the degree of discernment practised by a translator, we must—we can, thanks to recent sound pioneers in poetry—discern between recorded versions of a poem delivered in the course of less than half a lifetime. To “stabilize” sound’s protean qualities is, in a sense, what prosodic inventions such as various metres, measures, phrases, and rhythms, as well as the concept of phoneme itself, and the seven meanings of logos, etc., are about. The concept of discreteness plays to the classical Greek roots of logos: that you can cut up any thought into minimal units—atom or particle and, hence, phoneme. “In all languages,” Victoria Fromkin’s An Introduction to Language explains, “discrete linguistic units combine in rule-governed ways to form larger units” (41). Or as John Lyons explains discreteness: “Identity of form and language is [...] a matter of all or nothing, not of more or less” (Lyons 21). For the “more or less” range of speech expression to aurally impress, language must be constituted on a set of “all or nothing” distinctions. Sound needs to be made discrete at this constitutive phonemic level for it to behave like a language. We activate, in listening, at least two levels of language: the sound continuum of “more or less” meaning and its discretely differentiated, opposing, and relationally constituted “all or nothing” set of minims. This collection of essays exists in the tension between sound continuum and discreteness. Roman Jakobson contrasts the degree of fluid and choppy expressivity in speech to the degree available in poetry in written form. Ivan Fónagy paraphrases from the Czech: In everyday speech, emotions are reflected in the rate of speech, in intonation, in unusual pauses, in the shift of stress, the emphatic lengthening of vowels or consonants or the [End Page 2] expressive modification of articulation and the corresponding shift in the sound spectrum; e.g. a raised, forward tongue position and brighter vowel color may reflect gaiety, particularly strained consonants may express anger. This expressive phonetic level is entirely lacking in poetry. (Fónagy 75) This expressive phonetic level is now entirely present for the poetry of many twentieth-century poets. Set aside the calendar-month display of Jackson Pollock’s Full...

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,376
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,301

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,368
Écart entre enseignants0,325 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2007
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEnglish studies in CanadaMême sujetMedia, Communication, and EducationTravaux en français237 207