MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987150559 · doi:10.1353/hir.2013.0012

The Poetics of Speech in the Medieval Spanish Epic by Matthew Bailey (review)

2013· article· en· W1987150559 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simone Pinet

Bibliographic record

VenueHispanic Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSpanish Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoeticsOralityLiteratureBattleArtComposition (language)EPICHistoryMedievalismPoetryArgument (complex analysis)LiteracyMiddle AgesSociologyAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Poetics of Speech in the Medieval Spanish Epic by Matthew Bailey Simone Pinet Keywords epic, speech, oral composition, Cid, Fernan Gonzalez, Mocedades de Rodrigo, discourse analysis, linguistics, poetics, Matthew Bailey, Simone Pinet Bailey, Matthew . The Poetics of Speech in the Medieval Spanish Epic. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2010. ix + 147 pp. As a result of his thinking about orality and literacy in medieval Spanish literature through new studies, Matthew Bailey presents in this book an argument sustained across three texts with which he has worked extensively, versions of epic discourse in the shape of the thirteenth-century Cantar de mío Cid, the Poema de Fernán González, and the Mocedades de Rodrigo. Bailey's intimacy with these texts is evident throughout this deceptively short book, in which he weaves masterful close readings of passages from these canonical works into an argument for oral composition and the role of speech through the lens of cognitive approaches to literature and discourse analysis. The book is divided into five well-linked chapters, a first introductory chapter on the status of oral composition within Hispano-medievalism, a second chapter on learned culture, and three chapters devoted to each of the works, all introduced by a brief and descriptive five pages. In the first chapter, his status questionis, Bailey depicts a battle between oralists and defenders of written culture. Bailey's history of epic criticism in Hispano-medievalism begins, as so many histories do, with Menéndez Pidal, who is pitched against Parry and Lord. With the two camps established, Bailey goes on to relate how the field, while adopting some of Parry's and Lord's findings, has ultimately rejected oral composition for the Spanish epic in one way or another (Deyermond, Smith), with notable exceptions (Duggan and Geary), especially regarding the Cid (14). To a point, this is true, as Bailey details, especially in earlier criticism. However, the negotiations and tensions between oral and written culture have settled in recent decades into a consensus about their continued interplay that goes from production or composition through transmission and preservation, as first articulated by Ruth Finnegan and, as Bailey acknowledges, by Hispano-medievalists themselves, from Catalán and Michael to Bayo and Montaner. By the end of the chapter, however, Bailey seems to have (re)invested orality with a purity and originality that there seems to be little space to negotiate: "From Menéndez Pidal to Montaner, it has become an article of faith among Hispano-medievalists that the Yugoslav model of oral composition is irrelevant to the compositional process of the Spanish epic" (21-22). By focusing exclusively on [End Page 232] composition and invoking a sort of Hispanic delay (even resistance or refusal) in recognizing that the "genius" or "uniqueness" of expression of these poems is owed to an original oral composition, Bailey presents this book on Spanish epic as one determining "the extent to which their unique expression is linked to their original oral delivery." He thus makes the poems' expressive qualities the focus of his analysis, especially through studies by Wallace Chafe on speech and cognition. Centering both on structural matters such as parataxis and end-rhyme, and on those expressive qualities (which bring to mind aspects of Mark Amodio's work), Bailey attempts to prove that oral composition is the essence that will allow us "to hear the poems in a more genuine and culturally attuned way." Chapter 2 uses the work of Carruthers to detail the process of epic composition as one that, regardless of its context of production—learned or not—not only relies on but in fact always begins in orality, using Berceo's Vida de Santa Oria as a case study. While elsewhere I find Bailey's close readings of text delicate and insightful, I am not convinced that when Oria reads and then returns to her cell to sleep and take consolation one must assume that the reading must have produced grief. While the particular nuance of grief is needed here to relate it back to Carruthers's "compunction," a fear or dread that precedes meditation, it is much more likely that Oria's "quiso dormir vn poco, tomar...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHispanic ReviewSame topicSpanish Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207