A Stylistic Study on the Selected Poems of Rupi Kaur’s “Milk and Honey”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of cyberspace and digital means of communicating has resulted in the flourishing of writers who became famous by publishing their literary works online. One of the successful writers with this humble beginning is Rupi Kaur whose style is subjectively described as bizarre, peculiar, an illusion of profoundness, lacks nuance, and unconventional. To avoid jeopardizing the aesthetics and genuine meaning of her poetry, this research aims to explore the objective analysis and interpretation of her 12 micro poems selected from her book “Milk and Honey”. It specifically seeks to stylistically investigate the presence of foregrounded parts found in her poems and their linguistic forms. The obtained verbal data are analyzed through the lens of Geoffrey Leech’s foregrounding theory which focuses on deviation and parallelism. The study reveals that the foregrounded parts in terms of deviation are enjambment, omission of syllable sounds, hyperbaton, the personification of abstract nouns, and metaphorization which are linguistically categorized as graphological, phonological, grammatical, and semantic. In terms of parallelism, they are the repetition of sounds, lexeme, words, and phrases manifested through anadiplosis, epanalepsis, epistrophe, anaphora, and conduplicatio which are lexical, phonological, and syntactic. The foregrounded parts relay Kaur’s message on the importance of equalness among gender and women's empowerment as she retains her sense of heritage, and culture very evident from the interdependence of various semiotic modes that she used in her poetry. It is recommended that the objectivity of literary analysis and interpretation should be discussed intensively for the awareness of language/literature teachers and learners.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".