Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:20:56.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stefan George and phonological theory*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Alexis Manaster Ramer
Alexis Manaster Ramer
Affiliation:
Wayne State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ever since Baudouin de Courtenay (e.g. 1917 [1990: 500]), the founder of phonology, it has been customary for every new phonological theory to make claims about the particular level(s) at which rules of versification may refer to phonological representations. Baudouin himself, for example, took rhyming to be evidence of phonemic identity. The birth of generative phonology thus led to a series of claims that rules of versification may have access to underlying representations – or to various intermediate levels of representation more shallow than the underlying but still deeper than phonemic. Starting with Zeps (1963) and for the next twenty-odd years a certain number of such arguments have been published, and it appears that their validity is widely assumed in the field, as reflected in such survey articles as O'Connor (1982: 155–156) and Hayes (1988: 228–229). Presumably it is precisely the widespread acceptance of these arguments that explains the relative lull in the debate recently (but see Malone 1982,1983, 1988a, b).

Type
Squibs and replies
Information
Phonology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , August 1994 , pp. 317 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Anderson, Stephen R. (1973). u-umlaut and Skaldic verse. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Paul, Kiparsky (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 3–13.Google Scholar
De Courtenay, Baudouin, Jan (1917). Vvedenie v jazykovedenie. 5th edn. Petrograd. Parts reprinted in Jan Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay (1990). Dziela wybrane. Vol. 4. Warsaw: PAN. 482–545.Google Scholar
Berg, T. (1991). Unreine Reime. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 9. 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkenhauer, Renate (1983). Reimpoetik am Beispiel Stefan Georges: phonologischer Algorithmus und Reimworterbuch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bock, Claus Victor (1964). Wort-Konkordanz zur Dichtung Stefan Georges. Amsterdam: Castrum Peregrini Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Tracy Alan (1992). Syllable structure and syllable-related processes in German. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1988). Metrics and phonological theory. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Vol. 2. Linguistic theory: extensions and implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 220–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Heinrich (1980). Archaisms, morphophonemic metrics, or variable rules in the Rig-Veda. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 10. 56–69.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Finnur (1921). Norsk-islandske Kultur- og Sprogforhold i 9. og 10. årh. Copenhagen: Andr. Fred. Høst & Søn.Google Scholar
Kahle, Bernhard (1892). Die Sprache der Skalden auf Grund der Binnen- und Endreime verbunden mit einem Rimarium. Strasbourg: Trübner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. & Shaw, Patricia (1985). On the theory of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1968a). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Emmon, Bach & Harms, Robert T. (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 171–202.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1968b). Metrics and morphophonemics in the Kalevala. In Gribble, Charles E. (ed.) Studies presented to Professor Roman Jakobson by his students. Cambridge: Slavica. 137–148.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1972). Metrics and morphophonemics in the Rigveda. In Michael, Brame (ed.) Contributions to generative phonology. Austin: University of Texas Press. 171–200Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973). The role of linguistics in a theory of poetry. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 102. 231–244.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. (1982). Generative phonology and Turkish rhyme. LI 13. 550–553.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. (1983). Generative phonology and the metrical behavior of u ‘and’ in the Hebrew poetry of medieval Spain. Journal of the American Oriental Society 103. 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. (1988a). On the global-phonologic nature of Classical Irish alliteration. General Linguistics 28. 91–103.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. (1988b). Underspecification theory and Turkish rhyme. Phonology 5. 293–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manaster Ramer, Alexis (1981). How abstruse is phonology? PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
O'connor, M. P. (1982). ‘Unanswerable the knack of tongues’: the linguistic study of verse. In Obler, Loraine K. & Lise, Menn (eds.) Exceptional language and linguistics. New York: Academic Press. 143–168.Google Scholar
Sadeniemi, Matti (1951). Die Metrik des Kalevala-Verses. Folklore Fellows Communications 139.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1968). French phonology and morphology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert (1963). Indo-European metrics and Archaic Irish verse. Celtica 6. 194–249.Google Scholar
Zeps, Valdis J. (1963). The meter of the so-called trochaic Latvian folksongs. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 7. 123–128.Google Scholar