Structural Surprise in the Triadic-Line Poems

Abstract

William Carlos Williams insisted his triadic-line derives from some evanescent quality of the spoken language and more specifically from the characteristics of American speech.1 This essay will focus on how recent advances in an area of linguistics known as international phonology have helped to vindicate these adamant but impressionistic claims. These advances center on the description of the intonational phrase, a well-defined unit of spoken language quite nearly satisfies Williams's discussions of the variable foot, especially as defined in his verse entry in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics.2 A brief overview of the intonational phrase suggests how it may satisfy the desiderata Williams articulates for his measure: 1. The intonational phrase is a domain in language; is, it is a recognizable unit participates in the organization of language and it specifically factors in the organization of spoken language (i.e., unlike meter, it is not inherent to individual words or written language but exists only across sequences of word in use) (Nespor and Vogel 188; Hayes 219). 2. The intonational phrase is the first domain is variable (Nespor and Vogel 1 87-203), meaning the amount of language comprising an intonational phrase - unlike the amount of language constituting a metrical foot - varies greatly depending on a number of linguistic and paralinguistic factors (lnkelas). This variability and its underlying causes are quite close to Williams's discussion of the variable foot as a prosodie pattern [that] is evaluated by criteria of effectiveness and expressiveness rather than mechanical syllable counts (Williams Free Verse 289; SL 326). 4. As the domain at which intonation is assigned, the intonational phrase is responsible for the audible chunks or tunes embody our perception of the significance of our own (Tench 7). The genius of the triadic-line then is it derives its music from the inherent musicality of our and not from the limited rhythms associated with a meter. Or, as Allen Ginsberg called it, what Williams puts down on the page are the squiggly tunes of speech (1 65). 5. Each intonational phrase is defined by a tonic syllable, whose audible intensification (it is distinguished phonologically from other syllables by a combination of factors, involving pitch, volume, and length [Tench 53-55]) is naturally perceived as a beat. Intonational phrases also tend to occur where structural pauses can be inserted within (Nespor and Vogel 1 88). These two tendencies help explain engrained habits of describing triadic-line as well as free in terms of beats or breath units. 6. Finally, linguistic scholarship has substantiated American and British English have distinct intonational contours, thus corroborating Williams's insistence the two are not the same language. Furthermore, specific proof the intonation of American English is fairly monotonous and level helps explicate why his late lacks the irruptive, dynamic feel of the early poems, as it intuitively mimics the shape of a neutral statement in the American idiom (Mencken 322-23; Flexner and Soukhanov 118-19). Let's say we accept these five points. The questions still remain: how to sync up the intonational phrase and the triadic line and what practical benefit this correlation may be in discerning the measure's significance to later poets? This utility may be suggested by listening to Williams reading an excerpt from To Daphne and Virginia, which was recorded in 1955 at UC Santa Barbara. At the start of this reading, Williams propounds his notion of the variable foot; he then reads the beginning of this poem three times, as if to illustrate his points, concluding that is not an iambic pentameter:3 While it is difficult to discern differences between these three readings, the level of excitement seems to vary - is, where the first reading is more level or neutral, particularly in the second complete triadic line, the second reading is more expressive. …