Charts, Graphs, and Meaning

The present paper reviews a classic work of scholarship on Russian verse, Kiril Taranovsky’s Russian Binary Meters. The analysis demonstrates that the two sections of the book are tacitly at odds with each other, and that the more famous second part (on “regressive accentual dissimilation,” and more generally the evolution of rhythmic patterning in various meters) does not fully take into account the observations of the first part (on accentuation in Russian verse). In particular, two elements are missing from the second part: the role of hypermetrical stress and the relative strength of stresses on strong syllables. Taranovsky recognized these phenomena, but they are nowhere reflected in his statistical data and conclusions, presumably because to take them into account would require an element of subjectivity. Taranovsky and his followers were proud that they could produce verifiable (repeatable) results. However, these results can only be repeated by scholars who agree on the same strict set of rhythmic conventions. The author of this essay argues that these conventions are oversimplifications. By omitting the question of hypermetrical stress, Taranovsky ignores some of the most important and memorable lines of Russian poetry. And by disregarding the question of relative stress, he creates an “acoustical” model of poetry that in no way corresponds to how it is actually recited. The paper ultimately suggests that scholars of verse should be more concerned with poetry as performance and less with the attempts to turn verse rhythm into an exact science

Aesthetics · Art · Dissimilation · Epistemology · Linguistics · Literature · Meaning (existential) · Poetry · Political science · Rhythm · Scholarship · Stress (linguistics) · Subjectivity · History · Law · Linguistics and language evolution · Philosophy

• Essays on Mandel'stam

  Kiril Taranovsky•Essays on Mandel'stam•1976

  Add to list