Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T01:10:06.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Parametric Theory of Poetic Meter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Kristin Hanson  and
Paul Kiparsky
Kristin Hanson*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Paul Kiparsky*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
Kristin Hanson, Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z1 [hanson@unixg.ubc.ca]
Paul Kiparsky, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2150 [kiparsky@csli.Stanford.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a parametric theory of poetic meter which defines a set of formally possible meters based on the prosodic constituents and categories given by universal grammar, and a functional principle that selects an optimal meter for a particular language on the basis of its lexical phonological structure. We support this theory by a detailed analysis of a favored meter in Finnish, a stress-based meter in which syllable count varies in accord with constraints on syllable weight, and show why partially similar meters are likewise favored in English.

Genius ipsius linguae Fennicae, copiosa vocum ponderosissimarum et elegantissimarum varietate superbientis, egregie vatum favet industriae. (H. G. Porthan, Dissertatio de Poesi Fennica, 1778.)

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 287 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, W. Sidney. 1973. Accent and rhythm. Prosodic features of Latin and Greek: A study in theory and reconstruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, Lauri. 1978. Word stress in Finnish. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Chen, M. 1979. Metrical structure: Evidence from Chinese poetry. Linguistic Inquiry 10:371–420.Google Scholar
Chen, M. 1980. The primacy of rhythm in verse. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 8:15–41.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan and Lahiri, Aditi. 1991. The Germanic foot: Metrical coherence in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 22:251–86.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, Colleen M. 1994. The meter of Tohono O'odham songs. Tucson: University of Arizona ms.Google Scholar
Golston, Chris and Riad, Tomas. 1993. Prosodic metrics. Berkeley, CA and Stockholm: University of California and Stockholm University, ms.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris and Keyser, S. J. 1971. English stress: Its form, its growth, and its role in verse. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1984. Constraining metrical theory: A modular theory of rhythm and destressing. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1991. Poetic meter and the arboreal grid. Language 67. 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, Kristin. 1992. Resolution in modern meters. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Hanson, Kristin. 1993. Resolution: evidence from modern English metrics. North Eastern Linguistic Society 23. 159–73.Google Scholar
Hanson, Kristin. 1995. Prosodie constituents in poetic meter. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 13. 62–77.Google Scholar
Hanson, Kristin, and Kiparsky, Paul. 1993. Shakespeare's mixed meter. Vancouver, BC and Stanford, CA: University of British Columbia and Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1981. A metrical theory of stress rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1983. A grid-based theory of English meter. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 357–93.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1984. The phonology of rhythm in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 33–74.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1987. A revised parametric metrical theory. North Eastern Linguistic Society 17. 274–89.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1988. Metrics and phonological theory. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, vol. 2: Linguistic theory: Extensions and implications, ed. by Newmeyer, Frederick J., p. 220–49, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. The prosodie hierarchy in meter. In Kiparsky & Youmans, 201–60.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Herder, Johann Gottfried. 1768. Fragmente. Sprachphilosophische Schriften, ed. by Heintel, Erich, 1960. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1989. Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Linguistics and poetics. Style in language, ed. by Sebeok, Thomas A., 350–77. Cambridge: MIT Press and J. Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1974. Über den tschechischen Vers, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des russischen Verses. Postilla Bohemica 3. (German translation of O c̆es̆skom stixe, Berlin 1923).Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1989. A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1992. Shapes of the generalized trochee. Paper presented at the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Los Angeles, February 21–23.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1993. Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 11. 381–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehrein, Wolfgang. 1992. Lexikalische Phonologie des Finnischen. Theorie des Lexikons: Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs 282, 18. Heinrich Heine Universität, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J., and Kiparsky, Paul. 1984. Syllable structure in Finnish phonology. Language sound structure, ed. by Aronoff, Mark and Oehrle, Richard T., 2–31, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1967. Metrics and morphophonemics in the Kalevala. Studies presented to Roman Jakobson by his students, ed. by Gribble, C., 137–48. Cambridge, MA: Slavica. Reprinted in Linguistics and literary style, ed. by Donald C. Freeman. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. The role of linguistics in a theory of poetry. Daedalus 102:231–44. Reprinted in Essays in modern stylistics, ed by Donald C. Freeman. London and New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1975. Stress, syntax, and meter. Language 51. 576–616.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1977. The rhythmic structure of English verse. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 189–247.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by Yang, I.S., 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1987. On theory and interpretation. The linguistics of writing, ed. by Fabb, Nigel et al., 185–98, New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1989. Sprung rhythm. In Kiparsky & Youmans, 305–40.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1991. Catalexis. Stanford, CA and Berlin: Stanford University and Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, ms.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1993. Blocking in non-derived environments. Lexical Phonology, ed. by Kaisse, Ellen and Hargus, Sharon, 277–313, Orlando: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, and Youmans, Gilbert (eds.) 1989. Phonetics and phonology, vol. 1: Rhythm and meter. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Leino, Pentti. 1982. Kieli, runo ja mitta: Suomen kielen metriikka. Pieksämäki, Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Leino, Pentti. 1986. Language and metre: Metrics and the metrical system of Finnish. Trans. by Chesterman, Andrew from Leino 1982. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 1975. The intonational system of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT, dissertation.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark, and Prince, Alan. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
Manaster-Ramer, Alexis. 1994. Stefan George and phonological theory. Phonology 11. 317–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1986. Lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Penttilä, Aarni. 1957. Suomen kielioppi. Porvoo: WSOY.Google Scholar
Piera, Carlos. 1981. Spanish verse and the theory of meter. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 19–100.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 1989. Metrical forms. In Kiparsky & Youmans, 45–80.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. New Brunswick, NJ and Boulder, CO: Rutgers University and University of Colorado, ms.Google Scholar
Reichard, Claude. 1980. Meter and rhythm in English verse: Towards a musical synthesis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Russom, Geoffrey. 1987. Old English meter and linguistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sadeniemi, Matti. 1949. Metriikkamme perusteet. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Schneider, Elisabeth W. 1968. The dragon in the gate: Studies in the poetry of G. M. Hopkins. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. 1968. Poetic closure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tarlinskaja, Marina. 1993. Strict stress-meter in English poetry. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, John. 1961. The founding of English metre. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van der Hulst, Harry. 1992. The book of stress. Leiden: University of Leiden, ms.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, Ruben. 1995. For the love of trochees. Phonology at Santa Cruz 4. 69–83.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1980. The metrical structure of regulated verse. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 8:107–25.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1984. The development of Chinese verse: A metrical analysis. Language sound structure, ed. by Aronoff, Mark and Oehrle, Richard T., 346–68, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Youmans, Gilbert. 1989. Milton's meter. In Kiparsky & Youmans, 341–79.Google Scholar
1988. Sonority constraints on prosodic structure. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, dissertation.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga, and Inkelas, Sharon. 1991. The place of clitics in the prosodic hierarchy. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 10. 505–20.Google Scholar