The Analysis of Compression in Poetry

The Analysis of Compression in Poetry
Author(s): Samuel R. Levin

Source: Foundations of Language , Feb., 1971, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Feb., 1971), pp. 38-55
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25000510
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Foundations of
Language
This content downloaded from

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SAMUEL R. LEVIN
THE ANALYSIS OF COMPRESSION IN POETRY
The problem in the linguistic analysis of poetry lies not so much in how to
analyze it linguistically - although this in itself is by no means obvious; it is
rather in knowing what linguistic structures to analyze. To put the problem
another way, although it is clear that in poetry the language functions so as
to produce a particular, an aesthetic or 'poetic' effect, it is not at all clear in
what way it is deployed so as to produce this effect. Now no linguistic theory,
no grammar, no set of analytic procedures can in themselves tell us what are
the relevant linguistic structures in poetry. A theory or procedure might
lead to a complete linguistic description of a poem, but there is no way that
it can discriminate between 'poetic' and ordinary linguistic structures or -
if we hold that a poem is an integral object - that it can verify its poetic
character. Some wedge is thus necessary for entering the structure of the
poem at those points where the language is being used in its poetic function.
Riffaterre, who recognized the problem early, suggested that it could be cut
into by use of what he called 'the average reader', someone (or a group)
whose raw, spontaneous reactions to a poem would signal to the analyst
those places in the poem where the language had been used 'poetically'
(1959, pp. 162-66). Riffaterre's innovation was of great significance histori
cally and theoretically, but it does not in my opinion constitute an adequate
solution to the problem. Riffaterre's entering wedge is purely behavioristic -
it is the reaction as such that interests him. He insists that it be denatured of
any content that the 'average reader' may endow it with. The response serves
merely to focus the analyst's attention on those places in a poetic text in
which the language may be presumed to be functioning 'poetically'. Although
the procedure represents a significant advance over earlier approaches that
incorporated no explicit way to ensure that the structures being analyzed
were relevant, the analyst provided with the 'average reader's' cues is still in
the position of having to employ some additional means of determining
which of the various possible 'poetic' functions the marked linguistic forms
are performing.
In a recent article (1966, p. 215) Riffaterre has returned to this problem.
He now refers to the cue-source as the 'superreader' and stresses the fact that
the latter is a composite, providing an amalgam of responses to the same
poem; the reponses in the case of les Chats, which Riffaterre analyzes, in
clude those of Baudelaire himself (a correction he made), Gautier (a para
Foundations of Language 7 (1971) 38-55. All rights reserved.

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
THE ANALYSIS OF COMPRESSION IN POETRY 39
phrase of the sonnet), evidence from translations, remarks of critics and

students, footnotes in texts, etc. Any place in the text that occasions a
response from the 'superreader' is tentatively considered a component of the
poetic structure. As before, however, it is the response as such, emptied of
content, that concerns Riffaterre. Using the cues provided by the 'super
reader', Riffaterre performs a full-scale critical analysis on the poem. There
is thus a great gulf separating the two stages of the analysis. Granting that
the responses localize the field of operation, that is all they do - they in no
way direct the scope or character of the analysis - here the critical faculties
of the analyst have full sway and no control is exercised over his personal
interests or predilections.
In my contribution to Mathematik und Dichtung (1965, p. 33), I proposed
that the way out of the impasse lay in recognizing that just as intuitions (lin
guistic competence) guided our analysis of ordinary language so they should
be used to direct our analysis of poetry. I suggested that the stock of in
tuitions that we have about poetry comprised at least the three following:
that poetry is more unified than ordinary language, that it is more com
pressed, and that it is more novel. Other intuitions, say, those of simplicity
and complexity, could be added to this list, and of course more than one of
these intuitions may be prompted by the same poem. In the same volume
Bierwisch (1965, pp. 56ff.) proposed a general scheme for associating with
the grammar of a language a component P whose function would be pre
cisely to register those elements of a poetic text that incorporate the types of
regularity which produce specific effects; further, he claimed that it is the
production and understanding of the structures inducing these effects that
constitute poetic competence.
Obviously, there are problems attendant on adopting and proceeding on
the assumption of a competence for poetry analogous to linguistic compe
tence. While everyone possesses the latter, it is clear that not everyone can
be said to possess the former. More seriously, however, it is not obvious to
what extent intuitive responses would coincide even among those who might
be said to have a competence in poetry. This is an empirical matter which
requires investigation; informal tests, however, have indicated to me that
agreement is in general forthcoming, even if in a number of cases the intuitive
response is not independently offered but is only agreed to when it is men
tioned. This is of course also frequently the case for ordinary language
structures, although the proportion of such latent intuitions may be expected
to be larger for poetry.
Assuming the existence and availability of poetic competence, it seems to
me that entering the poem by its means has advantages over Riffaterre's
purely behavioristic mode of entry. Not only does it focus the analyst's

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
40 SAMUEL R. LEVIN
attention on the critical structure points of the poe

kind of structures to expect at those points or,
since the responses may be to global as well as to
Moreover, although the approach from intuition
less rigorous than that from behavior, in the fin
restrictive. It is not a basis for a wide-ranging an
theme, historical considerations, and so on. Theoreti
to just those linguistic properties in a poem that indu
To be sure, there is more to poetry than just un
etc.; at the same time, however, these are poeti
fundamental kind. If their presence in a poem
systematic fashion, one will have gone a considerabl
the peculiar character of poetry. Moreover, with th
as a base, subsequent criticism of a particular p
more solid foundation.'
The linguistic structures found to correlate wit
competence will usually, if not indeed always, be str
to the range covered by the grammar. This is of cou
that the responses are from poetic not from ling
not follow from this, however, that the gramm
scribing 'poetic' linguistic structures. To explain
example - since this turns out frequently to inv
semantic features in lexical items distributed ov
spans - some kind of realignment of lexical categ
Halliday, 1964, p. 303). At other times, as in the c
which are linguistic correlatives of the response of n
grammar marks them as such is its significant func
of the grammar, involving the operation of deletion
grammar considered in the present study.
In this paper two short poems by Emily Dickin
my intuitive responses to both poems is that th
intuition has a presystematic validity. The attempt
the linguistic structure of these poems involves
(nonrecoverable deletions) and that it is precisely th
to induce a sense of and hence a response of com
analysis is to confirm the intuition by a systematic
1 In my view it is those linguistic properties in a poem

unity, novelty, compression, etc. that go to make up poetic
view of poetic form are of course also the conventions - rhy
conduce to the responses in question. When seen in this wa
is so fundamental to poetry. On this view it is the conten
phrased of it, that is superficial; all the rest is form.

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
Before proceeding to the poems, it is necessary to say a few words about

deletion and its role in grammatical analysis. In Katz and Postal (1964, pp.
79-81) the principle was stated that only those deletion transformations
should be permitted in a grammar which result in unique distortions of a
Phrase Marker - in other words, only such deletions as are recoverable
given the resulting P-marker and a description of the transformation in
volved. Katz and Postal then defined three types of formal conditions under
which recoverability of deleted elements is possible and hence where deletion
is permissible: (a) if the deleted element is one actually mentioned in the
structure index of the transformation; (b) if the deleted element is strongly
identical with another element in the same P-marker; and (c) if the deleted
element is dominated in its underlying P-marker by the constituent Pro.
Omitting details and simplifying, (a) is instanced in the Imperative trans
formation, where you is mentioned in the structure index, (b) is instanced in
reflexive and relative clause transformations, and (c) is instanced in sentences
like John is reading, where in the underlying P-marker the NP following
the verb is expanded as Pro, this in turn is realized as something, and the
latter is subsequently deleted. (Cf. Chomsky, 1964, p. 931; 1965, pp. 144-45
for additional discussion.)
There is a good deal of syntactic evidence and a number of theoretical
reasons for including in the general linguistic theory the constraint that only
recoverable deletions be permitted in the grammar (see the references cited
in the preceding paragraph). For purposes of the present study, however,
what is of primary relevance is the semantic argument for restricting deletions
to only such as are recoverable. This argument may be stated as follows: The
grammar and the speaker must coincide in their ability to interpret sentences.
In sentences of the type (a-c) discussed above, the speaker imposes unique
interpretations, where these interpretations presume knowledge of the
deleted items. If these deleted items were not available to the semantic
component - i.e., if they were not present in the underlying structures - then
the speaker would 'know' more than the grammar. On the other hand, if an
element were to be deleted from an underlying structure, and if the result of
the deletion were to make the sentence unintelligible, then the grammar
would 'know' more than the speaker - since the sentence would receive an
interpretation from the grammar. Constraining the grammar to the use of
only recoverable deletions prevents disparity in either direction: if the
deleted element is recoverable by the speaker, it is available to the grammar,
and if it is available to the grammar, it is recoverable by the speaker.
As has been suggested earlier, the use of linguistics to find structures
correlating with the various intuitive responses to poetry must yield linguistic
structures that are in some sense peculiar to poetry. Only in this way can the

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
42 SAMUEL R. LEVIN
structures be held to provide explanations for suc

poetry as that it is unified, novel, compressed, etc. Fo
be poetry-specific. Thus, in explicating the response o
be of no significance to show that a comparison l
Jack' or a conjunction like 'Jon and Jack enjoyed
from fuller underlying forms, since reductions
ical of ordinary prose where they evoke no sense w
Similarly, constructions like 'I know the man you
deletion of an underlying relative pronoun or
for work', with deletion of a pronoun and be
since reductions of this kind are typical of a sty
which provokes no particular response. In order f
to be explanatory of a 'poetic' response of compr
structures that are either specific to poetry or s
properties which render them unusual in terms of
to the rules of the grammar.
The following poem by Emily Dickinson induces,
response of compression:
When Etna basks and purrs,
Naples is more afraid
Than when she shows her Garnet Tooth;
Security is loud.
The first three lines of this poem involve a comp

poses two predicates - basks and purrs - in the first c
second - shows her Garnet Tooth. There is somethi
however, which forces us to supply a fourth term
symmetrical. To see why this is so, consider the follo
A
1. I would rather be handsome and rich than intelli
2. I like a woman who is quiet and distant rather t
pretty.
3. Jon prefers his wife to be upstairs sewing than to be smoking.
4. Jon is more pleased at a party where people yell and run around
than where they drink.
B
1. I would rather be handsome and rich than ugly (or po
2. I like a woman who is quiet and distant rather than
noisy (or forward).

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
3. Jon prefers his wife to be upstairs sewing than to be downstairs

(or to be cooking).
4. Jon is more pleased at a party where people yell and run around
than where they whisper (or sit still).
While the (A) sentences are perfectly all right, there is something oddly
unsatisfactory about those of (B). If we look at (B) more carefully we notice
that the latter comparisons, unlike those of (A), oppose terms that are
either antonyms of each other or that represent different degrees along a
graded semantic dimension. It appears that when this is the case we expect
the second term of the first clause also to be opposed by a term in the
second clause. Failure to supply the other term leaves the construction
'unsaturated' as it were. And of course our linguistic intuition tells us that the
term to be supplied should also stand in an antonymous or graded relation
to its opposite member. Thus, of the following four sentences (5, 7) are
satisfactory whereas (6, 8) are somewhat odd:
5. I would rather be tall and handsome than short and ugly.

6. I would rather be tall and handsome than short and famous.
7. I like a woman who is quiet and distant rather than one who is
noisy and forward.
8. I like a woman who is quiet and distant rather than one who
is noisy and extravagant.
As mentioned earlier, the terms figuring in the comparison in the poem are
basks and purrs in line 1 and shows her Garnet Tooth in line 3. The relevant
semantic features are these: basks [- Actional, + Contented], purrs [ + Con
tented, +Sound], shows her Garnet Tooth [+Actional, -Contented].2
Because the comparison is a contrastive not an equative one (more...than,
not as...as), it may be assumed that shows her Garnet Tooth is opposed to
basks (not purrs). This follows because shows her Garnet Tooth and basks
differ in specifications for the same features and because the feature [Sound]
is immaterial to shows her Garnet Tooth and the feature [Actional] is imma
terial to purrs.3 If we take into account the fact that shows her Garnet Tooth
2 The features [Contented] and [Sound] may in fact be such that they should be specified
by integers - as being hierarchical - rather than binarily.
3 A priori, other selections could be made from the full array of semantic features
characterizing these lexical items; in particular, it would be possible to so select the
features that shows her Garnet Tooth would be opposed to purrs not to basks. But of
course, at some stage in the analysis of a poem we must leave the a priori possibilities
and make those decisions that are motivated by one's sense of the meaning of the
poem. It thus would not be very significant to point out that if we supply basks with a
different complex of features shows her Garnet Tooth would be opposed to purrs unless
this decision led to a more satisfactory interpretation of the poem.

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
44 SAMUEL R. LEVIN
is a metaphor for a volcanic eruption, we may assu

basks are opposed in that the latter signifies or con
warmth against the former's active agent of heat.
implicit in such comparisons is to be actually realiz
need to add a term that stands in the same relatio
Garnet Tooth does to basks, i.e. an antonym or a t
relation increasing on the semantic dimension. Hiss, g
themselves, but given the context roar seems mos
stand then ... shows her Garnet Tooth and roars. N
guistic argument already given, the further motivatio
that something is needed to underly and explain loud
not concerned here with why Emily Dickinson though
loudness; we are simply concerned to show that som
be recovered from the poem and, more particularly
of this expression that accounts in part for the sense
poem induces. That the type of omission represent
ordinary linguistic type and thus is properly held
poetry may be appreciated when it is recognized th
is nonrecoverable according to the conditions discu
The last line of the poem passes a judgment on th
comparison. Since the judgment is that security is
the opposition purrs/roars, as these are the two o
comparison that bear the feature [+Sound]. Now
judgment confers approval on roars, it at the same
disapproval on purrs. This implicit disapproval, if
poem, would make the last line Security is loud, n
evidence that this analysis is correct consider the foll
9. When her husband is lively and boister

cerned than when he sits around and reads;
husband to be active.
11. If a man spends his time in study and reflec
tunate than one who runs after women; 12.
sists in intellectual things.
13. It is better to read a book that deals with
one that recounts an adventure or relates g
should enlarge the mind.
Because comments like (10), (12), and (14) refer to

preceding comparison, there is the implication
comment in these sentences, one which would bear on
comparison. Thus, the explicit forms of (10), (12),

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
thing like those of (15), (16), and (17), respectively:
15. She prefers her husband to be active rather than sedentary.

16. True happiness consists in intellectual things, not those of the
flesh.
17. Reading should enlarge the mind, not provide an escape.
The omission of the second comment in such sentences imparts a com

pressed, sententious quality to the sentences (as in (10), (12), and (14)). It
cannot be claimed that in this case the omission of the implicit expression
leads to a construction that is specific to poetry, but I think one can say that
when sentences like (10), (12), and (14) appear in ordinary discourse that
discourse is rendered less prosaic by their appearance. Another factor leading
to the sense of compression in the poem, then, is the suppression of the phrase
not soft in the last line. Like the omission of roars in line 3, this omission is
also nonrecoverable by the conditions discussed above and is therefore to
be regarded as a structure characteristic of (if not specific to) poetry.
The comparison in the poem is embedded in the sentence Naples is ...
afraid. Although the poem does not make it explicit, this entire structure,
including the comparison, is a result clause dependent on the causal clause
Security is loud. The structure of the poem is roughly as in Figure 1. Or
dinarily, the C., appearing at the leftmost node of Figure 1, would be
realized, as a subordinating conjunction and shifted out before the rightmost
sentence. Thus we should expect the underlying structure to yield something
for the last line like Because (or perhaps as, or since, orfor) security is loud.
ca$s
NP VP
~~~~V ~ NP S
Comp S Adj NP VP
Naples is more...than when Etna

basks and purrs her Garnet
Fig. 1.

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
46 SAMUEL R. LEVIN
Such a reading would make explicit the logical re

main clauses of the poem. Omission of the subord
however, a further factor leading to the poem's sen
over, deletion of the conjunction is also not recove
ability of deletion depends on the deleted item bein
given the rest of the structure from which it ha
apparently not true of subordinating conjunctions.
plified version of the problem, the structure underly
18. Jon is happy because he found a dollar.
would be that of Figure 2, in which C, would be r
Jon is happy Jon found a dollar

Fig. 2.
shifted out between the S's. We might thus assume that in a sentence like
(19) because has been deleted:
19. Jon is happy; he found a dollar.
But this assumption would be incorrect, since it is not necessarily true that
(18) and (19) are synonymous. Thus, (19) might in fact mean that Jon is
happy since he found a dollar or that he is happy although he found a dollar.
In a case like that of (20), below, the ambiguity of such expressions is made
even clearer:
20. Jon is happy; he has been working hard.
This can mean that Jon is happy because he has been working hard ... since
he has been working hard or ... although (or even though) he has been
working hard. What the preceding discussion seems to show is that in con
structions like those represented in Figures 1 and 2 there is no way to select
any conjunction or other form to serve as a category representative of C, so
as to make its deletion recoverable. A Pro-form is thus ruled out because,
inasmuch as it could have no unique realization, there is no way to assign
to it a fixed semantic interpretation.

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
Before leaving this poem it might be worthwhile pointing to a few other

characteristics which, while not necessarily relevant to its sense of compres
sion, nevertheless function so as to make it in some sense more compact,
more loaded. Etna and Naples are of course place names. In the poem,
however, they become charged with other meanings. Thus, in the first line
the predicate purrs imposes on Etna the semantic feature specifications
[+Animate, + Feline]. In the second line afraid imposes the specification
[+Animate] on Naples. The she and her of line 3 show that Etna is more
over to be regarded as [-Masculine]. Etna thus having been specified as
[+Animate, -Masculine, +Feline], Garnet Tooth is interpreted as be
longing to a cat, probably of a larger species. It is because Naples is [ +Ani
mate] that it is susceptible to the activities of Etna (a lion), but what is more
important is that it is this same animateness that makes it possible for Naples
to be affected (made secure) by loudness. The poem thus fuses in a metaphor
a volcano and a lion and their effect on a place and an animate being.
We will now examine another poem by Emily Dickinson, a poet a good deal
of whose work induces the response of compression:
After great pain a formal feeling comes -

The nerves sit ceremonious like tombs;
The stiff heart questions - was it He that bore?
And yesterday - or centuries before?
The feet mechanical

Go round a wooden way
Of ground or air or Ought, regardless grown,
A quartz contentment like a stone.
This is the hour of lead

Remembered if outlived,
As freezing persons recollect the snow -
First chill, then stupor, then the letting go.
In the underlying structure of the poem we can reconstruct a conjunctional

or phrasal connective between the first and second and the second and
third lines. There is no way to determine exactly what the connective might
be, however. It might be two occurrences of and; it might be two occurrences
of during which; it might be as a part of which after comes and then after
tombs. There are other possibilities. The fact that we cannot be sure what
the connectives are in the deep structure shows that they are not recoverable.
That the sentences are implicitly connected is obvious from the semantic
development of the lines.

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
48 SAMUEL R. LEVIN
We come now to the second half of line 3 - was

question arises, "bore what?". In fact, we can pro
question. Thus, as Katz and Postal have pointed ou
derivation of a sentence like
21. John is reading

the underlying phrase marker would contain an inst
and this NP would be expanded as the element Pr
realized as something or it. As they point out, some s
be posited in order to explain the fact that a senten
ambiguous; it does not mean 'John is reading
tombstone, etc.'. Hence it cannot be the case that
sequences was deleted from the structure underlyin
positing of the Pro-form in the underlying stru
semantic interpretation of (21) in that the selectiona
case) read are transferred as semantic markers to th
Moreover, the conventions on deletion are such th
are recoverable. Now in the case of was it He th
interrogative form) we have a case like that of (21).
the Pro-form it in the underlying structure after b
mation of the readings for it and bore, it will h
'suffering', 'burden', etc. and where the deletion
fore cannot point to this deletion as contributin
compression.
There is, however, also a nonrecoverable deletion implicit in Was it He
that bore?. Our first impulse might be to interpret the line as being a reduced
form of (22):
22. Was it He that bore or not was it He that bore
that is, analogous to a sentence like (23):

23. Was John reading
which would be reduced from
24. Was John reading or not was John reading
so that (22) would have an underlying structure something like that given in
Figure 3 (cf. Katz and Postal, 1964, p. 104). To this structure we might apply
the transformation
T1 (copy del.): # +Q, Z, or, Si, not, Sj, X=1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 0, 7

1 2345 67
where Si =Sj.

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
Applying T1 to the Phrase Marker in Figure 3 and further obligatory

Question and other transformations would yield
25. was it He that bore or not
which could be further reduced to
26. was it He that bore
Q wh either or it was He He bore not it was He He bore

Fig. 3.
Now if the preceding actually represents the derivation of (26), then the
form (25) and ultimately the form represented in Figure 3 would be recover
able by the conventions on deletion-recovery: the phrase or not would be
represented as such in the structure index of the transformation yielding (26)
and would thus be recoverable, and the entire structure labeled Sj in the
Phrase Marker of Figure 3 would also be recoverable since it is identical to
Si, which is also mentioned in the structure index of T1. But (26) actually
comprises a structure of a different sort. It is in fact a reduced form of (27):
27. was it He that bore or was it x that bore
where x is not coreferential; i.e. # He.

Unlike (25), which requires a yes or no answer, the answer required by
(27) is that of either the antecedent or some non-coreferential value for x.
Since x in (27) is not identical to He, the identity that made possible recovery
of the deletion in T1 when applied to the structure represented in Figure 3
does not obtain. In the context of the poem the x of (27) is in fact to be
replaced by the personal pronoun I. This means that the structure underlying
(27) is the same as that given in Figure 3 except that the second two occur

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
50 SAMUEL R. LEVIN
rences of He are replaced by I. And with this under

requires identity of Si and Sj, is inapplicable. In the
the sentence after or is deleted, it is not possible to
conventions discussed earlier. The last half of line 3
may legitimately be offered as a structure cond
compression.
Evidence for the fact that the deleted portion in the underlying form of
(26) contains the pronoun I comes from a consideration of line 4 and the
first half of line 3. The fact that a heart (a synecdoche) which is stiff (from
pain) asks the question implies that the questioner also has a claim to having
borne. It is not a question of whether He has borne all the pain; only
whether He has shared it. The fourth line is extremely elliptical, but it is
nevertheless informative. Restoration of a fuller form would yield some
thing like the following:
28. And if it was He that bore (the pain), did He bear it yesterday -
or centuries before
Since the event that caused the pain and that forms the basis for the poem
took place in the recent past, perhaps yesterday, the poet must have expe
rienced it. (28) therefore implies something like
29. And if it was in fact He that bore the pain, did He bear it
yesterday, when I did, or did He bear it centuries before, and if
so did that relieve me of my burden of pain
Without going into the details, which would be quite complex, it is clear
that line 4 is drastically reduced from a much fuller underlying structure and
that, moreover, at least some of the deletions applied in arriving at it are
nonrecoverable. This line thus also contributes to the poem's sense of
compression.
In stanza 2 the significant line is 4. It is true that in line 1 and the second
part of 3 we have reductions concerning which a case could be made for
nonrecoverable deletions, but we will not take these matters up in detail
here.4 Turning to line 4 we see that the connection between it and the rest
4 In both cases the structure of the Auxiliary is such that features of Tense and Aspect are
technically nonrecoverable. In the first line the picture is further complicated by an un
certainty over whether mechanical is to be interpreted as an adverb or an adjective. One
reason for not making any claim about compression on the basis of these nonrecoverable
deletions is that perceptually it is rather clear what must appear in the closely underlying
structure. On the question of the nonrecoverability of Auxiliary elements, cf. Emmon
Bach, 'Nouns and Noun Phrases', in Universals in Linguistic Theory (ed. by Emmon Bach
and Robert T. Harms), New York, 1968, p. 99, where he points out that the tense and
modality of be are not recoverable under such deletions.

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
of the stanza is one which cannot be exactly reconstructed. Line 4 represents

some kind of comment on the three preceding lines; it is a description of the
physical and perhaps mental state accompanying the activity expressed in
the preceding three lines. The implicit connective is thus something like
30. There is in all this...

or
31. During this time one is experiencing (or... one feels)...

or
32. One could characterize this condition as resembling...
There are of course many other possibilities. In the present case it is p

not to the point to speak of recoverability of deletion in the normal s
that notion, since that question as it has been discussed in the l
literature is concerned only with deletions from a single phrase mark
is, the conditions on recoverability are defined on single phrase
(although the deletion transformation naturally involves the deriv
marker as well). In the present instance the conditions on deletion wou
to be defined on two underlying phrase markers, that of line 4 a
underlying lines 1-3. Very little work has yet been done on deletion w
conditions are defined on more than one underlying phrase marker (a
is not a question here of successive phrase markers in the same de
It is possible that some deletions involving separate underlying
markers will turn out to be recoverable, perhaps even in the area
tives. But be that as it may, what has been deleted between lines 3
stanza 2 is unrecoverable.
In stanza 3 lines 2 and 4 bear discussion. Underlying the secon
something like
33. It (or which) is remembered if it is outlived
From this sentence (or, rather, the structure that underlies it) it
possible to recover deletion of the anaphoric pronouns, since they
repetitions of identical noun phrases (in this case 'the hour of lead'). A
form of be, we have the same problem alluded to in footnote 4. U
line 4 is something like
34. First they recollect Det chill, then they recollect Det stupo
they recollect the letting go
In the case of (34) similarly, it should be possible to develop con

defined on separate but adjacent phrase markers such that de
repeated items would be recoverable. Thus, the repetitions of rec
the occurrences of they (which replaces persons) should be reco

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
52 SAMUEL R. LEVIN
There appears to be no way, however, of knowin

Determiners in the underlying sentence (it might be
In the case of the Determiners, then, we have a n
which contributes to the poem's sense of compress
It is interesting to compare the character of the d
poems with that in a passage by D. H. Lawrence.
Richard Ohmann has discussed to show how analy
involved in a sentence's (or text's) derivational hi
as to a writer's style (1964, pp. 437-38). The passag
American Literature) follows:
The renegade hates life itself. He wants t

these many "reformers" and "idealists" wh
in America. They are death-birds, life-haters
We can't go back. And Melville couldn't. M
civilized humanity he knew. He couldn't g
He wanted to. He tried to. And he couldn't
Because in the first place, it made him sick.
The passage is used by Ohmann to illustrate Lawr

[which] is the use of truncated sentences, which hav
of deletion transformations". Replacing delete
constructs the passage as follows:
The renegade hates life itself. He wants the d

many "reformers" and "idealists" who g
America [want the death of life]. They ar
are] life-haters. [They are] renegades.
We can't go back. And Melville couldn't
couldn't go back, as] much as he hated the
knew. He couldn't go back to the savag
back to the savages]. He tried to [go back t
couldn't [go back to the savages].
[He couldn't go back to the savages] because,
it made him sick [to go back to the savages].
If we look at the deleted portions, we see that they

sort that repeat stretches elsewhere in the passa
recoverable.5 We should thus expect that the dif
between the recoverable deletion characteristic of
the unrecoverable type characterizing the Dic
5 Some extension of the conventions on deletion would b
where the identity obtains between stretches of discourse r

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
reflected somehow in the way we interpret these texts. This is, in fact, the
case. With the Lawrence passage, supplying the deleted portions adds
nothing to our previous understanding of the actual passage's content; this
is a corollary of the fact that the deletions are all recoverable. In the Dickin
son case, however, supplying what has been deleted does add something to
our understanding of the content; in fact, the deleted portions constitute part
of that content. We do not understand the poems without conjuring up the
deleted portions. We could, in fact, say that the response of compression is
just the inchoative sense of lost or missing content.
From what has been said above, it would appear that our response to the
Dickinson and Lawrence selections should be different. It seems to me that
they are. Ohmann says that the Lawrence book has an "especially brusque,
emphatic style". Referring to the passage analyzed, he says that one feels
a sense of "driving insistency" on reading it. None of these terms would be
used, I think, in describing the effect produced by the Dickinson poems. The
terms would be, rather, such as "pithy", "concentrated", "condensed",
"loaded", "compressed". I have selected the latter to characterize our
intuitive response to these (and similar) poems. To characterize our response
to writing like the Lawrence we might use Ohmann's term 'insistency'.6 As
we have seen, the two responses, that of'insistency' and of 'compression', are
stimulated by two different types of linguistic structure. One structure in
volves recoverable, the other nonrecoverable deletion. These two types of
linguistic structure entail different interpretive strategies. In one ('Insistency')
we simply register the fact that certain linguistic elements that are present in
the deep structure are dropped, inasmuch as they are redundant in the domain
of the interpretation. In the other ('Compression') certain linguistic elements
that are absent from the deep structure are supplied, inasmuch as they are
essential in the domain of the interpretation.
In discussing the two poems of Emily Dickinson in this paper, we have
focussed on only one of their aspects, that of compression, and we have
employed only one principle, that of nonrecoverable deletion, in the attempt
to explain that aspect. It goes without saying that other aspects of the
poems are worth discussing. What is not so clear is whether principles other
than that of nonrecoverable deletion could also be employed in the attempt
to explain the sense of compression that the poems evoke. It might be
possible to make a more general case for the role that simile plays (in these
6 The difference between the Lawrence passage and the sentences mentioned at the
beginning of this chapter, like 'Jon and Jack enjoyed the play', is that there is a relatively
great number of deletions in the former, and that they involve a carrying over of the
identical portions across sentence boundaries. It is for this reason that, unlike ordinary
shortened sentences, they produce a rhetorical or stylistic effect.

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
54 SAMUEL R. LEVIN
and other poems) in contributing to the sense of c

addition to the syntactic reduction implicit in some ty
also investigate its lexical properties. There might b
compacting about certain types of comparison, those th
objects or properties, for example.
One question that the discussion in this paper brings
connection is between the conventions governing d
tual ability to reconstruct reduced grammatical for
this question, as with many other questions of this typ
linguistic ability is in general more extensive than what
of grammatical analysis at any given time.7 Particu
manifested when we consider that our interpretive s
to exercise within the bounds of the sentence, b
exercise them across sentence boundaries, throughou
In the course of the exercise of our interpretive facult
and semantic connections, and we also deduce logical
Both these activities, we notice, involve the reconstruc
while absent from the surface form of the text, is imp
structure. Since we are here concerned to explicate
tences, many problems of this type are raised, prob
extensive additional analysis and formalization bef
upon them. The preceding considerations raise the furt
extent would the claims made in this paper about co
claims depend upon showing that certain deletions
erable, to what extent would these claims be vitiated
should be developed which would make some or all
nically recoverable. My own feeling (more an article of
advances should be made along these lines, there w
which will be reflected in poetry's presenting struc
involve nonrecoverable deletions - even if of fewer ty
also prove to be the case that the conventions new
more deletions recoverable may be, in some techni
cated, perhaps as involving wider semantic conside
latter, more complex types of conventions on reco
poetic deletions, in which case, of course, they coul
compression.
Hunter College, New York
7 This is not to deny that a given analysis may reveal something to us which we were not
consciously aware of previously or, even more to the point, that a theoretical viewpoint may
force knowledge on our attention that we were not even unconsciously aware of.

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC
REFERENCES
Bach, E.: 1968, 'Nouns and Noun Phrases', in E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals in
Linguistic Theory, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 90-122.
Bierwisch, M.: 1965, 'Poetik und Linguistik', in H. Kreuzer and R. Gunzenhauser (eds.),
Mathematik und Dichtung, Nymphenburger Verlagsbuchhandlung, Munich, pp. 49-65.
Chomsky, N.: 1964, 'The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory', in H. G. Lunt (ed.), Proceed
ings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 914-78.
Chomsky, N.: 1965, Aspects of the Theory ofSyntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Halliday, M. A. K.: 1964, 'The Linguistic Study of Literary Texts', in H. G. Lunt (ed.),
Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Mouton, The Hague, pp.
302-07.
Katz, J. J. and Postal, P. M.: 1964, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Levin, S. R.: 1965, 'Statistische und determinierte Abweichung in poetischer Sprache', in
H. Kreuzer and R. Gunzenhauser, (eds.), Mathematik und Dichtung, Nymphenburger
Verlagsbuchhandlung, Munich, pp. 33-47.
Ohmann, R.: 1964, 'Generative Grammars and the Concept of Literary Style', Word 20,
423-39.
Riffaterre, M.: 1959, 'Criteria for Style Analysis', Word 15, 154-74.
Riffaterre, M.: 1966, 'Describing Poetic Structures: Two Approaches to Baudelaire's les
Chats', Yale French Studies 36-37, 200-42.

193.50.45.191 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:36:09 UTC

The Analysis of Compression in Poetry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Analysis of Compression in Poetry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Analysis of Compression in Poetry

Author(s): Samuel R. Levin

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25000510

This content downloaded from