论文部分内容阅读
摘 要：In William Empson’s work Seven Types of Ambiguity, he advocated close reading to perceive a particular work. There are two different versions of Mathew Arnold’s Dover Beach, and the changing of word and punctuation in these two versions caused several ambiguities. This article will talk about those ambiguities.
关键词：ambiguity；Dover Beach；word polishing；form differentiation
中图分类号：D523 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1009-0118（2012）-01-0-01
There are two different versions of Matthew Arnold’s Dover Beach. The first one is the published version (version 1), and the second one is the holograph copy of the first 28 lines of Dover Beach in manuscript notes on Empedocles on two loose sheets inserted into Thomas J. Wise’s copy of Arnold’s Empedocles on Etna (version 2).
As a key New Critic in the 1930s, William Empson elaborately used close reading—a reading strategy to analyze ambiguities in linguistic signs. His representative work Seven Types of Ambiguity is composed based on the assumption that “good poetry is usually written from a background of conflict.” The second ambiguity, for instance, deals with ambiguities in different versions of one particular work. Ambiguities between these two versions with the help of the illustration of Empson’s second type of ambiguity will be analyzed.
Ambiguities in “Dover Beach” can be perceived in two ways: First is the ambiguity caused by word polishing; second is the ambiguity caused by form differentiation. The poet’s emotion, as well as readers’ response, will be greatly influenced by these two ambiguities.
Consider ambiguity caused by word polishing. In these two versions several words were changed and corrected by the poet, some of which are between these two versions and some of which lie in version 2. For example: the word “Shines” in version 2 is changed into “Glimmering” in version 1. This leads to the ambiguity of the writer’s emotion. If one understands this poem and knows this poem very well in the traditional way, then one knows that Arnold was trying to bring the reader a peaceful and tranquil seascape. The verb “shine”, compared with “glimmer”, is more motionless. Thus it is in the best way to describe the peaceful seaside. However, if combined with the following stanzas, one knows that under this seemingly peaceful sea great change and chaos are coming. In this light, word “glimmer” best represents the turmoil undercover. In Seven Types of Ambiguity Empson mentioned the ambiguity caused by Heminge’s version and Condell’s version about “Will cheere me ever, or dis-eate me” in Shakespeare’s Macbeth like the one we see in “Dover Beach”. Other ambiguities in reader’s response caused by word polishing in these two versions are “sweet”/ “hush’d” is the night air, “high”/ “steep” strand, ect.
Consider ambiguity caused by form differentiation. In these two versions, form differentiation is conducted in four ways: the change of punctuation, word filling, stanza division and the change of word order. In version 2 many words are followed with a colon. For example, in the third sentence, “Upon the Straits: the cliffs of the light”; in the forth sentence, “Shines & is gone: the cliffs of England”…However, in version 1, these colons are replaced by semi-colons and comma. Also, in version 2 there is a comma following the noun “roar” and no punctuation following “fling”, in version 1 it is the reverse. Compared with colon, comma and semi-colon is more attached to the following sentence. Likewise, comma and no punctuation is also different in expressing fluently the poet’s emotion. This caused the ambiguity in reader’s mind about the degree of emotions. What’s more, in version 1 the verb “stand” lies after “England” while in version 2 “stand” is absented. This absence of “stand” will bring an ambiguity about the status and orientation of the cliff of England. This absence of “stand” will also sap the stress on “cliff”.
In the final analysis, William Empson in his Seven types of Ambiguity wrote that the writer will give reasons for every far-fetched pun for you to accept it. When you accept his reasons (even for the fact that it’s meaningless and plausible), you accept this farfetched pun. He also said at the beginning of this book that a work with rich meaning is on fire. Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach” belongs to this kind.
參考文献：
[1]Brooks,Cleanth.Understanding Poetry.Holt,Rinehart and Winston,1960.
[2]Empson,William.Seven Types of Ambiguity,New York:New Directions,1966.
[3]Perkins,David.A History of Modern Poetry,The Belknap Press of Harvard Press,1987.
[4]蒋洪新.英美诗歌选读[M].湖南师范大学出版社,2004.
关键词：ambiguity；Dover Beach；word polishing；form differentiation
中图分类号：D523 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1009-0118（2012）-01-0-01
There are two different versions of Matthew Arnold’s Dover Beach. The first one is the published version (version 1), and the second one is the holograph copy of the first 28 lines of Dover Beach in manuscript notes on Empedocles on two loose sheets inserted into Thomas J. Wise’s copy of Arnold’s Empedocles on Etna (version 2).
As a key New Critic in the 1930s, William Empson elaborately used close reading—a reading strategy to analyze ambiguities in linguistic signs. His representative work Seven Types of Ambiguity is composed based on the assumption that “good poetry is usually written from a background of conflict.” The second ambiguity, for instance, deals with ambiguities in different versions of one particular work. Ambiguities between these two versions with the help of the illustration of Empson’s second type of ambiguity will be analyzed.
Ambiguities in “Dover Beach” can be perceived in two ways: First is the ambiguity caused by word polishing; second is the ambiguity caused by form differentiation. The poet’s emotion, as well as readers’ response, will be greatly influenced by these two ambiguities.
Consider ambiguity caused by word polishing. In these two versions several words were changed and corrected by the poet, some of which are between these two versions and some of which lie in version 2. For example: the word “Shines” in version 2 is changed into “Glimmering” in version 1. This leads to the ambiguity of the writer’s emotion. If one understands this poem and knows this poem very well in the traditional way, then one knows that Arnold was trying to bring the reader a peaceful and tranquil seascape. The verb “shine”, compared with “glimmer”, is more motionless. Thus it is in the best way to describe the peaceful seaside. However, if combined with the following stanzas, one knows that under this seemingly peaceful sea great change and chaos are coming. In this light, word “glimmer” best represents the turmoil undercover. In Seven Types of Ambiguity Empson mentioned the ambiguity caused by Heminge’s version and Condell’s version about “Will cheere me ever, or dis-eate me” in Shakespeare’s Macbeth like the one we see in “Dover Beach”. Other ambiguities in reader’s response caused by word polishing in these two versions are “sweet”/ “hush’d” is the night air, “high”/ “steep” strand, ect.
Consider ambiguity caused by form differentiation. In these two versions, form differentiation is conducted in four ways: the change of punctuation, word filling, stanza division and the change of word order. In version 2 many words are followed with a colon. For example, in the third sentence, “Upon the Straits: the cliffs of the light”; in the forth sentence, “Shines & is gone: the cliffs of England”…However, in version 1, these colons are replaced by semi-colons and comma. Also, in version 2 there is a comma following the noun “roar” and no punctuation following “fling”, in version 1 it is the reverse. Compared with colon, comma and semi-colon is more attached to the following sentence. Likewise, comma and no punctuation is also different in expressing fluently the poet’s emotion. This caused the ambiguity in reader’s mind about the degree of emotions. What’s more, in version 1 the verb “stand” lies after “England” while in version 2 “stand” is absented. This absence of “stand” will bring an ambiguity about the status and orientation of the cliff of England. This absence of “stand” will also sap the stress on “cliff”.
In the final analysis, William Empson in his Seven types of Ambiguity wrote that the writer will give reasons for every far-fetched pun for you to accept it. When you accept his reasons (even for the fact that it’s meaningless and plausible), you accept this farfetched pun. He also said at the beginning of this book that a work with rich meaning is on fire. Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach” belongs to this kind.
參考文献：
[1]Brooks,Cleanth.Understanding Poetry.Holt,Rinehart and Winston,1960.
[2]Empson,William.Seven Types of Ambiguity,New York:New Directions,1966.
[3]Perkins,David.A History of Modern Poetry,The Belknap Press of Harvard Press,1987.
[4]蒋洪新.英美诗歌选读[M].湖南师范大学出版社,2004.