[Carolyn Moore]

It’s been a few years since I was active online with other poets. I really miss the online discussions on scansion—especially on the differences in our scanning “ears.” One British poet chided North Americans for how we over-promoted stressed syllables. After a while, we also noticed how East Coast poets (those with cultural roots in the East Coast, N.A.—not those who transplanted from elsewhere) promoted syllables (from unstressed to stress) less than did West Coast North Americans. This was not a scientific study, and it certainly involved an inadequate sample (20-30 of us, about equally split on either side of the pond).

These differences were most apparent when we agreed to scan a given poem (usually a famous one) and compare our individual results. Fisticuffs of the best sort ensued! We simply did not all hear the stresses of key words in the same way, though we usually found allies among those sharing our regional roots. For example, if the word “tedium” appeared early in a line of iambic pentameter, Yanks tended to hear TE-di-UM while Brits tended to hear “TE-di-um.” This wasn’t a hard and fast rule. For instance, if that word ended a line of pentameter, most people fell into the rhythm and, through expectation and anticipation, promoted that last syllable (-um) to a stress, regardless of their geographical origins.

I remember another distinction: compound words (e.g., “threshold,” “childhood,” “mailbox”). The further west of the English Channel you were born and raised, the more likely you were to hear both syllables stressed. I’ve barely touched on the context in which a word appears, an essential factor in scansion. One obvious matter of context: the English-speaking ear (now there’s an oxymoron for you!) is supposed to abhor the “vacuum” of three unstressed syllables in a row. Thus, one of those three syllables gets promoted. Most often this is the middle syllable, even if it is a pipsqueak definite or indefinite article. (Note that I am sketching a trend, not campaigning for a rule in promotion.)

Unhappily, I have lost track of other distinctions we found in the scanning ear, distinctions based on geography. I hope others here will chime in on differences they notice in scansion—whether or not geography is involved.

[Michael Cantor]

Context, context, context. Scansion is not quite slave to context - the stresses and rhythms previously established, and even the meaning of the line - but, particularly in ambiguous cases, it is very much directed by context. Discussing scansion on a purely theoretical basis might be an interesting exercise on a rainy Saturday afternoon, but without putting the discussion within the framework of a specific poem, or specific lines, it's just theory and scorekeeping.

[Rick Mullin]

Discard all scientific studies in this arena! Michael makes sense.

That said, one has to come down on one side or the other on "laboratory."

Yank: LAB ra tor y
Brit: la BOR a tor y

Which side are you on?! I go for the shorter carbon chain of Yank.

RM

[Maryann Corbett]

Here's my favorite thread from Scansion Discussion Memory Lane:

Scan this!

(Hint: Skip to post 15 to find out how it's supposed to scan.)

[Carolyn Moore]

KNEE-JERK ALERT! How unclear was I? I am NOT advocating fixed assumptions about scansion. Did I scrape off an old scab and thus am assumed to be guilty of the original wound? I'm not going in the direction in which someone here assumes I'm headed. Of course scansion is determined by any given context! But I am especially curious about differences in what we English-speakers "hear."

Thanks, Maryann, for the link. Perhaps I'll pick up insights on such differences there.

[Rick Mullin]

Post 15 is making fun of the way I talk.

[Ann Drysdale]

I long ago learned here (and it was Rick who taught me) that the differences should be acknowledged and, where possible, celebrated. Resistance is futile (or fewtle).

I once heard an Americn evangelist who said that we (as a race) express our longing for the almighty with an exhalation of desire - aaah. As in Allaaah, Yaaahweh and - Gaaad. I was surprised and amused to realise that my own short English "o" set me permanently outwith his personal pale.

Slightly off-topic, for which I apologise, but so long as we keep this sort of discussion at the level of delighted discovery, we'll fadge.

[Maryann Corbett]

Carolyn, just in case you haven't played with it yet, here's the site's search page.

If you search the keyword "scansion" in thread titles only, showing results as threads rather than posts, you'll get as your result set a nice assortment of discussions.

We've had many, many bouts of the fisticuffs you refer to. The most interesting ones--the ones relevant to a particular context, poem, word, etc.--aren't here any more, alas, because threads on the workshop boards (as opposed to the discussion boards) are regularly pruned. (I remember the one Ann is talking about )

Don't mind Michael, who tends to dig in his heels against doctrine about scansion. I'm at the opposite extreme; I love theory and linguistics, impractical though they often are.