Children of The New Poetry

2020 ◽  
pp. 199-206
Author(s):  
William Wootten
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Penguin Book ◽  
Paul Muldoon ◽  
Sense Of Purpose

This chapter argues that the offsprings of The New Poetry have neither the nerve nor nous to have both the fierce partiality and the representativeness of Alvarez. Its Penguin successor, Blake Morrison and Andrew Motion's Penguin Book of Contemporary British Verse, was ultimately a consolidation of a dominant taste more than an argument for a fresh one. The oft-stated complaint about the younger poets championed in their book is that their work was merely a continuation of the Movement by flashier device, but in truth a number of them are better seen as children of The New Poetry. Bloodaxe, a specialist poetry house, has for the last two decades taken upon itself to publish generation-defining anthologies. Its own The New Poetry borrowed Alvarez's title, if not his sense of purpose, but drew heavily on the format and ethos of Edward Lucie-Smith, if not his evaluative sense. The editors assembled work which often showed the influence of Paul Muldoon as well as the New York Poets, whose sense of play, even of fun, is much more clearly at odds with the spirits of Alvarez and of Conquest than are the influences of the Motion/Morison book.

Paul Muldoon

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Karhio
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
21St Century ◽  
English Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Commitment ◽  
Late 20Th Century ◽  
Paul Muldoon ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
Irish Poetry

Paul Muldoon was born in Portadown, Northern Ireland, in 1951 and spent his childhood in the village of Moy at the border of County Armagh and County Tyrone—a setting for several of his poems. He studied at Queen’s University Belfast and published his first collections of poetry in the early 1970s. At the time of the publication of his first volumes, Muldoon famously enjoyed the mentorship of Seamus Heaney, and this biographical and literary connection has been a constant reference point in criticism, to an extent that other significant literary exchanges and influences initially remained underexplored. After working for the BBC in Belfast until the mid-1980s, Muldoon moved to the United States in 1987. Now a US citizen, he currently lives in New York and works at Princeton University, where he holds the Howard G. B. Clark ’21 chair in the humanities. Muldoon has published twenty-two major collections of poetry, nineteen chapbooks and interim collections, two volumes of critical essays, three opera libretti, song lyrics, translations, and children’s literature. He has been repeatedly characterized as a shapeshifting figure, whose work simultaneously reaffirms and undermines preheld conceptions of what we mean by “Irish poetry.” Thus, to propose that his idiosyncratic style and the remarkable complexity of his verse resists critical categorization is a case of stating the obvious. A reverse claim, however, might be more appropriate: that his writing embraces such a variety of categories that attempts at classification lose their purpose. Muldoon’s densely referential writing and his technical mastery of poetic language are matched by few poets of his generation, and the issue of how successfully his undeniable dexterity translates into poetic efficacy has been a persistent tendency in his critical reception. Muldoon has been, in turns, praised for his unrivaled skill and technical virtuosity or accused of his poetry’s evasiveness, perceived as a lack of social or political commitment. Yet, few would question that his verse has a place in any overview of modern Irish writing, modern English-language poetry, or experimental 20th- and 21st-century poetics. In the early 21st century, Muldoon’s perceived obliquity, or his distaste for direct political engagement with the crises of late-20th-century Northern Ireland, has made way to a more outspoken approach, in poetry as well as in public life. His work has been highly critical of the US invasion of Iraq, for example, and also tackled problematic aspects of Irish culture and history in an increasingly direct manner.

Leadership

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herman T. Salton
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Sense Of Purpose ◽  
Political Roles ◽  
Complex Emergency ◽  
Kofi Annan

This chapter reviews the ways in which several top UN officials handled the Rwanda crisis: Kofi Annan and Iqbal Riza in DPKO, James Jonah and Marrack Goulding in DPA, Jacques-Roger Booh Booh and Roméo Dallaire in UNAMIR, and Madeleine Albright and Ibrahim Gambari in the Security Council. What were their approaches to UNAMIR and to peacekeeping? How did they cope with the Rwanda events, with the distinction between ‘technical’ and ‘political’ roles established by Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, and with the blurring of functions in both New York and Kigali? And can we speak of leadership at all in relation to them—did these officials have a vision and a sense of purpose, or were they simply bureaucrats handling a complex emergency?

Іллокуція англомовного дискурсу виправдання (на прикладі творів сучасної художньої англійської та американської прози)

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-81
Author(s):  
Тетяна Мірончук ◽  
Наталія Одарчук
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
New Delhi ◽  
Frankfurt Am Main ◽  
Penguin Book ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
Oxford University Press

У статті досліджується актоіллокутивний потенціал англійського побутового дискурсу виправдання шляхом зіставлення іллокутивних характеристик частотних у дискурсі виправдання мовленнєвих актів. Спираючись на змодельовані конструкти змісту виправдання, дифенсивну інтенцію мовця визначено передумовою породження дискурсу виправдання.  У результаті вивчення наявних у науковій літературі класифікацій мовленнєвих актів визначено, що домінантна іллокутивна сила дискурсу виправдання включає складові інформування та переконування, що типово представлено констативом та асертивом. Власне мовленнєвий акт виправдання визначено як кредитив з включеною перлокуцією винесення виправдального вердикту, яким регулюється міжсуб’єктна взаємодія. Література References Вендлер З. Причинные отношения // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. – Вып. 18:Логический анализ естественного языка. – М.: Прогресс, 1986. – С. 264–277.Vendler, Z. (1986). Prichinnije otnoshenija [Causal Relations]. In: New in World Linguistics,(pp. 264-277), Issue 18: Study in Logic of Natural Language. Moscow: Progress. Вендлер З. Факты в языке // Философия, логика, язык. – М.: Прогресс, 1987. – С. 293–318.Vendler, Z. (1987). Fakti v jazike [Facts in Language], (pp. 293-318). In: Phylosophy, Logic,Language. Moscow: Progress. Йоргенсен, Марианне В., Филлипс Луиза Дж. (2008). Дискурс-анализ. Теория и метод.Xарьков: Гуманитарный Центр [Humanitarian Centre].Jorgensen, M & Phillips, Louise. (2002). [Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method]. –London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi. Карабан В. И. Сложные речевые единицы: прагматика английских асиндетическихполипредикативных образований: [монография] / Карабан В. И. – К.: Вища школа, 1989.Karaban, V. I. (1989). Slozhnije rechevije jedinitsi: pragmatika anglijskikh asindeticheskikhpolipredikativnikh obrazovanii [Complex Speech Acts: Pragmatics of English AsyndeticPolypredicative Formations]. Kyiv: Vyshcha Shkola. Остин Дж. Слово как действие // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. – Вып. 17: ТРА. – М. :Прогресс, 1986. – С. 22–129.Austin, J. (1986). Slovo kak deistvije [Word as Action] In: New in World Linguistics, (pp. 22–129), Issue 17: Speech Acts Theory. M.: Progress. Хилпинен Р. Семантика императивов и деонтическая логика // Новое в зарубежнойлингвистике. – Вып. 18: Логический анализ естественного языка. – М. : Прогресс, 1986. –С. 300–318.Hilpinen, R. (1986). Semantica imperativov i deonticheskaja logica [Semantics of Imperativesand Deontic Logic]. In: New in World Linguistics, (pp. 300–318), Issue 18: Study in Logic ofNatural Language. Moscow: Progress. Шевченко І. С. Дискурс як мисленнєво-комунікативна діяльність / І. С. Шевченко,О. І. Морозова // Дискурс як когнітивно-комунікативний феномен: [кол. монографія] / [зазаг. ред. І. С. Шевченко]. – Х. : Константа, 2005. – С. 21–28.Shevchenko, I. (2005). Dyskurs jak myslenevo-komunikatyvna diyalnist [Discourse as Mentaland Communicative Activity]. In: Discourse as Cognitive and Communicative Phenomenon,(pp. 21–28). I. Shevchenko, (ed.). Kharkiv: Konstanta. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Auwera, J. van der. (1980). On the Meaning of Basic Speech Acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(3), 253–303. Auwera, J. van der & Alsenoy, L. van. (2016). On the Typology of Negative Concord. Studiesin Language, 40, 473–512. Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. Ballmer, Th. T. & Brennenstuhl, W. (1981). A Study in the Lexical Analysis of EnglishSpeech Activity Verbs. New York, Berlin: Ruhr-Universität. Dijk, T. A. van. (1997). The Study of Discourse. In: Discourse as Structure and Process,(pp. 1–35). London: Sage Publications. Grice, H. P. (1991). Logic & Conversation. Pragmatics, 305–316. Gruber, H. (1998). Disagreeing: Sequential Placement and Internal Structure of Disagreementsin Conflict Episodes. Text, 4 (18), 467–503. Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. In: Handlungsrationalität undgesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York, London: Longman. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. London, New York, Melbourne etc: CUP. Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity & context in disagreement. The Journal of Pragmatics,8 (32), 1087–1111. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schifrin, D. (2001). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Schlieben Lange, Br. (1975). Linguistische Pragmatik. Stuttgart, Berlin: Kohlhammer. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In: Syntax & Semantics, (pp. 315–333), Vol. 9: Pragmatics.New York, San Francisco, London. Tatsuki, D. H. (2000). If my complaints could passion move: an interlanguage study ofaggression. The Journal of Pragmatics, 7 (32), 1003–1007. Tannen, D. (1995). You Just Don’t Understand. N.Y.: University of California. Tsui, A. B. M. (1995). English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wunderlich, D. (1980). Methodological Remarks on Speech Act Theory. In: Speech ActTheory & Pragmatics, (pp. 291–312), Vol. 10. Dordrecht : D. Reidel Publ. Comp. Джерела іллюстративного матеріалу Sources Amis, M. (1991). Time’s Arrow. London: Penguin Book. Christie, A. (1945). Death Comes at the End. London: Fontana. Francis, D. (1992). Longshot. New York: Fawcett Crest. Gardner, J. (1987). The Sunlight Dialogues. New York: Vintage Books. James, P.D. (1977). Death of an Expert Witness. London: Penguin Books. O’Hara, J. (1985). Ten North Frederik. New York: Carol and Graph Publ. Pronzini, B. (1990). I didn’t Do It. In: New Crimes, 2, (136–140). London: Robinson Publ.8. Rendel, R. (1985). All Unkindness of Ravens. London: Hutchinson.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document