SPOCA analysis and what it can show
Task C - Our comments
In 'The Clod and the Pebble' we can see, within one poem, the innocence/experience
contrast we talked about in general terms before. Its exact nature can
be seen more clearly if we analyse the structure of the poem. Below we
give our grammatical analyses first. Next we look at the overall stanzaic
structure of the poem and suggest how we understand the text in general
terms. Finally, we look more closely at the relations between particular
lines and their grammatical and semantic characteristics.
As part of our commentary we've included a tree diagram for each stanza,
which you can access by clicking the appropriate link (below). By moving
your mouse over the symbols in the diagram you will get a definition of
that symbol.
It will be clear that the first stanza exemplifies the 'innocence' vision
of love: love as sacrifice for others. This vision is 'sung' (cf. the
quotation marks) by the clod of clay, which, appropriately, can be moulded
by harder objects (and is 'trampled' by the cattle in the poem). The pebble,
on the other hand, though small, is hard and much les malleable.
The second stanza describes the clod and the pebble, giving two lines
to each. In terms of space at least, the clod and the pebble are thus
treated equally.
The third stanza gives the pebble's 'experience' account of love: love
as selfishness, imposing on the loved one. The last stanza thus contrasts
with the first one. Innocent accounts tend to suffer when placed alongside
less naïve accounts, and the fact that the pebble's version of love
comes last in the poem also leads us to see the pebble's version as more
likely, however much we might prefer to believe the clod of clay's version.
The clod and the pebble are clearly rather odd and parallel beings in
that they can both use language and be subjects of speech presentation
verbs ('sung', 'warbled'). Hence they are anthropomorphized opposites
(which is appropriate as they are talking of love, a human attribute).
But the main aspect of the contrast is between the first and third stanzas,
and rests on a fairly intricate system of parallelisms for oppositional
effect. The first lines of stanzas 1 and 3 are identical grammatically
and lexically except for the change from 'itself' to 'self' and the crucial
change from negative to positive.
The second lines of the two stanzas vary quite a lot grammatically and
lexically. But in the context of the equivalences between lines 1 and
2 in each stanza (they are coordinated in stanza 1 and are both non-finite
clausal objects of the main verb in the first line in stanza 2) they are
clearly meant to convey the same general force as line 1 in each case.
Line 3 in each stanza is coordinated to the first main clause of the sentence,
shares the same subject and has a parallel force to the previous two lines
of the relevant stanza. The fourth lines of the two stanzas are identical
grammatical and lexically except for the oppositional transposition of
the words 'Heaven' and 'Hell' from stanza 1 to stanza 3. It is from this
oppositional detail, then, that the overall oppositional interpretation
we outlined at the beginning emerges from.
|
