Relational Equivalence In Poetry

“Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguists" where the equivalence is a relational equivalence based on sameness within a system. While the choices in a selection set are bound by various types of equivalence relations – for example, the synonymous expressions ‘ill’, ‘sick’, ‘indisposed’, ‘not healthy’, ‘ailing’, etc. - it is generally not the case in referential speech that the elements combined are related to each other by any strong and striking equivalence relation – for example, with ‘Joe was too ill to eat dinner last night’, the relation between Joe and dinner is hardly describable in any strong way by equivalence, except in so far as they are both concrete nouns. In poetry, the

In the referential speech, the relation between the linguistic sign and extra-linguistic 'objects’ would seem to be a close and almost automatic one. In other words, in the referential or emotive use of language, the linguistic sign and the non-linguistic sign are in interpretive relation with one another. In the poetic function of language, it is the interpretative relationship between linguistic signs which is important. In poetry, the relation between word and object is called into question. In the poetic text, a given word may be chosen not only because of its paradigmatic associations with other words in the linguistic code, but also because of its equivalence relations with other words in the text itself. The choice of one word may dictate the rest of the poem, whereas in non-poetic discourse, the words must 'make sense ' in terms of external factors. In poetry, the "internal relationships of the component parts are far more significant than their external references". In poetry, the word has to 'fit ' with other words, in prose; the word has to fit with the

It is highly due to the relative autonomy and de-contextualization of the poem. The focus on the message, the use of equivalence relations to construct the sequence, etc. - all of these mean that the poem does not rely on outside context, as would a referential text, for the fixing of the particular meanings intended, but rather that the poem must provide the major context for its own parts. But the poetic context is also cut off from reference; there is a self-reflexivity among the parts, none of which can be firmly fixed, thus resulting in ambiguities and multiplicities of meaning. A poem, as an ambiguous context, provides many 'levels of meanings, ' many indeterminacies with regard to interpretation. To a certain extent, then, the poem is a relatively autonomous structure. But a poem does not exist in a vacuum: it is part of a general historical and cultural context and indeed depends on that context for its interpretation. Nor is it sealed off from a literary contrary, combat literary norms and values, but in some way the literary conventions of the times are relevant; the poetic code or codes which coexist with the poem provide an important, overarching context; and a given poem may be meant for certain kinds of readers and certain kinds of readings, etc. In this respect, the poem is highly contextualized. Thus, it is a relatively autonomous, closed structure, which is de-contextualized