ASEBL Journal – Volume 10 Issue 1, January 2014
of distress and the concomitant need for aid. Compulsively repeating itself and
thereby communicating the magnitude of its need, the bird produces an affective
response – empathy – in the beholder’s universalized “eyes.” Ultimately, repetition is
not analogized to equivalence, but near-equivalence and intensity.
The speaker’s temporal experience of the island, framed as “Nature,” is tied to both
repetition and absence. The language of repetition discloses the personal work of
grief, and the poem’s sense of time is concerned with the structure of memory. The
interaction of the griever with sensory data gives rise to the making of memory. With
attention, the griever can register the temporal evolution of grief, as well as the human
and nonhuman relational ties that allow it to evolve and become intelligible to the
human consciousness. In distinguishing her immediate appraisal of the island with
past encounters, the speaker recognizes a space of distinction, the stimuli for
expression and re-orientation: the radical makings of an attitude or sensibility. In the
poem, perception is the locus for the communal aspect of memorial-making.
The repetitive nature of the sparrow’s call signifies not only the degree of its desire,
but honesty that elicits tears, an emotive reply on the part of the beholder. As a signal,
the sparrow’s cry – in its repetitive cast – conveys the intensity of its need for
satiation, operating as a gauge of quality. The sparrow risks the detection of a
predator, yet continues to cry. With this persistent cry, the bird converts a compulsive
physiological reflex to an honest signal. Similarly, Nature almost repeats itself; as an
adverb of degree, “almost” makes difference manifest, while also hinting at
language’s lack: its failure at approximation. Given its limitations, the adverb fails to
describe the quality of its difference, and instead operates as an index of degree.
Similarly, left freestanding, the honest signal may not be sufficient in itself to convey
the underlying emotion that prompts its transmission. The gestural repertoire of signs,
flags, and semaphores often appear in Bishop’s poems in a state of mutual relations
with symbolic language, offering a rich linguistic texture structured by the poet’s
dedication to reliability. In The Handicap Principle, Zahavi conceptualizes the
necessary interconnectivity of honest signaling and symbolic language in human
communication, writing the following:
The information that nonverbal vocalizations do convey is very
exact: they express the degree of feelings much more precisely
than words can. For example, the words I am angry do not convey
how angry one is; to convey the degree of anger by words alone,
one has to use more words: ‘I am very angry’ . . . Even then,
words can express only a few of the infinite gradations of anger
that are possible; but nonverbal vocalizations reflect such
gradations admirably . . . There is no substitute for the reliability
and precision of nonverbal vocalizations . . . [However,] a person
listening to a stranger may be unable to relate the intensity of
vocalization to the degree of emotion, as the stranger’s constant
companions can, from past experience. This is especially true
among people of different cultures. (222-223)
7