Student Question
What is the effect of the archaic words used in William Cullen Bryant's "To a Waterfowl"?
Quick answer:
The archaic words in "To a Waterfowl" create defamiliarization and slow the reader, enhancing focus on the bird and elevating it from a common creature to a symbol of nature's spirit. Words like "whither" and "fowler" contribute to a dreamy, abstract atmosphere, which may not have been archaic in Bryant's time but now feel classical, reflecting influences from Greek and Roman traditions, adding depth and historical resonance to the poem.
The archaic vocabulary Bryant uses has two immediate effects, and several that follow. The first is defamiliarization. He's talking to and about a duck or similar bird, after all. Most people see them and move on. Using strange language draws attention to them. The closely related second effect is that the vocabulary slows the reader down. Words like "whither" and "illimitable" simply stall us, slowing readers down to spend more time on the scene. After that, the vocabulary elevates the bird, taking it from a forgettable duck to a kind of nature spirit.
What are archaic words in the context of Bryant's "To a Waterfowl"?
So are you just asking what "archaic" means? The word "archaic" means really old-fashioned or outdated. There are lots of archaic words in this poem. Just a few include "whither," "dost," "fowler," "plashy" and "marge."
As to the effect of these words, it seems a lot more of a personal opinion. This is especially true because I'm...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
not sure any of these words were archaic when he wrote them.
For me, these words give the poem more of a dreamy, unreal feeling because they aren't the kind of language we use and so they don't bring up specific images in my mind. But I'm not at all sure that's how Bryant would have meant the poem to be understood.
Your question is very open ended. However, since you ask about William Cullen Bryant, who was an American poet that lived in the 19th century, I will assume that you mean archaic words that are related to the English language. In this case, it is almost certain that archaic language refers to the classical world. Keep in mind that classical learning was still very much a part of American culture then. People could even still speak Latin and dissertations in universities were written in Latin! Also, people were excellent in ancient Greek. For example, Alexander Pope, a British poet, whom Bryant admired, translated the Iliad. Also it is good to keep in mind that the title of one of Bryant's poems, Thanatopsis, was from two Greek words, meaning "mediations on death". In addition, Bryant’s poem, “To the Waterfowl” was written to be a didactic poem. He probably got this idea from the Greeks (Hesiod) and Romans (Ovid), who were fond of didactic poems.
Hence, in the light of these points, archaisms refer to Bryant's use of classical culture, language and literary conventions. It is also my experience that many of these types of writers make extraordinarily learned allusions to classical culture. So, if you read carefully, you will undoubtedly hear many echoes from Greece and Rome.