The Fifteen-Line Sonnet: Adjudicating Form in a 12-Mark Poetry Question
You are moderating a 12-mark poetry question in a trial exam. The unseen poem is 15 lines long. Lines 1–8 rhyme abbaabba; lines 9–14 rhyme cdecde; line 15 is a closing couplet rhyming gg. The metre is broadly iambic pentameter, but line 9 ends with an extra unstressed syllable and lines 6–7 are enjambed across the octave–sestet boundary. The question reads: “How does the poet use form to reinforce the poem’s argument?” Three candidates use the poem’s form differently. Candidate A calls it a “Shakespearean sonnet” because it ends with a couplet. Candidate B calls it a “Petrarchan sonnet” and ignores the fifteenth line. Candidate C says it is “not a sonnet” and discusses only imagery. Your mark scheme rewards accurate terminology, analysis of effect, and coherent argument. You have to decide how much credit each framing deserves and what to tell markers about the extra line, the feminine ending, and the enjambment.
1. Adjudicate the three form labels. Which is most defensible, and how should the other two be marked?
Read the worked answer
The most defensible label is Petrarchan sonnet with a coda. The octave rhymes abbaabba and the sestet cdecde, which is the Petrarchan pattern; the extra couplet is an addition, not part of the standard fourteen-line form. A sonnet is conventionally fourteen lines, so the poem is a sonnet-like structure with a closing coda rather than a textbook sonnet.
Candidate A is inaccurate: a Shakespearean sonnet requires three quatrains and a couplet, usually abab cdcd efef gg, not an octave–sestet structure with a final couplet. Award credit for noticing the couplet’s effect, but not full terminology marks. Candidate B is closer but under-counts the fifteenth line; award terminology marks with a deduction for ignoring the coda. Candidate C loses terminology marks by denying the sonnet frame, but imagery analysis can still earn effect marks. The marker should reward accurate description of the deviation, not force the poem into a pure type.
2. How should the feminine ending in line 9 and the enjambment in lines 6–7 be analysed? What errors should markers flag?
Read the worked answer
The feminine ending in line 9 adds an extra unstressed syllable after the tenth position. It is not a switch to hexameter and not a metrical fault; it can create a lingering, unresolved quality at the start of the sestet, especially if the argument is turning. Markers should flag “hexameter” as an error unless the candidate can show a full six-stress line.
The enjambment in lines 6–7 runs syntax across the octave–sestet boundary. That can complicate the expected volta: instead of a clean turn, the poem carries pressure forward, making the argument feel continuous or stalled. Markers should flag the claim that enjambment makes the poem “free verse”; the metre remains broadly iambic pentameter. Credit candidates who connect enjambment to the argument’s movement, but do not award full marks for merely naming the device.
3. Candidate A argues that the closing couplet proves the poem is Shakespearean. Write the correction you would give, including what would count as stronger evidence.
Read the worked answer
A closing couplet is not sufficient evidence for a Shakespearean sonnet. The Shakespearean pattern is defined by three quatrains plus a couplet, typically abab cdcd efef gg, and by a volta that often falls before the final couplet. This poem’s abbaabba octave and cdecde sestet are Petrarchan, so the couplet is an added coda rather than the defining final element of a Shakespearean structure.
Stronger evidence would include the full rhyme scheme, the number and arrangement of quatrains, the placement of the turn, and the relation between syntax and stanza. A candidate could still argue that the couplet performs a Shakespearean function - epigrammatic summary or ironic reversal - but that is an argument about effect, not proof of form. Award terminology marks for the precise description, and effect marks for showing how the coda changes the poem’s closing argument.