Chapter 2
Chrysanthemums for Bill
On Lawrentian style and stylistics
This chapter on a short story by D. H. Lawrence revisits a
key stylistic account of the text by Bill Nash, which was criticised both
specifically and as a general representation of stylistic practice. The
chapter addresses those criticisms, differentiating those that are misplaced
from those that might have had a reasonable basis. It claims that many of
these older objections can be addressed by more recent innovations in the
discipline, and in fact that Nash prefigured some later literary
linguistics, though he lacked the tools to develop his solutions at the
time. In this analysis, these innovations are drawn from the broadening of
stylistics to encompass matters that would previously have been regarded as
extra-linguistic, in the form of a cognitive poetics.
Article outline
- 1.Literature and linguistics
- 2.Stylistics and some familiar objections
- 3.Updating the stylistic analysis
- 4.Towards a stylistics of subliminal effects
-
References
References (55)
References
Barry, P. 1980. The enactment fallacy. Essays in Criticism 30(2): 95–104. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barry, P. 1985. Stylistics and the logic of intuition: or, how not to
pick a chrysanthemum. Critical Quarterly 27(4): 51–58. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barry, P. 1988. The limitations of stylistics. Essays in Criticism 38(3): 175–189. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barry, P. 2002. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural
Theory (second edition), Manchester: Manchester University Press [further editions in 2002, 2009, 2017].![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bell, A. 2010. The Possible Worlds of Hypertext Fiction. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brown, G. & Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Butler, C. & Nash, W. 1977. Editorial preface. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 6(1): 2.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carter, R. & Stockwell, P. (eds). 2008. The Language and Literature Reader. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cockcroft, R. 2002. Renaissance Rhetoric: Reconsidered Passion – The Interpretation
of Affect in Early Modern Writing. London: Palgrave.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ellis, W. D. (ed.). 1999. A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fish, S. 1973. What is stylistics and why are they saying such terrible
things about it? In Approaches to Poetics, Chatman, S. (ed), 109–152. New York: Columbia University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fludernik, M. 1996. Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ford, F. M. 1937. Portraits from Life: Memories and Criticisms. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fowler, R. (ed.) 1966. Essays on Style and Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Freeman, D. 1978. Keats’s “To Autumn”: poetry as process and
pattern. Language and Style 11: 3–17.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Freeman, D. 1996. According to my bond: King Lear and
re-cognition. In The Stylistics Reader, Weber, J.-J. (ed.), 280–297. London: Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gavins, J. 2007. Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Giovanelli, M. 2013. Text World Theory and Keats’ Poetry: The Cognitive Poetics of
Desire, Dreams and Nightmares. London: Bloomsbury.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goodreads 2017. <[URL] (1 February 2019).
Gregoriou, C. 2008. English Literary Stylistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Herman, D. (ed.). 2003. Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holloway, J. 1979. Narrative and Structure: Exploratory Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrou, M. & Stockwell, P. (eds). 2010. Contemporary Stylistics. London: Continuum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol I: Theoretical
Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. 1990. Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of
Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive
Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lawrence, D. H. 1914. Odour of chrysanthemums. In The Prussian Officer and Other Stories, London: Duckworth. 281–310. Original facsimile available at <[URL]> (1 February 2019).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leavis, F. R. 1955. D. H. Lawrence: Novelist. London: Chatto and Windus.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
MacCabe, C. 1984. Toward a modern trivium – English studies
today. Critical Quarterly 26(1–2): 69–82. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
MacCabe, C. 1985. Language, linguistics, and the study of
literature. In Theoretical Essays: Film, Linguistics, Literature, 113–130. Manchester: Manchester University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
MacCabe, C. 1988. Abusing self and others: puritan accounts of the
Shakespearean stage. Critical Quarterly 30: 3–17. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McLoughlin, N. 2016. Into the futures of their makers: a cognitive poetic
analysis of reversals, accelerations and shifts in time in the poems
of Eavan Boland. In World Building: Discourse in the Mind, Gavins, J. & Lahey, E. (eds), 259–276. London: Bloomsbury.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nash, W. 1977. On a passage from Lawrence’s “Odour of
chrysanthemums”. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 6(1): 60–72.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nash, W. 1982. On a passage from Lawrence’s “Odour of
chrysanthemums”. In Language and Literature: An Introductory Reader in
Stylistics, Carter, R. (ed), 100–120. London: George Allen and Unwin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
O’Halloran, K. 2007. The subconscious in James Joyce’s “Eveline”: a corpus
stylistic analysis that chews on the “Fish hook”. Language and Literature 16(3): 227–244. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sell, C. S. (ed.). 2015. The Chemistry of Fragrances: From Perfumer to Consumer. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Simpson, P. 2014. Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students (second edition). London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stockwell, P. 2002. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stockwell, P. 2009a. Texture: A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stockwell, P. 2009b. The cognitive poetics of literary
resonance. Language and Cognition 1(1): 25–44. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stockwell, P. 2017. The Language of Surrealism. London: Palgrave. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stubbs, M. 2005. Conrad in the computer: examples of quantitative
stylistic methods. Language and Literature 14(1): 5–24. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Styles, E. 2005. Attention, Perception and Memory: An Integrated
Introduction. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Styles, E. 2006. The Psychology of Attention (second edition). Hove: Psychology Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Surburg H., Guentert, M., & Harder, H. 1993. Volatile compounds from flowers: analytical and olfactory
aspects. In Bioactive Volatile Compounds from Plants, R. Teranishi, R. G. Buttery & H. Sugisawa (eds), 168–186. Washington DC: American Chemical Society. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics.
Vols. I and II.
Cambridge: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Toolan, M. 1996. Total Speech: An Integrational Linguistic Approach to
Language. Durham: Duke University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Toolan, M. 2001. Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction (2nd edition). London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
University of Nottingham. 2017. Odour of Chrysanthemums: A Text in Process <[URL]> (1 February 2019).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Willems, K. & De Cuypere, L. 2009. Naturalness and Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Statham, Simon
2020.
The year’s work in stylistics 2019.
Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 29:4
► pp. 454 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.