Chapter published in:
Style, Rhetoric and Creativity in Language: In memory of Walter (Bill) Nash (1926-2015)
Edited by Paul Simpson
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 34] 2019
► pp. 37–56

Chapter 2
Chrysanthemums for Bill

On Lawrentian style and stylistics

| Nottingham University
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.
Keywords: D. H. Lawrence, viewpoint, texture, resonance, subliminal effects, attractor, critical theory
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
Published online: 28 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.34.04sto
References
Barry, P.
1980 The enactment fallacy. Essays in Criticism 30(2): 95–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985 Stylistics and the logic of intuition: or, how not to pick a chrysanthemum. Critical Quarterly 27(4): 51–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988 The limitations of stylistics. Essays in Criticism 38(3): 175–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory (second edition), Manchester: Manchester University Press [further editions in 2002, 2009, 2017].Google Scholar
Bell, A.
2010 The Possible Worlds of Hypertext Fiction. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. & Yule, G.
1983 Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. & Nash, W.
1977 Editorial preface. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 6(1): 2.Google Scholar
Carter, R. & Stockwell, P.
(eds) 2008 The Language and Literature Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cockcroft, R.
2002 Renaissance Rhetoric: Reconsidered Passion – The Interpretation of Affect in Early Modern Writing. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Ellis, W. D.
(ed.) 1999 A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, M.
1996 Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, F. M.
1937 Portraits from Life: Memories and Criticisms. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Fowler, R.
(ed.) 1966 Essays on Style and Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Freeman, D.
1978 Keats’s “To Autumn”: poetry as process and pattern. Language and Style 11: 3–17.Google Scholar
1996 According to my bond: King Lear and re-cognition. In The Stylistics Reader, Weber, J.-J. (ed.), 280–297. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Gavins, J.
2007 Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giovanelli, M.
2013 Text World Theory and Keats’ Poetry: The Cognitive Poetics of Desire, Dreams and Nightmares. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Gregoriou, C.
2008 English Literary Stylistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Harrison, C., Nuttall, L., Stockwell, P. & Yuan, W.
(eds) 2014 Cognitive Grammar in Literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herman, D.
(ed.) 2003 Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Holloway, J.
1979 Narrative and Structure: Exploratory Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrou, M. & Stockwell, P.
(eds) 2010 Contemporary Stylistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1990 Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999 Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, D. H.
1914 Odour of chrysanthemums. In The Prussian Officer and Other Stories, London: Duckworth. 281–310. Original facsimile available at https://​archive​.org​/details​/officeroprussian00lawrrich (1 February 2019).Google Scholar
Leavis, F. R.
1955 D. H. Lawrence: Novelist. London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
MacCabe, C.
1984 Toward a modern trivium – English studies today. Critical Quarterly 26(1–2): 69–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985 Language, linguistics, and the study of literature. In Theoretical Essays: Film, Linguistics, Literature, 113–130. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
1988 Abusing self and others: puritan accounts of the Shakespearean stage. Critical Quarterly 30: 3–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Müller, W. & Fischer, O.
(eds) 2003 From Sign to Signing: Iconicity in Language and Literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nash, W.
1977 On a passage from Lawrence’s “Odour of chrysanthemums”. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 6(1): 60–72.Google Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sell, C. S.
(ed.) 2015 The Chemistry of Fragrances: From Perfumer to Consumer. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
Simpson, P.
2014 Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students (second edition). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P.
2002 Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2009a Texture: A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
2009b The cognitive poetics of literary resonance. Language and Cognition 1(1): 25–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 The Language of Surrealism. London: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M.
1983 Discourse Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2005 Conrad in the computer: examples of quantitative stylistic methods. Language and Literature 14(1): 5–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Styles, E.
2005 Attention, Perception and Memory: An Integrated Introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2006 The Psychology of Attention (second edition). Hove: Psychology Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
2000 Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vols. I and II. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Toolan, M.
1996 Total Speech: An Integrational Linguistic Approach to Language. Durham: Duke University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction (2nd edition). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
University of Nottingham
2017 Odour of Chrysanthemums: A Text in Process http://​odour​.nottingham​.ac​.uk (1 February 2019).Google Scholar
Willems, K. & De Cuypere, L.
2009 Naturalness and Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Statham, Simon
2020. The year’s work in stylistics 2019. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 29:4 ► pp. 454 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. 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.