Cover not available
Part of
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.34.04sto
References (55)
References
Barry, P. 1980. The enactment fallacy. Essays in Criticism 30(2): 95–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985. Stylistics and the logic of intuition: or, how not to pick a chrysanthemum. Critical Quarterly 27(4): 51–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. The limitations of stylistics. Essays in Criticism 38(3): 175–189. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. & Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, M. 1996. Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giovanelli, M. 2013. Text World Theory and Keats’ Poetry: The Cognitive Poetics of Desire, Dreams and Nightmares. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Goodreads 2017. <[URL] (1 February 2019).
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. The Language of Surrealism. London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction (2nd edition). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
University of Nottingham. 2017. Odour of Chrysanthemums: A Text in Process <[URL]> (1 February 2019).Google Scholar
Willems, K. & De Cuypere, L. 2009. Naturalness and Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 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.