Volume 42, Issue 1

Anyone who urges that differences between languages may correlate with differences in societies' perceptions of the world is open to misunderstanding by those who do not recognise the arbitrariness of their own socially-conditioned perceptions. A striking example is the reception of William Gladstone's nineteenth-century analyses of the vocabulary of the Homeric epics, Europe's first literature. Gladstone anticipated themes that are commonly seen as original advances of twentieth-century anthropology and linguistics; but this achievement has been obscured by a longstanding misinterpretation, according to which Gladstone ascribed Homer's surprising use of colour words to colour-blindness. At present, that misinterpretation is being disseminated more widely than ever before. In fact, Gladstone explicitly did not believe that Ancient Greeks were colour-blind. He did express a range of ideas standardly credited to much more recent scholarship. The reception of Gladstone's Homeric writings demonstrates the strength of the human disposition to trivialize significant cultural differences.

In this article, we assess some of the empirical work available in relation to anomaly in novel metaphor. This revision allows us to argue that the results of reaction time experiments do not provide, as many theorists have argued (Gibbs and Gerrig 1989; Keysar and Glucksberg 1992), evidence against any version of anomaly; at most they can be used against anomaly as categorial falsity. In addition, we assess the argument against anomaly based on the results of reaction time experiments to show that it is unsound. Thus, we show that contextual abnormality, a sub-propositional version of anomaly (Romero and Soria 1997/1998), cannot be rejected as one of the necessary identification conditions of novel metaphor. Furthermore, contextual abnormality is supported by the results of recent empirical studies on metaphor processing designed by neuropsychologists to test hypotheses related specifically with anomaly in novel metaphor (Tatter et al. 2002; Ahrens et al. 2007).

This paper (based on a presentation delivered at the 2012 PALA conference in Malta) aims to explain and illustrate the main principles of Contextual Prosodic Theory (CPT), developed by Bill Louw, the originator of the notion of semantic prosody (McEnery and Hardy, 2012: 135). No less importantly, it aims to free the theory from unwarranted criticism it has attracted over the past few years. I deal with the theoretical objections to Louw's stylistics in McEnery and Hardy (2012) and in Hunston (2007). In doing so, certain basic assumptions of Louw's stylistics are restated, such as the roles of intuition, authorial intention and the individual reader's perception. Is Louw justified in assuming that a text may be interpreted by what is, prima facie, NOT in it? After showing how reference corpora can reasonably be taken to influence the act of reading, I give an illustration of a new development in CPT: logical semantic prosody – subtext (Louw 2010a, 2010b). The reference corpora I use include the BNC and COCA, available on Mark Davies' site, and Tim Johns' corpus of the 1995 edition of the Times newspaper, containing 44.5 million words.

Chiasmus has long been discussed as a rhetorical figure for the symmetrical reversal of linguistic structures in oral and written texts. Recent treatments have begun to challenge this parochial status in ways that are reminiscent of the embodied metaphor revolution in cognitive semantics. This paper further develops the argument that chiastic schemas are a rich source of embodied cognition in need of broader recognition and deeper understanding. A cognitive poetic analysis of Dylan Thomas' iconic work “Vision and Prayer” facilitates this discussion. The dialectic weave of inverse structures and corporeal schemas that emerge from the poem illustrate the aesthetic ubiquity of cognitive chiasmus. Its lived, intertwining nature is proposed as an antidote to the “missing body” problem, as a more complex approach to cognitive symmetry and as a primary source of conceptual blending.

In analysing a range of 20 th century poems and excerpts, stylisticians and literary critics have individuated a number of linguistic and textual features which they relate – with various degrees of explicitness – to the complex notion of ‘difficulty’. While there is a fair amount of agreement in the set of phenomena identified, to the best of my knowledge these have never been analysed, grouped and classified from a linguistic and unified perspective. This is the chief aim of the present paper, in which I reconsider previously discussed poetic excerpts in order to derive a checklist of linguistic phenomena demanding further investigation and even future empirical testing. Another major aim is that of illustrating how widespread and problematic the use of ‘difficult’ and ‘difficulty’ is, often implying quite distinct senses. The meaning of this pair will be kept indeterminate throughout the whole paper, where it simply refers to the personal usage of the critic or stylistician at stake. At the end of the paper, by contrast, a clearer characterization will emerge in the light of the textual excerpts analysed: difficulty is regarded as a combination of semantic opacity and hypothesized processing effort at syntagmatic level. However, being part of a wider ongoing research project, a more satisfactory formulation is still to come. Finally, an additional outcome of the paper is that of adding some evidence to the study of poetic language by taking into account recent poetic developments that so far have been given little attention in stylistics.