NOTES

INTRODUCTION

1. Richard Ohmann, “Literature as Sentences,” in Contemporary Essays on Style, Glen A. Love and Michael Payne, eds. (Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1969), p. 157.

2. Roger Fowler, “Style and the Concept of Deep Structure,” Journal of Literary Semantics 1 (1972): 5-24.

3. Stanley Fish, “What is Stylistics and Why are They Saying Such Terrible Things About It?” in Approaches to Poetics, Seymour Chatman, ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1973), pp. 109-52.

4. Noam Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965), p. 9; the eminent grammarian referred to is Charles J. Fillmore, and his confession is in “Subjects, Speakers, and Roles,” in Semantics of Natural Language, Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harmon, eds. (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1972), pp. 1-24.

5. Jerry A. Fodor, Thomas G. Bever, and Michael F. Garrett, The Psychology of Language (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1974), p. 6; Helen S. Cairns and Charles E. Cairns, Psycholinguistics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976), pp. 150-56.

6. Charles Rieger lists and discusses sixteen types of inferences in his “Conceptual Memory and Inference,” in Conceptual Information Processing, Roger C. Schank, ed. (New York: North-Holland/American Elsevier, 1975), pp. 157-288.

7. Perry W. Thorndyke, “The Role of Inference in Discourse Comprehension,” journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15 (1976): 437-46. Herbert Clark has advanced this view in numerous publications (see Bibliography and the brief discussion in Herbert H. Clark and Eve V. Clark, Psychology and Language [New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1977], pp. 95-98, 161-64). They use the term 'Global Representation' where I will use 'contextual frame'.

8. J. D. Bransford and M. K. Johnson, “Considerations of Some Problems of Comprehension,” in Visual Information Processing, W. G. Chase, ed. (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p. 400.

9. See the discussion in Elaine Gibson and Harry Levin’s The Psychology of Reading (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1975), pp. 476-77 et passim; Kenneth S. Goodman, “Psycholinguistic Universals in the Reading Process,” in Psycholinguistics and Reading, Frank Smith, ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1973), pp. 21-27; also Frank Smith, “Decoding: The Great Fallacy,” in his Psycholinguistics and Reading, pp. 70-83.

10. For a summary of the features of this convention, see George Dillon and Frederick Kirchhoff, “On the Form and Function of Indirect Free Style,” Poetics and the Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 431-40.

11. Samuel Fillenbaum, “Pragmatic Normalization: Further Results for Some Conjunctive and Disjunctive Sentences,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 102 (1974): 574-78.

12. See Clark and Clark, pp. 121-28, or George L. Dillon, Introduction to Contemporary Linguistic Semantics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977), pp. 108-15. E. D. Hirsch, Jr. stresses perception of irony as an interpretative act in his The Aims of Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), pp. 23-24.

13. William Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (1930; New York: New Directions, n.d.), pp. 209-10.

14. Thomas G. Bever, “The Cognitive Basis for Linguistic Structures,” in Cognition and the Development of Language, John R. Hayes, ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970), p. 296.

15. One of the more recent and sophisticated treatments of this point is by E. Stephen Newstead, “Semantic Constraints and Sentence Perception,” British Journal of Psychology 67 (March, 1976): 165-74.

16. Terry Winograd, Understanding Natural Language (New York: Academic Press, 1972), pp. 22-23; John Kimball, “Seven Principles of Surface Structure Parsing in Natural Language,” Cognition 2 (1973): 15-48. I do not mean to endorse Kimball’s model as a model of processing, however.

17. D. Terence Langendoen, Nancy Kalish-Landon, and John Dore, “Dative Questions: A Study in the Relation of Acceptability to Grammaticality of an English Sentence Type,” in An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability, Thomas G. Bever, Jerrold J. Katz, and D. Terence Langendoen, eds. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1976), pp. 195-223; George Lakoff and Henry Thompson, “Dative Questions in Cognitive Grammar,” in Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Robin E. Grossman, L. James San, and Timothy J. Vance, eds. (Chicago: Department of Linguistics/CLS, University of Chicago, 1975), pp. 337-50.

18. See the speculations on the relative costliness of semantic vs. syntactic screening in William A. Woods’s “An Experimental Parsing System for Transition Network Grammars,” in Natural Language Processing, Randall Rustin, ed. (New York: Algorithmics Press, 1973), pp. 144-45.

19. Nils Erik Enkvist, Linguistic Stylistics (The Hague: Mouton, 1973), p. 42.

20. Stanley E. Fish, Surprised by Sin (1967; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971); Walter Slatoff, “The Edge of Order: The Pattern of Faulkner’s Rhetoric,” Twentieth Century Literature 3 (Oct. 1957): 107-27.

21. Stanley E. Fish, Self-Consuming Artifacts: The Experience of Seventeenth-Century Literature (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), p. 398.

1. PHRASES AND THEIR FUNCTIONS

1. Most of the evidence for the phrase as a unit of processing summarized in Herbert and Eve Clark’s Psychology and Language (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1977), pp. 50-57, is based on heard sentences, but there is also much good evidence for it as a unit of reading reviewed in Elaine Gibson and Harry Levin’s The Psychology of Reading (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1975), pp. 363-66, 382-84.

2. I will use these terms rather than Bever’s Actor-Action-Goal since, as Alexander Grosu points out, when non-action verbs are involved (e.g., hear) the point is to get logical Subject and logical Object right, Actor (or Agent) not being in question (The Strategic Content of Island Constraints, Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics, no. 13 [Ohio State University: Department of Linguistics], 1972, p. 62). That is, logical Subject and logical Object are more general notions, and particular predicates characterize their logical Subjects and Objects in particular ways (i.e., as Agent, Experiencer, Patient, etc.).

3. John Robert Ross, “Constraints on Variables in Syntax,” (Dissertation, MIT, 1967) (available from Indiana University Linguistics Club), pp. 89ff.

4. See for example John Hollander’s paper “Sense Variously Drawn Out': Some Observations on English Enjambment,” in Literary Theory and Structure: Essays in Honor of William K. Wimsatt, Frank Brady, John Palmer, and Martin Price, eds. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), pp. 201-25.

5. On the expectation of pause as it affects perception, see George L Dillon, “Clause, Pause, and Punctuation in Poetry,” Linguistics 169 (1976): 5-20. For a model of 'normal' relation of syntactic boundaries to caesura and dieresis, see Dillon, “Kames and Kiparsky on Syntactic Boundaries,” Language and Style 10 (Winter, 1977): 16-22. See Clark and Clark (pp. 51-52) for a report of research on phrase/line alignment.

6. George Dillon, “Inversions and Deletions in English Poetry,” Language and Style 8 (Summer, 1975): 223-24.

7. Paul Alpers, The Poetry of The Faerie Queene (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), p. 73.

8. Note that the notion of 'expectable' is broader than what Susumo Kuno in various publications calls 'predictable'. I am not claiming that the writer’s mention of the noun phrase is in any sense predictable from context. Kuno refers to certain themes as 'unpredictable' that I would call expectable. See Herbert H. Clark, “Inferences in Comprehension,” in Basic Processes in Reading, D. LaBerge and S. J. Samuels, eds. (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1977).

9. The motive for this inversion is often to get the verb, which is bisyllabic and stressed on the final syllable, into line-final position. This is discussed in “Inversions and Deletions” (p. 232).

10. The obscure reference of it in the second parenthetical of (60) adds to the difficulty. It might refer to reflexion in the main sentence, or sacrifice in the parenthetical immediately preceding.

11. George A. Miller, “The Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information,” Psychological Review 63 (1956): pp. 81-97.

12. Ronald Emma in Milton’s Syntax (The Hague: Mouton, 1964), p. 145, found many examples of the S O V order in Milton’s poetry, but none in his samples of Milton’s prose.

2. CLAUSE BOUNDARIES

1. See J. A. Fodor, T. G. Bever, and M. F. Garrett, The Psychology of Language (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974), pp. 329-44; Helen S. Cairns and Charles E. Cairns, Psycholinguistics: A Cognitive View of Language (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1976), pp. 161-66; John M. Carroll and Michael K. Tanenhaus, “Functional Clauses Are the Primary Units of Sentence Perception,” 1976 (available from the Indiana University Linguistics Club).

2. Stephen Booth, An Essay on Shakespeare’s Sonnets (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969), pp. 55-56.

3. John Robert Ross, Constraints on Variables in Syntax (Dissertation, MIT, 1967) (available from the Indiana University Linguistics Club) p. 70. Herbert W. Sugden notes this preposing over a relative in his The Grammar of Spenser’s Faerie Queene (Linguistic Society of America, University of Pennsylvania, 1936), p. 51.

4. A. C. Partridge notes that a relative pronoun Object of an infinitive was often placed before the to in literary language of the sixteenth century (citing Spenser), but this seems part of the larger tendency to place Objects there, relative or not: Tudor to Augustan English (London: André Deutsch, 1969), p. 171. Sugden says the relative pronoun always precedes the to in Spenser (The Grammar of Spenser’s Faerie Queene, p. 51).

5. Edwin Greenlaw, Charles Grosvenor Osgood, Frederick Morgan Padelford, and Ray Heffner, eds. The Works of Edmund Spenser (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1938), VI. p. 482.

6. Spenser and Milton tend, for example, to use a semicolon (when a comma is also possible) at line ends and in line-medial (caesural) position. Rhyme and stress patterns are other obvious reasons for inversion.

3. REFERENCE, COREFERENCE, AND ATTACHMENT I: PRONOUNS AND PARTICIPIALS

1. Another difference is that we can delay identifying reference for some time without jamming perception. This point is interestingly discussed by Charles Rieger in his “Conceptual Memory and Inference” in Conceptual Information Processing, Roger C. Schank, ed. (New York/ Amsterdam: American Elsevier/North Holland, 1975), p. 273, and by Eugene Charniak in “Context and the Reference Problem,” in Natural Language Processing, Randall Rustin, ed. (New York: Algorithmes Press, 1973), pp. 311-30.

2. T. G. Bever, John M. Carroll, and R. Hurtig, “Analogy,” in An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability, T. G. Bever, J. J. Katz, and D. T. Langendoen, eds. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1976), pp. 149-82.

3. Herbert Sugden, The Grammar of Spenser’s Faerie Queene (Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America/University of Pennsylvania, 1936), p. 30.

4. Seymour Chatman, The Later Style of Henry James (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972), p. 85. The shift from the same secret principle to this principle illustrates the phenomenon of 'modifier-shedding' noted by Charles E. Osgood in his “Where Do Sentences Come From,” in Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader, Danny Steinberg and Leon Jakobovits, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 512-14.

5. Jonathan Culler holds that the inferred relation of the meditative persona to the scene is governed by conventions of specifically literary interpretation: “The fictional situation of discourse must be constructed so as to have a thematic function,” (Structuralist Poetics [Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1975], p. 167). Some of his observations are quite suggestive, as is his largely unsuccessful attempt to use interpretive categories to solve problems of comprehending reference in a notably elliptical poem by John Ashberry.

6. I. A. Richards, Practical Criticism (1929; New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., n.d.), pp. 161-62.

7. Selections from the Poetical Works of Edmund Spenser, S. K. Heninger, Jr., ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970), p. 322.

8. Catherine Garvey, Alfonso Caramazza, and Jack Yates, “Factors Influencing Assignment of Pronoun Antecedents,” Cognition 3 (1974/5): 227-43. They identify four additional factors that influence the identification of the pronoun in strings of the form:

NP₁ verbed NP₂ because PRONOUN...

(1) Active-Passive:

(i) John recognised Michael because he...

(ii) Michael was recognised by John because he...

Passive sharply raised the identification of Michael as the antecedent. This seems to reflect increased weight being given to a general strategy for Subject pronouns: “Assume the theme of the second clause is the same as the first.” Apparently one assumes that if passive has been applied to move Michael into theme position, the maneuver means to set up 'constant theme'. This strategy may account for part of the difficulty of example (11) in the text.

(2) Positive-Negative:

(i) The soldiers feared the natives because they...

(ii) The soldiers did not fear the natives because they...

The natives were less often taken to be the antecedents in the negative sentences (though they were in the majority of cases even in the negatives).

(3) Some inherent property of the verb assigning either NP₁ or NP₂ as the main causative force in the event (and thus setting it up as the antecedent of the pronoun):

(i) John telephoned Harry because he...
   argued with

(ii) John praised Harry because he...
   admired

They found verbs in (i) biased the pronoun strongly toward John, in (ii) toward Harry.

(4) Congruent/Noncongruent (i.e., likelier event in terms of status and roles)

(i) The father praised his son because he...

(ii) The son praised his father because he...

The incongruence in some cases destroyed the inherent bias imposed by the verb: here the strong bias in favor of his son in (i) disappears.

To this list of factors we might add the effect of grammatical parallelism which Frederick Springston found (Some Cognitive Aspects of Presupposed Coreferential Anaphora, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1975) in his Experiments 7 and 8. The weakness of both of these studies is that they eliminate context, placing the subjects in an unusual situation where they seem to be groping for clues or making maximal use of structural clues. Springston further simplifies by having only one correct antecedent—a choice between possible ones or of no antecedent at all never confronts his subjects.

M. A. K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan also discuss these points in their Cohesion in English (London: Longman, 1976), pp. 310-12. Also, Terry Winograd lists 'weights' attached to various possible antecedents in his sub-program SMIT (Understanding Natural Language, pp. 158-62).

9. T. G. Bever, “The Cognitive Basis of Linguistic Structures,” in Cognition and the Development of Language, John R. Hayes, ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970), p. 320.

10. William Faulkner, The Sound and the Fury (New York: Vintage Books, n.d.), p. 16.

11. Susumo Kuno, “Three Perspectives in the Functional Approach to Syntax,” in Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Robin E. Grossman, L. James San, and Timothy J. Vance, eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Linguistics/CLS, 1975), pp. 276-336. Dwight Bolinger, in “Pronouns and Repeated Nouns” (1977; available from the Indiana University Linguistics Club) fundamentally agrees with this position [which he attributes to Gilles S. Delisle].

12. For a summary of the conventions of free indirect style and discussion of their function, see Dillon and Kirchhoff, “On the Form and Function of Free Indirect Style,” Poetics and the Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 431-40.

13. Robert H. Zoellner, “Faulkner’s Prose Style in Absalom, Absalom!,” American Literature 30 (1959): 495.

14. Stanley Fish, “What is Stylistics and Why Are They Saying Such Terrible Things About It?” in Approaches to Poetics, Seymour Chatman, ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1973), p. 120.

15. Seymour Chatman, “Milton’s Participial Style,” Publications of the Modern Language Association, 83 (Oct. 1968): 1386-99.

16. Ronald W. Langacker and Patricia Munro, “Passives and Their Meaning,” Language 51 (1975): 789-830.

17. The “brainwashing” term is Fowler’s: Roger Fowler, “Style and the Concept of Deep Structure,” Journal of Literary Semantics 1 (1972): 18.

18. A recent study by V. M. Holmes and I. J. Watson suggests that readers do not reconstruct Logical Subjects which have been omitted in passives. ("The Role of Surface Order and Surface Deletion in Sentence Perception," Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 28 [1976]: 55-65.) They found that passives with omitted Logical Subjects were comprehended more quickly than sentences with purely adjectival predicates (i.e., A faster than B:

and that comprehension time did not differ between passives with relatively predictable logical Subjects and those with unpredictable ones (She knew that the shelves had been ruined—Subject is more unpredictable), suggesting that readers are not attempting to specify the omitted logical Subjects. Holmes and Watson do not, however, rule out the possibility that readers may try to specify omitted logical Subjects in meaningful contexts.

Surely context does lead one to size things up in certain ways. One person who read (1.46) out of context:

    As when the potent Rod

Of Amrams son in Egypts evill day

Wav'd round the Coast, up call'd a pitchy cloud....

told me she had specified the Subject of wav'd as “the ocean” (from Coast). Being told that Amram’s son was Moses, however, she produced a different picture with a different specification of the Waver.

4. REFERENCE, COREFERENCE, AND ATTACHMENT II: APPOSITION

1. Ralph Rader, “Fact, Theory, and Literary Explanation,” Critical Inquiry 1 (Dec. 1974): 266.

2. Stanley Fish, Surprised by Sin (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), p. 27.

3. Frederick Kirchhoff, “A Note on Ruskin’s Mythography,” Victorian Newsletter 50 (Fall, 1976): 24-27.

4. The Works of John Ruskin, Sir Edward Tyes Cook and Alexander Dun-das Oglivy Wedderburn, eds. (London: George Allen, 1903-12), XIX. 302-303.

5. Henry James, The Wings of the Dove (Dell, 1958), p. 20.

6. Richard Ohmann, “Generative Grammar and the Concept of Literary Style," in Contemporary Essays on Style, Glen Love and Michael Payne, eds. (Glenview: Scott, Foresman, 1969), p. 141.

7. Helen H. Vendler, On Extended Wings (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969), p. 34.

5. CONSCIOUSNESS OF SENTENCE STRUCTURE

1. Herbert Sugden, The Grammar of Spenser’s Faerie Queene (Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America/University of Pennsylvania, 1936), p. 213.

2. Robert Zoellner, “Faulkner’s Prose Style in Absalom, Absalom!” American Literature 30 (1959): 501.

3. Conrad Aiken, “William Faulkner: The Novel as Form,” in William Faulkner, Three Decades of Criticism, Frederick J. Hoffman and Olga W. Vickery, eds. (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1960), p. 137.

4. Jane P. Tompkins,"'The Beast in the Jungle': An Analysis of James’s Late Style," Modern Fiction Studies 16 (1970): 190.

5. Stephen Booth, An Essay on Shakespeare’s Sonnets (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969), pp. 151-52.

6. Vernon Lee, The Handling of Words (London, 1923), p. 244; cited in Seymour Chatman, The Later Style of Henry James (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972), p. 58.

7. R. W. Short, “The Sentence Structure of Henry James,” American Literature 18 (1946): 73-74.

8. For what it is worth, I agree with Doggett on the referent of the. If it is reasonable to draw on other poems, I would prefer to cite the last line of “The Motive for Metaphor” ("The vital, arrogant, fatal, dominant X"—CP, 288) as a parallel. Taking “reality” as the referent does not make the last line affirmative, however, since it simply says, “Where was it one first heard of the truth? The notion of a reality beyond fictive distortion?” which in the context may mean, “How did it come about that I set out in pursuit of a possibly unreal ideal, which may be only a projection of the self?” See On Extended Wings, p. 19 and note.

6. INTEGRATION AND CONTEXT

1. J. D. Bransford and M. K. Johnson, “Considerations of Some Problems of Comprehension,” in Visual Information Processing, W. G. Chase, ed. (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p. 412.

2. Ian Watt, “The First Paragraph of The Ambassadors: An Explication,” in Contemporary Essays on Style, Glen A. Love and Michael Payne, eds. (Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1969), pp. 273-74.

3. Herbert H. Clark, “Semantics and Comprehension,” in Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 12 (Part 3) T. A. Sebeok, eds. (The Hague: Mouton, 1974), pp. 1305-08.

4. George Lakoff, “The Role of Deduction in Grammar,” in Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen, eds. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971), pp. 63-77. Lakoff credits Georgia Green with some of these observations.

5. Herbert H. Clark and Susan E. Haviland, “Psychological Processes as Linguistic Explanation,” in Explaining Linguistic Phenomena, David Cohen, ed. (Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1974), p. 105: see also Susan Haviland and Herbert Clark, “What’s New? Acquiring New Information as a Process in Comprehension,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13 (1974): 512-21; and also the brief discussion in Clark and Clark, pp. 91-98, and the references therein cited.

6. D. Terence Langendoen and Thomas G. Bever, “Can a Not Unhappy Person Be Called a Not Sad One?” in An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability, T. G. Bever, J. J. Katz, and D. Terence Langendoen, eds. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1976), pp. 239-60.

7. Helen Vendler seems to feel there is something improper or colloquial about using simple past to mark a counter-factual, as here (see On Extended Wings, p. 29).

8. Samuel Fillenbaum, “Memory for Counterfactual Conditionals,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 102 (1974): 44-49.

9. Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 184.

10. Seymour Chatman, The Later Style of Henry James (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972), p. 73.

11. See George Dillon, Introduction to Contemporary Semantics (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977), pp. 105-07.

7. SOME VALUES OF COMPLEX PROCESSING

1. Stephen Booth, An Essay on Shakespeare’s Sonnets (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969), p. 55.

2. Paul Alpers, The Poetry of the Faerie Queene (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), pp. 81-82.

3. L. C. Martin, ed. Marlowe’s Poems (London, 1931).

4. E. A. Abbott, A Shakespearian Grammar (1870; rpt. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1966), p. 59.

5. Christopher Marlowe, The Poems, Millar McClure, ed. (Methuen and Company, 1968), p. 32.

6. Stanley Fish has stressed this point in his “Interpreting the Variorum,” Critical Inquiry 2:3 (Spring, 1976): 465-86. Note that I am here invoking the notion that the reading is to be preferred which yields the greatest semantic density or number of 'ties' to the other words in the passage. Archibald A. Hill discusses applications of this principle to poetry in his Constituent and Pattern in Poetry (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976). Yorick Wilks claims that this principle, unaided by syntactic information, can give fairly good parsings to sentences ("Preference Semantics" in Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Edward L. Keenan, ed. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975], pp. 329-48).

7. Warren Beck, “William Faulkner’s Style,” in William Faulkner: Three Decades of Criticism, Frederick J. Hoffman and Olga W. Vickery, eds. (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1960), p. 153.

8. Robert Zoellner, "Faulkner’s Prose Style in Absalom, Absalom! American Literature 30 (1959): 490-91.

9. Barry Menikoff, “Punctuation and Point of View in the Late Style of Henry James,” Style 4 (1970): 29.

10. Jane P. Tompkins, '"The Beast in the Jungle': An Analysis of James’s Late Style," Modern Fiction Studies (1970): 187-88.

11. Helen Vendler, On Extended Wings (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969), p. 306.

12. Ian Watt, “The First Paragraph of The Ambassadors: An Explication,” in Contemporary Essays on Style, Glen A. Love and Michael Payne, eds. (Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1969), p. 273.

13. R. W. Short, "The Sentence Structure of Henry James, American Literature 18 (1946): 71-S8.

14. Walter Slatoff, “The Edge of Order: The Pattern of Faulkner’s Rhetoric,” in Hoffman and Vickery, p. 193.

CONCLUSION

1. Ralph Rader, “The Concept of Genre and Eighteenth-Century Studies,” in New Approaches to Eighteenth-Century Literature: Selected Papers from the English Institute (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974), p. 89; cited in Stanley Fish, “Facts and Fictions: A Reply to Ralph Rader,” Critical Inquiry 1:4 (June, 1975): 888.