Kieran O’Halloran Corpus-assisted literary evaluation

Roger Fowler (1996: ): ‘dynamic and disturbing’

Aim to use corpus-based analysis to shore up (initial) literary evaluation… …i.e, to explore whether we can produce a well- grounded hypothesis that poem is ‘dynamic and disturbing’ for readers more generally.

Formulaic sequence Relationship (indirect) with cognition. Cognitive reality: holistic language processing (Underwood, Schmitt and Galpin, 2004; Wray, 2002). But stored in holistic way? (see Schmitt, Grandage and Adolphs, 2004).

Schema theory Cook, 1994; Schank and Abelson, 1977 Schema = stereotypical knowledge S(W) World: Scripts, Plans, Goals, (Themes) S(T) Text S(L) Language

Formulaic sequences and schemata Principles: Large corpus provides evidence of prototypical formulaic sequences, i.e., evidence for S(L) - not S(W). typical S(L) associated with S(W). Large corpus provides evidence of non- prototypical formulaic sequences / of deviation.

Jakobsonian stylistics approach ‘The Jakobsonian principle of equivalence should lead the experienced reader of poetry to link together the series of words and their meanings: ‘waiting’, ‘hiding’, ‘loitering’, ‘feeling’, ‘fingering’, ‘sidling’, ‘stalking’, ‘raring to go’. The poem is unified by this series…’ Fowler (1996: 203)

Semantic criteria Place (street etc) n+1 since typical place for locative-functional prepositions Intention to act in a place Relating to male body

Corpus investigation of –ing forms A: Place and intention to act (n +1) a) waiting (v1, l2): 49,852 Bank of English ‘for’ 19,149; t = ‘to’ 7,748; t = 73.8 ‘in’ 1,834; t = 21.7 Phraseological deviation: ‘someone is waiting, I don’t know where’

b) hiding (v1, l3): 9,461 ‘in’ (3,575; t = 36.8); ‘behind’ (702; t = 25.8) ‘among’ (58; t = 5) ‘Hiding among’ is non-prototypical collocation Corpus investigation of –ing forms A: Place and intention to act (n +1)

c) loitering (v2, l2): 361 ‘in’ (72: t-score = 7.6) highest t-score for n+1 all instances ‘in’ relate to place ‘loitering in the dark’ not deviant. It is S(L) / prototypical formulaic sequence. Corpus investigation of –ing forms A: Place and intention to act (n +1)

Fowler (1996: 203) ‘loitering is uniaccentual from the register of police observation. A person can only loiter with bad intent.’ Around 60% express (bad) intention – 40% do not. e.g. ‘Should you be loitering around Hyde Park Corner over the next three weeks, pop into Pizza on the Park for a comical crash course in the lost art of cabaret.’ S(L) ‘loitering’: sometimes associated with intention to act (sometimes negatively) and sometimes not. c) loitering continued

Corpus investigation of –ing forms A: Place and intention to act (n +1) d) sidling (v3, l1): 89 SIDLE: 434 ‘up’ (42; t = 6.4). (211; t = 14.5) ‘along’ (6; t = 2.4).(12; t = 3.4) ‘Up’ most common collocate; ‘Sidle up to someone’ is prototypical. ‘Sidle along somewhere’ is non-prototypical collocation.

e) Stalking (v3, l3): 1,788 ‘stalking place’: approx. 10% at n+1/2 ‘stalking human (female)’: approx 80% (‘her’ 63, t = 7.4) e.g. ‘a psychopathic serial killer stalking a woman.’ ‘stalking place’ is non-prototypical collocation Corpus investigation of –ing forms A: Place and intention to act (n +1)

f) raring to go (v4, l2): 445 raring: 520 No instances of ‘unless’ 1 locative functional preposition: ‘at St James Park’. Corpus investigation of –ing forms A: Place and intention to act (n +1)

f) raring to go continued collocation of ‘raring to go’ with ‘unless’ in verse 4 is deviant ‘In Belle Grove Terrace…’ is non-prototypical

Corpus investigation of –ing forms B: Male body (4 - n+4)

Interpretation 1: phraseology vs S(W) ‘someone is waiting, I don’t know where (*‘why’)’ (v1, l2). Lack of intention; cf: S(W) PLANS and GOALS ‘Someone is loitering’ (v2, l2) may or may not be associated with intention; cf: S(W) PLANS and GOALS

fingering (Vs 2, ln 4) – semantic prosody of ‘light touching’ cf S(W) SCRIPT Interpretation 1. phraseology vs S(W) continued

a) Non-prototypical collocation ‘hiding among’ (v1, l3) ‘sidling along’ (v3, l1) ‘stalking a place’ (v3, l3) Interpretation 2: Equivalences (corpus-based)

b) Gender ‘feeling’ (v2, l3) ‘fingering’ (v2, l4) not S(L) Interpretation 2: Equivalences (corpus-based)

c) Phraseological fragment ‘Someone is waiting’ (v1, l2) ‘Raring to go’ (v4, l2) Interpretation 2: Equivalences (corpus-based)

a)Phraseological ‘someone is waiting’ (v1, l2): deviant ‘someone is loitering’ (v2, l2): non-deviant ‘someone is waiting’ (v1, l2): no (infinitive of) purpose ‘sidling…..to stop…’ (v3, l1) ‘stalking…to see…’ (v3, l3) Interpretation 3: NON-equivalences (corpus-based)

a)Phraseological continued ‘Pink Lane, Strawberry Lane, Pudding Chare’ / someone is waiting I don’t know where (v1, ls 1-2) ‘Monk Street, Friars Street, Gallowgate / are better avoided when it’s late (v5, ls 1-2) Absence of locative-functional preposition with ‘waiting’. Interpretation 3: NON-equivalences (corpus-based)

a) Phraseological continued ‘In Leazes Terrace or Leazes Park / someone is loitering in the dark’ (v2, ls 1-2) ‘In Belle Grove Terrace or Fountain Row / or Hunter’s Road he’s raring to go’ (v4, ls 1-2) ‘loitering’ collocates typically with locative-functional prepositions; not case for ‘raring to go’. Interpretation 3: NON-equivalences (corpus-based)

b) Intention to act HUMAN SUBJECT + (is) + waiting (v1, l2) NO ‘He wants to play peculiar games’ (v1, l4) YES ‘HUMAN SUBJECT + (is) + loitering’ (v2, l2) YES and NO Interpretation 3: NON-equivalences (corpus-based)

Conclusion While on Jakobsonian account there is ‘unity’, there is evidence to ground hypothesis that ‘disunity’ in reading would be reasonably common, because of: tensions between S(W) likely to be activated in reading and non-prototypical / deviant formulaic sequences in which -ing forms occur; existence of different patterns of equivalence and NON- equivalence for –ing forms. Disunity in reading = ‘dynamic and disturbing’ effects.