This brief study will concentrate on a few basic features of the noun phrase: the noun itself, its determiner (restricting the field to articles), its adjectival modification and two patterns of prepositional connection between noun phrases, namely prepositional compounding with of and comparative patterns with connective like. I shall attempt to show in what way the selection of a determiner, in relation with the basic properties of the noun, or the choice between the analytical prepositional pattern and the synthetic form of attributive adjectival modification can be seen as enunciative choices leading to the highlighting of certain stylistic features such as point of view or metaphorical representation.

My aim is to illustrate the application of linguistic concepts to the analysis of specific markers in their context. In order to meet this highly practical agenda, I propose to examine selected features relating to the noun phrase in four brief excerpts of contemporary fiction, both as a form of exercise in linguistic commentary and to draw attention to the contribution of such an analysis to the further exploration of literary texts.

(Jane Gardam, “The Kiss of Life”)

This first excerpt is taken from the opening pages of a short story featuring two female characters, Edna and Mew, whose asymmetrical and unequal relationship—both in terms of physical appearance and personality—is set out, one-sidedly, in the very first sentence of the story: “Edna was a big respectable looking woman, always in the supermarket.” The features marking Edna as the dominant character are predicated in this opening sentence through the sequence of attributive adjectives, and the passage under consideration, which comes a few lines further, offers an apparently typical example of the function of adjectival modification as a means of setting the scene and characterizing the participants.

However, several specific features contribute to the humorous effect of the description of the two women. One is the use of adjectival premodification of proper nouns, as in large Edna, little Mew, alarming Edna: since a proper noun is fully determined qualitatively (i.e. in terms of its defining properties) by the one-to-one relationship that binds it to its referent, attributive adjectival premodification is infrequent in such noun phrases, and tends to be interpreted as producing a kind of “compound” proper noun. The adjective cannot be said to have a descriptive function here, but provides more of a modal definition of the person referred to by assigning to him/her some permanent, inherent, preconstrued property as if it encompassed his/her most remarkable characteristic. Of the three adjectives quoted above, little is the only one to be regularly used with proper nouns, because of its propensity (as opposed to small) to express modal judgment and to carry “an added suggestion of affection” (Longman Dictionary). In contrast with the standard collocation chosen to characterize Mew, who is presented throughout the story as an ordinary, unobtrusive, rather “mousy” person, the adjectives associated with Edna are definitely marked, thus emphasizing her somewhat overwhelming personality. The most neutral antonymous expression to set against little Mew would be big Edna, if one takes into account the following shades of meaning suggested in the Longman Dictionary: “Large is often preferred to describe physical dimensions, quantity, amount or capacity. Big is more appropriate for bulk, mass or weight.” The use of large as a predicative adjective would obviously appear less marked, as in Edna was a large woman, which would merely predicate in neutral terms a certain property defining Edna, without any preconstrued qualification. To an even greater extent, the use of the adjectival participle alarming is unusual in attributive position with a noun referring to a person, let alone with a proper noun: for one thing, the derivation of the adjectival participle from the -ing form of the verb leads to constraints on its use as an attributive adjective (Cotte 1996, 267-68); furthermore, describing something (or someone?) as alarming can only refer to a temporary property, linked to a specific event, phenomenon or situation, hence the comic effect of associating the adjective with the semantic features [+ animate] and [+ permanent].

These instances of adjectival premodification of proper nouns are one of the linguistic features that gradually and discreetly lead the reader to an awareness of point of view in the story. The first occurrence introduces large, a gradable adjective whose meaning can only be determined with reference to a standard value or yardstick, which in its turn may vary from one person to another; any dictionary definition clearly shows the relational nature of this adjective (Longman Dictionary: “exceeding most other things of like kind, esp. in quantity or size”). Therefore large Edna can only be construed in contrast with, and as seen by Mew, whose status as centre of consciousness is suggested by various means in the first paragraph of the excerpt. At this early stage in the short story, the central point of view has not yet been consolidated, which leads to shifts in perspective: thus at the end of this excerpt, the contrast between little Mew and alarming Edna appears to be seen through the eyes of the young man, whose status as perceiver is explicitly indicated by the verb looked.

A further indication of point of view, which gives additional depth of perspective to this seemingly banal description, is the series of explicit comparisons introduced by like. This preposition establishes an analogical relation based on the localisation of a property with respect to a term that is not inherently assumed to have such a property (Lapaire et Rotgé 261-63). The analogy necessarily has a subjective source, that is to say is related to a point of view, as evidenced by the standard collocation with a perception verb in such patterns as “look/ sound/smell like + pronoun or noun phrase.” Three such comparisons are to be found in this short excerpt, each one of them being assignable to a different source of representation of the scene: in the first one, Mew is portrayed by the narrator as standing like a still stone, in a sentence that appears to start as a description viewed purely externally; the perspective for the second comparison (their legs like hanging plants) shifts to Mew, who as subject of the verbal participle regarding becomes the source of the entire metaphorical and analogical representation that extends to the end of the sentence. Finally, the association of Edna’s mouth to the image of the top of a sponge-bag is made by the young man, and one cannot fail to notice the strong connection between the explicit comparison and the attributive premodification by adjectives. The impression made upon the young man (and on the reader, of course) by alarming Edna is gradually built up by the accumulation of qualitative determination, especially the repetition of the pattern of two juxtaposed attributive adjectives (big, firm face and confident tight bunch) belonging to the same semantic field. According to Quirk et al. (1338-39), these belong to the “central” zone of premodification, which includes the “most adjectival” items, whose function is to describe and to characterize; although in the first pair there is a constraint on order (adjectives referring to size tend to come first, see Quirk et al. and Chalker), in the second pair, the two adjectives are interchangeable and fulfill an identical function, thus redoubling the force of characterization and emphasizing the impression made upon the observer.

Although no particularly marked use of noun phrase determination appears to stand out in this first passage, close examination has nevertheless enabled us to pinpoint the combined function of accumulated attributive adjectives and comparative structures in producing a vivid and humorous opening to this little comedy in which the reader finds him/herself immediately involved. Let us turn now to a second passage in which the linguistic markers of comparison and point of view produce a very different effect.

(Nadine Gordimer, “Is There Nowhere Else Where We Can Meet?”)

This sequence of three excerpts comes at the crucial point in Nadine Gordimer’s short story, the meeting of the nameless white girl and the equally nameless black man, and contains the pivotal sentence that freezes the frame on the moment of equilibrium at the very centre of the story: He stood dead still and she stood dead still. A seminal story in Gordimer’s work, it fleetingly brings to life a situation that is both specific and generic, the archetypal, symbolic clash of white and black in South Africa, seen through the eyes of the character denoted by the pronoun she, who is construed throughout the story as the centre of perception. [2]

Again, this passage offers frequent instances of comparative structures, of greater complexity than in the first excerpt, if only because of the alternation between two patterns: like-comparisons and as-comparisons. Both markers imply the subjective construction of an analogy—between a property and a term localising that property in the case of like, between two predications with as—but the relationship indicated by like is of a looser nature than that expressed by as, which involves an operation of identification (whether based on given properties or on subjectively perceived similarities) between the located term and the “yardstick” or qualitative criterion selected as locator (Lapaire et Rotgé 256-61 and Gilbert). I shall not comment on the syntactic differences between the two patterns, which are governed by grammatical constraints, preferring to focus on the way in which the determination of the locating situation varies according to the pattern chosen.

All the like-comparisons are anchored in the specific situation in which the girl (she) finds herself at that particular moment as centre of consciousness, and are directly related to her actual physical perception of the sounds, movements and objects around her: she felt a thudding … like the sound of a hare running; she found herself whimpering like an idiot or a child; it looked like broken wood. In all these cases, the noun phrases connected by like all have specific determination, and are located with respect to the specific spatio-temporal situation, as indicated by the verbs in the simple past: qualitative and quantitative determination (“qlt”/“qnt”) are equally weighted in these comparisons, [3] which combine the subjective construction of analogies based on properties that are perceived as comparable and the objective anchoring in the specific situation that triggers off the subjective representations.

In the cases where as is used, the comparisons are no longer located with respect to the specific situation of the narrative but disconnected from it through a combination of generic and aoristic markers, both on the nouns and on the verbs. The attitudes of the characters described at a particular moment of the story are declared to be identical to generic situations that are not located relative to a specific time or place: he turned slowly and looked … as a cow sees you go; every vestige of control … went out of her, as a room plunges into dark. Whereas with like the two compared terms are merely related to each other situationally (“qnt”), with as the locating and located terms are identified with each other notionally (“qlt”) (Lab 87); the analogy is disconnected from the time of the events and gains, as it were, universal meaning. The “typical” situation that serves as a point of reference is determined with all the characteristic markers of genericity: the simple present tense on the verbs, the generic use of the indefinite article (a cow, a room), which constitutes a qualitative extraction of an item as being representative of the entire notional class, as well as the generic use of the pronoun you in the first example. A complete analysis of comparative patterns in this excerpt would also have to include the generic relative clause: in the dizziness that follows running, which contains identical noun and verb determination and goes one step further in removing the analogy from the current situation, thus producing a generalizing and typifying effect in accordance with the archetypal significance of the scene.

The patterns discussed in this section all indicate some form of subjective representation and structuring of the outside world, but the identification of the point of view which is the source of the comparisons is open to debate. As we have seen, the girl is construed as the centre of consciousness, and the many markers of perception, aspect and modality could lead us to regard the character as a disconnected enunciator (“énonciateur fictif,” in Culioli’s terms) from whose perspective associations and analogies are made. However, the intrusion of generic, timeless predications may on the contrary point to the narrator as the controlling source of the character’s perceptions and representations. This uncertainty as to the assertive source is deliberately fostered by the use of language which, by combining markers of determination belonging to two distinct systems of location—identification and adjacence on the one hand, aoristic disconnection on the other—provides the perceptive reader with a stepping stone towards the interpretation of the story as an archetypal tale.

(Ray Bradbury, Death is a Lonely Business)

The opening page of Ray Bradbury’s novel from which the above excerpts have been selected carries great descriptive force, and only a detailed analysis could hope to do justice to the way in which lexis, syntax and prosody combine to draw the reader into the nightmarish atmosphere of threatening darkness and perpetual motion that is conjured up by the language. I shall, however, restrict my commentary to a few marked features of noun phrase determination and modification in so far as they contribute to the stylistic effect produced.

Like our first excerpt, this passage offers instances of multiple adjectival sequences in pre-modifying position, most strikingly in the fourth and fifth paragraphs, where a kind of syntactic and semantic “incrementation” and intensification can be observed. First of all, the two binary sequences, old red trolley and high bucketing thunder, while perfectly symmetrical from a syntactic point of view, can be contrasted semantically: in the first one, the noun denoting an object is modified by two adjectives referring to concrete properties of this object, which follow each other according to the standard adjectival order, with age preceding colour (Chalker 181-82); the second sequence, though apparently formed on strictly the same pattern, indicates a shift from objective, literal denotation to metaphorical meaning, through the interplay of metonymy and hypallage “characteriz[ing] phrases in which the (apparent) syntactic scope of a qualifying term does not coincide with its (real) semantic scope” (Paillard 176). The next sentence moves on to a three-adjective sequence: old, whining, roaring railcar, two of which are adjectival participles of intransitive verbs referring to processes usually associated with animate agents, thus enhancing the metaphorical effect through the device of personification. Finally, the rhetorical amplification culminates in the highly evocative compound: empty confetti-tossed transfer station, in which only one of the words with modifying function is a “real” adjective (empty). The ability of the English language to thus integrate words belonging to different classes as pre-modifiers into a single noun phrase makes for a highly synthetic expression of a complex object, in which underlying predicative, temporal or aspectual relations remain implicit, and have to be reconstructed, which may leave room for ambiguity. Cotte comments as follows on a similar example, “the tender-bladed autumn-sown corn,” after suggesting analytical glosses such as “corn that has tender blades, that was sown in the autumn”: “Tout se passe comme si la construction analytique mettait explicitement en relation (that was, in) des réalités autonomes (corn, the autumn), alors que la synthétique, présupposant les relations, conservait seulement les extrêmes” (Cotte 1997, 179-81). He further notes (185) the emphasis placed on qualitative determination in such synthetic constructions: “[la synthèse syntaxique] suppose une intégration référentielle forte, objectivement (parties du référent) et subjectivement (l’énonciateur juge la propriété caractéristique ou marquante.)”

In contrast with these integrative patterns, the analytical “N of N” construction is used in other sections of the description to relate the various elements and natural phenomena of the outside world to one another, thus distancing them from the narrator’s perception (even though it is the narrator-observer who establishes the connections between them) as well as setting them apart from the central object, the trolley car. The function of the preposition of as locating operator, and the contrasts between the three patterns available in English to locate one noun relative to another (preposition, genitive or compound) have been widely discussed—see for instance Adamczewski and Delmas 227-36, Chuquet et Paillard 58-63, Huart 59-69. The main features characterizing the prepositional construction can be summarized as follows: as regards word order, priority is given to the located term, which is determined and modified or specified by the prepositional phrase; the two elements of the construction each keep their own, autonomous determination and are viewed independently of one another; the relation that is established between them is predicated in the utterance itself, not seen as preexisting its occurrence in the text; although the relation between the two items may often appear stable or predictable, the of construction itself merely establishes a contingent association, hence its ability to be exploited for stylistic purposes, as we shall see below.

In the first paragraph of our excerpt, the of construction is classically used to combine nouns relating to perceptive phenomena: the slap of dark water, the hiss of sand, etc.; the occurrence of the notion of sound that is referred to by the first noun is then determined by the second noun specifying the source of the sound. Still in the field of perception, a more elaborate example is the sequence: a midnight stretch of meadow-grass, in which two compound nouns are associated through of, the notion of visual perception (darkness) being expressed elliptically and metonymically by the use of midnight as premodifier of stretch. While such “N-N” compound nouns are frequently linguistic markers of metonymy, the “N of N” pattern is ideally suited to the expression of metaphorical connections, as in: the bones of a vast dinosaur, the rollercoaster. The dissociation between the two terms connected by of makes it possible to take up the second one only (dinosaur) and reidentify the imaginary vision with the object denoted in the real world (rollercoaster), through the apposition of the two nouns. Such a shift, from image to object, merely by means of the juxtaposition of two noun phrases, would be impossible if one were to substitute a compound noun for the prepositional pattern: “enormous dinosaur bones” would be just that—bones identified as being those of a dinosaur, and not of some other large animal.

The of-construction’s ability to express metaphor is also to be accounted for by the contingent nature of the association linking the connected terms. Since the structuring of relations is necessarily carried out from a certain perspective (whether it be that of the narrator or of a character in the narrative), it is always possible to carry the “fortuitous association of two items” (Gauthier 99) to extremes by connecting two terms which, by “normal” standards, are not considered as sharing any common features. Such an enunciative choice will usually result in unexpected, striking or humorous metaphors, of which we find one example in Bradbury’s description: a loud avalanche of big red trolley car. Because of the “N of N” word order, the noun avalanche, referring to a natural phenomenon perceived by the narrator-observer, is given priority over the actual object in the situation (the trolley car), thus reinforcing the impression of being in the position of the perceiver surrounded by the hostile manifestations of the outside world. Furthermore, a double discrepancy is brought into play: on the one hand, between the referents of the two nouns, requiring some imaginative adjustment in order to define a common feature that connects them to each other; on the other hand, a discrepancy between the discrete nature of the noun car and the qualitative determination by zero article that is applied to it. The absence of a specific determiner indicates that the individual object is apprehended from a purely notional, qualitative point of view and the word car is used as if it were a mass noun; the very fact of using the zero article with a discrete noun suggests that something other than mere determination is at stake and that qualitative, subjective, modal or metaphorical effects are being aimed at (Bouscaren et al. 135). In such a construction as “an avalanche of trolley car,” the second noun no longer provides the first one with determination or specification (as it did in the examples taken from the first paragraph, examined above), it simply associates the referent of the first noun with a “quality,” the connection between the two existing only in the eyes of the perceiver.

The analysis of synthetic vs. analytical compound noun phrases in a passage such as this one should of course be related to other linguistic features, such as syntactic patterns of coordination, as well as prosodic and rhythmical patterns, in order to show how they complement each other and give the text a strikingly poetic character, with regular stress patterns that come very close to blank verse in places.

(T. Coraghessan Boyle, “Rust”)

Rounding off this (very partial) linguistic exploration of noun phrase determination, this final excerpt—again, the opening page of a short story—will merely serve to pursue a little further our examination of metaphorical “N of N” constructions, leaving the reader to carry out his/her own analysis of various other features that have already been studied in the previous sections.

Related to the central imagery of heat and dessication, a semantic field that is overwhelmingly present in the passage, are two striking images, in the first and last sentences of the text: a fried egg of a sun and her parched old lampshade of a head. Their structure can be compared to the “avalanche” metaphor previously examined, in that it rests upon the unusual association of two noun phrases not normally seen as having common properties, and yet it differs from the latter in several respects. This particular use of the “N of N” pattern has been studied by Cotte, (“A fine figure of a man”) and Gauthier, who both stress its subjective and qualitative value, its metaphorical function that rests on the violation of the normal rules of semantic compatibility, and the constraints on the determination of the second noun.

Both expressions can be paraphrased by comparisons: “the sun looked like a fried egg,” “her head was like a parched old lampshade,” thus highlighting the analogical association between the two items that can be related to a source of point of view—here, the character of the old man lying on the ground, whose position as centre of consciousness gradually emerges from the opening paragraphs, the constructions under examination being one of the many linguistic features that bring about this awareness. The question raised is that of the relation between the two nouns in terms of determination and specification. It is impossible to consider that the second noun “determines” the first one in the sense of identifying it, as is the case in “ordinary” uses of the construction such as: a smell of dirt, a piece of meat, beads of moisture. No existing semantic relation (such as belonging to, being a part of, being identical to, etc.) can be envisaged for sun to serve as locator for fried egg, or head for lampshade. As pointed out by Gauthier 101, whom I paraphrase, of marks the discrepancy between the occurrence denoted by the second noun (sun or head) and the object referred to by the first noun (fried egg, old lampshade) which is defined by a property (or properties) that bears no relation whatsoever to the referent of the second noun. The operation performed by of in these constructions is of a purely qualitative nature, indicating a subjective evaluation or assessment of the relation between the two nouns, N1 modifying N2 on the assumption that at least some degree of identification between the two notions can be agreed on.

The metaphorical nature of the relation between an actual object and the unlikely quality that is attributed to it explains the constraints on the type of determination that can be found in these constructions. It has been noted (Gauthier 102) that the pattern appears to be restricted (in English, at least) to discrete nouns. Whereas the type of determination of the first noun may vary according to the context, depending on whether the object is introduced into the situation for the first time or already located and identified, the second noun is always preceded by the article a, in its secondary generic use marking the extraction of one element as representing the whole of its class. In our first example, it is this qualitative determination, marking indirect reference to the notion associated with the noun, that renders the surprising co-occurrence of a sun possible.

The various examples that have been examined, some of them far too sketchily, in the four passages selected for analysis indicate that the study of noun phrases is not merely a matter of identifying constraints on the marking of determination based on (in)compatibilities between determiners and types of nouns. The use of the full range of determiners and syntactic patterns available in the linguistic system can be shown to have a complex function in the composition of literary texts. Noun phrases, like the rest of language, offer scope for distortion and deviation, whereby the respective weighting of quantitative and qualitative operations can be brought into play to participate in the construction of point of view, to create metaphor by deliberately “bending the rules,” and to contribute to giving a text its distinctive stylistic stamp.