readings of Byatts texts, however, tend to be rather more cursory, and occasionally

one gets the impression that Byatts novels are cited in evidence of the particular
theory under scrutiny rather than the other way round. This may, in part at least, be
owing both to the genre of the published PhD and to this studys rm rootedness in
the German tradition of English Studies, but it still would have been nice to see a
somewhat more detailed and explicit engagement with Byatts ctions as texts, with
her characters as ctional entities, and, for that matter, with the ever diversifying body
of perceptive literary criticism on Byatts work.
The second part of the book goes some way towards remedying this state of
affairs. Establishing a convincing and highly useful link between the notions of
individual identity explored in Part 1 and the concept of collective identity as
expressed in, and in turn established through, cultural memory, the focus shifts
onto textual strategies of identity formation, and thus to literature. Intertextuality,
the use of mnemonic icons, and the construction of textual memorials and
memory spaces through manipulations of genre conventions are all prominent
features of Byatts ction, and again Steveker furnishes the reader with a sound
theoretical framework within which these questions can be considered. Steveker
successfully argues that Byatts ctions do not only dramatise the link between
identity and cultural memory, but also actively participate in the process of
knitting the net of culture that both envelops and engenders individual and
collective identities alike. This is perhaps the most valuable insight to take away
from this book as it aptly captures Byatts unique blend of energetic storytelling
and astute intellectualism, and with it the essentially hermeneutic model of the
reading and writing imagination that informs much, perhaps all of Byatts writerly
output.
ALEXA ALFER
University of Westminster
2012 Alexa Alfer Email: Alfera@westminster.ac.uk
One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American
English
GU

NTER ROHDENBURG and JULIA SCHLU

TER (Eds)
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009
486 pp., ISBN: 978 0 521 87219 5, 68.00
Rohdenburg and Schluters book about the grammatical differences between
American and British English starts out on an ambitious note. Reviewing how little
attention has been paid so far to the grammatical differences between the two
Englishesrather than the phonological or lexical differences which have attracted
most attention from linguistsRohdenburg and Schluter set out to ll the gap they
244 Reviews
diagnose to exist in the eld: an in-depth, empirically based booklength
treatment of British (BrE) and American English (AmE) grammar in contrast
(introduction, pp. 34). The question that immediately springs to mind, of course, is
whether they are actually able to achieve this in their book.
The main part of the book consists of sixteen case studies of grammatical
differences, ranging from comparatives to reexives and from subjunctives to tag
questions. These case studies are preceded by an introduction, and a programmatic
chapter by Marianne Hundt on the debate about whether American English lags
behind (the colonial lag-hypothesis), or whether it is in fact innovative with respect
to British English. The book ends with a chapter which returns to this initial theme
and a chapter which contains a collection of pilot studies pointing to directions for
further research.
One of the strengths of the book is the very useful introduction by Rohdenburg
and Schluter themselves, which provides a clear starting point for the whole book.
It includes an overview of the suggestive results that follow from the case studies,
and brings them together in overarching insights (pp. 45). One of these addresses
the diachronic development of the two varieties. The colonial lag, Rohdenburg and
Schluter claim, should be replaced by a more differentiated typology, because the
patterns that emerge from the case studies are not that simple to interpret. Some of
the effects that seem AmE conservatisms, like the use of the en-participle in proven
and gotten, in fact turn out to be revivalsindependent developments in AmEas
shown in the chapter by Hundt. An issue related to the colonial lag, that of which is
the leading, or more inuential, variety, remains unresolved in this book: among the
case studies there are results both for AmE and BrE as instigating changes in recent
years.
Rohdenburg and Schluter also identify a number of system-internal, intrinsic
tendencies (p. 5) that constitute genuine grammatical differences between AmE and
BrE. Several of these tendencies are illustrated in the chapter by Britta Mondorf on
the use of full vs more full in both varieties. The nding that AmE uses more full to a
greater extent than BrE, according to Mondorf, not only points to the conclusion that
AmE moves in the direction of more colloquial structuresshe shows how the more
full form is less formal than fuller (p. 100)but also that AmE has a preference for
regular grammatical patterns (p. 106). It also shows a tendency for AmE to be more
explicit in the marking of grammatical functionson the basis that the more-form is
easier to process for a reader or hearer (p. 89).
In conclusion, the book is rich in detail and scope, and the goal Rohdenburg and
Schluter set themselves is a noble one, and a question that deserves answering. The
book is indeed empirically based, but it remains to be seen how in-depth it is.
Even with the excellent introduction and attempts to bring the material together, the
book still remains a collection of separate studies on seemingly unconnected, and
sometimes minor, issues. The book might have proted from an explanation as to
the choice of issues and the embedding of these issues within the AmE and BrE
grammars. That being said, the book is certainly worth reading for anyone working
Reviews 245
on the differences between AmE and BrE, or, indeed, one of the phenomena in either
language.
GEA DRESCHLER
Radboud University
2012 Gea Dreschler Email: g.dreschler@let.ru.nl
Gothic Histories: The Taste for Terror, 1764 to the Present
CLIVE BLOOM
London, Continuum, 2010
viii 211 pp., ISBN: 978-1-84706-051-8, $19.95 pb
Gothic Literature 18251914
JARLATH KILLEEN
Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 2009
ix 248 pp., ISBN: 978-0-7083-2069-3, $25.00 pb
The strengths of each of these two books might be said to be, respectively, the
weaknesses of the other. Clive Blooms Gothic Histories is frustratingly broad in its
historical scope, ranging as it does over nearly two-and-a-half centuries; yet it
gestures towards a comprehensiveness which Killeens Gothic Literature 18251914
does not set out to match. Conversely, Killeens book is more tightly focused into a
manageable time frame, but sometimes reads as though it could use a few more nods
to the moment of high Gothic literature (for some purists the only strictly proper
Gothic) that had ended shortly before the start of his 18251914 remit, by way of
contextual grounding.
Blooms book is fun, light and, despite its title, more text- than context-based in its
analysis. He has a ne ear for a good story, and Gothic Histories is full of interesting
facts and anecdotes about authors such as Horace Walpole, William Beckford and
Monk Lewis. If specic mention of these names here suggests that Blooms focus is
specically on the canonical, then it should be made clear that he also makes time for
some more unusual diversions among authors, and texts, which are less readily
associated with classic Gothic literature. Recently rediscovered, or at least recovered,
Gothic and horror texts such as Varney the Vampyre and the original Sweeney Todd
serial, for instance, are given attention. But the reader looking for deeper contextual
answers to why Gothic literature arose, andperhaps even more importantly here,
given Blooms wide historical focuswhy the Gothic endured, and continues to
endure in various forms, will come away with these questions only partly resolved.
This is not to say that Bloom completely ignores his historically focused mission-
statement, however. His strength is quite clearly his exploration of individual texts,
246 Reviews
Copyright of English Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.