Vol 16 (2) 1991 BOOK REVIEWS 93 Genette Ashby-Beach. The "Song of Roland": A Generative Study of the Formulaic Language in the Single Combat. JEAN-PAUL CARTON 99 Andreas Bomba. Chansons de geste und Französisches Nationalbewusstsein im Mittelalter: Sprachliche Analysen der Epen des Wilhelmszyklus. PATRICIA BLACK 105 Denis J. Conlon, ed. Simon de Puille: Chanson de geste. JAN A. NELSON 111 Jean Dufournet, ed. Ami et Amile: Une chanson de geste de l'amitié. DONALD MADDOX 115 Continuations. Essays on Medieval French Literature and Language in Honor of John L. Grigsby. Ed. Noms J. Lacy and Gloria Torrini-Roblin. JOAN B. WILLIAMSON 124 David P. Schenck. The Myth of Guillaume. Poetic Consciousness in the Guillaume d'Orange Cycle. JOAN B. WILLIAMSON ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS 129 "Problems in the Medieval Romance Epic": Sessions of the Société Rencesvals at the Twenty-sixth International Con- gress on Medieval Studies at Kalamazoo, May 9-12, 1991. Book Reviews Jean-Paul Carton Genette Ashby-Beach. The "Song of Roland" : A Generative Study of the Formulaic Language in the Single Combat. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1985, Pp. 190. This book, which includes materials published by the same author in an Olifant article in 1979,1 is the result of research undertaken for a PhD. dissertation which was completed in the mid- seventies.2 It examines the formulaic language of the Song of Roland from the standpoint of a generative model of competence which emphasizes (1) the role of context in formula production and (2) formulaic variation. It focuses on two levels of formulaic language, the "formula" and the "formulaic complex." Unlike Milman Parry and Albert B. Lord, Ashby-Beach sees the formula not as a repetition of words and syntactic patterns but as a paraphrastic system based on an underlying semantic string that is "actualized" in a variety of ways depending on the context of its occurence. She dismisses the Parry-Lord definition of the formula as being too restrictive. Instead, she prefers to view the formula in Edward A. Heinemann's terms as "l'unité minimum de l'expression stylisée, longue d'un ou deux hémistiches selon la syntaxe, et résultat de la rencontre du mètre et de la syntaxe" (19). This definition, with its focus on the "essential idea" of the formula rather than on its surface structure, appears to account better for the dynamics of formulaic language in the Roland. At the deep- structure level, Ashby-Beach sees a "semantic string composed of sememes" (16), which is triggered by preceding contextual 1 Genette Ashby, "A Generative Model of the Formula in the Chanson de Roland," Olifant 7 (1979): 39-65. The bulk of this article is included in the book as a pan of Chapter 2 (pp. 19-32). 2 Genette Ashby, "A Generative Grammar of the Formulaic Language in the Single Combat of the Chanson de Roland" diss., Columbia U, 1976; see "Recent Dissertations," Olifant 4 (1977): 300-01 for a summary. 94 Olifant / Vol. 16, Nos. 1 & 2 / Spring & Summer 1991 elements. Lexical choice is based on semantic content and structural considerations. Thus, numerous surface structures or actualized formulaic variants may correspond to a given invariant deep- structure preformula, defined as a non-actualized or virtual formula. The final form of each of these variants depends upon the context of its occurrence. Although she acknowledges her debt to the theory of Chomsky, the author is careful to specify that her model is not Chomskian in the sense that Chomsky's model provides only structural descriptions but does not generate sentences, whereas hers "'generates' or produces epic formulas in a context." In addition, Chomsky's model deals at the level of the deep structure with a syntactic description, whereas Ashby-Beach's is sememic (16). A "formulaic complex" consists of a cluster of formulas that are united by a common idea (linked semantically) so as to form a "descriptive system," such as the description of the battle steed, the lance attack, or the equestrian complex. Ashby-Beach distinguishes between the simple formulaic complex, in which two formulas fill one hemistich each in the same verse, and the extended formulaic complex, which involves more than one verse line. A formulaic complex is composed of cardinal (obligatory) and secondary formulas and may be combined with other complexes in such a way that one of the complexes forms the "nuclear complex" and the others the "satellite complexes." The kernel of an extended complex is formed by its cardinal formulas (20-21,37-40). Ashby-Beach illustrates the functioning of her generative model in her second chapter, where she demonstrates how six formulaic variants of the preformula "(Horse X) is swifter than bird(s) Y," which occur in similar formulaic complexes in three versions of the Roland, correspond to the same deep-structure sememic string and differ at the surface level because of semantic and structural constraints (including assonance and meter) imposed by context. Thus, a verse line such as "Le destrier vait plus tost que nul ostour" is a formula based upon the same deep structure as "Plus est isnels que nen est uns falcuns," in spite of structural and lexical differences. According to her model, the generation of formulas occurs on three successive levels, "deep structure," "shallow structure," and "surface structure." She identifies the deep-structure sememic strings by listing all of the related formulas in the corpus under scrutiny and finds that basic sememes may be divided into two categories, according to whether or not they are kernel Carton / Ashby-Beach's A Generative Study 95 (obligatory) sememes or secondary (optional) sememes. Obligatory sememes always correspond to kernel lexemes in surface structure, thus "Le destrier" in the formula "Le destrier vait plus tost que nul ostour" is a secondary lexeme because it is actualized in only one of six variants under consideration (25-26). At the level of the shallow structure, which involves the transformational component, the sememes are arranged into a sememic string and lexical insertion takes place in the invariant string according to proper structural rules of rhythm and assonance (26-31). Finally, at the level of surface structure, the B-verse is collocated to the A-verse and evaluation of the degree of paraphrase takes place (31-32). The author gives a detailed description of the various transformations undergone by the basic sememic structure as it becomes surface structure in the six instances cited, explaining how context affects the final form of the formula; she analyses in the same way a related set of four formulaic variants based upon the preformula "There is no beast which can outrun (horse) X" (32-37). In the following chapters, the author turns to the Oxford Roland and applies her generative model to the analysis of formula generation in the equestrian complex which precedes the lance attack (chapter 3) and in the lance attack itself (chapter 4). She finds that the equestrian complex is composed of three parts: (1) the cardinal preformula "(X) is mounted on a/the horse + identification;" (2) the secondary (optional) preformula "(Horse X) is faster than bird(s)/beast;" and (3) the cardinal preformula "(X) spurs his horse." The lance attack complex consists of five preformulas: (1) the cardinal preformula "(X) strikes Y;" (2) three cardinal preformulas, "(X) breaks the shield of Y," "(X) breaks the hauberk of Y," and "(X) pierces/does not pierce the body of Y with his lance"; and (3) the closing cardinal preformula "(X) kills/does not kill Y." Again, for each preformula, the author presents a description of the transformations that occur in the generation of its surface structure in context, analysing the structural constraints imposed by meter and assonance, the degree of synonymy, and the extent of the variations. In chapter 5, where she presents a descriptive model of the combat code in the Roland, Ashby-Beach shows how formulaic complexes are also variants of an invariant deep structure or "base kernel." She identifies the base kernel of the combat motif as follows: (1) Assault; (2) Defensive Arms; (3) Offensive 96 Olifant / Vol. 16, Nos. 1 & 2 / Spring & Summer 1991 Arms/Wounds; (4) Result. Only categories (1) and (4) are obligatory to the actualization of the combat theme, although in some instances only category (4) is actualized, category (1) being implied. The author examines the lance attack, the sword attack, the single combat deciding the outcome of the war, and the battle in general and hero(es) in the mêlée, and finds distinct degrees of variation. The complex of the battle in general and hero(es) in the mêlée has the less rigid structure of these complexes, whereas the single combat with lance displays the highest degree of fixity. Although this book brings a new perspective to chanson de geste studies and does provide valuable insights about stylized discourse in the Roland, it has generally received mixed reviews from a number of scholars in the field. It has been criticized for a certain lack of rigor and consistency,3 a cumbersome and somewhat unnecessary analytical apparatus,4 a possible disregard for the semantic complexity of formulaic language in the Roland, and an overstatement of its achievements.5 In addition, and principally if it is the author's intention to discuss the difference between formulaic language and other types of poetic language, as she does in her conclusion, one might regret some of her implicit and apparently wavering assumptions concerning the formula and the nature of the texts she analyses. On the one hand, she recognizes that quantitative oral-formulaic studies which have tried to test the orality of texts such as the Roland have reached an "impasse" (15), suggesting that they have not produced convincing evidence showing that these texts are direct products of oral tradition, a view that would certainly be shared by many scholars in the field.6 She also seems to distance 3 W.