We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The spatial agency bias predicts that people whose native language is rightward written will predominantly envisage action along the same direction. Two mechanisms contribute jointly to this asymmetry: (a) an embodied process related to writing/reading; (b) a linguistic regularity according to which sentence subjects (typically the agent) tend to precede objects (typically the recipient). Here we test a novel hypothesis in relation to the second mechanism, namely, that this asymmetry will be most pronounced in languages with rigid word order. A preregistered study on 14 European languages (n = 420) varying in word order flexibility confirmed a rightward bias in drawings of interactions between two people (agent and recipient). This bias was weaker in more flexible languages, confirming that embodied and linguistic features of language interact in producing it.
Single institutional review board (IRB) review of multisite research increased in frequency over a decade ago with a proliferation of master IRB reliance agreements supporting statewide and regional consortia and disease- and population-specific networks. Although successful, the increasing number of agreements presented significant challenges and illuminated potential benefits of a single, nationwide agreement. Anticipated changes in federal regulations highlighted the need to systematize and simplify IRB reliance. To address these challenges, the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences funded a project to establish a national IRB reliance network that would support national adoption of single IRB (sIRB) review. The Streamlined, Multisite, Accelerated Resources for Trials (SMART) IRB Platform launched in July 2016 to facilitate dissemination, adoption, and implementation of a collaboratively developed master IRB reliance agreement and supportive tools and resources. More than 580 institutions have joined SMART IRB’s Master Common Reciprocal Institutional Review Board Authorization Agreement and begun using the SMART IRB platform to support sIRB arrangements. Here, we describe the tenets of the agreement and operational benefits and challenges of its use. SMART IRB’s early success affirms the utility of collaborative, flexible, and centralized approaches to supporting sIRB review while highlighting the need for further national harmonization.
The insight that "the implications of textuality as such" can and must underlie our interpretations of literary works remains one of A.C. Spearing's greatest contributions to medieval studies. It is a tribute to the breadth and significance of his scholarship that the twelve essays gathered in his honour move beyond his own methods and interests to engage variously with "textuality as such," presenting a substantial and expansive view of current thinking on form in late medieval literary studies. Covering a range of topics, including the meaning of words, "experientiality", poetic form and its cultural contexts, revisions, rereadings, subjectivity, formalism and historicism, failures of form, the dit, problems of editing lyrics, and collective subjectivity in lyric, they offer a spectrum of the best sort of work blossoming forth from close reading of the kind Spearing was such an early advocate for, continues to press, and which is now so central to medieval studies. Authors and works addressed include Chaucer (The Canterbury Tales, Troilus and Criseyde, The Legend of Good Women, "Adam Scriveyn", "To Rosemounde", "The Complaint Unto Pity"), Langland (Piers Plowman), the Gawain-poet (Cleanness), Charles d'Orléans, Gower (Confessio Amantis), and anonymous lyrics.
Cristina Maria Cervone teaches English literature and medieval studies at the University of Memphis; D. Vance Smith is Professor of English at Princeton University.
Contributors: Derek Pearsall, Elizabeth Fowler, Claire M. Waters, Kevin Gustafson, Michael Calabrese, David Aers, Nicolette Zeeman, Jill Mann, D. Vance Smith, J.A. Burrow, Ardis Butterfield, Cristina Maria Cervone, Peter Baker.
This volume celebrates the work of A. C. Spearing, our teacher, colleague, and friend. Tony's influence has been strong in more than one area of medieval literary studies: his foundational The Gawain-Poet: A Critical Study (1970) has not been superseded; his Medieval Dream-Poetry (1976) shaped all subsequent work on dream visions; he is one of the seminal figures in Med/Ren studies because of his Medieval to Renaissance in English Poetry (1985); and his latest books, on subjectivity and narratology (Textual Subjectivity: The Encoding of Subjectivity in Medieval Narratives and Lyrics, 2005, and Medieval Autographies: The “I” of the Text, 2012), have drawn attention and critical controversy both within medieval studies and beyond, proving to be even more provocative and influential, perhaps, than his initial groundbreaking volume, Criticism and Medieval Poetry. It is hard to overstate the impression this, his first book, made when it came out in 1964. Spearing was immediately termed the first New Critic in Middle English studies (if not in medieval studies generally) and his subsequent studies of the Gawain-poet and Chaucer, which were read widely by audiences from high schools to universities, established him as a humane, subtle, and interesting reader of texts. His influence on formalist readings of medieval literature has been profound and inescapable.
In an unpublished lunchtime talk at his home university, the University of Virginia, in October 2004, just before the publication of Textual Subjectivity, Spearing succinctly laid out his own perception of his scholarship as he spoke of “My First Half-Century as a Medievalist”: “I haven't ceased to be a formalist, in the sense that I haven't ceased to place literary value at the centre of my studies or to believe that what can convincingly be said about literary texts can be related to the details of their verbal form.” The insight that attention to form can and must underlie our interpretations of literary texts remains one of Spearing's greatest contributions to the field of literary criticism of medieval texts.
In the course of preparing this volume, the editors received a transcription of some fragmentary verses. They were sent by a scholar from Cambridge, the apparent site of the story related in this most interesting early poem. The copy we obtained appears to be of very recent vintage, perhaps from the middle part of the twentieth century, around about 1956 or 1957. It has struck us that the story seems to have certain affinities with another brief fragment that by chance has since come into our hands. Examining the verse structure closely, and taking into account prominent dialectical features, we have formed the opinion that these are two sections of the same fourteenth-century poem, previously unrecorded and nowhere accounted for in scholarship on the period. It may be, however, that the second fragment is by a slightly later, somewhat cavalier hand, perhaps even a pupil of the first poet. It seems wholly appropriate that they should appear for the first time together. Having examined both manuscripts carefully, we initially thought that perhaps the letters “ACS” and “c.m.” scribbled in the margins might help in attribution of this poem, even though our original describes the first verses as “apparently by the Gawain-poet.” We have since, however, tentatively conjectured that these letters, even if they are initials, represent scribal activity, perhaps pen tests, possibly of use in determining provenance. It is our hope that the author of these verses, or at least of the earlier ones, should be discovered and properly acclaimed. Given the subject matter of the first fragment, which includes a description of a terrifying beautiful lady uncannily similar to the great scholar, Elizabeth Salter, we surmise that the early verses at least could have been written by a precocious Cambridge student of considerable brilliance – someone witty, and, like the Gawain-poet, a keen and humane observer of human behavior. What better place for them to be published than in this celebration of the scholar who put the work of the Gawain-poet on the map?