entities stand as crystallizations of a distinctly Aegean manner of animalian compositeness that is highly intuitive in its integration. These entities – the boar’s tusk helmet, ox-hide shield and ikrion (ship cabin) – embody this dynamic in an arrant fashion, since, while each is prominently animalian and bodily, they do not themselves take the shapes of animal physiques. Instead, they brought novel, conventional object-forms to animalian presences in the Aegean. By not standing as animals themselves, they starkly draw out the potent relational dynamics that could be realized between creatures, and between creatures and things. Discussion ultimately concerns the added complexity introduced to the statuses of these entities when rendered in movable representational media like glyptic and painted ceramics; particular attention comes to their frequent rendering in series. While seriation is often read as simplifying something’s status to the merely ornamental, I argue, instead, that articulation of shields, helmets and ikria in series imbued them with a peculiar, complex dynamism.

Chapter 1 focuses on the concept of ’the lyric’, considering various definitions of the term from literary criticism (the lyric mode in poetry), philosophy (via Hegel and Adorno), and musicology. It argues that the lyric mode’s professed ’unitary nature’ is offset by a distinctly sectional and disjunctive musical setting (via Marx’s Liedsatz), and illustrates this critical tension through an analysis of Schubert’s ’Ihr Bild’. Second, it examines Felix Salzer’s account of lyricism in Schubert’s sonatas, isolating the questions raised by this regarding the potentiality of lyrical themes and their will to repetition in contrast to the sonata’s imperative to develop. Third, it presents Schubert’s lyric parataxis (Mak, Adorno) as a viable alternative to the ’dramatic-dialectic’ model of sonata form exemplified in Beethoven’s music and explores the implications of this for the temporal unfolding of the music and the sense of directionality it articulates. In Part II, the chapter lays out three central propositions for a definition of lyric form and explains the book’s analytical methodology, placing it into the context of recent developments in the field of the new Formenlehre.

In Chapter 1, we provide an overview of the project, starting by exploring how we came to conduct a study on heterosexual first-time parents. We situate the study within our own histories of research on family diversity and highlight why a focus on heterosexual couples contributes to our understanding of norms about reproduction and kinship. We also include a brief overview of the Australian context when it comes to the composition of families. We then outline some of the major studies that have been undertaken previously on heterosexual first-time parents, before then outlining the conceptual frameworks that we utilise within the book. These include the concepts of social flesh, the ways in which feelings get institutions under the skin, and the use of juxtaposition as a way to highlight social norms within a critical kinship studies framework.

Modifiers come in a wide range of semantic types. The prototypical modifiers, property concepts, sort the referents of the noun category into subcategories. Numerals, quantifiers, set-member modifiers (‘next,’ ‘last,’ ordinals), and mensural terms function to select an individual, a set of individuals, or an amount of a nonindividuated object. Nominal modifiers use another referent to situate the head referent, most commonly via relations of possession or location. Modification constructions use a variety of strategies to express the modifier--head referent relation, strategies that are used in many other relations within a construction. Simple strategies do not use any other morphemes to encode the relation, and include juxtaposition and compounding. Relational strategies encode the semantic relation between modifier and referent (more generally, dependent and head), and include adpositions and case affixes. Indexical strategies index a referent, either the head referent or the nominal dependent referent, and include most classifiers. The sources of these strategies are constructions with pronouns, nouns, or verbs; and the strategies may evolve into a linker.

What are the different ways in which we compare? Or to rephrase the query more precisely: What are the different ways in which we ordinarily use the word “compare”? This chapter distinguishes two ways of comparing, two uses of the word “compare,” to bring into clearer view a way of comparing that, despite being common to political science, often goes unnoticed. What are the two ways to compare? To compare juxtapositionally is to place similar kinds of things side by side to catalog their similarities and differences. To compare perspectivally is to draw an analogy between different kinds of things as a way to establish a vantage point from which to view one thing in terms of the other. Political science scholars who write about comparing usually focus their attention on comparing juxtapositinally – how to describe (and explain) patterns of similarity and difference across like kinds of things, events, processes, meanings, and so on. Yet political scientists routinely compare perspectivally as well. However, perspectival comparison has been the subject of far less methodological reflection in political science than has its juxtapositional cousin. By drawing attention to perspectival comparison, this chapter provides a set of starting points that political scientists may use to think more clearly about something that they would otherwise do unreflectively.

As noted by Bauer, real dvandva compounds – that is, coordinative compounds that properly express the aggregation of two different entities, not the intersection of properties in one entity – are extremely rare in English and Spanish. This article explores the empirical domain of dvandva compounding in Spanish, and notes that they are productive when not used as heads within their phrases. We propose that the explanation for this is that Spanish can only productively build dvandva compounds using flat structures without internal hierarchy. This causes the compound to look externally for a head noun that defines the interpretation of the relation established between the two members of the dvandva. The proposal also explains why proper names are preferred in dvandva compounding, given that they do not denote properties.

What might a truly comparative Native American and Indigenous literary studies look like? Building from an extended contextualization and “literary” analysis of a work of carving, painting, inlay, and assemblage, this essay suggests a range of possible approaches to comparative, global, and/or trans-Indigenous projects based in engagements with alphabetic literatures. Both the sculptural and alphabetic examples expose ways in which the work of contemporary artists and writers elucidates neither Indigenous stasis nor Indigenous isolation—as colonial stereotypes continue to assert—but rather Indigenous connections to wider worlds, often in multiple ways simultaneously, and often explicitly within processes of real and imagined travel. In these examples, artists and writers center the Indigenous in their works in terms of the cultures, histories, and aesthetics they reference and engage, but also in the very conceptions of space, place, movement, and time their works evoke and, indeed, enact.