Puritan Typology in Mary Rowlandson’s The Sovereignty and Goodness of God

Introduction
The primary purpose of this paper is to offer an overview of the use of Puritan typology in
Mary Rowlandson’s The Sovereignty and Goodness of God, one of the most famous Indian
captivity narratives1 in American literary history. Its author is a Puritan woman, wife of a
minister afforded limited agency who – as a result of going trough a journey of self-discovery
and self-fashioning during her captivity – achieves subject status by writing her narrative
(Tarnóc-Writing 281).
First we are trying to offer a definition – or, at least, a description – of typology both in
a broader (Christian/Evangelical) and in a particular (New England Puritan) sense. After
having a look at the author and the text itself, the narrative will be analyzed. The author is a
woman living in a community where women played a secondary/subordinated role to men. It
is expected that her gender and her social status affects her writing and we are going to
attempt to find out whether – and how – this manifests in the narrative.

Type and typology: definitions

As observed by Glenny (627), while there are several widely acknowledged characteristics of
typology, there is no single definition that would be acceptable to all scholars. In
contemporary evangelicalism, for instance, there are four different views of typology: (1) the
covenant view, (2) the revised dispensational view, (3) the progressive dispensational view,
and (4) the view of Richard M. Davidson2 (Glenny 628).
Over time, the term typology – derived from the Greek noun typos (τύπος) –, went
through a kind of evolution. According to Grogan (8), the original meaning of the word was
“a mark made by a blow”, later it was meant as the impression made by a stamping device,
then an image, and finally it was meant as a pattern or example. The Cambridge Dictionary of
Christianity defines typology as “a method of interpreting Scripture in which it is assumed

1
Rowlandson’s narrative is actually the best-known example of the genre (Tarnóc-troubles 152).
2
Davidson explained his views on typology in his 1981 book: R. M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of
Hermeneutical Typos Structures. Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 1981.

1
that events, institutions, and persons in the O[ld] T[estment] (‘type’) foreshadow events,
institutions, and persons in the N[ew] T[estament], and/or such features of both the OT and
the NT foreshadow events, institutions, and persons in the time of the interpreter. Then
believers discern God’s interventions in their present context” (Patte 1255). As Grogan (8)
explains,
the Exodus is a type of Christ’s Cross in Luke 9:31, where the Greek word exodos ‘departure’ is
used. Both are redemptive, in both God saves his people, although the nature of the salvation
differs, for it is physical in the type and spiritual in the antitype. David is a type of Christ because
he is a king, and, moreover, one appointed by God, although the nature of the kingship is different,
at least in some respects. In Romans 5:12ff, Adam is a type of Christ for, like his great Antitype,
his actions profoundly affected others, although the results of the actions were of course quite
different.

Grogan makes it clear that while there is similarity, analogy, continuity between the type and
its antitype, a mere resemblance is not enough to establish a type and when something or
someone is likened to a natural thing (such as a tree to which a righteous man is likened in
Psalm 1:3) it is not a type (Grogan 8). In addition, a type is not a symbol (though the two are
very close to one another) and it is not to be confused with allegory, either (Grogan 9).
As Kerekes (207) remarks, the word “type” appears sixteen times in the New Testament
(used chiefly by Paul) and there are also some other Latin and Greek terms (among others,
figura, eidos, umbra, adumbratio and prefiguratio) similar to it. Kerekes (215) also refers to
the observations of Northrop Frye according to whom typology is simultaneously a figure of
speech and a form of rhetoric. Fabiny (1383) goes even further, suggesting that typology may
refer to at least nine things: (1) a way of reading the Bible; (2) a principle of unity of the
“Old” and the “New” Testaments in the Christian Bible; (3) a principle of exegesis; (4) a
figure of speech; (5) a mode of thought; (6) a form of rhetoric; (7) a vision of history; (8) a
principle of artistic composition; and (9) a manifestation of “intertextuality.”
In a specifically American and Puritan context, OT types not only prefigured NT
antitypes but types from the Scripture (as a whole) were regarded as persons, events or
institutions forecasting (or corresponding to) the Puritans’ own historical situation and
experiences. For example, Jonathan Edwards, a notable 18 th century Puritan scholar, found

3
The list is taken from Fabiny’s paper listed in the ‘Works Cited’ section. Originally, however, it was published
in an earlier work by the author: Fabiny, Tibor. The Lion and the Lamb: Figuralism and Fulfilment in the Bible,
Art and Literature. London: Macmillan, 1992.

2
that the same typological interpretative principle (OT prefiguration of NT events, principles,
etc.) “is to be applied also to the created world, to objects and events in nature and general
human experience” (Svetlikova (160). For Puritans, “biblical typology provided a means
whereby wilderness life in the colonies could become the literal realization of central
scriptural metaphors: fall, exile, exodus, pilgrim history, promised land, and even millennial
kingdom are woven almost seamlessly into the narratives of William Bradford, John
Winthrop, Roger Williams, poet Michael Wigglesworth [...], Cotton Mather, Jurist Samuel
Sewall (1652–1730), and Jonathan Edwards” (Hillerbrand-Vol1 375).

The text and its author

Mary White Rowlandson was the daughter of John and Joane White. The parents, having
migrated to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, originally settled in Salem in 1638, then moved to
Lancaster when the town was incorporated in 1653. One of seven children, the exact date and
place of Mary’s birth are unknown. However, it is known that she married to Rev. Joseph
Rowlandson in 1656 and they had four children: one of them died before the outbreak of the
Metacomet war and another (six year old Sarah, taken captive wounded, along with her
mother) during the period of Rowlandson’s captivity. Mary Rowlandson was taken captive in
February 1675 and spent almost three months in captivity. After she was redeemed, the
Rowlandsons went to Boston, and later moved from Massachusetts to Wethersfield,
Connecticut, in the spring of 1677 (Lincoln 110).
Rowlandson recorded her experiences – originally “for her private use” – and
authorized its publication “at the earnest desire of some friends, and for the benefit of the
afflicted” (Lincoln 112). Referring to Kathryn Zabelle Derounian-Stodola, 4 Ogushi (60)
remarks that it was probably Increase Mather who persuaded Rowlandson to publish her
narrative for he liked the inclusion of more than sixty references to the Bible and the
descriptions of God as the source of Rowlandson’s endurance. With the publication of the
narrative as an inspirational story, Mather hoped to reinforce the dwindling faith of second-
generation Puritans in a period called New England’s Great Declension (1660-1690) (Cao and
Cao 300).

4
Derounian, Kathryn Zabelle. “The Publication, Promotion, and Distribution of Mary White Rowlandson’s
Indian Captivity Narrative in the Seventeenth Century.” Early American Literature, vol 23, no. 3, 1988, pp. 239–
261.

3
 From the author’s aspect, one of the functions of the captivity narrative is healing in a
wider context (Tarnóc-Writing 281). The captive often experiences things – shocking or
horrifying events, etc. – during his/her captivity that were previously unimaginable. In
modern terms, writing a captivity narrative might be regarded as a means wherewith the
individual can cope with post-traumatic stress.
The earliest edition of Rowlandson’s Narrative was printed by Samuel Green at
Cambridge in 1682.5 Within soon, the book became a veritable “best-seller” of sorts: as
Lincoln (110) remarks, “no contemporary New England publication commanded more
attention in Great Britain or in America.” While Mary Rowlandson was neither the first nor
the last person who was taken captive by American natives and later wrote about his/her
experiences, the Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson is
definitely the first such work written by an American captive and printed in America. With the
publication of Rowlandson’s account, a literary genre peculiar to colonial America was born:
the Indian captivity narrative (Hillebrand-Vol3 1138).6 According to Ogushi (58-59),
narratives of Indian captivity
were intended to promote Puritan solidarity by modeling the preservation of piety in the face of
suffering. The Indian captivity narrative was originally a variation of the conversion narrative in
which white immigrants recount autobiographically how they were attacked and captured by the
Indians, how they maintained their faith in God despite the hardships they endured, and then how
they attributed to God’s glory their escape from Indian society. The captivity narrative was well
suited as a genre to asserting the moral superiority of white Puritans because it was invariably cast
within a clearly binary framework: suffering whites contrasted with brutal savages.

One of the most important factors that makes Rowlandson’s account – along with those
mentioned earlier – special is the gender of the author. Mary Rowlandson was a woman living
in a patriarchal society where women played an important but clearly subordinate role.
However, she was a woman of a particularly high social standing: her father was the
wealthiest man in the region, her husband was Lancaster’s minister7 (Cao and Cao 299) and
one of their friends was Increase Mather, a prominent member of the contemporary
5
A facsimile scan of this edition can be accessed at
www.english.hku.hk/staff/kjohnson/PDF/RowlandsonMarySOVEREIGNTY1682.pdf (Accessed 29 March
2019).
6
Captivity narrative, as such, was not a Puritan invention. As Ogushi (58) points out, “narratives of captivity and
escape have played a role in world literature for as long as conflict and warfare have existed.”
7
As Cao and Cao (300) remark, the Indians were also aware of these factors and treated Rowlandson “relatively
kindly” in order to get a higher ransom for her.

4
ministerial elite who probably wrote the preface to Rowlandson’s narrative (Cao and Cao 301;
Mingiuc 98). These accompanying factors must have contributed significantly to the
acceptance of a woman as a writer.8

Text analysis
Rowlandson’s narrative is organized, instead of chapters, in “removes” which serve to
indicate the growing spatial distance between her home and the place of the actual
encampment as well as to illustrate her being taken deeper and deeper into the wilderness and
further and further away from her spiritual roots. The decision to write the narrative in a series
of successive encampments and removes might also allude, since the Puritans identified
themselves with the Jews of the Old Testament as God’s chosen people, to the wandering of
the Jews in the wilderness (Carruth 70). Literally and figuratively, the wilderness may be
understood as a symbol and a manifestation of hell (Cao and Cao 299).
The Preface is devoted to the description of the events surrounding the Indians’ attack.
Along with twenty three other settlers, Mary White Rowlandson was taken captive on 10
February9 1675 when the Narragansett Indians attacked the town of Lancaster. The sight of
the chaotic turmoil of the attack with the corpses of dead settlers all around, the houses
burning and “the smoke ascending to heaven” (Rowlandson 118) may have prompted any
observer to compare the place to hell. While trying to find shelter, they entered a garrison
housing thirty seven persons. Some of them died, the rest were taken captive. Only one of
them could escape to whom Rowlandson refers with a passage from the Book of Job: “And I
only am escaped alone to tell the News” (Job 1.15) (Rowlandson 120).
Rowlandson finds herself wounded and alone (only with her six year old daughter, also
suffering from a wound she later dies of) surrounded by people she does not know and does
not understand, people belonging to a different culture. But, as Mingiuc (100-101) points out,
as opposed to her eldest sister (Elizabeth Kerleey) who, upon being informed that her son died
and Rowlandson herself is wounded, gives up, wishes to die 10 and is instantly struck with a

8
Ogushi, referring to Teresa A. Toulouse (“‘My Own Credit’: Strategies of (E)valuation in Mary Rowlandson’s
Captivity.” American Literature, vol. 64, no. 4, 1992, pp. 655–674.), also mentions the importance of these
factors (61-61).
9
In the original 1682 edition the date is 1 February, due to the difference between the Julian and Gregorian
calendars.
10
“And, Lord, let me dy with them” (Rowlandson 120).

5
bullet, Mary chooses to go with the Indians instead of choosing the other alternative (giving
up and die).11 Free will vs. predestination?
She refers to the Indians as “merciless heathen” (120), “a company of hell-hounds,
roaring, singing, ranting, and insulting” (120-121), “ravenous beasts” (121), “barbarous
creatures” (121), “this barbarous enemy” (122), “inhumane creatures” (123), etc. 12 – she is
(yet) unable to view her captors as human beings (thus she does not violate the boundaries of
the contemporary Puritan stereotypes13) and regards them as hostile and violent inferior
beings.14 Later, she comes to see the Indians as a tool, a device wherewith God puts his
chosen people on trial to test their faith: “I can but stand in admiration to see the wonderful
power of God in providing for such a vast number of our enemies in the wilderness, where
there was nothing to be seen, but from hand to mouth” (Rowlandson 160). According to Potter
(153), the indigenous women are described as a fairly minor variation on normative English
femininity. However, there are also scenes in the narrative, for e.g. her meeting King Philip,
where the “Other” is not an inferior “thing” but another human being, some equal to her.
She also attempts to find reasons for her being taken captive and comes to the
conclusion that her present situation is a punishment for her breaking the covenant with God:
The next day was the Sabbath. I then remembered how careless I had been of God’s holy time;
how many Sabbaths I had lost and misspent, and how evilly I had walked in God’s sight; which
lay so close unto my spirit, that it was easy for me to see how righteous it was with God to cut off
the thread of my life and cast me out of His presence forever. Yet the Lord still showed mercy to
me, and upheld me; and as He wounded me with one hand, so he healed me with the other
(Rowlandson 124).

Rowlandson illustrates her situation with a passage from the Book of Psalms (38.5-6): “My
wounds stink and are corrupt, I am troubled, I am bowed down greatly, I go mourning all the
day long” (Rowlandson 125) but within soon she finds two signs of divine providence. First
she meets her son, also taken captive on the attack on Lancaster (Rowlandson 126), and then

11
“I chose rather to go along with those (as I may say) ravenous beasts, than that moment to end my days”
(Rowlandson 121).
12
Using such terms to refer to the Indians at the beginning of captivity is not uncommon in other Indian captivity
narratives, either (Tarnóc-Erőszak 37).
13
According to Burnham (15), “the religious typology that structured Puritan hermeneutics encouraged the
colonists—especially during periods of warfare—to perceive the Indians as agents of Satan, designed to tempt
and test the election of individual Puritans and the integrity of the New England project as a whole.”
14
Cao and Cao (301) suggest that the use of this terminology was more probably suggested by Mather and
Rowlandson's husband (who read the text and suggested changes in order to improve it) rather than an original
intention of Rowlandson.

6
she is given a Bible by an Indian who plundered the book in Medfield (Rowlandson 127).
From then on, the Bible becomes a source of consolation each time she feels her spirit sink.15
Parallel to the physical/spatial journey, Rowlandson involuntarily undertakes another,
spiritual journey; a journey paved with hardships and suffering that might, however, prove a
process of self discovery and end in salvation (i.e. her being redeemed from captivity and
returned to her family, with her spirit purified and faith reinforced).
The problem of nutrition is another one that must be solved. As Ruiz and de Castro
(100, 102) remark, Rowlandson had to ensure her survival on three levels – spiritual/cultural,
physical and emotional – that often require different strategies to employ. The need for
spiritual survival, for e.g., dictates to refuse the Indians’ ways of thinking and living while
emotional and, especially, physical survival prompts the captive to adopt the natives’ ways of
life. Initially, Rowlandson is unable and then unwilling to eat that “filthy trash” (Rowlandson
131) but when she comes to the brink of starvation she tastes the Indian’s food – for e.g.,
horse liver (Rowlandson 133) – and finds it savory: “For to the hungry soul every bitter thing
is sweet”16 (Rowlandson 132-133). She also eats corn and ground nuts. According to Ogushi
(62) Rowlandson’s sense of taste as well as her attitude towards eating is changed: she
acquires and accepts an Indianized taste. Moreover, Ogushi (60-61) also points out that while
Rowlandson clearly expresses that she was not Indianized during her captivity, her narrative
contains several elements contradictory to this claim (e.g., her adoption to the Indian’s way of
life, the fact that she finds the Indian’s food savory and, finally, the mere fact that she
survived almost three months of captivity) seem to prove the contrary. The skills such as
knitting and sewing deemed specifically feminine – not only – in Puritan society prove most
useful among the Indians, improving her chances of survival and facilitating her assimilation
(Ogushi 63).
Rowlandson sees an example of God’s providence when they cross the Banquaug river
(Rowlandson 130) and she manages to do it without her feet becoming wet (a luck indeed,
given the cold weather and her weakened body). She finds a passage matching to that event in
the Book of Isaiah: “When thou passeth through the waters I will be with thee, and through
the rivers they shall not overflow thee” (Isaiah 43.2) (Rowlandson 130).

15
To mention just one example: “We opened the Bible and lighted on Psalm 27, in which Psalm we especially
took notice of that, ver. ult., ‘Wait‘on the Lord, Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine Heart, wait I
say on the Lord’” (Rowlandson 128).
16
Proverbs 27.7.

7
 Going still deeper into the wilderness Rowlandson struggles with her Heimweh and
expresses her sympathy with Lot’s wife – the only female biblical figure mentioned in her
narrative – who could not resist to look back at her home in Sodom despite God’s warning
(Rowlandson 132).
Later, Rowlandson meets Metacomet (or, as the Christians knew him, King Philip) the
chieftain of the Indians and they read the Bible together; finding a passage – “I shall not die
but live, and declare the works of the Lord: the Lord hath chastened me sore yet he hath not
given me over to death” (Psalm 118.17-18) (Rowlandson 133-134) – that seems to perfectly
describe the narrator's feelings (i.e., there is still hope). It is some two months into her
captivity when King Philip informs her that soon she will be free again. The ensuing scene
illustrates how the captive comes closer to the captor:
He asked me, when I washed me? I told him not this month. Then he fetched me some water
himself, and bid me wash, and gave me the glass to see how I looked; and bid his squaw give me
something to eat. So she gave me a mess of beans and meat, and a little ground nut cake. I was
wonderfully revived with this favor showed me: “He made them also to be pitied of all those that
carried them captives” (Psalm 106.46) (Rowlandson 150).

Buonomo (12), on the other hand, argues that the chosen passage implies that in such
moments the Indians are acting against their real nature “and only when such nature is
temporarily suppressed by God. only when they are, in a sense, possessed can they show signs
of humanity.”
In the Eight Remove, the captive Rowlandson identifies herself with the Jews in
Babylonian captivity: she is found weeping, just as the Jews were weeping on the banks of
Babylonian rivers, when they are on the banks of the Connecticut River: “I may say as Psalm
137.1, ‘By the Rivers of Babylon, there we sate down: yea, we wept when we remembered
Zion.’ There one of them asked me why I wept. I could hardly tell what to say: Yet I
answered, they would kill me. ‘No,’ said he, ‘none will hurt you’” (Rowlandson 134).
Rowlandson is finally redeemed for twenty pounds (a result of ransom negotiations in
which she actively participates (Tarnóc-troubles 153)) and may return to the Puritan
environment she once called – and now again may call – her home. The time she spent in
captivity, however, did not leave her unchanged. As she later recalls:
Before I knew what affliction meant, I was ready sometimes to wish for it. When I lived in
prosperity, having the comforts of the world about me, my relations by me, my heart cheerful, and

8
 taking little care for anything, and yet seeing many, whom I preferred before myself, under many
trials and afflictions, in sickness, weakness, poverty, losses, crosses, and cares of the world, I
should be sometimes jealous least I should have my portion in this life, and that Scripture would
come to my mind, “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every Son whom he
receiveth” (Hebrews 12.6) (Rowlandson 166-167).

Despite all the hardships she went through, Rowlandson is still thankful for the lesson she
learnt and her fellow Puritans could also learn: “It is good for me that I have been afflicted”
(167).

Conclusion
Referring to Kathryn Derounian’s observations, Cao and Cao (298-299) remark that two
different kinds of narration – empirical and rhetorical – can be discerned in the text, a duality
which arises partly from the contrast between the two different roles of the narrator herself as
participant and observer, and partly from her conflicting codes of interpretations –
psychological and religious – of her experiences.
Cao and Cao (301, 302) observe that there is a conflict, a class between ideology and
individualism, based on the author’s gender and the use of the biblical texts: “the narrative of
a female’s self-discovery and the scripture insertion are not harmonious” because “Scripture,
the medium for salvation, is men’s interpretation about God’s doctrine and practice.”
It is surprising that there is only one female biblical figure – Lot’s wife – mentioned in
her narrative. One might expect that a woman author, intentionally or instinctively, tries to
find female biblical characters to identify herself with. Rowlandson, however, consistently
(with the one exception of Lot’s wife) refers to men (Job, David, Daniel, etc.) from the Bible.
Whether this is an intentional decision (by choosing male characters she tries to increase the
acceptance of her narrative in a patriarchal society – or vice versa: by not choosing female
characters she tries to avoid the risk of not being accepted) or she unintentionally follows the
usual rhetoric in contemporary Puritan preaching, is a question that remains to be answered.

Works Cited

9
Buonomo, Leonardo. “A Victim of King Philip’s War (1675-76): Mary Rowlandson and the
Account of her Captivity.” Revista de Estudios Norteamericanos, no. 1, 1991, pp. 9–21.
Burnham, Michelle. Captivity & Sentiment. Cultural Exchange in American Literature, 1682–
1861. Hannover: The Univeristy Press of New England, 1997.
Cao, Shuo and Cao, Xu. “Conflict between Self-discovery and Salvation in Mary
Rowlandson’s The Sovereignty and Goodness of God.” Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, 2012, pp. 298–303.
Carruth, Mary Clare. The Flesh and the Spirit: The Female Subject and the Body in the
Spiritual Autobiographies of Anne Hutchinson, Anne Bradstreet and Mary Rowlandson.
Louisiana State University Historical Dissertations and Theses 6776., 1998.
www.digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/6776 Accessed 19 March 2019
Fabiny, Tibor. “Typology: Pros and Cons in Biblical Hermeneutics and Literary Criticism
(from Leonhard Goppelt to Northrop Frye).” RILCE (Revista del Instituto de Lengua y
Cultura Españolas), vol. 25, no. 1, 2009, pp. 138–152.
Flores Ruiz, Eva and de Castro, Jesús Lerate. “Puritan Women Facing Suffering: Texts as
Tests of Survival in Bradstreet’s «Verses upon the Burning of our House» and
Rowlandson’s The Sovereignty and Goodness of God.” Revista de Estudios
Norteamericanos, no. 10, 2004, pp. 95–109.
Glenny, W. Edward. “Typology: A Summary of the Present Evangelical Discussion.” JETS
vol. 40, no. 4, 1997, pp. 627–638
Grogan, Geoffrey. “The Relationship Between Prophecy and Typology”. The Scottish Bulletin
of Evangelical Theology vol. 4, no. 1, 1986, pp. 5–16.
Hillerbrand, Hans J. (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Protestantism, Volume 1: A-C. New York:
Routledge, 2004.
---. The Encyclopedia of Protestantism, Volume 3: L-R. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Kerekes, Erzsébet. “A Biblia tipológiai/figurális értelmezése – Tipológia és posztmodern.”
Kellék, no.15-16, 2000, pp. 205–221.
Mingiuc Poenaru, Andreea. “Mary Rowlandson’s Captivity Narrative. Dissent and
Liminality.” The American Tradition of Descent/Dissent: The Underground, the
Countercultural, the (Anti)Utopian. A Collection of Essays, edited by Adina
Ciugureanu, Ludmila Martanovschi and Nicoleta Stanca, Iasi: Institutul European,
2012. pp. 97–108.

10
Ogushi, Hisayo. “A Legacy of Female Imagination: Lydia Maria Child and the Tradition of
Indian Captivity Narrative.” The Japanese Journal of American Studies, no. 15, 2004,
pp. 57–74.
Patte, Daniel (ed.). The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2010.
Potter, Tiffany. “Writing Indigenous Femininity: Mary Rowlandson’s Narrative of Captivity.”
Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol. 36, no. 2, 2003, pp. 153–167.
Rowlandson, Mary. “Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson.”
Narratives of the Indian wars, 1675-1699, edited by Charles H. Lincoln. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913, pp. 112–167.
Svetlikova, Anna. “Jonathan Edwards on Typology as Language.” Theologica
Wratislaviensia, t. 7, 2012, pp. 159–172.
Tarnóc, András. “«troubles of a deeper dye than are commonly experienced by mortals»: The
Definition of the Self and Other in three Indian Captivity narratives.” Eger Journal of
American Studies, vol. IX., 2005, pp. 151–167.
---. Erőszak és megváltás. Az indián fogságnapló mint az amerikai eredetmítosz sarokköve.
Eger: Líceum Kiadó, 2015.
---. “Writing a Woman’s (and a Man’s) Life in the Wilderness: The Captivity Narrative as a
Form of Autobiography.” HUSSE10-LitCult. Proceedings of the HUSSE10 Conference,
edited by Kinga Földváry, Zsolt Almási and Veronika Schandl. Debrecen: Hungarian
Society for the Study of English, 2011, pp. 279–286.

11