Leonardo

The Influence of Titles on How Paintings Are Seen Author(s): Margery B. Franklin, Robert C. Becklen and Charlotte L. Doyle Source: Leonardo, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1993), pp. 103-108 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1575894 . Accessed: 12/09/2013 06:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Leonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 140.122.42.82 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 06:03:20 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GENERAL

ARTICLE

The
on

Influence How Paintings

of

Titles Are Seen

B. Franklin, Margery RobertC. Becklenand L. Doyle Charlotte
ABSTRACT

THE INFLUENCEOF TITLES ON HOW PAINTINGSARE SEEN

Do titles contribute to the meaning that is seen in paintings? This controversial question lies at the center of several recent discussions of title/artwork relations. According to formalist doctrine, words beyond the picture frame are not supposed to influence the understanding or appreciation of visual form. As Gombrich [1] explains, the "idea of visual art purged of words" developed partly as a reaction against the elaborate anecdotal titles favored by many Victorian painters. Formalists such as Clive Bell and Roger Fry [2] would have argued that titles should function simply as identification tags, not as sources of meaning for the viewer. Several distinguished contemporary aestheticians have articulated views at variance with the formalist credo. Moreover, in the spirit of the times, they have moved away from elitist pronouncements on how art should be viewed to more open-ended inquiry that focuses on conceptualizing the possible functions of titles. Fisher [3], for example, is concerned with showing that titles are not mere tags but names that have a unique purpose; they "determine, to a degree to which significant attention has never been given, interpretations and other acts." Concurring with Fisher on the central interpretive role of titles, Levinson [4] asserts that "What a work of art is titled . . . has significant effect on the aesthetic face it presents and on the qualities we ... perceive in it." Gombrich, like Levinson, emphasizes that titles are a significant contextual factor in the viewing of artworks and that different kinds of titles engage the viewer in different ways. In some cases, such as Brancusi's Bird in Flight or Duchamp's Nude Descendinga Staircase,titles provide explicit directives for interpretation; the attempt to achieve fit between title and visual image becomes part of the viewer's at experience. In other cases, such as Van Gogh's Cypresses Arles,the title seems simply a straightforward description that adds little to the meaning of the work. To demonstrate the force of such "neutral" titles, Levinson proposes the thought experiment of imagining Cypressesat Arles with the title "Sinister Trees," or Ingres's Portrait of Louis-FrancoisBertin with the title "A Gentle Soul." Historical perspectives on how artists have used titles to guide the viewer's attention and interpretation have been written by Bann [5] and Gombrich. In these discussions of title/artwork relations, a hypothetical viewer is assumed. This hypothetical viewer seems moderately well educated, but is not necessarily a specialist in art; she attends to the title while looking at the painting; a difference in title generally affects the meaning she sees in the work. We are told that titles may function in any one of sever-

al ways-for example, to underline, focus or clarify manifest content of the visual image [6]. Phenomena are illustrated but, except for Levinson's thought experiment, not demonstrated. Further, the possibility that titles may influence a viewer's interpretive reading but not perceptual organization per se is not specifically addressed. We were interested in knowing what happens when viewers see paintings with one title rather than another. Does the difference in title affect what people say about an image or which parts _ of a picture they attend to? Do different people respond differently? To investigate these questions, we designed and carried out an exploratory research study. Viewers were shown each of two paintings twice-on one occasion with their original titles and on another occasion with fabricated titles. While viewing the images, subjects described what they were seeing and used a pointer to indicate which parts of the images they were looking at. The paintings used in this study were Monet's Terraceat Ste. Adresse(Fig. 1) and Arshile Gorky's Agony (Fig. 2). The alternate title for Terraceat Ste. Adressewas "The Coming Storm"; and for Agony, "Carnival."(Throughout this article, the true title appears in italics, and the fabricated title appears in quotes.) The following excerpts from two subjects' protocols illustrate the effects of different titles.
[Gorky/Agony] This is freaky. It's a painting of a girl screaming. I don't know what this object is. it struck me as a butterfly, but it could be another person and these animals around, they look like some kind of birds. The girl seems to be isolated somehow. Colors are very strong, expressing anger of the painter maybe. [Gorky/"Carnival"]This is a clown-shaped figure here, dancing like a court jester. Large shoes. A stop sign. Triangle like a tent over here. Butterflyover here. This is some kind of round circular
Margery B. Franklin (psychologist, educator), Psychology Department, Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, NY 10708, U.S.A. Robert C. Becklen (psychologist, educator), Department of Psychology, Ramapo College, Ramapo, NJ 07430, U.S.A. Charlotte L. Doyle (psychologist, educator), Psychology Department, Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, NY 10708, U.S.A. Received 13 September 1990.

have Recently, aestheticians inquestions becomeinterested about a brief relations. title/artwork Following discussion of issues, the authors report howviewers on a studythatexplored under different to a painting responded the projected conditions. Viewing titling the whilehearing imageof a painting titlespoken,individual subjectstalked aboutwhattheywereseeingandused a to indicate wherethey pointer flashlight Inthis study,the change werelooking. of titlesaffectedindividuals' interpretive as determined bytheir readings, of the paintings, butnot descriptions wheretheylooked.Thesefindings suggest thatwithchangeof title,spatial organization mayremain relatively stablewhileotheraspects of the of the painting person'sexperience suggest thatthe change.Theauthors of this kind of researchbearon findings theoretical broader issues of as wellas relations word/image artin abouthowto display questions public places.

II

O 1993 ISAST

LEONARDO, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 103-108

103

This content downloaded from 140.122.42.82 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 06:03:20 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 1. Claude Monet, Terraceat Ste. Adresse, oil on canvas, 97 x 130 cm, 1866-1867. (Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art)

Fig. 2. Arshile Gorky, Agony,oil on canvas, 40 x 50 /2 in, 1947. (Collection of the Museum of Modem Art, New York. A. Conger Goodyear Fund.)

104

and Doyle,The Influeice of Titles Franklin,Berklen

This content downloaded from 140.122.42.82 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 06:03:20 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The first question (do differences in Carousel -' a Viadeo C/ titles affect how subjects talked about camera L Projector the images?) was examined in two ways: In this pair of examples, the same by studying the responses for the group part of the painting is designated as a of subjects as a whole and by discoverhuman figure. But the figure and its ing whether subjects changed their surrounding parts are interpreted dif- descriptions when a painting was preferently under the two titles. Does sys- sented with a new title in the second tematic analysis show that title tends to session. For these analyses, each verbal protocol was divided into units, and affect "readings" but not necessarily perceptual structuring per se? Further- explicit references to the titles were more, from what subjects said, can we deleted. Two independent judges rated the units of each protocol in terms of gain insight into how they brought degree of consonance with one title or and title into image relationship? //.~~~ ?_ ~\. ~Translucent Before addressing these questions, let the other. Judges were informed of I Back-projectior /-' , / Screen us clarify the experimental design of whether the subject was talking about X / , ~/ xx the Monet or Gorky painting, but did the investigation. \ * / / \Ax" --Flashlight not know which title the painting had Pointer \ ' ? O\ been presented under. Since interrater Method Thirty-one Sarah Lawrence College stu- reliability was high, the ratings of in this study. judges were averaged to yield a single dents participated figure for use in statistical analyses. Participants were seen individually. Viewer For the group as a whole, differences They were told that this was a study of of title affected what subjects said about Fig. 3. The arrangement of the viewer and how people see paintings; no mention the projected images. Statistical analy- the projected artwork during the was made of our interest in titles. artwork/title experiment. ses of judges' ratings of subjects' Seated in front of a large translucent to the Monet as painting screen on which transparencies were responses versus "Coming Storm," and the change in title led subjects to change back-projected, viewers were allowed to Terrace as versus their descriptions in the direction of Gorky painting Agony a practice using flashlight pointer. in both first and second ses- the new title. Again, the findings are When the slides of paintings were pro- "Carnival," highly significant statistically (T-tests jected, viewers were asked to describe sions, showed the differences to be what they were seeing and to use the highly significant statistically (T-tests yielded p values of less than .01). Do titles affect the spatial organizapointer to show where they were look- yielded p values of less than .0002). The influence of titles on the tion of images, as reflected in patterns descripA video camera verbal recorded ing. of pointing? To analyze the subjects' descriptions and the movement of the tion of images also came through in pointing while they talked, one of us pointer light on the screen (see Fig. 3). how subjects responded to change of In each case, the subject was asked to title in the second session. In this ses- (Robert Becklen) wrote a computer sion, one of the paintings reappeared program that records pointer position repeat the title when the image with the same title and the other with a at the rate of seven times per sec. This on In the screen. the first sesappeared program made it possible to examine sion, after some practice with the point- new title. Our findings show that the er, each participant saw one of the two paintings with one of its two titles. Next, Fig. 4. Experimental design for testing how titles influence the ways in which paintings are he or she saw the other painting with seen. The asterisks (*) mark sessions that were counterbalanced in a 2 (orders) x 2 x 2 (titles) = 8 subgroups design. one of its two titles. In the second ses- (paintings) sion, the subject was shown the paintSESSION 2 SESSION 1 ings again, in the same order. For the first painting shown, the title was the same as in the first session; for the sec1. POINTER PRACTICE ond painting, the alternate title was 1. PAINTING A [SAME TITLE] A [TITLE] *2. PAINTING presented. The design of the study, along with the sequence for one subB [NEWTITLE] 2. PAINTING B [TITLE] *3. PAINTING ject, is shown in Fig. 4.
thing like the tub of water a high diver jumps into. Perhaps a juggler here.... Lots of carnivalpeople.

Findings
Three questions guided our inquiry. First, do titles affect the interpretive reading of paintings, as reflected in how images with different titles are described by participants? Second, do titles affect the spatial organization of images, as reflected in patterns of pointing? Third, are there identifiably different ways in which image and title are brought into relationship?
A SAMPLE SUBJECT SAW:

1. POINTER PRACTICE

STORM" 2. MONET- "THECOMING - "CARNIVAL" 3. GORKY

1. MONET - "THE COMING STORM" 2. GORKYAGONY

Franklin, Beklen and Doyle,The Influence of Titles

105

This content downloaded from 140.122.42.82 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 06:03:20 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

,
the spatiotemporal pattern of pointer movements over the course of a session. Using the program, we printed out the pointer records and asked two independent judges to determine which records were of the Monet painting and which of the Gorky. Four such records are shown in Fig. 5. Both judges were able to tell which pointer records were of which painting, with a very high level of accuracy. But when they were asked to sort the pointer records according to title, they performed at only chance level. In other words, judges could tell the difference between pointer records for presentations of the Monet and Gorky paintings, but could not consistently differentiate between records for the same painting presented with different titles. Several additional explorations of pointing records also failed to reveal differences related to title. The findings on pointing patterns indicate that the configuration of the painting strongly influenced where subjects looked (and pointed) while titles did not have such an effect. To explore the third question (are there identifiable strategies through which image and title are brought together?) we examined the verbal protocols qualitatively, considering what viewers said about titles and titleimage relations and how they described the image. We also looked at how title change in the second session was handled. We identified four Orientations to the Title: framing by title, dialoguing with title, metaphorizingand not attending to title. In the following discussion, we give examples and also illustrate several approaches to describing the image. The most prevalent orientation was framing by title. In such cases, the description was guided by title meaning, although the subject did not explicitly mention the title in the course of describing the painting. Some title words may even have appeared as part of the description. In the following protocol, the image was brought into relation with the title in two ways. First, areas of the image were designated as objects and figures that could be part of a carnival scene. Second, expressive properties consonant with title connotations are indicated ("festive . . . fall-

like . . . celebration of summer").

[Gorky/"Carnival"]Looks like we have a dancer over here. ... In the middle here, looks like a drum. This could be a musician here, playing the drum. These are two people actually, the bottom one is one person, and the other one . . . looks like the head chief ... The rest of it looks like stuff that's just filling up the picture. And it's carnival ... pretty abstract. The colors are festive, orange and red, fall-like almost. Like the celebration of summer.... The following excerpt illustrates another way of framing by title. Four figures on the ter[Monet/ Terrace] race. Looks like early morning or late afternoon. The sun is shining strongly. One couple is conversing. It looks like they just finished brunch or cocktails.

Fig. 5. Printouts of viewers' pointer records: (above left) for Gorky's Agony;(below left) for the same Gorky painting, with the title "Carnival"; (above right) for Monet's Terraceat Ste. Adresse;(below right) for the same Monet painting, with the title "The Coming Storm."
..................................................... ................ .--'.~ ' , ........................................................................

t~~~~~~~U'.-~-

? ______--...

L ".

:l

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~',i . ... ....

" ..................................... _ .............. .......... . .

F-

.........................................

............-

..........-

..J

GORKY

AGONY

MONET

TERRACE

^----/a&ri

'

',GORY

CARNI

GORKY

"CARNIVAL"

106

and Doyle,The Influence of Titles Franklin,Becklen

This content downloaded from 140.122.42.82 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 06:03:20 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

It's interesting how the terrace stops before the water, and there's a gate on the way. The terrace is very well planned out, and pruned. It could represent how people can have an effect on nature....

Here, a narrative line is introduced ("One couple is conversing") and, at the same time, the scene is elaborated ("The sun is shining strongly"). Little effort is given to designating forms as objects, suggesting that the identity of objects and persons is taken for granted. In other protocols, designating appears along with narrating or elaborating the
scene. In dialoguing with title, explicit ref-

they show that in the process of bringing title and image together, viewers sometimes explored alternative ways of construing title meaning. The first excerpt below moves from a literal to a metaphoric reading of the title. In the second, a metaphoric reading resolves initial dissonance between the title and appearance of the scene.
[Monet/"The Coming Storm"] There's an umbrella. She's waiting for the coming storm . . . The storm is obviously coming from this direction. Maybe there's no storm at all and it's just a storm between these two people ... an emotional storm.... [Monet/"The Coming Storm"] It's pretty. The clouds are kind of dark. My first impression-it's peaceful and serene, very nice. However, in the distance, ships are coming. It might be symbolic of war. Maybe that's why it's called "The Coming Storm.". . . These people are just sitting here when those ships are coming. War is going to break out.... As shown in both quantitative and qualitative analyses of our data, titles entered into viewers' constructions of meaning in the majority of cases. But a number of protocols suggested that not attending to title was a possible orienta-

erence is made to the title and to its consonance or dissonance with the image. In the following excerpt, consonance is grounded in expressive properties of shapes and colors.
[Gorky/Agony] If it's called "Agony,"all the red could mean anger or pain. You can see that there would be a lot of pain because of the sharpness of the objects, the colors ....

In the next example, expressive properties again come to the fore. Here, they conflict with title connotations, generating dissonance that is resolved by two interpretive moves: construing one area of the painting as an agonylike figure and another as blood-like,
suggestive of pain. [Gorky/Agony] I don't see why it's "Agony"because most of the colors are really warm, but I could look closely and ... say that this looks like a woman and here's her head and that's her mouth . . . and her legs and her body are all hunched up. If it's agony, then all this red could be blood . . . something painful, bruises. is not always resolved. Dissonance The next excerpt illustrated a viewer's struggle to reconcile the meaning of the title with specific aspects of the

tion. In the two illustrations below, the viewer designates parts, moving from one to the other without developing an implicit or explicit organization. There is no indication that the title played a role in what was said.
[Monet/"The Coming Storm"] Woman in white dress. Sailboat. Flag in breeze. Pretty orange flowers. Sunlight. One woman and beside her a chair. A woman and a man sitting next to the woman. Empty chair next to him. Lots of ships in water. And a French flag. Water is blue.... [Gorky/Agony] Yellow and black. And something that looks like a leg with a long red foot. A horse's leg. Red, black, and white. A bird here. Beak and eye. Yellow,blue, black, orange.... This is the main thing, whatever it is. Here a purple blotch and red. Lots of square shapes. Lines track to this white thing.... Viewers varied not only in their ori-

included identifying people, flowers, flags; in the Gorky painting, designation involved mentioning specific color areas or shapes (e.g. "reddishblob"). In "interpretive designation," specific identities were given to abstract forms (e.g. a portion of the image named as "clown" in the Gorky) or attributes were assigned to objects ("a storm cloud" in the Monet). In "naming expressive properties," viewers referred to qualities of energy, mood or emotion perceived in inanimate as well as animate objects or in entire scenes. For example, under the title Terrace at Ste.Adresse, the Monet painting was described as "relaxing,""bright"and "calm"; under the title "The Coming Storm," specific parts of the painting were described as "dark,""threatening." In "sequencing related parts,"the viewer designated parts and properties of the image that form a meaningful whole but relations among parts were not indicated; thus, in one of our examples, the sequenced designation of dancer, drum, musician and head chief built a sense of carnival. In "scene elaboration," parts were described in relation to one another and qualities of the whole might have been mentioned. "Narrative construction" refers to the introduction of a storyline, with a more-or-less explicit temporal dimension. Sometimes characters were developed through attribution of mental states, as in the following excerpt illustrating both "scene elaboration" and "narrativeconstruction."
[Monet/"The Coming Storm"] People out on a patio. They don't seem to be very threatened by the storm. The sky seems rather calm, but the water is ruffled. Winds are blowing. There are lots of boats on the water. The storm is com-

ing in. Eitherthey don't knowabout it or theydon't worry aboutit. We also explored the possibility of a relationship between orientation to the title and mode of description. Framingby titleand dialoguingwith titlewere realized through all modes of descriptions, often used in combination within a single protocol. The few instances of metaphorizing occurred with "scene elaboration" and "narrative construction." Where not attending to the title prevailed, viewers tended to use "simple designation" or "interpretive designation" of unrelated parts. Theoretically, a viewer could disregard the title and provide an integrated description of the image. Interestingly,
this did not happen in this study. Finally, we asked whether the abstract

scene depicted.
[Monet/ "The Coming Storm"] I don't really see how it's 'The Coming Storm," because it's a nice day. Water spread out ... sunny, a lot of light in the foreground. The distant clouds on the horizon are not clouds like storm clouds. There are a lot of boats in what seems to be a harbor. That seems ironic. If there is a storm coming, the boats would get off the sea .... The water looks choppy but it doesn't really look like a storm is coming. It just looks choppy because of the wind.... Instances of the third orientation, metaphorizing the title, occurred in only

one of the four situations-when the Monet painting was presented with the title "The Coming Storm." These instances deserve consideration because

entations to the titles, but in how they described the images. We identified six modes of description: "simple designation," "interpretive designation," "naming expressive properties," "sequencing related parts," "scene elaboration" and "narrativeconstruction." In "simple designation," the viewer named aspects of the image that have a specific locus on the two-dimensional surface, aspects that everyone would agree on. In the Monet painting, this

Gorky image evoked different kinds of responses than the more representation-

Fanklin, Beklen and Doyle, The Infltence of Titles

107

This content downloaded from 140.122.42.82 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 06:03:20 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ings lend support to the view that visual qualities and forces of organization inherent in the artwork determine how it is perceived, a view most eloquently articulated by Rudolf Arnheim [7]. In our view, it would be an error to regard spatial organization, reflected in patterns of pointing, as somehow more basic than interpretation (the construed meaning) expressed through verbal description. Rather, these represent complementary aspects of the viewer's experience of the artwork. How should the relation of title to image be conceptualized? In theoretical discussions of titling, this problem is approached by identifying kinds of titles in terms of how they function vis-a-vis the artwork. Bann, Gombrich, Levinson and Franklin all use versions of this general strategy. These formulations assume an active viewer engaged in making meaning. However, in these discussions, functions are ascribed to titles in relation to images without considering possible variations in how different CONCLUSION viewers might construct specific Let us return to the questions that guid- title/image relations. Working from the ed our exploratory inquiry into how protocols of our subject's verbalizations, viewers of artworks respond to titles. we developed a preliminary category First, we found that images are de- scheme for characterizing individuals' to the titleand modesof describscribed differently when presented with orientations different titles. This finding, based on ing the image. We were interested to see quantitative analysis of our subjects' ver- that, among a group of college students, balizations, provides support for the gen- there was considerable variation in how eral thesis advanced by Fisher and a given title was related to a particular Levinson that titles function as guides to image. We also discerned some relations interpretation, not simply as identifying between orientations to the title and tags. If titles serve as guides to "interpre- specific modes of description. The college students who participattation," does this mean that they influence the perceptual structuring of the ed in this study were not entirely naive image and, if so, in what ways?This ques- viewers. On the other hand, they were not highly educated in the arts. None tion is implied, but not explicitly addressed, in discussions mentioned ear- of them identified the specific paintings lier. Our data on pointing patterns indi- that we used as "stimuli,"although sevcate that change of title does not affect eral spontaneously referred to the Monet painting as "French impressionwhere viewers look or, by implication, how they organize the visual array. In ist" and to the Gorky as "modern" Their relative naivete other words, the spatial organization of and/or "abstract." the visual array seems to remain fairly made it possible to use well-known stable across changes of title. Such find- paintings without having the fabricated al Monet image. Three of the four orientations to the title occurred in relation to both images under both titles. The occurred only in fourth, metaphorizing, response to the Monet painting under the title "The Coming Storm." Two forms of description, "scene elaboration" and "narrative construction," occurred almost exclusively in relation to the Monet painting. "Interpretivedesignation" and "naming expressive properties" were more prevalent in relation to the Gorky painting. For the Gorky painting, larger meaning structures were constructed, primarily through "sequencing related parts." Thus, for our viewers, the two paintings, one representational and the other abstract, tended to evoke different modes of description. On the basis of two exemplars, we cannot say whether this differential use of descriptive modes has to do with the abstract/representational dimension or with these particular paintings.

titles recognized as such. Viewers with more training in the arts, art criticism or art history would probably produce richer narratives, thus providing a base for more differentiated category schemes. It is possible, too, that effects of titles would be different for more sophisticated viewers. Future research, using more paintings, other titles and different groups of viewers, should cast additional light on how people use titles when they are looking at paintings. The findings of this kind of research bear on broader theoretical issues of word/image relations. At the same time, knowing more about how viewers use titles is important to those concerned with how artworks are displayed in public spaces. As Paul Gardner [8] recently said, "Curiously, in recent seasons a few galleries have stopped putting title labels alongside the work.... It's a trend that artists as well as viewers as for the titles, most deplore-and, artistsfeel that they're important enough
to be up on the wall."

References
1. E.H. Gombrich, "Image and Word in Twentiethand Image1, No. 3 (1985) p. 213. CenturyArt," Work 2. See, for example, C. Bell, Art (London: Frederick Stokes, 1920); R. Fry, Vision and Design (London: Chatton & Windus, 1925). 3. J. Fisher, "Entitling," Critical Inquiry 11 (1984) p. 298.
4. J. Levinson, "Titles," Journal of Aesthetics and Art

Criticism 44, No. 1 (1985) p. 29. 5. S. Bann, "The Mythical Conception is the Name: Titles and Names in Modern and Postmodern and Image1, No. 2, 176-190 (1985). Painting," Word 6. See Levinson [4] pp. 29-40; also M.B. Franklin, "'Museum of the Mind': An Iniquiryinto the Titling
of Artworks," Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 3, No. 3,

157-174 (1988).
7. See R. Arnheim, Art and Visual Perception, Rev. Ed.

(Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California

Press, 1974); Toward a Psychology of Art (Berkeley aind

Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1966); and Visual Thinking(Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1969). 8. P. Gardner, "Do Titles Really Matter?"Art News 91, No. 2 (1992) p. 92.

108

Franklin, Becklen and Doyle,The Influence of Titles

This content downloaded from 140.122.42.82 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 06:03:20 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions