Hjemmeeksamen ENG4115 – Texture and Linguistic Structure, høst 2013

Hjemmeeksamen i ENG4115 – Texture and Linguistic Structure, høst 2013. En pdf av oppgaveteksten finnes her. 

Question 1a: Cohesive chains (similarity and identity)

For a series of linguistic signs to be perceived as text (“language that is functional” (Halliday 1989: 10)), it must have unity (Hasan 1989a: 52). According to Hasan, one “source of textual unity” is texture (1989b: 70), which is constituted by “semantic relations between ... individual messages” of a text (ibid.: 71). Semantic relations are realized formally in a text by cohesive devices (Hasan 1989b: e.g. 75, 79–80); provided that cohesive devices are inter­preted as cohesive by the reader/listener (Fries 2004: 22) – i.e., they are understood – they will form cohesive ties between items in a text (Hasan 1989b: e.g. 73, 75). Whenever “a set of items” are semantically related – or tied – throughout the whole or a part of a text, they form a cohesive chain (Hasan 1989b: 84). A text will normally consist of several cohesive chains; these will normally interact. According to Fries (paraphrasing Hasan), “two chains of equi­valent terms interact if the same experiential relation is reiterated between their members” (Fries 2004: 27). As I understand Hasan, the relative strength and comprehensiveness of a text’s chain interaction determines its degree of cohesive harmony (1989b: 93–4); this, finally, is a condition (but, according to Fries (2004: 24), not always necessary) for our experience of a text as being coherent (Hasan 1989b: 94).

Bokhistoriens to teknologiske revolusjoner: Hovedtrekk ved utviklingen i dag og for 500 år siden. Hvilke konsekvenser får teknologiskiftene på lesersiden?

Hjemmeeksamen i LIT4403 – Bokhistorie og tekstkritikk, høst 2013.

Min besvarelse vil følge oppgavens to deler, slik jeg forstår den: En redegjørelse for de viktigste trekkene ved de to teknologiske revolusjonene i bokhistorien, henholdsvis opp­finnelsen av trykkekunsten rundt 1450, og digitaliseringen av bokmarkedet de siste tiårene; og en drøfting av konsekvensene disse teknologiske endringene har hatt for slutt­brukerne av teknologisk transformert tekst, nemlig leseren. Oppgaven legger opp til to inn­ganger til disse historiske endringene: et produksjons­perspektiv og et resepsjonsperspektiv. For det første, de konkrete teknologiske innovasjonene og de medfølgende materielle kon­sekvenser av disse: På hvilke måter tekster formgis, hvordan de produseres og distribueres. For det andre, hvilke konsekvenser endringer i tilgang til tekst, og endringer i innpakning av tekst, har for individu­elle lesere, og samfunn av lesere. Imidlertid vil jeg argumentere for at det er unaturlig med et skarpt skille mellom disse perspektivene: Lesere skriver og skribenter leser, og lesere gir til­bake­meldinger til produsenter, som baserer ut­forming av sine produkter på antagelser om leser­atferd. Som McGann sier om enkeltstående verk, utspiller også bokhistorien seg i en gjensidig avhengighet mellom resepsjons- og produksjons­historiens «doble heliks» (16). Jeg vil derfor behandle teknologi­skifter og leser­respons parallelt, og påpeke tilfeller av betydnings­­­full interaksjon mellom aktører i begge ender av spekteret, der det er relevant.

Paralysis, Simony, and Gnomon in James Joyce’s "Dubliners"

Hjemmeeksamen i ENG4365 – The Short Story in English, vår 2013. En pdf av oppgaveteksten finnes her. 

James Joyce’s “The Sisters” was first written on commission as an isolated story for The Irish Homestead (Gabler xv–xvi). When included as the first in the short story cycle Dubliners, the opening paragraph was amended (e.g. Kerins 243; compare the reprint of the original version in Norris, Contexts 204) to include the three concepts of paralysis, simony, and gnomon, presented by the young first person narrator. According to Murray McArthur, the purpose of this and other emendations was to “[shape] ‘The Sisters’ as the macro-index or riddle that stands as first text or opening frame” not only of Dubliners, but of the entire Joycean canon (245). Thus one can fairly assume that all revisions of and additions to the first version of “The Sisters” are important for understanding the entire cycle – or oeuvre – it was meant to frame; and that italicized additions to the opening paragraph are even more so.

Kvalifiseringsoppgaver RETKOM4140 – Tekstvitenskap, vår 2013

Obligatoriske kvalifiseringsoppgaver i RETKOM4140 – Tekstvitenskap, vår 2013. En pdf av oppgaveteksten finnes her.

Oppgave 1: Tekst som språkbruk, tekst som kulturelt fenomen

Omfanget til gruppen av fenomener som kan falle inn under betegnelsen «tekst», varierer av­hengig av teoretisk ståsted. Den kanskje mest minimale definisjonen av tekst – og dermed den hvis eksten­sjon blir mest omfangsrik – kommer fra tilhengere av det Berge (1994: 98) kaller det abstrakte, objektivistiske synet på språksystemet, som man gjerne karakteriserer som tradi­sjonell ling­vistikk. Selv om det også her er teoretisk varia­sjon, vil nok de som anser språk som et abstra­herbart og regelmessig semiotisk system, anse hver enkelt (mer eller mindre) vel­lykket situa­sjonell instansiering av dette systemet som tekst – om enn med forskjellig terminologi (jamfør Berge 1994: 98).  

Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Iser

Semesteroppgave i ENG4369 – Reception Studies, høst 2012. En pdf av oppgaveteksten finnes her.

I have chosen to compare and contrast two theorists from our syllabus, Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Iser. Albeit both propagandists of the so-called reader response theory of literary criticism, they differ on some central tenets in their respective theoretical approaches: The importance of the primary text, the importance of the author, the extent of the work done by the reader, the importance of the relative situatedness of the reader, and the stability of texts across readers and readings.

I will outline their main contributions to the field of literary criticism, with a focus on their importance for our specific field of enquiry, reception studies; point out where their approaches conflict; and try to tentatively offer my own criticism of their stances. Where I deem their approaches inadequate, I will supplement them with other theorists. My main thesis statement for this essay is thus: In what ways do the works of Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Iser inform the study of reception?

The Interaction between Science and Religion in American History

Hjemmeeksamen i NORAM4584 – Religion in American History, høst 2012. En pdf av oppgaveteksten finnes her. 

Throughout American history, the relationship between science and religion has been an uneasy one. Either has had to adjust to the other, having to redefine, reconsider or reconstruct itself as the other gained prominence. Sometimes there have been efforts to integrate and create synergies, at other times we have witnessed retractions and redefinitions in the face of the other. From the early paradigm-changing scientific breakthroughs in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries – among those most prominently the work of renowned English physicist Isaac Newton – and the Enlightenment period with its focus on rational thought and empirical proofs, both challenging the position of the Church, through to the present-day debate between creationists and evolutionists creating headaches for school boards throughout the United States, the tension between scientific and religious approaches to individual morality, communal organizations, the larger American polity and society, and the origin and make-up of creation itself has defined many of the most important existential debates in American history.

“Big Blonde” as a Feminist Critique of American Society of the 1920s

Semesteroppgave ENG4435 – The Lost Generation and the 1920s, vår 2012.   

Dorothy Parker’s short story “Big Blonde,” first published in 1929 and an O. Henry Prizewinner for best American short story of that year (Kinney 137), is a mercilessly damning portrait of the role of women in contemporary American society, with specific focus on urban middle class – or, perhaps more specifically, the “roaring” part of it – gender roles and gender dynamics. In this essay I will present some salient themes of Parker’s story, and try to identify her position on these themes. I will focus my interpretation on how women are portrayed and on the interaction between women and men, and use that analysis as a point of departure for a discussion of how “Big Blonde” can be analyzed as a feminist critique of contemporary American society in the twenties.

Hazel Morse is the story’s focalizing protagonist. The development of her character, and the interplay between her gradually deteriorating self and the series of men she surrounds herself with and depends upon, becomes the main vehicle by which Parker’s commentary on society is both presented and represented. Hazel, and the series of states she is in, is the object of a continual mirroring in her own immediate context: The series of men, the neighbor Mrs. Martin, the newspaper clippings, the series of encounters with horses, and so on, all become reflections of the development of her character. Thus, the following interpretation of “Big Blonde” will center on this focal character.

The Function of History in "The Reluctant Fundamentalist"

Hjemmeeksamen i ENG4373 – Multicultural American Literature, vår 2012. En pdf av oppgaveteksten finnes her.

I have chosen essay option 1, and will discuss the function of history in Mohsin Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist (the abbreviation TRF will be used to refer to the novel throughout the essay).

The novel is written in a first-person narrative, the narration as such related by the main focalizing character, Changez, who is recounting his experiences as a young student and professional in America to an American visitor at a restaurant in Lahore, Pakistan. The novel thus alternates between two quite distinctly different settings, the story-telling spell at the restaurant, functioning as a frame-story; and the story that is being told, i.e. the gradual unraveling of Changez’ encounters with American culture and society. By the end of the final chapter, the two narrative strands meet.

Sexual Traumas and Identity Formation in "Passing" and "Kindred"

Obligatorisk kvalifiseringsoppgave i ENG4373 – Multicultural American Literature, vår 2012. 

Both in Nella Larsen’s Passing and Octavia E. Butler’s Kindred – albeit in very different ways – an historical, asymmetrical cross-racial sexual union is an indispensable basic factor for their respective narrative developments: In Passing, a core theme, the possibility of being able to “pass” from being considered black to being considered white, hinges on a sufficient dilution of visible outward signs of blackness; in Kindred, the inception of the hereditary line of the main protagonist depends on a sexual relation between a white slave owner and a black slave – a relation she is transported through time to make sure comes about, whereby to save herself.

Circulation of Social Energy – How Texts Come Alive

Hjemmeeksamen i ENG4310 – Literary Theory in English, vår 2012. En pdf av oppgaveteksten finnes her.

1. Introduction

This essay will be a discussion on some basic assumptions of the critical tradition of new historicism. In line with new historicism’s “determination to do so much justice to the example itself,”[1] I will base it on a close reading of Stephen Greenblatt’s 1998 essay “The circulation of social energy,” and discuss how new historicism appears specifically within and throughout that text.

 

Following the assignment text, I will try to separate out, and focus my discussion around, three basic assumptions of new historicism: First, that there is no single totalizing or autonomous originator, neither of a text, nor of a consistent, corporate social ideology; second, that, through a process of dynamic exchange, a text emerges out of, and bases its existence on an interplay with, a distinct culture; and third, that a successful text through this process can be empowered with a kind of social energy that makes it speak to us across centuries. Finally, I will remark briefly on the relevance of Greenblatt’s theoretical stance for other eras and genres.

Obligatory assignment 2 (ENG1100 – Engelsk grammatikk, innføring)

Obligatorisk kvalifiseringsoppgave i ENG1100 – Engelsk grammatikk, innføring høst 2009. En pdf av oppgaveteksten finnes her.

1.      Difference in form and meaning between the members of the following sentence pairs:

A         

              -------S---    V        dO

            1 The deer enjoys carrots.

               -----S---- -----V-------  ----dO-----

            2 The deer are enjoying the carrots.

Syntactically, sentences A1 and A2 are identical, with the syntactic pattern SVdO. The verb ENJOY_V is monotransitive, and requires an object to create a grammatically correct sentence. It has a valency of two, meaning that it requires two constituents, specifically a subject and a direct object. The formal difference between the sentences is found in the respective verbals, and in the presence of a determiner in the noun phrase realizing the dO in sentence A2.

Obligatory assignment 1 (ENG1100 – Engelsk grammatikk, innføring)

Obligatorisk kvalifiseringsoppgave i ENG1100 – Engelsk grammatikk, innføring høst 2009. En pdf av oppgaveteksten finnes her.

Introductory note

My only source of reference for, and thus the basis for all discussions and definitions in, this assignment is English Grammar: Theory and Use, by Hasselgård, Johansson and Lysvåg (2004).  

Exercise 1.     Difference in form and meaning between the members of each of the following sentence pairs.

A

Formally, the two sentences differ only in the order of the last two words. However, syntactically, as well as semantically, there are several important differences. A syntactic analysis of the first sentence reveals the clause pattern SVdO. The direct object is realized by a noun phrase, with the as a determiner, suggestion as the head, and interesting as a premodifier, realized by an adjective.

            In sentence two, the clause pattern is SVdOoP. The first two words have the same form and also the same function as in sentence one, SV. However, the noun phrase the suggestion realizes a direct object, whereas the adjective phrase interesting is a description of the object, and is thus an object predicative.

            The meaning in the first sentence is that someone has been presented with an interesting suggestion, and they have considered it. The meaning in the second sentence is that the someone who has thought about a given suggestion has considered it interesting, i.e. they found it to be interesting after considering it.

            Can we determine the word classes of interesting and suggestion, and thus get a hint to the syntax of the sentences, without knowing the meaning of the words? We are given some clues by the words’ respective formative suffixes. A word ending in -ing could be a verb in its progressive aspect, an adjective (as in these sentences), or a so-called gerund, a noun created from the root of a verb lexeme. Hence, BUILDING_N has its root from BUILD_V. How do we then know the word class of interesting? Words ending in -tion are also often created from the roots of a verb, SUGGESTION_N in this case from SUGGEST_V. But no adjective in the English language is created using this particular formative, -tion. Thus we could envision a sentence like they considered the singing suggestive, with a gerund as the direct object, but where the object predicative still has been given an “adjective” suffix. In the sentence they named the building Jubilation, we have an -ing-formation as the direct object and an -tion-formation as the object predicative. Thus, I believe that without knowing the semantic meanings of the forms in question, a correct syntactic analysis is not possible. Interestingly however, it is here sufficient to know the meaning inherent in the verbs name and consider, and the distribution of formatives, to be able to properly analyze sentence one, and my last example.  

            It is instructive to take a closer look at the valency and transitivity of the verbs of the two sentences. In the first sentence the verb is monotransitive, it requires one object; and has a valency of two, meaning that it needs two constituents to make a complete grammatical sentence. In the second sentence, the verb is complex transitive, in that it needs an object predicative to complete the sentence, and is thus a three-place verb. The valency and transitivity is closely related to the slight but important difference in meaning between the verbs. In the first sentence consider means to think about or deliberate upon a proposition in question; in the second consider means to give it an evaluation.

B

Formally, the sentences differ only in one respect, namely the additional s in papers in the second sentence. The syntactic structure, vSVdOA, is identical. They are both interrogative. They could both be considered ambiguous, but I am assuming that the form could you is used as a polite request, and is not a question of the listeners physical or otherwise (conditional) ability to buy the item or items in question within the specified time-frame. The only difference is created by the morphological feature present in the second and not in the first sentence. In the first sentence, the speaker is asking someone to by an amount of paper. Paper is here an uncountable noun, and the quantifying determiner some suggests a limitation to the amount the speaker want. In the second sentence papers is an inflected form within the paradigm of the lexeme PAPER_N . This is a countable noun, meaning “newspaper”. The speaker asks for some papers, meaning that he probably wishes the listener to buy maybe some two or three or four of the sort.

            Note that we have an instance of subject-auxiliary inversion (could you buy...) due to the word order normal for an interrogative sentence. If the sentence had been declarative, the auxiliary would return to its place in front of the main verb, you could buy....        

            The adverbials in each case are optional, meaning that they are not required to make the sentences grammatically correct.

C 

The only visual difference between sentence one and two is the respective use of verbs, is in the first and ate in the second. This creates some differences in the sentences’ syntactic patterns, SVsP in the first and SVdO in the second. The copular is in the first sentence makes the last constituent a subject predicative realized by a noun phrase. In the second sentence ate is a monotransitive verb requiring a direct object, realized by the same noun phrase we find in the first sentence, but here with a different syntactic function.

            As a result of this the semantics is also markedly different. In the first sentence we get a description of the subject, in this case an ascriptive use of the copular connection. In the second sentence the subject is the active part, and the second noun phrase describes what is being acted upon, hence making it a direct object.

Exercise 2.     Answers to questions from text.

a) Phrase analysis

my younger sister, Lucille

This is a noun phrase, functioning as a direct object in this sentence. It is expanded by apposition, in this case giving prominence to the relation of the person in question to the speaker. Is it then reasonable to analyze the phrase with two heads? My is a determiner to sister, younger is its premodifier. In that context sister is a head. But the phrase parts my younger sister and Lucille could both stand alone in the sentence, both having the exact same referent and realizing the same syntactic function, and thus Lucille could also be considered a head in its own right.

my grandmother’s house

This is another noun phrase, here part of a prepositional phrase realizing an adverbial. House is the head, my grandmother’s is the (possessive) determiner. Note that the determiner is a specifying genitive; it can be substituted with her, and denotes the owner of the house, rather than a “class” or kind of houses (as in the (very imaginative) sentence grandmothers’ houses (?), where the determiner is a classifying genitive).

had grown up

This is a verb phrase, functioning as the verbal in this sentence, with had as a finite verb. Had is the auxiliary, the past tense of HAVE_V. Grown up is the head. This is a multi-word verb, created from the past participle grown from the paradigm of the lexeme GROW_V, and the preposition up. The preposition is not meaningful in a sense that it should point to any direction, and is part of the main verb. It cannot be moved to any other part of the sentence and still make sense, and grown up is thus a prepositional verb.

so severely

This is a part of an adverbial phrase, functioning as an adverbial in the sentence. severely is an adverb and the head of the phrase, so is the premodifier. What comes after that (in the text) is the postmodifier.

In one large painting

This is a prepositional phrase, syntactically an adverbial in the sentence it occurs. In is the preposition, one large painting is the complement, realized by a noun phrase.

could be seen
This is a verb phrase, a verbal in the sentence. Could is the finite verb. The head is seen, could and be are auxiliaries. Could is a modal auxiliary, be is a grammatical auxiliary. Seen is past participle of the lexeme SEE_V. Note that in this context could signals conditionality, the something could be seen if the right conditions were in place. 

b) Word classes

Name

As it appears in the text, the word name is a noun. Syntactically, it stands in the initial position in a declarative sentence, with the possessive my as its determiner. Only a noun (or a nominalized adjective in place of a noun, the old, your poor) could take a determiner and function as a noun phrase (or part of it). It is used here together with its determiner to build a noun-phrase, in which it functions as the head. It has the finite verb is coupling it with its predicative Ruth. Morphologically it does not reveal much of itself, but semantically, it denotes an abstract entity, what a person is called. The subject referent is what is characterized by the subject predicative, and as the subject predicative is realized by a proper noun, it is almost inconceivable that the head of the noun phrase realizing the subject could be anything other than a noun.

Name is part of the paradigm of the lexeme NAME_S, a countable noun appearing here in its singular form.

            In the sentence I name you Ruth, the same form is used as a verb.

That

As it appears in the text, the word that is a demonstrative determiner. An analyses of the phrase syntax of the prepositional phrase in that place, where in is the preposition and that place is the complement, reveals the functional relationship between the demonstrative determiner that and the head of the noun phrase place, realizing the complement of that phrase. That is here a singular demonstrative determiner, and points to something of relative distance to the speaker. The only other possible uses of that are as subordinating conjunctions or as relative pronouns. Neither of those usages would be meaningful in this sentence.

            In the sentence it was obvious that the perfect horizontality of the world in that place foreshortened the view so severely that the horizon seemed to circumscribe the sod house and nothing more, the first time the form that appears, it is used as a subordinating conjunction.

read

As it appears in the text, the word read is a verb. It is in its infinitive form, with the form to as the infinitive marker. It is the main verb of the verb phrase began to read, denoting a prolonged action or process, typically for a verb. Morphologically, it is indistinguishable from e.g. the past tense of the same lexeme, but nevertheless marked by a sound modification: infinitive read /ri:d/, past tense/past participle read /rєd/. It is distinguished from the present tense (with the same form read except in third person singular) by the use of the infinitive marker, and by its placement immediately after the finite verb began. No two finite verbs can constitute a single verb phrase. Furthermore, the subject in this sentence is the third person singular noun phrase my grandfather, which would demand the inflected form reads, had it been the finite verb in this sentence, which it is not.

            In the sentence the book was a good read, the form read is used as a noun.

Japanese

As it appears in the text, the word Japanese is an adjective. Syntactically, it functions as a postmodifier to the noun painting. It is created from the root Japan and the added morphological formative -ese, meaning “of or relating to Japan.” Semantically, it denotes in this context a description of a thing, namely a painting, a typical use for an adjective.

            In the sentence the Japanese are great painters, the form Japanese is used as a proper noun, here a so-called demonym.

c) Nouns

Proper nouns

Ruth is a proper noun from the text, Sylvia Foster is another. Typically, a proper noun is spelled with an initial capital letter; it has no certain sense or lexical meaning that can be defined in an entry in a dictionary; and it does not vary for number and definiteness. It rarely needs a determiner, unless a determiner is a part of the name of something, or it is needed to distinguish between several unique entities bearing the same name. Examples are given of both usages in the sentences Which Venice? The Venice in Italy, not the one in the US. It often refers uniquely to one specific known referent; in other cases, this must be inferred from the context: Norway is always Norway, whereas Ruth could be anyone with the name Ruth, unless, as in this context, the speaker clearly introduces herself as a bearer of this name. Thus, the unique referent of this particular proper noun is established.

Uncountable nouns

Care is an uncountable noun from the text, literature is another. Uncountable nouns typically refer to something that is not made up of one or more single units of more or less equal size or definable limits (that you can line up and count), but is thought of as a mass or an abstract entity, like substances, emotional states, qualities and abstract concepts. Uncountables could have both concrete and abstract referents. They do not have plural forms, and they do not combine with determiners that imply countability: The care, but *a care or *a number of care.

Countable nouns

sister is a countable noun from the text, grandmother is another. A countable noun can be counted; it can take both periphrastic and morphological features that imply this: a sister, these sisters. Although sisters and grandmothers come in all shapes and sizes, they all still share some common functional and distinguishing features that set them aside from both each other (within the class) and from members of other classes, so that it is possible to line them up and count them as single units.

           

Both countable nouns and uncountable nouns (common nouns) are different from proper nouns in that they have a stronger lexical meaning, a clear and definable sense, but a more volatile reference. Often the reference of a common noun must be established through a common understanding between the speaker and the listener in a conversation. An (in a context commonly known) specific and identifiable referent of a common noun is often expressed with the use of an article that denotes definiteness, e.g. the. 

d) Any versus some

The reason for the use of any in this sentence can only be described semantically, i.e. what the word means in this environment. The he in the sentence painted a number of mountains, it was impossible to identify them, and you could not tell whether or not they were real, even though they had been real (which hypothetically they could have been, regardless of whether or not they were identifiable).  The speaker has no reason to assume that any of the paintings depict real mountains. Paraphrasing the sentence to clarify this, it could read It was impossible to tell if any of the many more unidentifiable mountains he painted were real or not. The speaker knows nothing of the existence of real mountains among the paintings, and although doubtful, the speaker uses any to signal that she is open to the possibility that some paintings could have real mountains in them, without having any preconceived ideas that this might be so.   

            To my understanding, the sentence would not be neither grammatically nor semantically meaningful if any were to be substituted with some. However, if the speaker actually knew that some of the paintings had real mountains in them (albeit unidentifiable), the sentence could (or should) be re-written to something like … none of them identifiable, even though/even if some of them were real, or better, and maybe more “poetic” … none of them identifiable, some of them real. Here some is used to assert the knowledge of an existence of an unknown but limited number of paintings within the limits of the sum total of the paintings depicting real mountains.  

e) Syntactic analysis

This is a compound sentence. It consists of two main clauses, joined together with the co-ordinating conjunction and. The clause pattern of both clauses is SVdO, both with the monotransitive pattern.   The subject is not present in the second clause, but can be inferred from the context, transferred from the first clause to the second. There is no mention of a competing subject, and it is not ambiguous who the subject is. Importantly, both bought and copied are finite verbs in the past tense, a crucial argument for treating these as separate clauses. Further, copied (like bought) has a valency of two, meaning that it needs two constituents, a subject and an object, to be part of a grammatically correct sentence. The only reasonable way to do this is to infer the subject from the first clause. Finally, and is used to co-ordinate two equal parts, making the existence of an inferred zero subject in the second clause even more plausible. I have used the zero sign Ø to mark the ellipsis. 

The syntactic analysis of the entire sentence and the syntax of the phrases realizing the clause elements are visualized in the following tree diagram. As I have decided to understand this to be a compound sentence, the two main clauses are treated separately:

In conclusion, I wish to comment on the inventive and multi-various use of constructions with of in this sentence. The first dO, the noun-phrase a box of colors, uses of to link a group noun box and the content of said box, an amount of colors. Is the head of this phrase clear? The person obviously bought colors, which happened to be collected in a box. However, I would argue that box is the head, as the determiner a stands to box, and of colors gives further information to the content or “type” of box. Still, in my opinion one could reasonably argue that colors should be the head and a box of a sort of a quantifying determiner. Compare sentences a lot of colors where a lot of is a quantifying determiner and colors is the head, and a box of unknown origin, where box is head and unknown origin is postmodifier. These last two examples are syntactically quite clear cut, whereas our phrase is somewhere in between. 
          The last two occurrences of of initialize prepositional phrases. In the noun phrase a magazine lithograph of a Japanese painting of Fujiyama, the direct object of the second clause, it is used a type of recursivity: One could imagine an endless sentence containing constructions like these, noun phrase within noun phrase within noun phrase (a something of a something by a someone from a somewhere etc. ad absurdum). Hence the entire form of a Japanese painting of Fujiyama is the postmodifier (realized by a prepositional phrase) of lithograph, and within this a Japanese painting of Fujiyama is a noun phrase in its own right, with of Fujiyama as its postmodifier, again a prepositional phrase.

Bibliography

Hasselgård, H., Johansson, S. & Lysvåg, L. 2003. English Grammar: Theory and Use. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.